From where did Cheney get his command authority?

[bio]

According to the official conspiracy theory, Vice President Cheney should have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93, and gave other orders, too.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets, Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/

wikipedia:
John Adams, the first Vice President, described it as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

The chain of command goes from the president, to the secretary of defense down to the military commanders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

Even if really Cheney got the orders directly from Bush by a telephone call, was it rightfully to change the chain of command?

[scissorhands]

The answer is in the very link you posted.
Try clicking on Continuity of Operations Plans and lo and behold...

Other provisions of the plans included executive orders that designated certain government officials to assume Cabinet and other executive branch positions and carry out the responsibilities of the position if the primary office holders are killed. There has been a formal line of succession to the presidency since 1792 (currently found in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, 3 U.S.C. § 19). This runs from the Vice President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, and then through the Cabinet secretaries in a sequence specified by Congress.

[bio]

The answer is in the very link you posted.
Try clicking on Continuity of Operations Plans and lo and behold...

was Mister Bush killed on 911?

[Thunder]

The Constitution of the United States of America?

[Comsat Angel]

The Special Prize in a box of Cheerios?

[bio]

The Constitution of the United States of America?

do you know the constitution better than John Adams?

[scissorhands]

was Mister Bush killed on 911?

Did he need to be killed for the secretary of defense to assume control?
What is your point?

[bio]

Did he need to be killed for the secretary of defense to assume control?
What is your point?

Is your point, that Cheney was secretary of defense during 911?

[16.5]

According to the official conspiracy theory, Vice President Cheney should have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93....

And that is right where I stopped reading.

I assume that the next words were "on Planet X" because that freaking opening is ten pounds of bull **** in a five pound sack.

Thanks for the worthless thread BIO!

[bio]

And that is right where I stopped reading.

I assume that the next words were "on Planet X" because that freaking opening is ten pounds of bull **** in a five pound sack.

Thanks for the worthless thread BIO!

are you a truther? ;)

[DGM]

According to the official conspiracy theory, Vice President Cheney should have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93, and gave other orders, too.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As horrified Americans watched the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, unfold on their television sets, Vice President Dick Cheney directed the U.S. government's response from an emergency bunker.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/

wikipedia:
John Adams, the first Vice President, described it as "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

The chain of command goes from the president, to the secretary of defense down to the military commanders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

Even if really Cheney got the orders directly from Bush by a telephone call, was it rightfully to change the chain of command?
What exactly did he direct? You are quoting a news story, in reality he wasn't doing squat. The point your making is moot, the opportunity was never there to shoot down any of the aircraft. This is all hindsight.

[scissorhands]

Is your point, that Cheney was secretary of defense during 911?
Nope.
Where did you get that idea?
Your issue apparently according to your op, is that Cheney assumed control ahead of the secretary of defense, not whether Bush was alive or not.

[LightinDarkness]

You are kidding...right? I hope so. Just in case:

The National Command Authority, if you would read your own linked wiki articles instead of dreaming about conspiracies, involves the "ultimate lawful source of military orders." That doesn't mean that other people in the government cannot give lawful military orders. Do you think that Barack Obama is sitting in the oval office dictating ground troop movements on a hourly basis in Afganistan?

Did it occur to you that government institutions change and evolve since John Adams? I can find lots of quote from famous "founding fathers" talking about how the Supreme Court has no power too. Then came judicial review. Things change.

[bio]

Nope.
Where did you get that idea?
Your issue apparently according to your op, is that Cheney assumed control ahead of the secretary of defense, not whether Bush was alive or not.

Cheney was not authorized to give any orders.

[LightinDarkness]

Cheney was not authorized to give any orders.

Evidence?

[16.5]

Cheney was not authorized to give any orders.

cool story bro, seeing as how Flight 93 was not shot down.

End of thread! Yay!

Punch and cake down by the hallway near the exit.

