Rumsfiend's Freudian slip?

Tom sends a World Net Daily link to something that seems to be getting swept under the rug. At least in the mainstream. No surprise there.

It appears that in Rumsfiend's little Christmas visit to the troops in Iraq, he made either a slip of the tongue, or a confession. (Transcript)

World Net Daily decided to take on this case (which is mainly running around the internet - CNN says amongst "conspiracy theorists" - the old catch-all to discredit anyone talking about touchy subjects), and yet, what the WND article says is really not addressing what Rumsfiend said. I'm confused. Here's WND:

Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, there have been questions about Flight 93, the ill-fated plane that crashed in the rural fields of Pennsylvania.

The official story has been that passengers on the United Airlines flight rushed the hijackers in an effort to prevent them from crashing the plane into a strategic target – possibly the U.S. Capitol.

During his surprise Christmas Eve trip to Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the flight being shot down – long a suspicion because of the danger the flight posed to Washington landmarks and population centers.

Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?

[...]

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.

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."

You'll notice that WND is running with the idea that the U.S. actually did shoot down the Pennsylvania flight due to concerns for its target. And that may well be true. Afterward, then, to avoid admitting they shot it down - for any number of reasons - they may then have made up the story about the heroic passengers taking the plane down to save the would-be target. Lord knows there's lots of unanswered questions and plenty of cover-ups going on over the attacks.

But, what Rumsfiend actually said was (and WND quotes him correctly, while questioning something that he didn't say - bizarre):

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, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be. [Emphasis added]

That is saying that the "bad guys" shot down the plane in Pennsylvania. A whole new story. Is that what he meant to say? And even if not, why are the media avoiding the issue? I only see WND and CNN even bringing it up. CNN trying to sweep it under the rug of "conspiracy theory".

The Pentagon insists he "misspoke". Uh-huh. Whatever. Seems like a very specific thing to throw in to a speech that didn't need it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.