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 policy development process."

MR. RUSSERT:  Who told you that?

MR. CLARKE:  Condi Rice.  And I said, "Well, can I brief him on cybersecurity?"  "Oh, yes, you can brief him on that." 

***SenderBerl: This is de facto conclusive that Condy Rice was directly complicit. It was malfeasance of office for her to preclude Clarke from speaking to Bush regarding terrorism based on the fact that there was a known serious threat that ultimately unraveled as 9-11.

MR. RUSSERT:  We'll get to that particular debate, but let me go back to September 11 and what led up to it.  The Washington Post captured this way: "On July 5 of 2001, the White House summoned officials of a dozen federal agencies to the Situation Room.  `Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group, including the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service.  Clarke directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises, place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter alert.  For six weeks in the summer of 2001, at home and overseas, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness--and anxiety--against imminent terrorist attack."

Did Dr. Rice instruct you to organize that meeting?

MR. CLARKE:  No.  I told her I was going to do it.  And I had already been doing it two weeks before, because on June 21, I believe it was, George Tenet called me and said, "I don't think we're getting the message through.  These people aren't acting the way the Clinton people did under similar circumstances."  And I suggested to Tenet that he come down and personally brief Condi Rice, that he bring his terrorism team with him.  And we sat in the national security adviser's office.  And I've used the phrase in the book to describe George Tenet's warnings as "He had his hair on fire."  He was about as excited as I'd ever seen him.  And he said, "Something is going to happen."

***SenderBerl: Evidence that Condy Rice was affirmatively complicit. Her only out is that she is not the National Security Advisor and that she relied on Dick Cheney for her position regarding Clarke’s posturing for action on terrorism.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you kept your guard up for six weeks, through the end of August.  Why didn't you stay on high alert through September 11th?  And you regret this day that you didn't because you may have stopped that attack. KEY

***SenderBerl: It is so difficult for people even professionals to comprehend the truth in front of their faces. Here on top of everything else just evidenced, it was no coincidence that the implementation of the terrorism of 9-11 took place after Clarke (and we now assume Tenet) could no longer maintain the status of high alert. Of further interest, it went from a status of high alert to complete abdication of protection of the air and shorelines. The enemies within struck as soon as those standing guard had no choice but to lapse in their vigilance seeing that they only received cold shoulders from others in their efforts to protect the country. What is so shameful is that it seems at best there were only two people within the entire government fighting to do the job! No one had the courage to stand with them because Bush, Cheney and Rice displayed displeasure at those who stood with Clarke and now the man whose hair was on fire.

MR. CLARKE:  I had spoken out again the notion of bombing Iraq immediately after September 11.  And the Defense Department, deputy secretary, the secretary, talked to my bosses in the White House and indicated how unhappy they were with my attitude on Iraq.  And as I say, I had asked to go and become cyberspace security adviser, so I did and I wasn't asked about foreign policy in that role.  But when I had spoken out, when I said, "Invading Iraq after 9/11 is like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor," that didn't go over well and I was very quickly sidelined as someone whose opinions were going to be taken into account.

MR. RUSSERT:  Why do you think the Iraq war has undermined the war on terrorism?

MR. CLARKE:  Well, I think it's obvious, but there are three major reasons. Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism?  We're fighting Islamic radicals and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating us.  Now, after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, "Wait a minute.  Maybe we've gone too far here.  Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed," and we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. Instead, we've inflamed the ideology.  We've played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others.  We've done what Osama bin Laden said we would do.

Ninety percent of the Islamic people in Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, allied countries to the United States--90 percent in polls taken last month hate the United States.  It's very hard when that's the game where 90 percent of the Arab people hate us.  It's very hard for us to win the battle of ideas.  We can arrest them.  We can kill them.  But as Don Rumsfeld said in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing them.  They're producing more faster than we are.

The president of Egypt said, "If you invade Iraq, you will create a hundred bin Ladens."  He lives in the Arab world.  He knows.  It's turned out to be true.  It is now much more difficult for us to win the battle of ideas as well as arresting and killing them, and we're going to face a second generation of al-Qaeda.  We're going to catch bin Laden.  I have no doubt about that.  In the next few months, he'll be found dead or alive.  But it's two years too late because during those two years, al-Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells like the organization that did the attack in Madrid.

