Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

by **HMKGrey** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:36 pm

I was just reading that Rummy made a bizarre speech at a press conference right after 9/11 where all he talked about was the need for federal employees in possession of classified materials not to divulge those materials to the press... I'd never heard of this speech before... anyone know anything about it. It seems like an amazing speech to give a day after 9/11. Like he was sending out a signal... The >excellent< book is "Bush Chronicles" by Eliot Weinberger, btw.

by **Nonny** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:31 pm

Hi HMKGrey -- I think I found it. <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html" target="top">www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html</a> United States Department of Defense. News Transcript Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 3:25 p.m Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. I have taped a message to the people in the defense establishment across the world, which I understand is going to be available shortly. I'm en route over to another meeting in the White House in the next few minutes, so I thought I'd just stop down and make two or three points. First, we currently believe and are certainly hopeful that the number of casualties being reported in the press is high. As you know from your own observation out there, the work is still going forward, and we won't know for some time precise numbers. But from everything that we currently know, the estimate that's been widely reported is considerably high, and we certainly pray that that's the case. Second, I do want to again express our sympathy to the families and friends and colleagues of all those who have been harmed by this attack on our country. Also, we are, needless to say, deeply grateful to the many units from all over this area that are out there and have been out there for more that 24 hours -- firemen and ambulances and different teams and squads of individuals who are doing a very professional job for our country. We are, in a sense, seeing the definition of a new battlefield in the world, a 20th -- 21st century battlefield, and it is a different kind of conflict. It is something that is not unique to this century, to be sure, but it is -- given our geography and given our circumstance, it is, in a major sense, new for this country. Finally, I'd like to say a word or two to the men and women in the defense establishment, most of whom deal with classified information. Since the end of the Cold War, there's been a relaxation of tension, and the -- it's had a lot of effects. It's led to proliferation. It's led to the movement towards asymmetrical threats, as opposed to more conventional threats. One of the other effects has been it has had an effect on how people handle classified information. And it seems to me that it's important to underline that when people deal with intelligence information and make it available to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the effect is to reduce the chances that the United States government has to track down and deal with the people who have perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans. Second, when classified information dealing with operations is provided to people who are not cleared for that classified information, the inevitable effect is that the lives of men and women in uniform are put at risk because they are the ones who will be carrying out those prospective operations. And I -- this is a message really for all the men and women in the United States government who have access to classified information. It seems to me that when they see or learn of someone who is handling classified information in a way that is going to put the lives of the men and women in uniform at risk, they ought to register exactly what kind of a person that is; it's a person who's willing to violate federal criminal statutes, and willing to frustrate our efforts to track down and deal with terrorists, and willing to reveal information that could cause the lives of men and women in uniform. I think it's time for all who deal with that information to treat it with the care and respect that it merits. I'd be happy to respond to a few questions. Q: Mr. Secretary? Rumsfeld: Yes, Bob? Q: The causality figure you referred to I assume is the 800 number that was provided by the Arlington County Fire Department. Rumsfeld: It is. Q: And you say it's considerably high. We've heard from the military -- Rumsfeld: I said I hope and pray that it is. Q: The military services -- information from the military services indicates that it may be more in the neighborhood of 100 to 150. Is that closer to reality? Or can you give some sort of guidance? Rumsfeld: We just won't know until we finish the work. The problem with trying to do roster checks with units, it may not include people that were connected with the heliport, it may not include people -- contractor people, it may not include watchmen, it may not include work people who were working in the area. So it is folly to try to pretend that there's a number before there's a number. There is not a number. Nor have we pinned down precisely how many people were in the aircraft who would also be in that general area. Q: Mr. Secretary, there are some in the Middle East who are saying that the United States does not have the belly to do the kind of response to this attack on the United States, that this administration, the previous administration don't have it to go after them in the kind of way that they have to be gone after. Without any specifics whatsoever, help us with the attitude that should go into this process. Rumsfeld: Well, I guess time will tell. My -- I guess I'm kind of old-fashioned. I'm inclined to think that if you're going to cock it, you throw it, and you don't talk about it a lot. So my instinct is that what you do, you should go about your business and do what you think you have to do. I think anyone who thinks it's easy is wrong. I think that it will require a sustained and broadly based effort. And I don't think that people ought to judge outcomes until a sufficient time is passed to address what is clearly a very serious problem for the world. And it's not restricted to a single entity, state or non-state entity. It is an attack on a way of life. The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize. It is to alter behavior. It is to force people who believe in freedom to be less free by altering their behavior and redressing a balance between freedom and security. Anyone who's ever been in a war zone, as I know most of you have, you know that when you walk out of a building you don't walk out with your head high whistling, you look around the corner and see what's out there. And that's not the way Americans live, and it's not the way we want to live. Q: Mr. Secretary, do you -- Q: Mr. Secretary, may we ask one? I was cut off for a second, which I kindly left to my colleague, so -- we're getting word from reporters at the White House quoting Ari Fleischer about the target of the 757 was actually the White House, and also Air Force One was targeted. Can you shed any -- Rumsfeld: I'll leave that to the White House. I'll leave that to the White House. Q: Mr. Secretary, your comments on the handling of classified information, does that -- are you suggesting that it's time to move to a more secretive government in which there's less transparency about what it is you're doing? And how does that square with the goal of openness that reassures both our friends and foes around the world that the United States' intentions are good? We all know that there's a wealth of material that's classified unnecessarily and doesn't necessarily need to be. Rumsfeld: Well. I -- as I'm sure you've discovered, I do believe in openness, and I think it's enormously important in a free system with a free press and a democratic underpinning to our wonderful success as a country that we recognize that and respect it. I also know that you're quite right, there are things that get classified that ought not to be classified. But what I said is enormously important, and that is that when classified information is compromised by people who ought to know better because they're unprofessional or uncaring, and perfectly willing to violate federal criminal law, and seemingly willing to put people's lives at risk -- their colleagues and their neighbors and their friends -- I think it's something that should stop. Yes? Clarke: Jim's question, folks -- he needs to leave. We need to get you across the river. So last question. Q: Was sloppy handling of classified information -- did that play some role in the attack? Rumsfeld: Not to my knowledge. Clarke: Okay, sir. Rumsfeld: It is an issue that I think, however, needs to be elevated and looked at and that people in all aspects of government -- Q: What's the catalyst, why are you raising that today? Q: Yeah, has it happened in the aftermath? Rumsfeld: It has been happening daily. Q: Thank you, sir. Q: Thank you. ______________________________ Here is the link to his speech -- Secretary Rumsfeld Message to U.S. Forces, DoD Civilians Wednesday, September 12, 2001 No Mention of Classified Information OOPS -- Forgot the Link <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t912sdmg.html" target="top">www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t912sdmg.html</a> ______________________________ Here is the link to more transcripts for Sept. 2001 <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/sep2001.html" target="top">www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/sep2001.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nonny@rigorousintuition>Nonny</A> at: 12/1/05 8:36 pm

