From the beaches of Sasseri, Robert Waldmann reads the 911 Commission Report. He finds it overwhelmingly likely that on 911 Richard Cheney set the rules of engagement for Combat Air Patrol over Washington--and that Josh Bolten then got him to confirm that George W. Bush had no objection.
Not a big deal, save that Cheney swears up and down that he did not make the decision--that he was just following orders that George W. Bush had already given him.
Let's turn the mike over to Robert Waldmann:
Posted by DeLong at August 1, 2004 05:04 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post“10:31 AM: Vice president has cleared to us to intercept tracks of interest and shoot them down if they do not respond per [General Arnold].” [9/11 commission report page 42]... I strongly suspect that Cheney gave that order on his own (non) authority, although he, Bush, and Rice deny this.
Cheney claims that he called the president around 10:00 AM to discuss the issue and the president authorised fighters to shoot down hijacked planes that would not divert. Oddly, unlike other calls, this call was not logged. Nor does it appear in the notes taken by Lynn Cheney or Scooter Libby. Most oddly of all, Joshua Bolton asked Cheney to call Bush to confirm the order after Cheney had authorised shooting down airliners.
I think the following [passage] from pages 39 and 40 of the report make[s] it obvious (in case we didn't know already) who was running things then:
The Vice President remembered placing a call to the President just after entering the [East Wing bomb] shelter conference room. There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room. We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. The Vice President recalled being told, just after his arrival, that the Air Force was trying to establish a combat air patrol over Washington.
The Vice President stated that he called the President to discuss the rules of engagement for the CAP. He recalled feeling that it did no good to establish the CAP unless the pilots had instructions on whether they were authorized to shoot if the plane would not divert. He said the President signed off on that concept. The President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot.The President emphasized to us that he had authorized the shootdown of hijacked aircraft.
The Vice President’s military aide told us he believed the Vice President spoke to the President just after entering the conference room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him, remembered hearing him inform the President,“Sir, the CAPs are up. Sir, they’re going to want to know what to do.” Then she recalled hearing him say,“Yes sir.” She believed this conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered the conference room. We believe this call would have taken place sometime before 10:10 to 10:15.
Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete. Others nearby who were taking notes, such as the Vice President’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who sat next to him, and Mrs. Cheney, did not note a call between the President and Vice President immediately after the Vice President entered the conference room.
At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft—-presumably hijacked—-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.
At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft. His reaction was described by Scooter Libby as quick and decisive, “in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing.” The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President.
The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage.The Vice President again said yes. At the conference room table was White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten. Bolten watched the exchanges and, after what he called “a quiet moment,” suggested that the Vice President get in touch with the President and confirm the engage order. Bolten told us he wanted to make sure the President was told that the Vice President had executed the order. He said he had not heard any prior discussion on the subject with the President.
The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President’s press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.
Of course Cheney gave that order prior to discussing it with the President! I recall vividly my "Wow!" on this very topic several weeks ago as the staff report on the mornings event timeline was read aloud. That Cheney gave the order was immediately obvious and I kept listening for that fact to be discussed but never heard any.
But like Al Haig, at least SOMEBODY was in charge that morning.
Posted by: Jimmy Tucker on August 1, 2004 05:28 PMThe weird thing is - why do they think they have to spin this? If they came right out and said - time was short, communication with the President was difficult, Cheney had better viewpoint from where he was, so he made the decision - who would object?
Yet they create a coverup by hiding it and probably by lying. Why?
Cranky
As I recall, when Cheney and Bush were interviewed -- *****TOGETHER!!!***** -- Bush confirmed Cheney's version of the story.
Interviewing everyone separately is the rule in any investigation, even non-criminal disaster investigations.
Posted by: zizka / John Emerson on August 1, 2004 06:25 PMWhy does Dick Cheney hate America?
Posted by: non economist on August 1, 2004 06:53 PMWhy do they lie, and so needlessly and transparently? For the same reason that a rebellious teen lies to his/her parents: as a means of expressing the liar's contempt for and power over whoever's being lied to. The appeal of conducting one's affairs in this way is lost on most readers of this site (including yours truly), but right-wingers-- Bush's base-- eat it up, especially if "national security" is invoked. As a correlary, the actual telling of the lie was reflexive on Cheney's part, as the ensuing coverup surely was for everyone involved.
That was easy. Next question, please.
Posted by: Tom Marney on August 1, 2004 07:12 PM"The President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot."
Heh Heh. Right.