[bio]

What exactly did he direct? You are quoting a news story, in reality he wasn't doing squat. The point your making is moot, the opportunity was never there to shoot down any of the aircraft. This is all hindsight.

Why I need to inform you about the official theory? :rolleyes:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a956bushcheneyphone#a956bushchene yphone

[bio]

Evidence?

wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States

[sheeplesnshills]

Evidence?

Where is the evidence that he was?:confused:

[tsig]

do you know the constitution better than John Adams?

I know I can do better in a live debate.

[dudalb]

This is Pathetic.

[DGM]

Why I need to inform you about the official theory? :rolleyes:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a956bushcheneyphone#a956bushchene yphone
And what part of this actually came to reality? Cheney talk to the president concerning the possibility of a shoot down. What's your point? Where is the conflict with the chain of command?

[bio]

Strangly according to the 9/11 Commission the ...
...“president apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time… shortly after 10:00.” and ... “No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed” (see (10:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). According to the Commission, furthermore, the phone call between Bush and Cheney where the president gives the shootdown authorization is not until 10:18
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 41 and 43

Why was the shoot-down command going over Cheney and not over Rumsfeld?

Rumsfeld will indicate he first learns that shootdown authorization has been given from Cheney rather than Bush, telling the 9/11 Commission that the vice president “informed me of the president’s authorization to shoot down hostile aircraft” over the air threat conference call.
9/11 Commission, 3/23/2004

[bio]

And what part of this actually came to reality? Cheney talk to the president concerning the possibility of a shoot down. What's your point? Where is the conflict with the chain of command?

Can you provide a source, that the Vice-President is authorized to give commands to the military?

[CurtC]

Why was the shoot-down command going over Cheney and not over Rumsfeld?

I'm not sure I understand your issue. Bush had just talked to Cheney and given the authorization to shoot down. Cheney communicated it to the Defense Department.

Are you saying that Bush should have told Rumsfeld directly instead of going through Cheney first? If that's what you're saying, why do you feel that way? What was the difference? The order came from the Commander in Chief either way.


Can you provide a source, that the Vice-President is authorized to give commands to the military?The VP didn't give any commands - the President did.

[beachnut]

Rumsfeld will indicate he first learns that shootdown authorization has been given from Cheney rather than Bush, telling the 9/11 Commission that the vice president “informed me of the president’s authorization to shoot down hostile aircraft” over the air threat conference call.
9/11 Commission, 3/23/2004
..., Cheney informs Rumsfeld the president authorized a shoot down. This answers the OP!

the president’s authorization to shoot down hostile aircraft I don't understand why bio has answered his own question in his own post but fails to understand (but I do).

Who authorized the Passengers on Flight 93 to attack the terrorists? Who has the dumbest questions about 911?

This reminds me of the super stars of the moronic truth movement.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447460d8430f0ca9.jpg
the president’s authorization to shoot down hostile aircraft

[bio]

I'm not sure I understand your issue. Bush had just talked to Cheney and given the authorization to shoot down. Cheney communicated it to the Defense Department.

Are you saying that Bush should have told Rumsfeld directly instead of going through Cheney first? If that's what you're saying, why do you feel that way? What was the difference? The order came from the Commander in Chief either way.


The VP didn't give any commands - the President did.

The National Command Authority does not know this "loop". It is very straight forward.

[CurtC]

The National Command Authority does not know this "loop". It is very straight forward.

What "loop"? The order came from the President! It was fully in compliance with the NCA!

[DGM]

So what we got is the upper command figures (we all know who) were in communication trying to decide what the best course of response should be. And this is what bio is questioning?