by **FourthBase** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:45 pm

How in the fuck was that justified the day after 9/11? Really, was there any reason to say that?

by **HMKGrey** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:49 pm

Wow that really is a weird one. Thank you. It rings very strange to me. So, the day after this horrible, tragic event which many people would eventually come to question the official line on, DR is moved to make a big old point to every govt. employee about sharing information and secrets. As if someone, somewhere is getting a little reminder to keep shtum about any odd little incosnistencies they may have picked up on.

by **Qutb** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:50 pm

Thanks. Truly curious. It's definitely a message, but to whom, and what does it mean?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 10:51 pm

Thanks, hadn't seen that either. I'm vague on the details right now, and I don't have the time to look it up, but there was, I think, a Senator on the afternoon of Sept 11 who told the media he had just been privy to a translation of a private bin Laden conversation from the day before mentioning the attack. He said it to cast blame on Osama, but of course it begged all kinds of questions about how much information the government had beforehand, and how well it had bin Laden monitored. Maybe Rumsfeld had that in mind. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=rigorousintuition>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 12/1/05 7:54 pm

by **Qutb** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:21 pm

Yes, Jeff, now that you mention it. I think it was an intercept of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a few days before 9/11, if I'm not mistaken. I'll have a look in Paul Thompson's timeline when I have the time.

