SenderBerl's
perception of Condoleezza Rice's true
role in the Bush presidency
Important Photo Album
Posted Below
March 27, 2004
Abstract: Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
explains that many mysteries are answered
understanding that Condy Rice is not the
true National Security Advisor. She was
hand selected by Bush 41 in the late 90s
to spend two years with his son to teach
him foreign affairs. When he won the
presidency, Bush 41 fully supported her
having the NSA position, where she could
be with his son constantly to monitor
that he would not revert to drugs or
alcohol under the pressures that would
arise in connection with the events of
9-11. Most significantly, Bush 41
encouraged a close personal relationship
between them because it was essential to
his son pulling off his assigned role as
President of the United States in the NWO
quest to obtain control over Middle East
oil.
We want to emphasize
from the start that we may prove wrong on
this assertion, but we firmly believe
that the relationship between President
Bush and Condoleezza Rice as one in
pursuit of an agenda to undermine the
United States of America to wit: to help
allow the President to be complicit with
regard to 9-11 without showing any
consciousness of guilt with regard
thereto. Therefore please permit us to
explain this vital proposition because it
is essential to understand to help prove
the putative wrongdoing.
We noted a consistent
effort by Condy Rice to carry the worse
looking coiffures imaginable and when
coupled with the gap between her front
teeth no one would imagine that there was
any element of outstanding beauty or
sensuality in this woman. It wasn't
something of prominence to us until the
day she told the global press that no one
could imagine that terrorists would use
aircraft as vehicles of terrorism by
running them into buildings. We
immediately wrote that this was a
monumental misspeak by the NSA and that
President Bush would have to let her go.
He didn't. We declared that if he did not
let her go, she would prove to be a major
liability to his re-election and as
interpreted she is proving to be the
case, when refusing to appear before the
9-11 Commission, the Bush administration,
in our opinion, in total fear of
subjecting her to questioning by Richard
Ben-Veniste, Commission Member and
Democratic counsel.
SenderBerl seeing the
increasing liability connective with
Condy Rice noted a photo of the President
and her coming off Marine 1. See photo
below. We raised the question on or about
February 4, 2004, how someone who
genuinely didn't know about the string of
intelligence reports regarding Al-Qaeda's
plan to use aircraft in an act of
terrorism could actually be the operative
NSA. This position was buttressed this
past week when Clarke testified before
the 9-11 Commission and noted that Condy
Rice was de facto ignorant beyond
comprehension about issues connective to
domestic terrorism. Everyone else as
ratified by not only Clarke but Richard
Perle and Richard Armitage confirmed
intelligence of imminent MA Perle and
Richard Armitage confirmed intelligence
of imminent MAJOR terrorism against the
United States. What was not emphasized by
the 9-11 Commission to date is what we
knew right after 9-11: foreign military
powers confirmed that the US was woefully
inadequate on 9-11 in monitoring the
domestic air and sea lanes. This is a
major contradiction to the intelligence
before the President and other high level
officials and genuinely unknown by Condy
Rice the National Security Advisor.
So if she carried the
title of NSA but was did not in reality
operate as the NSA, serving the argument
of Bush administration complicity, what
was her role? On March 26, 2004, after
posting some major writings on Condy
Rice, we did a little digging and there
it was from her own mouth: she spent two
years in the late 90s tutoring Bush 43 on
foreign affairs and spent a great deal of
time with him in doing so.
Having the ability to
interpret their personality profiles, the
tutoring environment gave the student a
lot of time to develop strong feelings
for his teacher. This was confirmed by
Clarke in his testimony.
Then it hit us what
really took place. We believe we grasped
another piece of true picture that was
put into play for this President. This
wasnt just the seedbed for the type
of relationship favored by those of the
aristocratic class, as portrayed above,
but we have concluded that
this was a relationship intentionally put
in play by Bush 41. The
image that came to mind in connecting the
dots was the one when President Bush
joined his parents at the Washington
Cathedral post 9-11. There Bush 41
took Bush 43s hand in a manner that
registered a perception on our part that
he had to be strong to implement the path
he was upon: one where he had to hide any
guilt or remorse when faced with the
tears and pain of the families of the
9-11 victims; one where he had to sit
among those mourning those that died,
knowing the truth of what had taken place
and the reason therefor.
We have produced an
unending array of circumstantial evidence
(the only type currently available) of
shadow government complicity in 9-11.
There is no reason to repeat it. However,
Bush 43 was on stage the minute the first
plane hit the North Tower of the World
Trade Center. Those
center stage and complicit had to be
trained and prepared for their role. Here
is where Condoleezza Rice was
indispensable. While not
being directly complicit herself in 9-11,
in forging a personal relationship with
Bush 43, she showed Bush 43 how to
exercise that aristocratic trait of
carrying on sin in front of his own
family and friends without anyone
suspecting it. This was
essential in giving Bush 43 the
confidence that can only be gained by
successfully demeaning those around you
when he had to discharge a course as
President of the United States in breach
to the welfare of the nation and to his
oath of office. It showed Bush 43 all
that was possible, that
he was able to carry it off,
and that he was of true aristocratic
blood and potential. We urge you not to
underestimate or to quickly dismiss the
import of this perception on our part.
Condolezzaa Rice no
doubt was taken into confidence by Bush
41. We believe Bush 41 approached
Condy Rice to tell her that his son would
one day be President and that he would
encourage him to have her close to him to
allow her to hold a high office in his
administration, in order to be with him
constantly, to allow her to REPORT TO HIM
if and when he weakened and looked to
alcohol and/or drugs (Bush 41
fully anticipating the potential of it
post the needed event of domestic
terrorism to embark on the military
campaign for Middle East oil). Richard
Clarke stated on the record that Clinton
could not get the cooperation of the CIA
and FBI for a major campaign against
Saddam Hussein. We have explained why.
There was no way the oil cartel was going
to allow Clinton, an outsider, to pursue
the most important NWO covert strategy:
to seize control of OPEC. Bush 43 was
going to take on the course and without
preparation to carry deceit and deception
as required, and without the NWO knowing
that he could carry it off to wit: having
to say sorry and cry with the victims of
his own complicity -- without wearing it
on his sleeve or slipping emotionally or
heaven forbid showing some degree
consciousness of guilt (normal reactions
for most of us when participating in such
an evil plan and agenda) -- the
pre-emptive doctrines could not arise to
justify the plan to invade Iraq and then
upon use or finding WMD to proceed
against Syria and Iran.