[Oystein]

1. Cheney was a mailman running an errand in this scenario.

2. Special circumstances sometimes require special measures.

3. For all truthers: If the US government, if Cheney, was involved in the attacks, the easiest way for Cheney to "let it happen on purpose" would have been to NOT relay presidential decisions to the chain of command, pleading his own insignificance

4. A brave man, faced with a grave emergency, might do something that he knows to be formally illegal, and be willing to face the consequences afterwards (impeachment, court martial, indictment). It would take a cowardly man to not do what is necessary just because he does not have formal authority

5. Cheney is a dick anyway.

[DGM]

5. Cheney is a dick anyway.

and it's not a secret.........
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

[dudalb]

Jesus, Bio does not understand the basics of the chain of command.
If the Presdient gives an order, it does not matter if he gives it directly to the people who have to do the job, or goes through their commanding officer. The order is equally legal.

[Bell]

Even if really Cheney got the orders directly from Bush by a telephone call, was it rightfully to change the chain of command?

Since UA93 never was shot down, why do you care?

[Profanz]

For what it's worth.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/05/rove-revelations-bush-adviser-opens-katrina-wmds-obama/

-- As the Sept. 11 attacks were being carried out, Rove says Bush gave authorization for the military to shoot down any more hijacked planes in the event that they "could not be controlled." Rove writes that Vice President Cheney posed the question to Bush.

"Almost immediately after we were airborne, Vice President Cheney phoned with a tough decision for Bush to make. The Air Force had scrambled to put up a combat jet patrol over Washington but needed rules of engagement," Rove writes. "What should happen if another plane were hijacked and could not be controlled? Could it be shot down? The president uttered a forceful 'Yes.' Cheney asked again and Bush said, 'You have my authorization.'"

[fuelair]

From where did Cheney get his command authority?




That would be from his rectum. Reached through his anus into his colon and pulled out a handfull of his command authority and ate it.

[JimBenArm]

do you know the constitution better than John Adams?

Since John Adams has been dead for over 200 years, yes, yes I do.

[Profanz]

Did all the planes crash before the presidents plane was in the air?

[JimBenArm]

Did all the planes crash before the presidents plane was in the air?

Not all of them. Several hundred managed to land safely.

[Profanz]

Not all of them. Several hundred managed to land safely.

Did 77 and 93 already crash when the President took to the air?

[JimBenArm]

Did 77 and 93 already crash when the President took to the air?

The President took to the air? I thought they stopped all flights. Maybe we should investigate the President for violating the no-fly rule. He must have had inside connections!

[John Blonn]

BLAST we managed to cover up the government's planning and execution of the events on 9/11 but we forgot to claim it was BUSH making the orders nooooooooooooooooo our plan :( :( foiled by JREF forums poster bio

[Dave Rogers]

According to the official conspiracy theory, Vice President Cheney should have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93,

Wow, that's the shortest Time To First Lie I've ever seen in a truther thread!

Dave

[triforcharity]

Ok, so let me get this straight Bio.

I work for a small fire department in Florida. I sometimes act as the LT, when the LT is off, or is working at another station. If I tell MY next in command, the Driver/engineer, to tell the firefighters to do something, who is giving the order? The driver-Engineer? Or Me, the acting LT??

If the Chief tells me to tell someone to do something, am I the one giving the order? Or was it the Chief??

You retarded logic amazes me.

[bio]

Wow, that's the shortest Time To First Lie I've ever seen in a truther thread!

Dave

you are ten miles out ... ;) do the order still stand?

[A W Smith]

you are ten miles out ... ;) do the order still stand?
In that particular conversation. What order was that? Did either of them say?

[bio]

Ok, so let me get this straight Bio.

I work for a small fire department in Florida. I sometimes act as the LT, when the LT is off, or is working at another station. If I tell MY next in command, the Driver/engineer, to tell the firefighters to do something, who is giving the order? The driver-Engineer? Or Me, the acting LT??

If the Chief tells me to tell someone to do something, am I the one giving the order? Or was it the Chief??

You retarded logic amazes me.

What is you interpretation, why there is a National Command Authority at all, if the president can act alone without talking with the defense minister.

