China, China, China: We pointed on 9-11 to China but we also must affirmatively eliminate the US

Dear House and Senate Intelligence Committee Members,

On October 10, 2001, over one year ago, and within 30 days of 9-11, we wrote to you detailing that the Bush administration was seemingly in pursuit of a plan to capture and control Islamic oil and nuclear (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). We said that such efforts would be adverse to US interests “…unless the U.S. intends to then invade and occupy these two countries to in fact remedy the situation it itself encouraged?”

Undoubtedly the statement was precocious in making you aware of the Presidential design. In fact, recently the President took the position that Congressional approval was irrelevant and unnecessary in terms of his having discretion to launch an attack on Iraq. The President thereafter decided to seek the approval of Congress in such limited regard, and he also enlisted, although deeming it irrelevant and unnecessary as well, the approval of the United Nations.

At this juncture, the Congress and your committees should be made aware that it is now our opinion that the President seeks to implement the design perceived on October 10^th in first writing to you with regard to it. His real target is Saudi oil (as well as Iraqi oil and oil reserves), and on August 6, 2002 the Washington Post confirmed it by interviewing Richard Perle who announced the position that Saudi Arabia could legitimately be perceived as a primary target of US intercession in the Middle East. Further, the pursuit of North Korea by diplomatic channels rather than military threat is revealing when one focuses on the reality that it has no oil or oil reserves. The world justly asks would President Bush be center stage with Saddam if Iraq were without oil and oil reserves?

This brings us to the point of our writing at this time. We believe that the Congress should take note that no further military action by this administration should be allowed until the 9-11 investigation is completed. Not only will this give the administration incentive to move it ahead quickly but the outstanding issues from our perspective strongly speak against the President’s clear intent to invade Iraq, if not other Arab/Islamic nations in the region.

The reason for this enlisted restraint is due to the fact that the President himself just the other day noted that the evidence should be pursued to wherever it leads. Unfortunately, there is sufficient evidence before the world to show that it points to advance knowledge at minimum by this administration of the 9-11 attacks. This can be succinctly expressed by the simple statement that when Andrew Card told the President at the Booker elementary school that “America is under attack,” after the second plane struck the WTC South Tower, basic Secret Service protocol demanded that the President be removed from a place subject to terrorist attack against him.

The time and place of his visit and presence at the Booker school was a matter of public knowledge. The fact that he stayed seated after being so advised by Andrew Card, and the fact that he gave an impromptu announcement to the nation about the attacks from the school at 9:30 AM, when the second plane struck at 9:03 AM, operates to establish advance knowledge if not complicity by the administration. This is a serious matter that legally taints the fruits of any subsequent governmental intrusion particularly any act of war.

While we pointed out to you the covert presidential design on October 10, 2001, we pointed out on September 13, 2001, that the collapse of the World Trade Center towers was pursuant to implosion from planted explosives within the buildings to coincide with the plane crashing into the WTC towers. .... Now, we were apprised that CNN has posted videos showing that in fact there was an internal explosion in the building prior to the plane making contact with the building (http://asia.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.exclude.html). This major explosion was one no doubt instrumental in the collapse of the building.

The point here is that while proven accurate in this interpretation as well, the other facet of the interpretation was that there were only two countries who could have interceded in acts of terrorism pursued by Osama bin-Laden operatives to escalate the terrorism to the historical dimension realized: the United States and China. Since we removed the United States from consideration at that time, it left us with China, who we knew, separate and apart from 9-11, was destined to be America’s future enemy for the reasons it articulated in metaphor fashion in the 1999 movie, post the Belgrade Embassy bombing, The Emperor and the Assassin.

Now, with regret, we feel compelled to relay to you that discounting this government’s involvement may have been premature. At minimum, this must be removed from consideration, which highlights the need for the formal 9-11 investigation, assuring that Kissinger who everyone recognizes will whitewash it, pursues the open issues. Without doing so, this government will undermine confidence in the American people and the world in this country. Whereas, we believe internationally President Bush and his National Security Strategy are seen for what it may turn out to be, Americans still continue to carry confidence that its government is in service to the people. This will not continue to be the case without resolution of the President’s behavior attendant to 9-11. In this very regard, we include some material prepared for clients to advise of the nature of questions we perceive should be properly put to the President as the person to whom all reporting and investigative agencies share their findings.

