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 wasn’t 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 43’s 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 4^th 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 people’s 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

Marilyn Monroe: Happy Birthday Mr. President 2004?
April 21, 2004

Political Conversation: Condi’s 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 didn’t 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 Card’s 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 One’s 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 privilege—a 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 UBL’s profile on the FBI’s 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 President’s Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Ladin’s 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-Qa’ida 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-Qa’ida? 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 NSC’s 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-Qa’ida 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 Administration’s national security priorities? How did it affect the intelligence Community’s 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 Ladin’s 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-Qa’ida? 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 NSC’s response to each specific Intelligence Community request for any increases in resources for counterterrorism? For al-Qa’ida?

Agency responsiveness and support for policy makers

1. What specific strengths did you observe in intelligence collection, analysis, and reporting on Bin Ladin, al-Qa’ida 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-Qa’ida 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-Qa’ida? 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 council’s 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-Qa’ida 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-Qa’ida 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 CIA’s authorities to conduct covert action against Bin Ladin or al-Qa’ida? 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 community’s 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 Clarke’s 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 don’t 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 that’s 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 didn’t 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 don’t speak up to criticize the Administration about moving out on all fronts to attack Clarke. He didn’t 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