Thus assuming
the truth of our perceptions that Bush
and Rice had a continuing sexual
relationship, while both of them spent
their time with his family and the
nation, without anyone suspecting
anything, Bush 43 could carry the
confidence that he could pull off his
role post 9-11. We long have
said even before formulating this
perception that Saddam was kept around
for the purpose of implementing the NWO
agenda seen post 9-11. Thus, if the case,
it is a given that Bush 43 had to be
trained and prepared to carry forth the
most duplicitous role imaginable, short
of the NWO taking control of his mind to
operate him as a Manchurian candidate.
Thus, if a relationship is proven true,
the important perception is not that Bush
and Rice are both beneath contempt, but
that the relationship is strong further
circumstantial evidence of Bush 43's
training in terms of facing and dealing
with 9-11 and thus his complicity therein
as otherwise argued, shown and proved by
our site.
Between Febrarury 4th
and today Condoleezza has been
photographed time and time again as an
angry and bitter person (see photos
below). We believe she has come to
understand that she is not the NSA. Can
she have been that stupid? No. It was
that she was that loyal and put her trust
in people who use those all around them
but never ever for a minute saw her as
nothing more dear to them than a house
pet. There is nothing that gets someone
like Condy Rice more angry and bitter
than that. She was willing to give her
life for the Bushes. She has already
given her body. Now, she realizes that
when all is said and done the commitment
to her is a shadow of the sacrifices she
stood ready to give to them. What Condy
Rice now realizes is what the string of
NWO pawns and puppets will all one day
realize: they have been played and used
as dupes. They have to understand that
while brains are commonplace in their
world, "class" is not. They
cannot fathom the true qualities of what
is required of noblemen and aristocrats.
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. always has
understood them and thus has done what it
could to tell those who think they stand
among the elite that they too are nothing
more than glorified house pets. The
aristocrats, as they always have been,
are aligned with agendas of evil. This
time they have gone one more step
however: they moved out to eliminate G-d
from peoples future in the belief
that without G-d they will be better able
enslave their fellow man and forever
eliminate the elements of opportunity and
justice for them.
These are not
personal matters. These are matters of
State. The President of the
United States put into Executive Office
an NSA whom he knew was ignorant and
inattentive to the Al-Qaeda threat and
necessarily so.
PICK UP THE PHONE AND
TAKE A PEN AND CALL AND WRITE ABOUT YOUR
WANTING ANSWERS REGARDING 911 AND YOUR
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT A WHITEWASH. WE POST
BELOW THE QUESTIONS FOR BUSH PREPARED BY
THE FAMILIES OF 911 VICTIMS. TELL THEM
YOU WANT THEM ALL ANSWERED (AS YOU KNOW
WE ARE PARTIAL TO GETTING ANSWERS TO
NUMBERS 14 AND 15 WHICH WE BELIEVE SHOULD
BE QUESTIONS 1 AND 2).
P.S. One of our
favorite expositions showing the Bushes
for who they are is when we compared Bush
41 to Jessica Lynch. See http://www.senderberl.com/ps/index.html#L2 . On one dimension
Bush 41 seems to be the successful
father, President of the United States
with a son occupying the same high
office. However, if there is a book of
life and a book of death as we have
proffered, it is Jessica Lynch who will
reap all the rewards and the Bushes the
very opposite. See http://www.senderberl.com/ps/index.html#justice

|
This is a shot
Condy rarely allows. It shows the
side of her she intends to hide.
This is her usual TV shot (and a
lot worse): 
|

|
Without question,
this is a rare shot and revealing
one. Look at Bush's open eye and
look at Condy's face. You see it
or you don't. Likewise below here
is another atypical shot of Condi
coming off with Bush from Marine
1 from Camp David. 
|

|
This
shot was taken this past week and
shows a very angry and unhappy
Condy Rice wearing her emotions
on her sleeve.
|

|
Condy works at
time at looking pretty horrid.
Here's another example and there
are worse than these: 
|

|
Here's
Condy receiving a televised award
wanting to make sure no one sees
her as attractive or an object of
interest by the opposite sex.
|

|
Here she is
happy. Another rare shot. Here
below is a shot of our President
happy, having a fun time with the
one he spends most of his time
with. He doesn't deserve it.
Jessica Lynch deserves it.

|

|
Here she is
when we believe she is starting
to recognize that she has been
given the boot and has been de
facto a house pet.
|

|
Her leaning
on Bush's chair before world
photographers attests to the
closeness of their relationship
and that she is very unhappy and
angry with the President.
|

|
OUR FIRST
PUBLIC EXPRESSION ON FEB 4 04 AND
THE PHOTO IT WAS PLATFORMED UPON
A NSA who is
trembling about 9-11, admitting
to standing without knowledge
about terrorists planning to
deploy airplanes against
buildings. She didn't lie to the
media under the intense first
spotlights of 9-11. It would have
been prima facie evidence that
someone so stupid could hold such
an important post. Thus, if she
didn't lie, and otherwise didn't
know, why is she in every central
photo next to the President of
the United States, including the
one where the President was kept
waiting for Jiang Zemin's arrival
at his Crawford ranch? She looks
as though she has a central role,
and is ever present as though she
has a central role, but how can
someone in such a central role
not know what she should have
known as NSA and now stands
afraid to testify before the 9-11
commission, which exists to
whitewash 9-11 (unless she's not
privy to that either)? She has an
important role. But what is it?
|
Marilyn Monroe: Happy
Birthday Mr. President 2004?
April 21, 2004
Political Conversation:
Condis Slip
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/n_10245/
A pressing issue of dinner-party
etiquette is vexing Washington, according
to a story now making the D.C. rounds:
How should you react when your guest, in
this case national-security adviser Condoleezza
Rice, makes a poignant faux pas? At a
recent dinner party hosted by New York Times
D.C. bureau chief Philip Taubman
and his wife, Times reporter Felicity
Barringer, and attended by Arthur
Sulzberger Jr., Maureen Dowd, Steven
Weisman, and Elisabeth Bumiller,
Rice was reportedly overheard saying, As
I was telling my husb and then stopping
herself abruptly, before saying, As
I was telling President Bush. Jaws
dropped, but
a guest says the slip by the unmarried
politician, who spends
weekends with the president and his wife,
seemed more
psychologically telling than
incriminating. Nobody
thinks Bush and Rice are actually an
item. A National Security Council
spokesman laughed and said, No
comment.