"The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated."
source: wikipedia

[Dave Rogers]

you are ten miles out ... ;) do the order still stand?

It's still a lie to say that 'Vice President Cheney should have ordered the shoot down of Flight 93' according to 'the official conspiracy theory'. A second hand account of a request for confirmation of orders from the VP does not carry any implication that the VP originated those orders, as plenty of people have pointed out, and if you're using the conventional English definition of the words 'should have' it doesn't imply that he was under any obligation to originate those orders either. However, please feel free to continue with your argument; you're scattering the straw quite nicely so far.

Dave

[tsig]

What is you interpretation, why there is a National Command Authority at all, if the president can act alone without talking with the defense minister.

"The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated."
source: wikipedia

You seem to have no understanding of how the US government works.


what do you think "commander-in chief" means?

[bio]

You seem to have no understanding of how the US government works.


what do you think "commander-in chief" means?

Give me a source, that the commander in chief can ...
.... give orders to military commanders without the defense secretary.
.... give an order indirectly (not speaking directly to) to military commanders.

One more time:
When I read in wikipedia under "National Command Authority" then Cheneys commands were against the law.

"The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

[funk de fino]

Give me a source, that the commander in chief can ...
.... give orders to military commanders without the defense secretary.
.... give an order indirectly (not speaking directly to) to military commanders.

One more time:
When I read in wikipedia under "National Command Authority" then Cheneys commands were against the law.

"The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

What part of "Bush authorized Cheney" do you not get?

[beachnut]

Give me a source, that the commander in chief can ...
.... give orders to military commanders without the defense secretary.
.... give an order indirectly (not speaking directly to) to military commanders.

One more time:
When I read in wikipedia under "National Command Authority" then Cheneys commands were against the law.

"The NCA comprises the President of the United States (as commander-in-chief) and the United States Secretary of Defense jointly, unless incapacitated."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

Cheney as you posted evidence, passed on the Presidents command. You need to read your posts, they say Cheney repeated what the President said.

The President is the commander in chief. Do you understand? Bush was right when he made comedy quotes, he is the "decider".

The SecDef advices the President and carries out his orders; end of story. If the SecDef acts up, the President gets another SecDef. President is "it". There is more to the story but you can't get this right, how will you deal with reality?

BTW, the VP is part of the apparatus if you dig deeper. ... you clearly posted the VP was repeating orders from the President. You answered your own OP, and you provide sources you fail to read and comprehend. Work harder on understanding what you posted and read more.

[bio]

"The chain of command runs from the President to the United States Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States

The President jointly with the secretary of defense can transit commands to the military. There is no other way.

[Oystein]

...
The President jointly with the secretary of defense can transit commands to the military. There is no other way.

Do they have to speak in unison? That would be easier if the orders where written in rhymes, or sung.

[funk de fino]

"The chain of command runs from the President to the United States Secretary of Defense to the combatant commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the Commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands from the President and Secretary of Defense, but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States

The President jointly with the secretary of defense can transit commands to the military. There is no other way.

So it was Bush who was wrong?

[bio]

So it was Bush who was wrong?

The question for me is, why the commanders listened to Cheney.

[DGM]

The question for me is, why the commanders listened to Cheney.
Because he was talking? Did they do anything based on their "listening"?

[Oystein]

The question for me is, why the commanders listened to Cheney.

Some commanders started doint things (like scrambling Otis) without waiting to get orders from however high up they were formally needed. Sometimes you just do what's right.
If the VP tells you to defend your country NOW, you don't wait for a duet to be sung by the pres and the secdef. In fact, you don't even need the VP to tell you.

Oh and by the way: Possibly no one, not even the president, had the authority to order the shoot-down of a domestic civilian airliner. Good thing is, none was shot down.

[beachnut]

The question for me is, why the commanders listened to Cheney.

Because he was talking? Did they do anything based on their "listening"?


Cool; they heard Cheney repeat orders from the President.

