Gellman's "Angler" and shoot-down orders

[Blender Head]

I'm listening to Barton Gellman's book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency" on audio disc, and he delves into the issue of who ordered the shoot-down of commercial planes on 9/11. Was it then-VP Cheney, or former President Bush? Gellman argues that all the logs and notes taken from that day do not support a Bush-ordered shoot-down, as the administration's story seems to shift timelines and -quite simply- makes things up.

Unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to quote from. So, I ask this question:

Is there verifiable evidence that Bush -and not Cheney- ordered the shoot-down in compliance with chain-of-command requirements on 9/11?

 

[Brainster]

I'm listening to Barton Gellman's book "Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency" on audio disc, and he delves into the issue of who ordered the shoot-down of commercial planes on 9/11. Was it then-VP Cheney, or former President Bush? Gellman argues that all the logs and notes taken from that day do not support a Bush-ordered shoot-down, as the administration's story seems to shift timelines and -quite simply- makes things up.

Unfortunately, I don't have the book in front of me to quote from. So, I ask this question:

Is there verifiable evidence that Bush -and not Cheney- ordered the shoot-down in compliance with chain-of-command requirements on 9/11?

No. In fact, it looks very likely to me that Cheney authorized the shoot-down without presidential approval, based on the timelines that have been provided. If you read Philip Shenon's book, it appears very likely that Cheney authorized the shoot-down without Bush's approval which was later obtained. And even before Cheney authorized shooting down Flight 93, it was already smoldering in Shanksville.

 

[cyclonic]

==1010-1015 AM > During this time frame Cheney orders the Air Force to shoot down Flight 93, unaware that the plane has already crashed. Cheney later claimed that he had gotten Bush's consent for the order about five minutes earlier, but 911 Commission investigators reportedly concluded that the Vice President acted without authorization. Unknown to Cheney, his shootdown order is inoperative since he didn’t send it through the regular chain of command. The order generates a great deal of confusion and is not communicated to the pilots patrolling over New York and Washington until later, if at all. [911cm / nwwk.Feb.27.2006]

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/911.htm

Is this accurate?

 

[Reheat]

Is this accurate?

I believe that Cheney's "shoot down" authorization was transmitted to the Andrew's fighters via the Secret Service, but it never reached NORAD. IIRC this is in Lynn Spencer's Book and I also believe the 911 Commission reached this conclusion, as well, but I don't have a reference at the moment.

Since Bush was basically incommunicado during this period, I'm not uncomfortable with Cheney making that decision and then getting POTUS concurrence later. This decision should have been made shortly after the second hit on the WTC when it was obvious we were under attack. NORAD already had their act together and had an ROE ready to go awaiting the final authorization very shortly after that second attack.

Unfortunately, the NMCC kept being left out of the loop by both the FAA and the NCA all morning. Things kept being handled ad hoc. I have very little doubt that had UA 93 not crashed it would not have hit it's target in DC.

 

[Blender Head]

I believe that Cheney's "shoot down" authorization was transmitted to the Andrew's fighters via the Secret Service, but it never reached NORAD. IIRC this is in Lynn Spencer's Book and I also believe the 911 Commission reached this conclusion, as well, but I don't have a reference at the moment.

Since Bush was basically incommunicado during this period, I'm not uncomfortable with Cheney making that decision and then getting POTUS concurrence later. This decision should have been made shortly after the second hit on the WTC when it was obvious we were under attack.

I agree that there is a moral justification for Cheney going outside the CoC requirements in authorizing a shoot-down, but as Gellman argues, the administration misled and created timelines out of thin air to make Bush appear in the loop, on top of things, and in command. Even when he clearly was not.

Thanks Brainster, I'll look into Shennon's book.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Lt. Col. Nasypany, who had the floor at NEADS during the attacks, sent a request up his chain for authorization to shoot down suspected hijacked aircraft, which was quickly disapproved by his immediate chain of command. (NMCC)

By the time all the ducks were in a row, all the planes had cratered.

No matter what Cheney may or may not have done, orders from the White House would have had to filter through NMCC, and down through NEADS who had direct OPCON of all fighters in the airspace.

 

[Reheat]

I agree that there is a moral justification for Cheney going outside the CoC requirements in authorizing a shoot-down, but as Gellman argues, the administration misled and created timelines out of thin air to make Bush appear in the loop, on top of things, and in command. Even when he clearly was not.

I should have more information shortly, but remember that there were some rather severe communications problems from AF 1 (according to the "Official Story"), so perhaps we have more "Bush bashing" as opposed to the full story.

I'm not sure where you're attempting to go with this, but if you're implying that it was a very confusing morning and that the communications flow was snarled in that confusion, you are correct.

 

[Reheat]

No matter what Cheney may or may not have done, orders from the White House would have had to filter through NMCC, and down through NEADS who had direct OPCON of all fighters in the airspace.

Only if someone remembered to include the NMCC in the loop. Apparently, that did not happen all morning by either the FAA or the NCA in the PEOC.

 

[Blender Head]

I should have more information shortly, but remember that there were some rather severe communications problems from AF 1 (according to the "Official Story"), so perhaps we have more "Bush bashing" as opposed to the full story.

I'm not sure where you're attempting to go with this, but if you're implying that it was a very confusing morning and that the communications flow was snarled in that confusion, you are correct.