Sender,
Berl & Sons Inc. uniquely
foreshadowed and explained the meaning of
this new Rice faux pax.
www.senderberl.com/bushrice.htm
Sender,
Berl & Sons Inc. in a radio interview
just last evening in Washington D.C.
pointed out that Colin Powell's now
public disclosure of a "separate
government" operating from within
the Bush administration allows the public
to reassess Rice's role as a cover for
those complicit in the deeds of
9-11.Rice, perhaps based on our own
public analysis of the deep dynamics of
her true role, widely accessed and read
globally, probably now responds to the
recognition that everyone from father to
son has played her to the hilt. She
further has concluded that her previous
honest deferral to Cheney and "his
experience" was part and parcel of
the shadow government playing her the
fool, now one that has to politically
abandon her. Thus Rice is in a parallel
psychological dynamic to Marilyn Monroe
in her telling slip at Madison Square
Garden some 40 years ago.
Comment 
Events of this past week have proven
distressing and further disturbing
IF
YOU STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT, CONDY RICE
IS TELLING US SHE WAS NOT AND IS NOT THE
NSA. SHE CANNOT DENY IT, BUT CAN OPEN THE
PORTAL FOR US TO MOVE ON IT. COLIN POWELL
NO DOUBT AGREES WITH OUR PERSPECTIVE AND
HE'S HARD PRESSED TO PUBLICLY COMMENT ON
IT.
Is Colin
Powell Sending a Message to Condoleezza
Rice?
Isn't this
proof positive that Condy Rice was not
and is not the NSA?
"She
told the commission that she regretted
those comments, because at the
time she was not aware of intelligence,
developed in the late 1990's, that
some terrorists were thinking of using
airplanes as guided missiles. She
told the commission in the private
session that she should have said,
"I
could not have imagined," according
to one official familiar with the
testimony, making it clear that some in
the intelligence community knew
about those threats but that she did not.
"Information
about possible use of airplanes as
missiles to destroy buildings was not
briefed to her prior to that statement in
May 2002," Mr.
McCormack said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/politics/07PANE.html
SenderBerl: Eight
months after 9-11, Cheney is filling the
airwaves with the imminence of further
domestic terrorism and the president's
own National Security Advisor was not
briefed EIGHT MONTHS AFTER 9-11 that
there was intellignce BEFORE 9-11 on
MULTIPLE FRONTS about terrorists using
airplances to destroy buildings?
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4712842.html
BEST RECENT
EDITORIAL WE CAME ACROSS...
SENDERBERL IN MAY 2002 DETAILED THAT
CONDY RICE'S REMARKS ABOUT NO ONE
IMAGINING TERRORISTS USING AIRPLANES TO
STRIKE BUILDINGS AS THE PREDICATE TO NOT
ONLY HER DOWNFALL BUT ALSO PRESIDENT
BUSH'S. NOW SHE HAS ADMITTED TO NOT
KNOWING ABOUT REPORTS AS NSA SHE
ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FULLY AWARE
ABOUT. NOW SHE HAS ALSO MADE ANOTHER
DAMAGING STATEMENT, SAYING THAT PRESIDENT
BUSH WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN PLANS THAT
WOULD ALLOW HIM TO DO MORE THAN SWAT AT
FLIES. THERE ARE VERY FEW STRATIGIES THAT
WOULD HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT
HE WANTED. RICHARD PERLE DE FACTO
ADMITTED ON MEET THE PRESS WHAT PAUL
O'NEILL CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAD PLANS IN
HAND -- ONES THAT AWAITED DOMESTIC
TERRORISM. THUS, 9-11 PRIMARILY AND
UNIQUELY ASSISTED THE PRIORITIES OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE
EVIDENCE CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND NOW DIRECT
CLEARLY PROVES THAT AT MINIMUM 9-11 WAS
ALLOWED TO HAPPEN..
SENDERBERL
ALSO WAS THE FIRST TO RAISE THE ISSUE
THAT CONDY RICE IS NOT THE NATIONAL
SECURITY ADVISOR, TO ASK THEN WHAT WAS
HER ROLE, AND TO GIVE THE DIFFICULT
ANSWER TO THIS IMPORTANT MYSTERY.
FIRST, HERE IS HOW WE PRESENTED IT ON FEB
4 2004
February 16, 2004
The Family Steering Committee believes
that President Bush should provide sworn
public testimony to the full ten-member
panel of the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States .
Collectively, the Commissioners are
responsible for fulfilling the
Congressional mandate. Therefore, each
Commissioner must have full access to the
testimony of all individuals and the
critical information that will enable
informed decisions and recommendations.
Before an audience of the American
people, the Commission must ask President
Bush in sworn testimony, the following
questions:
1. As Commander-in-Chief on the morning
of 9/11, why didnt you return
immediately to Washington, D.C. or the
National Military Command Center once you
became aware that America was under
attack? At specifically what time did you
become aware that America was under
attack? Who informed you of this fact?
2. On the morning of 9/11, who was in
charge of our country while you were away
from the National Military Command
Center? Were you informed or consulted
about all decisions made in your absence?
3. What defensive action did you
personally order to protect our nation
during the crisis on September 11th? What
time were these orders given, and to
whom? What orders were carried out? What
was the result of such orders? Were any
such orders not carried out?
4. In your opinion, why was our nation so
utterly unprepared for an attack on our
own soil?
5. U.S. Navy Captain Deborah Loewer, the
Director of the White House Situation
Room, informed you of the first airliner
hitting Tower One of the World Trade
Center before you entered the Emma E.
Booker Elementary School in Sarasota,
Florida. Please explain the reason why
you decided to continue with the
scheduled classroom visit, fifteen
minutes after learning the first hijacked
airliner had hit the World Trade Center.
6. Is it normal procedure for the
Director of the White House Situation
Room to travel with you? If so, please
cite any prior examples of when this
occurred. If not normal procedure, please
explain the circumstances that led to the
Director of the White House Situation
Room being asked to accompany you to
Florida during the week of September
11th.
7. What plan of action caused you to
remain seated after Andrew Card informed
you that a second airliner had hit the
second tower of the World Trade Center
and America was clearly under attack?
Approximately how long did you remain in
the classroom after Cards message?
8. At what time were you made aware that
other planes were hijacked in addition to
Flight 11 and Flight 175? Who notified
you? What was your course of action as
Commander-in-Chief of the United States?