When the President executed Desert Storm, my fellow staff officers passed on the order from the President, like Cheney did, to our crews.

[Oystein]

Cool; they heard Cheney repeat orders from the President.

When the President executed Desert Storm, my fellow staff officers passed on the order from the President, like Cheney did, to our crews.

Was the VP in your / their chain of command?

I think that is the question here. Each military person has exactly one immediate superior, right? That superior has an immediate superior. And finally, there are one or more persons whose immediate superior is the President. Correct? The president was not your immediate superior, rather, his order that resulted in you storming out to Iraq was relayed to you through a chain of immediate superiors that originated in the President.

Not the Vice President.

So the question is. Is the Vice President anybody's only immediate superior?
Or is he in fact not part of any chain of command, as long as the president is not incapacitated?

[beachnut]

Was the VP in your / their chain of command?

I think that is the question here. Each military person has exactly one immediate superior, right? That superior has an immediate superior. And finally, there are one or more persons whose immediate superior is the President. Correct? The president was not your immediate superior, rather, his order that resulted in you storming out to Iraq was relayed to you through a chain of immediate superiors that originated in the President.

Not the Vice President.

So the question is. Is the Vice President anybody's only immediate superior?
Or is he in fact not part of any chain of command, as long as the president is not incapacitated?
Explain to me why the VP can not pass on the command from the President to shoot down aircraft if needed on 911 to those who can pass it on in an emergency?

Explain to me why I can't take action without orders based on my commission to defend the United States.

Then explain how Passengers on Flight 93 can take action against terrorist without a Presidential order or any chain of command.


Why can't the VP in an emergency tell the guys sitting around some command post in the "dark" the President has authorized what Passengers on Flight 93 figured out all by themselves without a "chain of command".

There is no question here, there is bio delusions of the fourth order.

bio posted Cheney passed on the President's order - there is no question because he answered the dumb question in his OP.

Even if really Cheney got the orders directly from Bush by a telephone call, was it rightfully to change the chain of command? This does not change the chain of command, it is called Communication. Communication. bio answers his OP with the OP because he can't fathom communication or some comprehension problem...


Did the President tell the VP not to tell anyone of the order? Why is 911 truth so dense?


From where did Cheney get his command authority?
The President, it is called delegation, and communication.

[Metullus]

Hell, the President could call me and direct me to pass on his orders to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and those orders would be legal. The military might not believe that what I am passing on to them are, in fact, the President's orders, and thus not carry them out, but it would not impact the legality of those orders.

[Oystein]

Explain to me why the VP can not pass on the command from the President to shoot down aircraft if needed on 911 to those who can pass it on in an emergency?

Explain to me why I can't take action without orders based on my commission to defend the United States.

Then explain how Passengers on Flight 93 can take action against terrorist without a Presidential order or any chain of command.


Why can't the VP in an emergency tell the guys sitting around some command post in the "dark" the President has authorized what Passengers on Flight 93 figured out all by themselves without a "chain of command".

There is no question here, there is bio delusions of the fourth order.

bio posted Cheney passed on the President's order - there is no question because he answered the dumb question in his OP.

This does not change the chain of command, it is called Communication. Communication. bio answers his OP with the OP because he can't fathom communication or some comprehension problem...


Did the President tell the VP not to tell anyone of the order? Why is 911 truth so dense?

The President, it is called delegation, and communication.

If you read my posts 30 and 57, you will see that you don't need to convince me, I already am convinced.

However, since bio is hard to convince, I propose we separate the topic into two very distinct question:

1. Did the VP have any military command authority whatsoever?
Answer is: NO.
We can concede that without adding any word salad.
Agreed?




