V.P. Dick Cheney's comments on shooting down airliners on 911

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets.

Quoted directly from NBC's script of the show:

Vice President Cheney: "Well, the I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft."

NBC's Tim Russert: "And you decided?"

Cheney: "We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time ...

"It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate."

Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by ... terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board?

"... It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York.'"

In this case I would have to agree with Cheney. It's sad that we live in a world where such decisions have to be made, but we do. Having a plane take out the Capital would have worldwide implications that would not be in our favor. Not by a long shot. So if we did have to kill hundreds of innocent civilians to prevent a national tragedy, those civilians' families should be compensated for life, and the country or countries responsible for putting the cockroaches on board who were physically responsible for this happening, should have to be made to monetarily compensate the U.S. government for the loss of life and the loss of the airplane.



Just my 2 cents. Peace

reply to post by mikelee


Im curious, what was the point of posting this? Are you going to make some claim that this is proof Flight 93 was shot down?

reply to post by mikelee


I'm glad Cheney said this.. it makes him look credible. We all know the government would shoot down a plane, and probably did, but it has never been said out loud.

Cheney says more now than when he was VP. Why?

Originally posted by zz0409
reply to post by mikelee

 

I'm glad Cheney said this.. it makes him look credible. We all know the government would shoot down a plane, and probably did, but it has never been said out loud.

Cheney says more now than when he was VP. Why?

Just so you know ZZ, he made those comments five days after the attacks. Also, technically Rumsfeld did say out loud that the plane over PA was shot down. Although it is highly debated as being attributed to his old age and mix up of words.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Rumsfeld was reading from a script as seen in the video. Its kinda hard to attribute that massive of a slip up to old age or other things.

Take care...mikelee

reply to post by mikelee

Rumsfeld was reading from a script as seen in the video.

What video

Oh, I know, you're referring to one from another thread....

Look, mike, I told you once already, it looks like you're trying too hard here.

Well after the attacks were obvious, given NYC and the Pentagon, and knowing they had at LEAST one more rogue, the decision was made, by the Veep, and of course Rummy was in the know, to shoot down UA 93, when and IF they found it in time. (AND, I'd guess, if it hadn't been put in by the hijacers, that likely would have happened, had it flown nearer to the DC area).

WHEN news came out that UA 93 was down, Rummy (and/or his hasty writers) likely thought it HAD been shot down, since he was in on the order authorizing such an action.

See????

It's quite obvious....no "smoking gun", just what happens in the heat of the moment, absent full information, and making assumptions......

WHEN news came out that UA 93 was down, Rummy (and/or his hasty writers) likely thought it HAD been shot down, since he was in on the order authorizing such an action.

Well that might be plausible but the monkey-wrench here is that Rumsfeld made those statments at a military dinner for the troops in Iraq well after 911.

Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004.

I think by then he would have his facts right.

I get my "proof" from original sources. Say what you want, it was shot down.

"Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes... I--it was my advice. It was his decision."(Vice President Dick Cheney, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)


"That's a sobering moment, to order your own combat aircraft to shoot down your own civilian aircraft. But it was an easy decision to make, given the--given the fact that we had learned that a commercial aircraft was being used as a weapon. I say easy decision. It was--I didn't hesitate; let me put it to you that way. I knew what had to be done."(President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

Rumsfeld stated in a speech to US troops in Iraq (24 December 2004) that United Airlines Flight 93 was "shot down" on 9/11:

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
(Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN.

Originally posted by mikelee
I get my "proof" from original sources fellas. Say what you will, the plane was shot down.

"Well, I discussed it with the president. Are we prepared to order our aircraft to shoot down these airliners that have been hijacked? He said yes... I--it was my advice. It was his decision."(Vice President Dick Cheney, September 11, 2001, source CBS News Archives)

You''re not quoting "original sources", you're quoting some damned fool conspiracy web site cutting and pasting people's quotes deliberately out of context in order to get everyone all paranoid over shadows.

Everyone, from the Bush administration to NORAD to the air force all openly admitted to the 9/11 commission they were actively hunting flight 93, and they definitely would have shot it down if they had found it. This is the part you're quoting. What you're not quoting is the part where they said they didn't know where it was. The claim that they wanted to shoot it down and would have shot it down if they found it...and then turned around and pretended they didn't shoot it down...is just adding unwanted and unneeded layers of artificial complexity here.

And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon
(Donald Rumsfeld, speech to US troops in Mosul, Iraq, December 24, 2004. The speech was broadcast by CNN.

Well if you're going to insist on robotic literal interpretations, he'd be admitting that the TERRORISTS were the ones who shot down flight 93, here. Granted, the terrorists could have theoretically smuggled in a stinger missile to shoot down a flight their fellow terrorists already hijacked, but I think your "we framed Afghanistan as a false flag operation...to invade Iraq" and "we made a fake crash site in Shanksville...and turned around and covered up the fake crash site we made in Shanksville" conspiracy stories are convoluted sounding enough as it is without needing to add any more embellishment, don't you think?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I replied to your exact post in another thread.