9. Beginning with the transition period
between the Clinton administration and
your own, and ending on 9/11/01,
specifically what information (either
verbal or written) about terrorists,
possible attacks and targets, did you
receive from any source?
This would include briefings or
communications from
Out-going Clinton officials
CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD and other
intelligence agencies
Foreign intelligence, governments,
dignitaries or envoys
National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice
Richard Clarke, former
counterterrorism czar
10. Specifically, what did you learn from
the August 6, 2001, PDB about the
terrorist threat that was facing our
nation? Did you request any follow-up
action to take place? Did you request any
further report be developed and/or
prepared?
11. As Commander-in-Chief, from May 1,
2001 until September 11, 2001, did you
receive any information from any
intelligence agency official or agent
that UBL was planning to attack this
nation on its own soil using airplanes as
weapons, targeting New York City
landmarks during the week of September
11, 2001 or on the actual day of
September 11, 2001?
12. What defensive measures did you take
in response to pre-9/11 warnings from
eleven nations about a terrorist attack,
many of which cited an attack in the
continental United States? Did you
prepare any directives in response to
these actions? If so, with what results?
13. As Commander-in-Chief from May 1,
2001 until September 11, 2001, did you or
any agent of the United States government
carry out any negotiations or talks with
UBL, an agent of UBL, or al-Qaeda? During
that same period, did you or any agent of
the United States government carry out
any negotiations or talks with any
foreign government, its agents, or
officials regarding UBL? If so, what
resulted?
14. Your schedule
for September 11, 2001 was in the public
domain since September 7, 2001. The Emma
E. Booker School is only five miles from
the Bradenton Airport, so you, and
therefore the children in the classroom,
might have been a target for the
terrorists on 9/11. What was the
intention of the Secret Service in
allowing you to remain in the Emma E.
Booker Elementary School, even though
they were aware America was under attack?
15. Please explain why you remained at
the Sarasota, Florida, Elementary School
for a press conference after you had
finished listening to the children read,
when as a terrorist target, your presence
potentially jeopardized the lives of the
children?
16. What was the purpose of the several
stops of Air Force One on September 11th?
Was Air Force One at any time during the
day of September 11th a target of the
terrorists? Was Air Force Ones code
ever breached on September 11th?
17. Was there a reason for Air Force One
lifting off without a military escort,
even after ample time had elapsed to
allow military jets to arrive?
18. What prompted your refusal to release
the information regarding foreign
sponsorship of the terrorists, as
illustrated in the inaccessible 28
redacted pages in the Joint Intelligence
Committee Inquiry Report? What actions
have you personally taken since 9/11 to
thwart foreign sponsorship of terrorism?
19. Who approved the flight of the bin
Laden family out of the United States
when all commercial flights were
grounded, when there was time for only
minimal questioning by the FBI, and
especially, when two of those same
individuals had links to WAMY, a charity
suspected of funding terrorism? Why were
bin Laden family members granted that
special privilegea privilege not
available to American families whose
loved ones were killed on 9/11?
20. Please explain why no one in any
level of our government has yet been held
accountable for the countless failures
leading up to and on 9/11?
21. Please comment on the fact that
UBLs profile on the FBIs
Ten Most Wanted Fugitives poster does
not include the 9/11 attacks. To your
knowledge, when was the last time any
agent of our government had contact with
UBL? If prior to 9/11, specifically what
was the date of that contact and what was
the context of said meeting.
22. Do you continue to maintain that
Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda?
What proof do you have of any
connection between al-Qaeda and the
Hussein regime?
23. Which individuals, governments,
agencies, institutions, or groups may
have benefited from the attacks of 9/11?
Please state specifically how you think
they have benefited.
===
Questions For
Condoleezza Rice
from the Joint Intelligence Committee
Inquiry Appendix
1. As stated in the Appendix of the
Joint Inquiry of Congress Final
Report:
Despite the White House decision
[to deny access to the PDBs], the Joint
Inquiry was advised by Intelligence
Community representatives of the content
of an August 2001 PDB item that is
discussed in the report. This glimpse
into that PDB indicated the importance of
such access
[--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------]*
*National Security Advisor Condoleezza
Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press
briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the
Presidents Daily Brief (PDB)
included information about Bin
Ladins methods of operation from a
historical perspective dating back to
1997. One of the methods was that Bin
Ladin might choose to hijack an airliner
in order to hold passengers hostage to
gain release of one of their operatives.
She stated, however, that the report did
not contain specific warning information,
but only a generalized warning, and did
not contain information that
al-Qaida was discussing a
particular planned attack against a
specific target at any specific time,
place, or by any specific method.
(Joint Inquiry Final Report, Appendix,
"Access Limitations Encountered by
the Joint Inquiry," pages 1-2).
Ms. Rice can you reconcile this intimated
discrepancy?
Terrorism as a Policy Priority
1. During your time as National Security
Advisor, what priorities did you
establish for U.S. Intelligence
priorities and where did terrorism fit
in? How did this change from the
priorities of the Clinton administration?
2. How were these priorities conveyed to
the intelligence Community? Did the
intelligence Community propose any
changes in priority with regard to
counterterrorism or al-Qaida? What
were they?
3. Prior to September 11, who at the
National Security Council and the U.S.
government played a leading role in
setting counterterrorism policy? Who else
was involved in this process? Please
describe the process, the participants
and the fora.
4. Prior to September 11, did Congress
support the NSCs counterterrorism
efforts? Did Congress oppose NSC
priorities related to terrorism in any
way? Please provide details of both, as
appropriate.
5. Was Richard Clarke, the National
Coordinator for counterterrorism,
included all in Principals meetings
related to terrorism after January 2002?
If not, why not? How was it determined
who would be involved in such meetings?
What was his role in counterterrorism
policy and intelligence prioritization
after January 2002?
6. During the transition from the Clinton
administration, did former National
Security Adviser Sandy Berger or other
senior Clinton NSC officials provide any
advice, information, warning, or guidance
requiring policy, priorities, or threats
from al-Qaida and Bin Ladin? If so,
what was the advice, information,
warning, or guidance?
7. Prior to September 11, was the
Administration engaged in a review of
counterterrorism policy? What issues were
identified for change? What stage were
plans in? What changes in the role of the
intelligence Community, if any, were
planned? What happened to the review
after the September 11 attacks?