by **Iroquois** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:40 pm

The first thing that came to my mind was that this was about information related to US air defenses on 9/11. As well as the actual air defense capabilities like readiness postures of intercept fighters, flight patterns of AWACS craft, locations of anti-aircraft batteries, etc.; any information related to war games would have been classified. On the one hand he's reminding everyone not to provide any of this information to the press, on the other he's planting the meme that this may have already happened in a way that enabled the 9/11 attacks to succeed. My guess: if the press really pursued the failure of the US air defenses that morning, information relating to the war games going on at the same time could have been "scooped" by a favored member of the press corps and Rumsfeld and Myers would have come out saying that a breach in operational security had let the terrorists find out about our war games in advance. With that information, the terrorists were able to plan their attacks to mimic aspects of the war games thereby confusing the FAA and Air Force's response as they could not tell what was war game and what was real attack. With such a logical explanation to account for the catastrophic failure of the best air defense system in history, few would consider that the same people planned both the war games and the attacks, and the US military would have received even more incentive to improve on operational security measures, which would prove useful later in such matters as preventing leaks that discredit propaganda about how the military is persecuting the "war on terror".

by **Nonny** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:01 am

The way I read it --- DOD News Briefing Rumsfeld is speaking to the press during this speech about classified info. ______________________ Rumsfeld Message to U.S. Forces, DoD Civilians This speech says nothing about classified stuff. Both speeches Sept 12 2001

by **HMKGrey** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:27 am

Nonny: He says 'Classified' repeatedly. Am I missing your point?

by **rapt** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:36 am

Our guy Rummy loses it often now (and then too) because he has trouble keeping track of - what is a proper response - . Why does Rummy have so much trouble? Could it be that he is a plant, with limited cognitive skills/experience related to humanity? Could he/it be something injected into our govt system to fuck it up? Sure looks like that to me.

