was there an explicit request?
- Truthfully I have no idea whether we were asked specifically not to mention
That would happen on another level than mine!
If a request was made, it could have been official or "on background".
Clearly the number of people who knew the exact plans was suddenly in the
100's after it was implemented as opposed to the dozens who saw the plans on
paper prior to 911.
I do think that if we had been asked we would have erred on the side of
caution. Who would want to give a road map to terrorists? I do believe
however that the planning for these attacks has happened over years and they
have planned their targets in advance and know as much as we do about C3I in
the DC area.
Sometimes the White House will contact all the Washington TV Bureau Chiefs,
like when Condoleeza Rice asked the networks not to run the newest Bin Laden
statements in their entirety. A request could also be made at the level of
the producer or correspondent at the Pentagon etc. and suggest that if such
and such is reported it might affect that network's ability to get
information from the "unnamed government officials" at some point in the
The Washington Post was asked and complied based on a history of making
decisions like that. They have chosen to withhold stories or elements of
stories for periods of time in the past on espionage topics and they know it
is much harder to report on an administration completely hostile to them
All of these elements in play keep the White House from activating that
Office of Wartime Information at Western Maryland College.
Doesn't the GSA still have a lease on that bunker?
I think the Casper bunker was already almost useless by the time Gup blew it
open in the Post Weekend Magazine. Probably focusing on that kept us from
looking at other things more secret and useful to us.
My two cents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:34:24 -0500
From: "Rick C." <rickchem@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: CoG interview, picture
Was it just an unwritten rule not to talk about such things, or were
you asked explicitly by the gov.? Just curious . . . I look back on the
"Casper" incident, and think about how the congressional officials did not
ask Ted Gup to hold back his story. . .
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Thanks Tim!
The Greenbriar incident has always kept me wondering. From the various
sources, it seems that there were two divided camps about releasing the
information: Congressional officials, who did not respond, or made no
effort to stop the publication, and those in charge of the bunker itself,
who definitely wanted to keep it secret. This makes me think of three
possibilities- one, it was outdated, and Congress knew this and had other
plans (bunkers/sites), two, congress thought the site was useless in the
post cold war environment, three, whether it was secret or not, as long as
it remained semi-functional, it could still be a secure relocation center
My vote is for three. By saying it is no longer secret and not used, it
gets taken off the nuke target list, and because it is used for tours etc,
it is still maintained. There are still rooms you are not allowed entry!
However, I wouldn't want to ascribe to intelligence what can easily be
ascribed to stupidity (see below)!
IMHO, any relocation plan for congress must be in some way, held secret
from congress. I realize this leads to problems w/ separation of powers and
the like, but it is must easier to keep secrets with one boss who can fire
you (Pres.) then 535 bosses. Not to mention those in Congress who are
publically on the record inclined to reveal such secrets. I still wonder
how the funding for Casper was done, who the maintenance staff was
accountable to, and who in Congress knew. I think evidence of the mess that
occurs out of all of this is the recent report that the White House actually
informed Congressional leaders such as Byrd via their staffers, but the
staffers never mentioned it to the senators. I suppose this could be white
house CYA, but it seems relatively plausible to me!
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com