8. When the new Administration came into
office, was it aware that Usama bin Ladin
had declared war on the United States in
1998? Who provided this information, and
how was it provided? What was the impact
of that fact on the Administrations
national security priorities? How did it
affect the intelligence Communitys
posture?
9. Prior to September 11, did the
President or other senior officials in
the administration make any public
statements or give any speeches on the
subject of the threat of terrorism, or
Usama bin Ladins terrorist network
in particular? If so, please make copies
available to the (Joint Inquiry Staff)?
Resources
1. Prior to September 11, did the
Intelligence Community come to the new
Administration with any requests for
additional counterterrorism resources,
e.g. additional funding? Who made the
request, and what was the nature of the
proposal?
2. Did the Intelligence Community ask the
Administration for more resources to
fight Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida?
Who made this request?
3. Did the Intelligence Community ever
cite a lack of resources as the basis for
not acting? If so, provide details and
the NSC response.
4. When the DCI, Director of NSA, and FBI
Director requested more counterterrorism
resources, what was the stated
justification for their requests?
5. What was the NSCs response to
each specific Intelligence Community
request for any increases in resources
for counterterrorism? For al-Qaida?
Agency responsiveness and support for
policy makers
1. What specific strengths did you
observe in intelligence collection,
analysis, and reporting on Bin Ladin,
al-Qaida or terrorism in general
prior to September 11? What specific
weaknesses? Please provide specific
examples of each.
2. What was the quality of intelligence
received by the NSC? Did the NSC make any
efforts to improve this quality?
3. With respect to Intelligence Community
counterterrorism efforts prior to
September 11, how responsive were the
CIA, the FBI, NSA, and DIA?
--Did they provide the President and the
National Security Council with the
information needed to make informed
decisions?
--Did the agencies use their authority
aggressively? Did they cite limits or a
lack of authority as a basis for no
action?
--Did they shift resources appropriately
in response to NSC direction?
--Did the NSC provide any specific
tasking to Intelligence Community
agencies to which they did not respond?
Please provide specific examples.
Threat to the homeland
1. Prior to September 11, including
especially spring/summer 2001, what
information did the Intelligence
Community provide to the National
Security Council, orally or in writing,
indicating the possibility of terrorist
attacks inside the United States?
2. Prior to September 11, what
information did the Intelligence
Community provide to the National
Security Council on al-Qaida
activities and infrastructure inside the
United States?
3. Prior to September 11, did the
National Security Council ever consider
alerting the American people to the
internal threat from al-Qaida? What
happened?
4. Did the National Security Council ever
consider enhancing U.S. border controls,
e.g., by strengthening watchlist
programs, alerting the FAA or the
airlines, or inspecting cargo containers
on a larger scale? If so, what happened?
5. Prior to September 11, what was the
National Security councils view
regarding how well postured the FBI was
with respect to combating terrorist
groups inside the United States? What
steps were taken to improve the FBI, if
any?
6. Prior to September 11, did the
Intelligence Community provide the NSC
with any information regarding the
possibility that al-Qaida members
would use airplanes as weapons or hijack
airplanes in the United States? What did
the NSC do in response to this
information?
Foreign governments
1. Prior to September 11, which foreign
governments were most and least helpful
regarding counterterrorism? How were they
helpful or not helpful in each case?
2. Prior to September 11, were the
governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
supportive of U.S. counterterrorism
efforts? How responsive were European
allies? What priority was
counterterrorism cooperation in Saudi
Arabia relative to military operations
against Iraq, the Middle East peace
negotiations, and other concerns?
3. Did Intelligence Community agencies
ask for NSC assistance in getting foreign
governments to take action against
terrorist cells? Did the NSC take any
specific actions to support the
Intelligence Community? What did the NSC
do? Did the NSC ask or instruct the State
Department or the Department of Defense
to assist the intelligence Community in
this regard?
4. Prior to September 11, was there any
discussion of increasing information
sharing and/or counterterrorism
cooperation with the Sudan?
Use of Force/Overt and Covert
1. Prior to September 11, did the
National Security Council consider the
use of military force against
al-Qaida in Afghanistan? How? In
what form? Why was it not pursued? Was
there sufficient intelligence to support
military options? Was their tasking to
gain further intelligence to support
military operations?
2. Prior to September 11, did the
National Security Council issue any
tasking to the CIA or the U.S. military
to develop plans involving the covert or
overt use of force?
3. Prior to September 11, did the
National Security Council ever review the
CIAs authorities to conduct covert
action against Bin Ladin or
al-Qaida? What problems were
identified regarding existing
authorities, [-----------]? Were there
any proposals to change those authorities
before September 11th? What steps were
taken?
4. Prior to September 11, was the unarmed
Predator flown in Afghanistan after the
Bush Administration came into office?
Were proposals made to the NSC to fly it?
Which participants favored flying it? If
it was not flown, why not?
5. Did the National Security Council
support the development of the armed
Predator? Did any administration official
try to expedite the process? Were any
discussions held on this issue at the
NSC? Who participated?
6. Did you consider [------------]? Why
or why not? What impact did you expect?
7. Why was there no military response to
the attack on the USS Cole? Was this
considered?
Recommendations
1. What recommendations would you make to
improve the intelligence communitys
performance?
SenderBerl's
March 26 2004 posting:
SenderBerl
Believes Deep Mysteries Connect to Condy
Rice...

There is
interest in our proposition that
Condoleezza Rice is not the National
Security Advisor. Because of the interest
in our own proposition, we looked at her
biography on the White House Internet
site http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html.We are going from
memory, but what is missing there is that
she has a strong nexus to the the James
Baker Institute at Rice University.
Further, there is nothing personal at all
in the biography but for the date of her
birth. We warned that she would prove to
be Bush's Achilles heel and we have
attempted to portray the problem and
situation with dignity. However, it
appears that the President knows what he
has done with Dr. Rice, and further it is
plainly evident from the photos of Dr.
Rice on this page alone that there is
another reason we know she cannot be the
National Security Advisor: she
lacks the ability to keep her anger and
emotions in check. You cannot have a
person who wears her feelings on her
sleeve occupy such a sensitive role in
the Executive Office unless...
