Sorry traveling again and just too busy or tired at the end of the day. But i am back now for a while.
Rules, as in Rules of Engagement. Without them, we were suspended in a state of defenselessness against hijacked airliners. Please show otherwise.
Yeah, in a sense you are right, they attacked us at the seams, likely knowing we didn't have any preparations for it.
A phone call with the President would take seconds or minutes. Not months.
No, it takes months to properly work them out. Working them out on the fly is dangerous, but not so dangerous you don't do so, as they were doing around 10am
Please remember this was a matter of life and death.
and a mistaken shoot down of a passenger jet would have been horrific.
It is based directly upon Rumsfeld's behavior and actions. If you believe a person's behavior and actions are not evidence, I don't know what to say.
This is why circular reasoning isn't used to prove anything in court or in the realm of "logic" You've made a conclusion based on very little evidence if not zero and your conclusion about Rumsfeld actions is based on a unsupported theory first. In other words you are starting with your theory and working backwards to prove it rather than taking "all" the evidence into account and formulating a theory from that point forward. That's why i say, aliens could have been involved (although that's a bit extreme except for example purposes) if i was using your approach.
Again, were we to wait until another immediate threat was upon us before establishing the rules? That doesn't make sense.
Because, from 9:03 to 9:30 our entire military did not have a positively identified threat. What we had was a terrorist attack in what essentially was a single location (the 2 towers).
All of the evidence, including Rumsfeld's own words, show exactly what happened.
If you believe he may have secretly spoken with someone during this time, then why do you suppose the rules weren't established until the last plane was being retaken by passengers?
Couple of reasons, again, no identified threat, confusion resulting from the lack of preparation to response to an attack like this, and no knowing if there was more attack coming.
What should this tell me in regard to Rumsfeld?
Not much other than the "defense posture" of our military negated a timely response (7 minutes from threat identification to impact) to an attack that wasn't ever considered.
Yes, any other theory that included a failure to act would fit into this argument. Of course. The reason for that is because the evidence clearly shows he failed to act.
Since there isn't any evidence to say he was drugged or having a breakdown, I wouldn't be interested in plugging either of those theories into it.
No it doesn't and that's not only my opinion its also the opinion of many of the people who would stand to directly gain by accusing of such.
From the U.S. Department of Defense: "...or their duly deputized alternates or successors"
If you are suggesting that Rumsfeld would have had someone else take his place that day, then that would require entering another individual into the plan. The risk for exposure would increase dramatically at that point.
And please remember that we had instant communication in 2001, just as we have today.
Yes, between 2 individual parties but not accross dozens of units (NEADS, NORAD, ATC, TRACON etc.)
If you are suggesting that an establishment of rules at approximately 09:03 would not have placed such a plan in jeopardy, especially when the plan had theoretically just begun, then I would ask you to review the timeline again.
I am suggesting it and i would again urge you to be the one to review the timeline again Simply because between 9:03-9:30 there was no identified threats and once the intent to discuss ROE started would have likely took minutes to decide they needed to, minutes to establish the connection, and more minutes (20-30 minutes if not hours) to clearly discuss and define ROE's that would prevent from a tragic mistake.