Even if CBS’s report is incorrect, the discrepancy does not change my view on the larger issue. Regardless of whether Rumsfeld instructed his aides to “Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not,” it is well-documented that the Bush administration began searching for a link between 9/11 and Iraq shortly after the attacks happened. Also, this kind of discrepancy does not convince me that there is a systemic liberal bias in the media – in fact, the very reason this article was so influential was that it stood out as a breath of fresh air in the oppressive media climate of 2002, when Americans who questioned the Bush administration's arguments for invading Iraq were marginalized.
But if blogs are really going to serve as a check on the power of the media, it is important that bloggers scrutinize everything, and not just reports that “hurt” one side or the other. When a major media outlet quotes the Secretary of Defense in the context of a highly controversial military decision, “mostly true” just isn’t good enough. And personally, I am much more disturbed by the thought of a network running a questionable story that preys on my own beliefs and biases, than one that preys on someone else's beliefs and biases.
If anyone else has more information about Rumsfeld's 9/11 notes, please post it here, or contact me through outragedmoderates.org, where this article is cross-posted.
Article comments
1 - RJ
Great piece of research, Thad! Hope it bears fruit...
2 - Steve Rhodes
I'm not sure what the big deal is.
Lots of sources have Rumsfeld arguing for going after Iraq right after 9/11
Frontline has reported it several times.
As you say, just because you didn't find it anywhere else doens't mean it is wrong.
Did you try and contact the reporter or producer on the story to see what their response is?
3 - Dave Nalle
The point of this article is that Frontline is not a 'source'. What you have is a lot of news media reporting it, but no named source - a source being someone who was there and heard the statement.
Dave
4 - Thad Anderson
Well, as the post says, the issue isn't whether Rumsfeld argued for going after Iraq that afternoon, because a number of sources confirm that he did (in addition to the 9/11 Commission Report and Plan of Attack, Clarke's book describes this in detail). The issue is just whether the "Go massive . . . Sweep it up. Things related and not" quote was part of the notes he wrote.
I wouldn't consider the discrepancy significant, except that the specific quotation had a profound impact on so many people, including myself. I've looked pretty hard, and have found no other news source independently reporting the quote.
5 - Calico Cat
All this vitual ink and trying to run down the source, but "After spending hours researching this online, and skimming through dozens of books at bookstores," where do I see Thad Anderson making an honest attempt to contact CBS News' National Security Correspondent, David Martin and get this sorted out? It seems very odd that he'd spend all that time and never even attempt to contact the the person named in the story. He might have done that and been able to say, if true, "repeated e-mails and phone calls to Mr. Martin..." and give result or lack there of.
You talk about CBS's carelessness, with regard to the distract-o-matic "forged memo" story -- which was really the Bush/AWOL from Guard fact-based story that stands on its own without the questionable memo -- but what about your own carlessness here?
CBS still has the story on line: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
According to the report:
"(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq " even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 " notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.
With the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." " meaning Saddam Hussein " "at same time. Not only UBL" " the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.
Now, nearly one year later, there is still very little evidence Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. But if these notes are accurate, that didn't matter to Rumsfeld.
"Go massive," the notes quote him as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." -###-
Now, why would Rumsfeld want to "go massive" and find a pretext to attack Iraq? Read Greg Palast's exclusive for Harpers (HARPER'S: BAGHDAD COUP D'ETAT FOR BIG OIL From the April Issue of Harper's Magazine - http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=418&row=0) for background on that question.
There are still so many unanswered questions regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and its relationship to Bush's war of aggression in Iraq, but over time truth has a way of leaking out..."sweep it up, go massive, things related or not."
CC
6 - Thad Anderson
I realize that the story is online - that's why I linked to it in my post.
I will try to contact CBS, but I've never gotten any non-automated responses to any comments or questions I've ever submitted to TV networks.
7 - Dave Nalle
I never have any trouble getting through to a specific person's voice mail at a news network. Just call their local number in New York and ask for the person you want or used the automated system to find them. Works like a charm most of the time.
BTW: ""Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11." - and here I thought they began the moment GB-42 left office.
Dave