She first
met George W. Bush in 1995 when she
happened to be in Texas visiting his
father. They talked mostly about their
shared passion -- sports. Bush, in his
first year as Texas governor, had neither
foreign policy nor the presidency on his
mind. But by August 1998, when they were
together again at the Bush family house
in Kennebunkport, Maine, that had
changed. "In between tennis games
and going out on the boat and sitting out
on the back porch we would have
conversations about what foreign policy
challenges would face the next
president," Rice said last week in
an interview. As Rice ran on the
treadmill and Bush worked out on a
glider, the college professor
began a two-year tutorial of her most
important student yet. Bush has
said that he likes Rice because she
explains issues in a way he can
understand. *** Soon she concluded that
she had neither the single-minded focus
nor the natural talent to become a top
pianist and went shopping for a new
major. She was turned onto international
studies by Joseph Korbel,
who would become her first mentor.
(Korbel died before his daughter -- Madeleine
Albright -- would become
secretary of state.) By 1981, she was on
the faculty of Stanford University, and
by 1986, she was considered an expert on
Soviet military and arms control. That
year she attended a lecture by Scowcroft,
asking a question she considers
"slightly rude," but which
impressed the retired general. She had
challenged the very premise of a
commission of which he was chairman, and
he approached her after the lecture.
"I don't think anybody's ever asked
me that," he said, impressed by both
her boldness and her analysis. When
George Bush was elected president in
1988, Scowcroft became national security
adviser and recruited Rice. She
was never a top tier policy aide in the
White House, but her timing was perfect.
The Berlin Wall collapsed, the Soviet
Union was crumbling, and she was part of
the team that developed U.S. policy. ***
And even if she is an expert on Russia
and Eastern Europe, what about the Middle
East, China and Latin America? Rice
responds that every scholar has to
specialize in something. Family: Single,
no children Age-Birth Date: 46, born
November 14, 1954, in Birmingham, Ala. http://quest.cjonline.com/stories/121800/gen_1218007462.shtml

Though it
has not yet been announced officially,
Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national
security adviser for the past two years,
will hold the post in the administration.
While she served in the NSC under Reagan
handling Russian affairs, her mentor is
Scowcroft. Rice, who
will be the first woman to serve in the
position, has little experience in Middle
East issues, though she recently visited
Israel for a quick tutorial. "What
you will have is two institutions
grappling for control of policy, and a
weak National Security Council,"
said one informal Bush foreign policy
adviser who may join the administration.
Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national
security adviser-designate, is largely
expected to focus on Russia policy and to
be muscled out of Middle East decisions
by vice president Dick Cheney and by
Rumsfeld and Powell and their teams. Cheney
is considered such a key player on
foreign policy that people in Washington
have started to refer to his staff as a
"shadow national security
council." And while because
of his business background he is
routinely referred to as an "oil
man" by people in the pro-Israel
community (a moniker which translates
roughly as "not sympathetic to
Israel"), how Cheney will relate to
the Arab-Israeli conflict remains largely
unknown. http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/01/18/Features/Features.19844.html Condoleezza
Rice, National Security Advisor and
super-hawk of the Bush Administration, is
a former director of ChevronTexaco and
continues to maintain strong ties to the
company. Chevron and
Texaco executives, prior to the company
merger, advised Vice President Dick
Cheney on energy policy, both directly
through the Energy Task Force and through
the company's close ties to the Council
on Foreign Relations.

SenderBerl cannot
rest knowing the truths behind 9-11.
SenderBerl cannot accept the acquiescence
of the American people to their own
subjugation by those who have no respect
whatsoever for them, who lie, who deceive
and who have plans to make America a
third world nation. SenderBerl cannot
accept that there has been a silent coup
to pursue the course of one world
government, denying the American people
forever a choice of true representation
and democracy, and ultimately allowing
evisceration of the Constitution, our
government, our heritage with extirpation
of the Judeo-Christian ethic and thereby
denying the American people justice. The
enemies of America like the enemies of
Israel are not beyond their borders, they
are among the leadership. The long
perceived effort to remove G-d from the
people of Israel and the United States
and to implant hedonism and to
institutionalize drugs and other vices
and improper values to the children of
both countries compelled us to do what we
could. This effort is reflected in large
part through this site. We have no
primary qualm with Condoleezza Rice. She
sees those pursuing evil around her as
friends, albeit recently from looking at
the photographs on this page, she has
begun to realize that she has been
nothing more than a house pet. Most of
those pawns used by the NWO true
leadership have been manipulated as
willing and complicit dupes. They cannot
fathom the depth of the evil that
surrounds them.

Extracted
from Rense.com http://www.rense.com/general50/bushrice.htm
- RICE CLAIM:
"I don't think anybody could
have predicted that they would
try to use an airplane as a
missile, a hijacked airplane as a
missile." National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
-
- * FACT: On August
6, 2001, the President personally
"received a one-and-a-half
page briefing advising him that
Osama bin Laden was capable of a
major strike against the US, and
that the plot could include the
hijacking of an American
airplane." In July 2001, the
Administration was also told that
terrorists had explored using
airplanes as missiles. [Source:
NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
-
- * RICE CLAIM: In
May 2002, Rice held a press
conference to defend the
Administration from new
revelations that the President
had been explicitly warned about
an al Qaeda threat to airlines in
August 2001. She "suggested
that Bush had requested the
briefing because of his keen
concern about elevated terrorist
threat levels that summer."
[Source: Washington Post,
3/25/04]
-
- * FACT: According
to the CIA, the briefing
"was not requested by
President Bush." As
commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste
disclosed, "the CIA informed
the panel that the author of the
briefing does not recall such a
request from Bush and that the
idea to compile the briefing came
from within the CIA."
[Source: Washington Post,
3/25/04]
-
- * RICE CLAIM:
"In June and July when the
threat spikes were so high.we
were at battle stations."
National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
-
- * FACT:
"Documents indicate that
before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not
give terrorism top billing in his
strategic plans for the Justice
Department, which includes the
FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's
'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9,
2001, does not put fighting
terrorism as one of the
department's seven goals, ranking
it as a sub-goal beneath gun
violence and drugs. By contrast,
in April 2000, Ashcroft's
predecessor, Janet Reno, called
terrorism 'the most challenging
threat in the criminal justice
area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush
Administration decided to
terminate "a highly
classified program to monitor Al
Qaeda suspects in the United
States." [Source: Washington
Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]
-
- * RICE CLAIM:
"The fact of the matter is
[that] the administration focused
on this before 9/11."