Then let's breath a while

sip a beer

Be happy that we agree with bio: Indeed, the VP did not have authority to issue any order to anyone.










then we can move on to a very different question:

2. Did the VP do the right thing when he apparently told some people to shoot down any other hijacked airliner before they smash into town?
Answer: YES!
Reasons: Plenty! For example:
a. He knew that this was what the Commander in Chief wanted; he was only a medium to communicate the Presidential order. Much like a bell hop carrying a note from tycoon to manager.
b. Extraordinary events sometimes require extraordinary action, even outside the legal framework
c. Brave men sometimes do the right thing even if it means formally breaking a law. Cowards hide behind formalities to avoid tough choices
d. (etc.)
Alternative answer: NO! because
e. Not even the president had the authority to order the killing of American civilians, so he should not habe relayed any such order
f. Since no one in the military can be relied upon to act on orders given or relayed by someone outside the chain of command, it was a bad idea to try that route
g. Cheney is a Dick
h. (etc.)


Maybe we agree or disagree on the second question.
What I don't understand is: What point is bio trying to make? Suppose we agree that it wasn't a good idea for Cheney to relay these orders, for whatever reasons. Then what? The orders in question had no consequence. It seems to be a purely academical task to ponder that question.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh boo hoo, the VPotUS and numerous other people ignored the written up chain of command to make sure that things happened in a timely manner when dealing with a quickly progressing incident that people had to react too instantly. Sheeze, if they had all followed the instruction manual they'd still be waiting for orders. How is people shortcutting the system when the system was obviously failing a bad thing?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Our very own Cheap Shot took a shortcut that morning that, I believe, got those fighters in the air faster than they would have been if he had followed proper procedure.

[Bell]

Our very own Cheap Shot took a shortcut that morning that, I believe, got those fighters in the air faster than they would have been if he had followed proper procedure.

He did? Good!

But in the end, we all can be glad that none of the fighters reached UA93 in time to be able to shoot it down.

[dudalb]

Oh boo hoo, the VPotUS and numerous other people ignored the written up chain of command to make sure that things happened in a timely manner when dealing with a quickly progressing incident that people had to react too instantly. Sheeze, if they had all followed the instruction manual they'd still be waiting for orders. How is people shortcutting the system when the system was obviously failing a bad thing?

There is an old saying in the US Army: If the Army was ran exactly as the Manuals say it should be ran, it would fall apart and cease to function in about five minutes.

[Sam.I.Am]

I know for a fact that at least one squadron started to surge out all of its seaworthy boats before their immediate superiors told them to. It wasn't because the boats were going to be able to do anything useful in that situation, it was because they were a potential target (nuclear reactors and all of that). They were given their operation areas on their way out to sea and many had skeleton crews, they came back in within a day or two, after the situation was under control.

[Myriad]

Is the President allowed to communicate orders in written form? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that pieces of paper with lines on them can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by telephone? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a few electronic components connected to a cheap handset speaker can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by shouting across the room? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of vibrating air molecules can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by giving a verbal message to a courier, such as a staffer, page, or VP? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a staffer, page, or VP can have Command Authority?

Those are all equally silly questions, don't you agree, bio? All of them show the same fundamental failure to make a clear distinction between the source of an order, and the means of communicating said order.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Profanz]

Is the President allowed to communicate orders in written form? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that pieces of paper with lines on them can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by telephone? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a few electronic components connected to a cheap handset speaker can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by shouting across the room? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a bunch of vibrating air molecules can have Command Authority?

Is the President allowed to communicate orders by giving a verbal message to a courier, such as a staffer, page, or VP? If so, where in the Constitution does it say that a staffer, page, or VP can have Command Authority?

Those are all equally silly questions, don't you agree, bio? All of them show the same fundamental failure to make a clear distinction between the source of an order, and the means of communicating said order.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well I'm not usually a big believer in anything Karl Rove claims, but according to him Bush gave the order. Cheney should have passed it on. I really don't understand what the problem there would be? I mean if the president had given the order to a military flunky who answered the phone who then passed it on to a General then what's the difference?

Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?

[Newtons Bit]

do you know the constitution better than John Adams?