by **Nonny** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:50 am

Rummy gives 2 speeches on 9/12 The one you were looking for with "classified" is when he speaks to the press. This one is above. Here is the 2nd one he gives on 9/12 to U.S. Forces & DoD Civilians <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t09122001_t912sdmg.html">www.defenselink.mil/trans...2sdmg.html</a> United States Department of Defense. News Transcript Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld Wednesday, September 12, 2001 Secretary Rumsfeld Message to U.S. Forces, DoD Civilians (Transcript of a videotaped message from Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld to members of the U.S. Armed Forces and to Department of Defense civilian employees.) Rumsfeld: Great crises are marked by their memorable moments. At the height of peril to his own nation, Winston Churchill spoke of their finest hour. Yesterday, America and the cause of human freedom came under attack, and the first great crisis of America's 21st century was suddenly upon us. And we saw the memorable moments. Who will ever forget the display of national unity on the steps of the Capitol Building? People will long remember seeing and hearing the members of Congress spontaneously breaking out into "God Bless America." What a wonderful thing for the world to see, and what pride we can take in that moment. So, too, President Bush's address to the nation will live in memory. He spoke for all of us when he showed his compassion and concern but also noted a quiet, unyielding anger among the American people. He offered a clear-sighted view of what needs to be done to prepare for the future. As one of those working with him on his national security team, I can report that throughout the crisis, the president has been as commanding and impressive in person as he has been in his public addresses. As Americans, we can be proud of our president, our vice president and our leaders in Congress. But I'm speaking to you now a little more than 24 hours after yesterday's attack. I must add that one of the finest hours of this crisis was here at the Pentagon. For a long time to come, Americans will take pride and feel gratitude for how nobly and professionally our military and civilian personnel have responded here at the Department of Defense. I left my office here in the Pentagon and went to the site of the attack minutes after it occurred. The scene was appalling, and even as I speak to you now, the human toll of this tragedy is being counted. Most in this building have lost friends and colleagues. We're doing all we can for the families of those who were killed or hurt. Our grief is beyond description, and our condolences go out to all of those who have lost a loved one. But we have pride, too; pride in their service to country and to us all, and pride that in the morning, the flag was still there; the Stars and Stripes was over the wreckage to mark their place of honor. Our gratitude is also all but indescribable for the firefighters and the police and the personnel from so many local, county, and state, as well as federal agencies who have assisted us. Their work and commitment have been an inspiration to me and to us all. But in addition to telling you of America's pride in Defense Department personnel during the last 24 hours, it is my duty, as head of this department, to tell you that more, much more, will be asked of you in the weeks and months ahead. This is especially true of those who are in the field. We face powerful and terrible enemies, enemies we intend to vanquish, so that moments of horror, like yesterday, will be stopped. The task of vanquishing these terrible enemies and in protecting the American people and the cause of human freedom will fall to you, the men and women in the Department of Defense. I know we are ready. I know America can continue to count on your selflessness and courage and dedication to duty. Let us never forget what this great institution is about. With its hallways filled with the pictures of Medal of Honor recipients and our country's great military leaders, this building is a place dedicated to the ethos of heroism. Heroes have gone before us. Here at the Pentagon yesterday, heroes were here again. I know I am speaking to many now, especially those of you in the field, those of you who wear the uniform of our country, who will in the days ahead also be called heroes. I salute each of you for your conduct and commitment. And without hesitation, I ask you now to stay the course in the challenging days ahead. A nation stands behind you. I've been in public life for a long time, and if there's one lesson I have learned from it, it is this: Believe in the American people. Believe in them especially when trouble starts, when the crisis comes. Believe in them to act worthy of their past, to act worthy of the future of peace and freedom they want for their children. Most of all, as you set about your dangerous work, believe in them to give you every support and give you their hearts and their prayers. We extend our condolences, and ask God's tender mercies on our fallen comrades and their loved ones, and we ask His blessing and guidance as we turn to the work of defending this nation and preserving human freedom. _________________________ No mention of Classified here in this speech. So he is not telling US Forces & DOD Civilians to watch out about classified stuff. He only tells that in his speech to the press.

by **HMKGrey** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:12 am

Nonny: thanks, got it. We're on the same page. It's the press he's telling - so he's warning them off jumping on any imminent whistle-blower stories that might mess up the official timeline etc. that's just beginning to crystallize. However I look at this, it feels like there's something to hide and he's putting it out there that he doesn't want it in the press and, at the same time, it's a warning to potential federal employee snitches too.

by JD » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:15 am

In the same vein, does anyone have the text for the Kissenger speech given the night of 9/11? It seemed more of an event at the time than the Presidential speech. It seemed like an official statement from the powers behind the scenes. Looking at it now, with the benefit of hindsight, might be very interesting. I've searched for it but can't find it - anyone have it?

by **Iroquois** » Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No mention of Classified here in this speech. So he is not telling US Forces & DOD Civilians to watch out about classified stuff.<hr></blockquote> Members of the military and government officials with security clearances were, in my opinion, definitely intended to "get the message" from the speech delivered to the press. Military personal and others with security clearances do read and watch the news, I would guess more than the general public. Those that missed it, would have likely gotten the jist in a followup security standards briefing or memo. The more public medium, if my previous "OpSec leak disinfo" theory is correct, would have been necessary to spread that meme effectively. The difference in the content and tone with the second speech pretty much fits what I've seen in the past where sophisticated propaganda like bum covering for the policies and crimes of higher ups disguised as admonishment of the lower downs is released through press briefings while speaches in front of a military audience are pretty much always jingoist pep talks. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=iroquois@rigorousintuition>Iroquois</A> at: 12/1/05 10:42 pm

Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Re: Rumsfield Speech 09/12/01 -- anyone know it?

Rummy 9/12

Rummy and 9/11

Re: Rummy 9/12

Re: Rummy 9/12

Kissenger?

Re: Rummy 9/12

Who is online