National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 * FACT:
President Bush and Vice President
Cheney's counterterrorism task
force, which was created in May,
never convened one single
meeting. The President himself
admitted that "I didn't feel
the sense of urgency" about
terrorism before 9/11. [Source:
Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob
Woodward's "Bush at
War"]
-
- * RICE CLAIM:
"Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan
called for military options to
attack al Qaeda and Taliban
leadership, ground forces and
other targets -- taking the fight
to the enemy where he
lived." National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
-
- * FACT: 9/11
Commissioner Gorelick:
"There is nothing in the
NSPD that came out that we could
find that had an invasion plan, a
military plan." Deputy
Secretary of State Richard
Armitage: "Right."
Gorelick: "Is it true, as
Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called
for military options to attack Al
Qaida and Taliban
leadership'?" Armitage:
"No, I think that was
amended after the horror of
9/11." [Source: 9/11
Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
-
- (The above five
sets of claim vs fact quotes from
Moveon.org)
-
- "We Should
Have Had Orange or Red-Type of
Alert in June/July of 2001"
-
- By Eric Boehlert
Salon.com 3-26-4
-
- A former FBI
translator told the 9/11
commission that the bureau had
detailed information well before
Sept. 11, 2001, that terrorists
were likely to attack the U.S.
with airplanes.
-
- A former FBI
wiretap translator with
top-secret security clearance,
who has been called "very
credible" by Sen. Charles
Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon
she recently testified to the
National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States
that the FBI had detailed
information prior to Sept. 11,
2001, that a terrorist attack
involving airplanes was being
plotted.
-
- Referring to the
Homeland Security Department's
color-coded warnings instituted
in the wake of 9/11, the former
translator, Sibel Edmonds, told
Salon, "We should have had
orange or red-type of alert in
June or July of 2001. There was
that much information
available." Edmonds is
offended by the Bush White House
claim that it lacked
foreknowledge of the kind of
attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11.
"Especially after reading
National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice where she said,
we had no specific information
whatsoever of domestic threat or
that they might use airplanes.
That's an outrageous lie. And
documents can prove it's a
lie."
-
- Edmonds' charge
comes when the Bush White House
is trying to fend off former
counterterrorism chief Richard A.
Clarke's testimony that it did
not take serious measures to
combat the threat of Islamic
terrorism, and al-Qaida
specifically, in the months
leading up to 9/11.
-
- Edmonds, who is
Turkish-American, is a 10-year
U.S. citizen who has passed a
polygraph examination conducted
by FBI investigators. She speaks
fluent Farsi, Arabic and Turkish
and worked part-time for the FBI,
making $32 an hour for six
months, beginning Sept. 20, 2001.
She was assigned to the FBI's
investigation into Sept. 11
attacks and other
counterterrorism and
counterintelligence cases, where
she translated reams of documents
seized by agents who, for the
previous year, had been rounding
up suspected terrorists.
-
- She says those
tapes, often connected to
terrorism, money laundering or
other criminal activity, provide
evidence that should have made
apparent that an al- Qaida plot
was in the works. Edmonds cannot
talk in detail about the tapes
publicly because she's been under
a Justice Department gag order
since 2002.
-
- "President
Bush said they had no specific
information about Sept. 11, and
that's accurate," says
Edmonds. "But there was
specific information about use of
airplanes, that an attack was on
the way two or three months
beforehand and that several
people were already in the
country by May of 2001. They
should've alerted the people to
the threat we're facing."
-
- Edmonds testified
before 9/11 commission staffers
in February for more than three
hours, providing detailed
information about FBI
investigations, documents and
dates. This week Edmonds attended
the commission hearings and plans
to return in April when FBI
Director Robert Mueller is
scheduled to testify. "I'm
hoping the commission asks him
real questions -- like, in April
2001, did an FBI field office
receive legitimate information
indicating the use of airplanes
for an attack on major cities?
And is it true that through an
FBI informant, who'd been used
[by the Bureau] for 10 years, did
you get information about
specific terrorist plans and
specific cells in this country?
He couldn't say no," she
insists.
-
- Edmonds first made
headlines in 2002 when she blew
the whistle on the FBI's
translation department, which was
suddenly thrown into the
spotlight as investigators
clamored for original
terrorist-related information,
often in Arabic. Edmonds made
several reports of serious
misconduct, security lapses and
gross incompetence in the FBI
translations unit, including
supervisors who told translators
to work slowly during the crucial
post-9/11 period to ensure the
agency would get more funds for
its next annual budget. As a
result of her reports, Edmonds
says she was harassed at the FBI.
She was fired in March 2002.
-
- Litigation
followed, and in October 2002,
Attorney General John Ashcroft
asked the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia to
dismiss the Edmonds case, taking
the extraordinary step of
invoking the rarely used state
secrets privilege in order
"to protect the foreign
policy and national security
interests of the United
States." Ashcroft's move was
made at the request of Mueller.
-
- During a 2002
segment on "60 Minutes"
exploring Edmonds' initial
charges of FBI internal abuses,
Sen. Grassley was asked if
Edmonds is credible. "She's
credible and the reason I feel
she's very credible is because
people within the FBI have
corroborated a lot of her
story," he said.
-
- The Inspector
General's office then launched an
investigation into Edmonds'
charges and told her to expect a
finding in the fall of 2002. The
report has yet to be released.
Edmonds suspects if it is ever
publicly released Ashcroft will
demand that it be immediately
classified. "They're pushing
everything under the blanket of
secrecy," she says.
-
- That's why she
felt it was so important to
appear before the 9/11
commission: "It's the only
hope I have left to get this
issue added to the public
domain."
Analysis:
Richard Clarke -- Meet the Press -- March
28, 2004
Richard
Clarkes remarks and revelations on
Meet the Press are so vital to the public
interest that we decided on top of all
else we have recently done to highlight
and analyze what he said in the context
of 9-11.
First, we want to say
that it is shameful that it takes the
courage of one man to represent the
oversight that should have been the task
and burden of government. If we had loyal
government officials Clarke would not
have to stand alone, as he does, in the
attempt to tell the American public that
something is seriously amiss with
government. Jessica Lynch and Richard
Clarke have done a great deal to serve
and save our nation and the tragedy is
that we can offer the accolades to two
people, both of whom have been targeted
in their own special ways to be forever
forgotten. Thus, it is incumbent for us
to keep bringing up their contribution
and it is imperative that you dont
let their sacrifices to the nation
expire. What about Richard Clarke making
money on his book. As he alluded to
today, he will be an outcast instead of a
hero until and unless Kerry comes into
power. If Bush wins a second term, heaven
forbid, he will not get the time of day
because thats the way Washington
plays the game, it feels it has no choice
but to bow to the powers seated in the
Oval office. However, if the treachery of
the Bush administration unravels,
Washington and the rest of the country
will -- and it better -- hang Bush, the
oil cabal, and all those complicit in
9-11.