This is written with sadness and disappointment and we can only add that when the government tells the American people that this war against terrorism will last ten to twenty years, it suggests that the emergency powers and laws will extend as well, institutionalizing these emergency powers into our society and culture. This is also a tainted fruit of the administration, should it be shown to have had direct or indirect advance knowledge of 9-11.

Without question, the moral outrage generated by 9-11 was a necessary not convenient predicate for subsequent actions that have now defined this administration. No doubt, our analysis and interpretation of this government’s decisions, actions and behavior since then have also caused us to write about our concern that Israel may also turn out to be a predicate for moral outrage to justify a severe military incursion by the Bush administration against all relevant Arab/Islamic countries.

Wherefore, it seems incumbent that this administration at this point of time be cleared from all putative claims, whether thoughts or anything more tangible, concerning advance knowledge of 9-11, if not arguments of some degree of complicity to platform moral outrage to justify and support a plan, which became operative days after the 9-11 events, which has compromised past US policies and foreign interests including basic and fundamental constitutional precepts.

Only upon doing so, can the people of this country and our friends and allies throughout the world carry confidence that all the actions derived from 9-11 do not carry an illegal if not immoral taint.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
November 29, 2002

Excerpt from material sent to clients:

Draft of type of questions that should be posited to the President in interrogatory format:

1. Mr. President when you previously told the nation: ""Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people," does your statement hold exactly true if you said: "Had I known that the enemy was going to attack New York or Washington in September 2001, I would have done everything in my power to prevent it from happening."

SenderBerl: We offer anticipated answers by the President, some, which we are aware, might not be true but which realistically will be given to the question.

Anticipated Answer ("AA"): Yes.

2. Mr. President as a result of your answer to the previous question, what was your understanding regarding the Air Force failing to immediately launch intercepts to four flights off transponder?

AA: When the historical decision was made to ground all air traffic, Military Command erroneously understood that it was a command of this administration to ground ALL air traffic including military flights. That is the very reason this administration has undertaken steps since 9-11 to assure that such errors and misconceptions do not again compromise the interests of this country.

3. Are you not aware that even one commercial flight off transponder invokes concern as expressed by your own administration?

AA: Yes. That is exactly why I have indicated that errors were made and this administration has taken steps to assure that it will not happen again.

4. Is not immediately sending out military jet intercepts as planned and intended inapposite to any expression of an attempt to protect the American people from terrorism?

AA. Yes. I have answered this line of thought in the previous responses.

5. What exactly were your findings in regard this one facet of failure to intercept hijacked airliners?

AA: That the emergency response network was in need of consolidation and overhaul and this administration has undertaken all steps possible to assure that the incident will not repeat.

6. Did not your National Security Advisor publicly state that your office was not aware of terrorists planning or plotting with commercial airliners to effectuate terrorist strikes?

AA: Yes.

7. Was she not thereafter shown to be mistaken?

AA: Yes.

8. Is it fair to say that it is shocking that your NSA should not be aware of major facets of anticipated terrorist attacks known throughout the intelligence communities here and abroad?

AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "9."

9. Why then would she say what she did say?

AA: Condy Rice's actions are always intended to serve this country and the administration she serves. During this period, she was acutely aware that certain disclosures might compromise national security interests. When she was asked the question, it was my understanding that her response was intended at that time to protect national security interests.

10. Was this because an affirmative answer by her would have highlighted the failure under such knowledge to intercept the planes?

AA: This administration acknowledges the need for improvements in the emergency response network, which have already been effectuated. Dr. Rice's response as indicated was only with a given mindset to protect the national security interests of this country.

11. In that very regard, Mr. President when Andrew Card advised you when you were seated with the children at the Florida elementary school of the second attack on the World Center Trade buildings, why did you not respond to what he told you?