The role of the Vice President has changed several times since John Adams' time. And in all cases, including back then, the President can choose to delegate additional authority to the Vice President.

[Sam.I.Am]

Yes, the constitution delineates the minimum duties of the Vice President. That doesn't preclude him from taking on additional duties as assigned to him by the president. Bush put many extra duties on Cheneys plate before and especially after 9/11. Other presidents in the past have done this to varying degrees as well.

[Myriad]

Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?


If I cared about these questions, I'd be reading a thread in which they were on topic.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Oystein]

The role of the Vice President has changed several times since John Adams' time. And in all cases, including back then, the President can choose to delegate additional authority to the Vice President.

Isn't it true that the Constitution does not mention any administration posts other than President and VP? The executive power is vested in the President, period.

If delegation of that power was unconstitutional, there would be no administration.

[funk de fino]

The question for me is, why the commanders listened to Cheney.

Because they new Bush authorised it. Or are you blaming the commanders now?

[funk de fino]

Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted? And not just the ones we now know were hijacked. Why weren't any of the ones that were still feared hijacked intercepted? I mean when the last one crashed who could know it was over and there weren't anymore planes hijacked?

You would be wrong.

[Dave Rogers]

Well I'm not usually a big believer in anything Karl Rove claims, but according to him Bush gave the order. Cheney should have passed it on. I really don't understand what the problem there would be? I mean if the president had given the order to a military flunky who answered the phone who then passed it on to a General then what's the difference?

So you agree with a debunker position. According to the logic you're displaying in another thread, that means you no longer believe 9/11 was an inside job, right? Because, by your tortured logic,we can't agree with you that the search for victims' remains wasn't good enough, because that would make us truthers; so if you agree that Bush originated the shoot-down order, that makes you a debunker.

Your rules. Thanks for playing.

Dave

[bio]

thank you for so many posts, but your argumentation could not convince me.

interesting piece, Commissioner Roemer pressed Leidig from the NMCC, why he did not communicate with the President. This was possibly, because the Air Force One had a direct line to the NMCC. Leidig could not recall, why he was in contact with the white house, presumably Cheney, instead.

LEIDIG: Sir, I can't speak to the connectivity with Air Force One. I was connected to the White House. And my understanding is Air Force One was in contact with the White House situation room. I was not in contact with Air Force One.

ROEMER: So you have no knowledge of that?

LEIDIG: No, sir.

(UNKNOWN): Is there no NMCC protocol to connect directly with Air Force One?

LEIDIG: Yes, sir, there is a capability to do that. On that day, we were connected with the White House.

ROEMER: Why weren't you using that other capability?

LEIDIG: I don't recall, sir.

source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49429-2004Jun17_5.html

[Dave Rogers]

thank you for so many posts, but your argumentation could not convince me.

But then, realistically, what could?

Dave

[bio]

But then, realistically, what could?

Dave

sometimes you can convince me from the official position.

[Myriad]

thank you for so many posts, but your argumentation could not convince me.


Your stalwart resistance to being convinced by rational arguments and evidence is duly noted.

In the churches I frequent, that's called faith and is held in high regard. (Though I'm not sure why, since as feats go, not being convinced of something you don't want to believe is about as difficult as not painting the garage.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[funk de fino]

sometimes you can convince me from the official position.

Your OP has failed.

[CurtC]

Well I'm not usually a big believer in anything Karl Rove claims, but according to him Bush gave the order. Cheney should have passed it on. I really don't understand what the problem there would be?I think that's pretty much what everyone here (with one glaring exception) agrees happened.



Now I'm not positive about the timing but I think when this is claimed to have occurred there were still two hijacked planes in the air. So if the order was given when Bush first got in the air then why weren't any planes intercepted?
Uh, you know that the military has all the authority it needs to intercept commercial planes, right? No presidential approval needed. So why are you asking this in the context of Bush's orders?