Now, what is
important is that Richard Clarke filled
in some vital missing links of
information that compels us to now
conclude that Condy Rice was a knowing
member of the NWO agenda regarding 9-11.
While we knew she did carry board
memberships with ExxonMobil and
TexacoChevron, we didnt think she
would sink that low to be complicit in
the deaths of 3000 souls on 9-11.
However, it appears that we were
mistaken.
Now, to the analysis
(based on excerpts in sequential
order)
MR. RUSSERT: But
to be clear, Mr. Clarke, you would urge
Congress, the intelligence committees, to
declassify your sworn testimony before
the congressional inquiry two years ago
as well as your testimony before the
September 11th Commission?
MR. CLARKE: Yes,
and those documents I just referred to
and Dr. Rice's testimony before the 9-11
Commission because the victims' families
have no idea what Dr. Rice has said
*** SenderBerl: One
of the reasons for Rice foregoing public
testimony is the hope that it keeps her
remarks (not under oath) away from those,
like ourselves, who wish to scrutinize
it. Quite frankly, what Richard Clarke
said today on Meet the Press says it all
because we doubt Condy Rice is going to
reveal anything further unless under oath
and questioned by Richard Ben-Veniste.
***{One year post
911, Time Magazine}
Time magazine had
come out with a cover story, after
extensive research, and the cover story
was devastating. The cover story of
Time magazine was that the White House
had been given a plan by me on January 25
and had taken the entire nine months to
get around to looking at it, at the
principals level, that there had been
over 100 meetings of Dr. Rice's committee
on subjects involving Iraq, Star Wars,
China, but only one on terrorism and that
one was on September 4.
*** SenderBerl: It is
obvious that someone, and they probably
thought it was Clarke, leaked that
terrorism was a subject persona non grata
at the Bush White House (until of course
9-11, which fact would be consistent with
the element of complicity).
MR. CLARKE: Because
I have no obligation anymore to spin.
When you're in the White House, you spin.
And people have been doing a lot of that
against me this week. You know,
they're engaged in a campaign. People
on the taxpayers' rolls, dozens of
people, are engaged in the campaign to
destroy me, personally and
professionally, because I had the
temerity to suggest that the American
people should consider whether or not the
president had done a good job on the war
on terrorism. The issue is not me.
The issue is the president's job on the
role on terrorism.
*** SenderBerl: This
is where Clarke has the resolve and
courage to pursue his course to let the
American people know that something is
wrong. In the upside down world where
evil controls over good, people tend to
shun the very person who offers them
truth. Thus, it is fitting that the Mel
Gibson movie speaks on this issue. It
would be a stain on this country if the
American people dont speak up to
criticize the Administration about moving
out on all fronts to attack Clarke. He
didnt violate any secrets but like
all those intent on serving the greater
good he wanted to bring truth to the
American people, made especially
important when government controlled and
influenced media fail miserably in that
very regard.
After 9/11--I say by
going into Iraq, he has really hurt the
war on terrorism. Now, because I say
that, the administration doesn't want to
talk on the merits of that. They
don't want to talk about the effect on
the war on terrorism of our invasion of
Iraq. And so, instead, A, they try
to do character assassination of me; but,
B, they try to punish me for having said
it by going after my professional life,
by going after me, besmirching me. This
is just not appropriate.
***
Every day George
Tenet was going in to see the president
in the Oval Office. Because George
Tenet, the director of Central
Intelligence, now gives the president his
daily briefing. And almost every
day the president was hearing from George
Tenet that there's an impending al-Qaeda
attack. As far back as February,
George Tenet testified before the
Congress that al-Qaeda was the major
national security threat. And yet,
they have 100 meetings before they get
around to dealing with it. KEY QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: On
a scale of one to 10, how would you rate
President Bush's performance on the war
on terror prior to September 11?
MR. CLARKE: Well,
there wasn't any personal performance by
the president prior to September 11.
Now, the only thing that I was ever
able to detect that he did on the war on
terrorism was after Tenet had been
briefing him day after day after day
after day about an al-Qaeda threat, the
president said, in May, "Well,
let's, you know, get a strategy."
That's the only thing I ever heard that
he got involved in personally. And
when he said that, Dr. Rice called me and
said, "The president wants a
strategy." And I said,
"Well, you know the strategy was
what I sent you on January 25, and it's
been stuck in these low-level
committees." And she said,
"Fine. I'll deal with
that." Well, she didn't deal with it
until September.
And, interestingly
enough, the president never said after
that May conversation, "Where's the
strategy?" And, again, if you
go back to what the president himself
says to Bob Woodward, he said, "I
knew there was a strategy in the works.
But I didn't know how mature the plan
was." He's saying this on
September 11. He didn't know where
the strategy was. The strategy that
he had asked for in May? He'd never
come back and asked where it was. You
know, basically, it wasn't an urgent
issue for them before September 11.
MR. RUSSERT: It
sounds like a failing grade.
MR. CLARKE: Well,
I think they deserve a failing grade for
what they did before because, frankly,
they didn't do--they never got around
to doing anything. They held
interim meetings, but they never actually
decided anything before September 11.
***SenderBerl:
This is critical and direct support for
anyone who wishes to connect the dots, as
we have to date to attest to government
complicity allowing 9-11 to occur. As you
know, we considered the evidence to date
a given as to complicity. Now, what
Clarke does is give DIRECT factual
support therefor. When you tie these
facts into what we have highlighted is
Bush administration complicity, you have
more than probable cause, you have proof
beyond a reasonable doubt of it. Thus, as
we said from day one, this country should
not have allowed Bush to invade Iraq
because it would prove to be a fruit of a
poisonous tree. How right we were.
KEY
You know, they're
saying now that when I was afforded the
opportunity to talk to him about
cybersecurity, it was my choice. I
could have talked about terrorism or
cybersecurity. That's not true.
I asked in January to brief him, the
president, on terrorism, to give him the
same briefing I had given Vice President
Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice.
And I was told, "You can't do that
briefing, Dick, until after the poli |