I'm implying the Bush administration lied (or at best "misled") everyone about Bush ordering the shoot-down, either to make Dubya look 'in charge' or something else. I'll go with the former here.

 

[Reheat]

I'm implying the Bush administration lied (or at best "misled") everyone about Bush ordering the shoot-down, either to make Dubya look 'in charge' or something else. I'll go with the former here.

Well, think what you want, but I thought it was common knowledge that Cheney made that decision and then obtained POTUS concurrence just as you indicated in the OP. I'm not at all sure where this misleading occurred.

 

[Blender Head]

Well, think what you want, but I thought it was common knowledge that Cheney made that decision and then obtained POTUS concurrence just as you indicated in the OP. I'm not at all sure where this misleading occurred.

I'll help you out here.

In an article entitled "Bush ordered airliner to be shot down" from here.

PRESIDENT Bush authorised American jets to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner as it approached Washington on Tuesday, the Vice-President Dick Cheney said yesterday.

"The President made the decision," said Mr Cheney. "That if the plane would not divert, if they wouldn't pay any attention to instructions to move away from the city, as a last resort our pilots were authorised to take them out."

(emphasis added)

So, is Cheney correct in saying Bush authorized the shoot-down, which even you admit did not happen (and that it was 'common knowledge' though apparently not to Cheney)?

ETA: There is no indication here of Cheney authorizing shoot-down, then receving Bush's OK.

 

[Reheat]

Well, it appears to me that you're simply attempting to engage in "Bush bashing". I don't think a back page article in a UK Newspaper would qualify as misleading. It is common to refer to ones' boss as having made a decision even tho' that decision was initially made by someone else. It was agreed to by Bush, so what's your point.

I think that it would have been rather pompous of Cheney to have taken credit for the decision when it was approved by Bush. What he said was correct in that the decision was made by Bush. He just didn't go into detail and take credit for it himself.

It is not my intent to defend the Administration, but to just be reasonable about it. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill that is of no significance.

The 9/11 Commission did do some interviews on trying to establish a time line for the decision and it appears that they reached the conclusion that it occurred AFTER UA 93 had crashed, so they appear to have dropped the matter. However, all of the Commission documents have not been released yet, so there may be more.

Unless I find more information I won't be responding in this thread again, as it is of no importance regarding anything about 9/11.

 

[Blender Head]

Well, it appears to me that you're simply attempting to engage in "Bush bashing".

Yeah, you already beat that dead horse. I get it: Any criticism, any significant concern stemming therein, of the Bush administration is Bush-bashing. I get it, I get it.

I don't think a back page [sic] article in a UK Newspaper would qualify as misleading.

Would a front-page article be any more convincing?

It was agreed to by Bush, so what's your point.

You're really asking this? Really?

I think that it would have been rather pompous of Cheney to have taken credit for the decision when it was approved by Bush. What he said was correct in that the decision was made by Bush. He just didn't go into detail and take credit for it himself.

First off, the idea that Cheney would be modest is a laugher in and of itself.

Second, that'd make the proposal that 'everyone would understand, in a time of crisis, that Cheney would circumvent standard CoC protocols to protect Ameica' fly out the window.

It is not my intent to defend the Administration

Of course not.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill that is of no significance.

If you say so.

The 9/11 Commission did do some interviews on trying to establish a time line for the decision and it appears that they reached the conclusion that it occurred AFTER UA 93 had crashed, so they appear to have dropped the matter.

Golly gee, that makes me feel all squishy inside.

However, all of the Commission documents have not been released yet, so there may be more.

I eagerly await those documents.

Unless I find more information I won't be responding in this thread again, as it is of no importance regarding anything about 9/11.

Flee, run, and hide.

 

[Reheat]

With the taunt you just made I guess I can't abandon a silly thread just yet.

Yeah, you already beat that dead horse. I get it: Any criticism, any significant concern stemming therein, of the Bush administration is Bush-bashing. I get it, I get it.

Not at all, if it's significant and this isn't. It's really a non-issue. If you want to criticize those in the PEOC for not passing the information to the NMCC have at it. According to the timeline established by the 911 Commission the authorization was not passed to NORAD until about 10:30. If I understand the time line correctly this was after Bush had approved the "shoot down" authorization anyway.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274558/...dr-3-Emails-Re-Shootdown-Authority-and-ROE125

Would a front-page article be any more convincing?

Perhaps a few more articles would be convincing of an attempt to mislead as opposed to an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter that may or may not have quoted accurately. Where is this time line you spoke of? You've posted one article in a UK newspaper and no time line to which you referred. You have not established that there was an attempt to mislead.

Second, that'd make the proposal that 'everyone would understand, in a time of crisis, that Cheney would circumvent standard CoC protocols to protect Ameica' fly out the window.

Apparently, you're not as familiar with CoC protocols as you think you are. At least Gen Arnold didn't agree with your rendition and neither did Col Marr at NEADS.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274558/...dr-3-Emails-Re-Shootdown-Authority-and-ROE125

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274560/...-Book-and-Shootdown-Authorization-NEADAS-Marr

This thread is more like "twoofer" crap than what is a normal rationally based thread here. What if Cheney had not made a "shoot down" decision when communications with Bush were problematic? The thread would then be about how Cheney was not doing his job of protecting the Country when the President was absent from Washington, right?

At any rate two of the people calling the shots don't agree with your rather arbitrary opinion about who could authorize a "shoot down", so again your point is moot.