Initial news reports on that Tuesday originally credited Cheney with the shoot-down order; however, shortly thereafter these were "amended" to state that Cheney, "after consultations with Pres. Bush, who concurred", then sent the engagement order. Major media websites purged the "Cheney ordered..." item and ran with the revised text. Clearly, the WH had gone to damage-control mode to portray Shrub as "completely engaged and on top of things", rather than the reality of it all: panic in Florida, and Bush decamping via AF-One for parts unknown. The infamous and subsequently descredited business about "AF-One a target of suicide attack" was an element in this stratagem as well.
Posted by: barrisj on August 1, 2004 09:01 PM"They do not lie because it is in their interest to lie; They lie because it is in their nature to lie". - AG
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on August 2, 2004 04:29 AMAnd of course NORAD never communicated any such authorization to its pilots, because the commanding general thought there were too many unanswered questions about the rules of engagement. Hardly effective command authority.
Posted by: Bob H on August 2, 2004 07:24 AMTrue Bob H but the DC air national guard did authorize its pilots to shoot down air liners.
Imagine what if the United 93 passenger heroes had not seized the plane and the Bush White House had been saved by non AWOL air national guard pilots. Poetic injustice aside, it sure beats the alternative.
Brad is kindly quoting me quoting again. If you want to see my original effort to mark passages in bold with my own two hands, the link is
http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com/2004/07/system1031-vice-president-has-cleared.html.
Maybe I shouldn't have teased him about linking me linking to Atrios linking to Krugman's letter at Romenesko's site http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters.
Ron Reagan addresses the Bush Administration lying and asks the right questions:
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040729_mfe_reagan_1.html
"ALL ADMINISTRATIONS WILL DISSEMBLE, distort, or outright lie when their backs are against the wall, when honesty begins to look like political suicide. But this administration seems to lie reflexively, as if it were simply the easiest option for busy folks with a lot on their minds. While the big lies are more damning and of immeasurably greater import to the nation, it is the small, unnecessary prevarications that may be diagnostic. Who lies when they don't have to? When the simple truth, though perhaps embarrassing in the short run, is nevertheless in one's long-term self-interest? Why would a president whose calling card is his alleged rock-solid integrity waste his chief asset for penny-ante stakes? Habit, perhaps. Or an inability to admit even small mistakes." ...
"What's odd is that none of these lies were worth the breath expended in the telling. If only for self-serving political reasons, honesty was the way to go. ... Instead, by needlessly tap-dancing, Bush's White House squandered vital credibility, turning even relatively minor gaffes into telling examples of its tendency to distort and evade the truth.
But image is everything in this White House, and the image of George Bush as a noble and infallible warrior in the service of his nation must be fanatically maintained, because behind the image lies . . . nothing?"...
"Beyond issues of fiscal irresponsibility and ill-advised militarism, there is a question of trust. George W. Bush and his allies don't trust you and me. Why on earth, then, should we trust them?"
Posted by: bakho on August 2, 2004 07:48 AMAs Rich notes: "The President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot."
Which is the second time that morning Bush had such memories -- remember that was in one of his supposed comments on hearing of the 1st plane hit at the WTC.
Posted by: P O'Neill on August 2, 2004 09:44 AMActually P. O'Neill, that first allusion to Bush's vaunted interceptor pilot days was when he described seeing the video of the first plane hitting the tower ("...that's some bad pilot"). You know, the footage that was not available until about a week after the attacks.
Posted by: Lewis Carrroll on August 2, 2004 02:31 PMThe weird thing is - why do they think they have to spin this? If they came right out and said - time was short, communication with the President was difficult, Cheney had better viewpoint from where he was, so he made the decision - who would object?
Possibly because, unless he assumes the duties of Acting President because the President is incapacitated, the Vice President isn't even in the chain of command and thus has no legal authority to give such an order.
The military chain of command runs from the various combatant commands through the Secretary of Defense to the President.
Posted by: cmdicely on August 2, 2004 03:13 PMI really don't see an issue here.
Posted by: Joeblow on August 3, 2004 11:37 AM> Possibly because, unless he assumes the duties
> of Acting President because the President is
> incapacitated, the Vice President isn't even
> in the chain of command and thus has no legal
> authority to give such an order.
Sure, I passed my 7th grade constitution test too ;-)
But the point is, no Citizen I know would have cared if they had been told the truth right away. I am no big fan of Bush and far less of Cheney, but if he took action and accepted responsibility as a Bush Administration team member I would have understood.
The problem for me is that they felt they had to lie about it, and now seemingly continue the lie even in the face of the Report.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer on August 4, 2004 10:41 AM