AA: I had already discussed with my Chief of Staff steps that should be undertaken if the first attack on the World Trade Center North building was confirmed to be an act of terrorism.

12. Did he ask you for instructions to convey to governmental authorities awaiting your advice?

AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "11."

13. Since there were two plane attacks, did it cross your mind that there could be more?

AA: I was advised that the FAA had issued a warning about possible multiple hijackings before I sat down with the children in Florida. The FAA advised four planes could not be located on filed flight plans.

SenderBerl: We are now entering a very sensitive area where the President has to admit whether he did or did not know about the threat and potential of multiple hijackings. We believe he would be ill advised to deny it, since it was a matter that had already been relayed to the military network who had already fired up military jets for take off. The President admitting to not knowing about it would therefore show a void in the chain of command. If the President did answer affirmatively to the above we would then also ask subsequently whether at this stage he needed a second incident to conclude terrorism, and regardless, with four planes off transponder, one already going into a landmark building, why he would continue in his non essential routine rather than return to Air Force One.

14. After Andrew Card told you as you publicly stated that "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack," you no longer carried doubt that there were terrorist attacks in progress against the United States of America.

AA: Yes.

15. Could terrorists have targeted as part of their agenda that day the elementary school where you were sitting with children?

AA: !!!!!!!!!! THE ONLY TRUTHFUL ANSWER HERE IS YES.

SenderBerl: This is an area that shows serious culpability on the part of the administration. First, once knowing active terrorism against the United States was in progress, it was the responsibility of the large team traveling with the President to whisk him out of the school and into his car back to Air Force One or any alternative plane under such contingency planning.

SenderBerl: It was apparent to anyone in this area of defense that the President's current location was a matter of public record. Thus, with an ongoing "attack on America" as the administration likes to say, the President was a primary target and his security was totally compromised. His staying seated, continuing on at the school, and in fact giving an impromptu press announcement at the school, staying at the school some twenty or thirty minutes thereafter, only reveals complicity by the administration in what took place that very day.

SenderBerl: If not the security of the President of the United States, what about the school and its children? SenderBerl has been highly disturbed that the President after being criticized for being away from Washington the entire month of August, could CHANGE his schedule on or about September 7, 2001, to include trips to two elementary schools in Florida. Even the people in the area of his visit when interviewed prior to the 9-11 terrorism, noted their surprise at the President's personal visit to read with elementary school children. In any event, the compromise of his security and safety and that of the children are compelling evidence of putative administration knowledge if not complicity in the events of 9-11.

16. Was it not advisable to leave the area and to tell the children to do likewise?

AA: Yes.

17. Was not your visit to the elementary school publicly announced in a White House Briefing on September 7, 2001?

AA: Yes

18. Was not your visit to the elementary school publicly announced by newspaper coverage?

AA: Yes

19, Do you not deem yourself to be a primary target of domestic terrorist attacks?

AA: Yes.

19a. Did you want to get up to call your wife, who was still situated in Washington?

AA: Yes.

SenderBerl: Formal interrogatories would go into knowledge that Washington, DC was an expected target of the other hijacked airplanes.

20. Did you instruct Andrew Card or someone else to do so? If so, when?

AA: !!!!!!!!!

SenderBerl: The President has to be very careful here in his response. No matter what he says he will reveal more than he wants. Since we expect him to say yes, that he expected his team to know what to do under the circumstances, it comes back then to what they were doing letting him stay seated in a primary target area compromising his and the children's lives.

21. How much time exactly expired between the time Andrew Card first told you about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the time you gave any instructions regarding the terrorist attacks?

AA: I anticipated that my entire team knew what to do and if they didn't they would ask me directly. I learned of confusion and mix-up after I left the classroom and before giving my podium statement at the school. There were errors made that day. They have been corrected. Detailing them would not be consistent with national security interests.

22. Was it necessary for someone to obtain your authorization before military planes could intercept and if need be take down commercial aircraft?

AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "21."

23. Did you not find that you would provide for the security of the children you were with and the safety of this country and serve the national security interests of this country by immediately leaving the elementary school to be in your car and then as soon as possible position yourself on Air Force One?

AA: Asked and answered.

24. Are you aware of Secret Service guidelines attendant to preparing a site such as an elementary school for a non-emergency discretionary presidential visit?

AA: I am aware that there are guidelines but I am not aware of the details. This area of responsibility is left to the Secret Service upon who I totally rely and have full confidence.

SenderBerl: This opens up a wide area of questions for the Secret Service and military detail with the President during his trip.

25: Did you just complete a one-month vacation period in Crawford Texas?

AA: If this question implies that no presidential work was done during this period, then the answer is no.

26. As a matter of historical fact, was your approximate 30-day stay in Crawford in August 2001 the longest stay away from Washington, DC by any President of the United States?

AA: Answer is a matter of historical record.

27. Did you receive criticism for the length of your stay away from Washington for so long?

AA: Yes.

28. When you returned to Washington, did you not have a long string of important and urgent matters to attend to?

AA: If the question implies that I as the President did not have a long string of important and urgent matters to attend to when I was away in Crawford, then the answer is no.

29. Was not domestic terrorism a real ongoing concern of your administration prior to the events of 9-11?

AA: Yes.

30. Was it not within days after Labor Day that your schedule was officially changed to include visits to not one but two elementary schools in the State of Florida?

AA: Yes.

SenderBerl: We have committed our allotted time to postulating the type of questions that crosses our minds relevant for the President of the United States to answer. It suggests that Kissinger who can expend much more time and manpower resources to these issues has a host, a long host, or questions and areas to pursue. However, the grounding of the military jets, the President's obtuse change in schedule for him not his wife or another high administration official to visit two elementary schools in Florida, and then his failure to immediately exit the school on the first plane striking the building, knowing that three other planes were unaccounted for, and then passively remaining after admitting that Card told him America was under attack, and then to boot, giving an informal news conference AT THE SCHOOL where terrorists would know he was at that very morning leaves no other conclusion that the administration's involvement in 9-11 is far different from they could suggest. It is disturbing, and as Americans we are entitled to answers and the President should know that what we feel entitled to reflects legitimate disturbing questions as to his behavior attendant to 9-11 (especially when coupled with the launch of a military plan already approved contemporaneous with the moral outrage created through the death and devastation of 9-11).

Conclusion: SenderBerl has long highlighted that it did not believe until June 24, 2002, that further acts of terrorism would be seen. Moreover, just this morning two missiles were shot at an Israeli plane and missed. No one was more surprised that the World Trade Center buildings collapsed than Osama bin-Laden. The terrorists just don't have what it takes to carry off major terrorist acts. When we saw the two buildings implode we said that day, 9-11-01, that only two countries could have interceded with the mickey mouse level of terrorism within the ambit of Osama bin-Laden: the US and China. We thus as Americans concluded China, who we long proffered was destined to be this country's enemy. We have been highly disturbed by what this administration has done on the platform of a single day's events. Moreover, we are further disturbed that the administration has done its level best to side step a full investigation of 9-11. Moreover, we are further disturbed when the Congress rubber-stamps the mindset of the President under his historical National Security Strategy for unilateralism and world control and domination. Finally, for purposes of this release, we are especially disturbed when we continue to realize that the President's behavior connective to 9-11 indicates advance knowledge if not complicity.

Before this country goes out now to engage any other country, which will result in massive death and devastation for Americans, our government owes the American people some important answers to some very important questions. Kissinger is planning on taking a very long time to dilute the entire process to further cover his true agenda which is to whitewash 9-11 or even await as we long feared a far deadlier act of terrorism, making 9-11 a forgotten painful memory, superseded by new hysteria and concerns.

Joseph Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
Thanksgiving Day 2002

Other writings in 2002 including the reference to Condy Rice's faux pax (in red):

Why Dick Cheney is correct in warning of a more serious threat!