And that's the second reason.  The attack in Madrid showed the vulnerabilities of the rails in Spain.  We have all sorts of vulnerabilities in our country, chemical plants, railroads.  We've done a very good job on passenger aircraft now, but there are all these other vulnerabilities that require enormous amount of money to reduce those vulnerabilities, and we're not doing that.

MR. RUSSERT:  And three?

MR. CLARKE:  And three is that we actually diverted military resources and intelligence resources from Afghanistan and from the hunt for bin Laden to the war in Iraq

RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM A 2002 CNN FEATURE ON CONDY RICE:

CNN (Added MAR 29 04)

Condoleezza Rice: Bush's Policy Guru
Aired February 2, 2002 - 11:00 ET
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/02/pitn.00.html

REED: Well, she's going to be caught between Colin Powell and Rumsfeld and then you got Cheney, a pilot, sort of a superhero from the last administration. You got these kind of two tough White guy, you know.

COLLINS: But in just one year on the job, President Bush's 47- year-old foreign policy guru is proving she doesn't play second fiddle to anyone.

DAALDER: There will be issues discussed, from education to race policy and others that normally would not be discussed between national security adviser and the president.

COLLINS: She is also a close personal friend, sharing a love of sports and similar sense of humor.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Another member of my team who is here, who helps us have a strong and certain foreign policy is Senorita Condolleezza Rice. That means Rice.

REED: When she walks in a room, it's second only to when Laura walks in the room, because his body language is so relaxed with Condoleezza.

***

COLLINS: In 1998, her loyalty to the Republican Party would once again provide a curve in the winding road of her career. Her old boss, President Bush, invited her to the family ranch to talk with his son, then Governor of Texas.

This would be the first of many meetings, as well as the foundation of a great working relationship and a friendship. The brilliant young professor, former National Security Council staff member and university provost left her post at Stanford to join the presidential campaign of George W. Bush.

Officially, she was the coordinator of his foreign policy team. Unofficially, she was the candidate's personal tutor. Rice stuck with Bush in his quest to reach the White House, even through missteps like when he failed the infamous current events pop quiz sprung on him by a local news reporter. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can you name the president of Chechnya?

BUSH: No, can you?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: The top man in Pakistan.

***

COLLINS: Stationed just down the hall from the Oval Office, Rice's close proximity to the president, both literally and figuratively, has fueled speculation about infighting within the administration.

REED: She's got the president's ear. She's got the president's trust. I mean not to say that Rumsfeld and Powell don't. You just got this direct line. It's just between Bush and Rice that they're the same generation, you know, and I think it really makes a difference. Of course, everybody at one point or another is going to sort of be jealous of her, I would think

***

COLLINS: One thing that is not questioned is Rice's dedication to her job, and that's led some outsiders to wonder if the unmarried 47-year-old is all work and no play.

BLACKER: If Condy were a man, these questions would not be posed over and over and over again.

REED: I think people should be careful about giving the impression that she has just put everything on hold in her life to get where she is, because she has a rich, full life, full of very close friends and family.

BLACKER: I don't know too many people of Condy's stature politically in the policy world who find time to practice Chopin on Sunday afternoon, who find time to work out, who find time to call their friends and their family, go to sporting events, shop for shoes. I don't know anyone any better rounded than Condy Rice.

***

SENDERBERL: THESE ISSUES ARE NOW MATTERS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
The only quote we could find directly from Rice is one highly supportive of the dynamics of our proposition:

"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.

<=====>

We came to conclude that Condoleezza Rice is not really the National Security Advisor, and certain events and behavior bore it out. Thereby, she was a pawn herself, a dupe in the NWO scheme, to what took place on 9-11. She may have been used by Bush in more ways than one and we believe that she is Bush's Achilles Heel and that there is a deeply dark and important reason why she is not appearing under oath publicly before the 9-11 Commission (where her appearance could activate the full potential of Richard Ben-Veniste to bring out truths that will instantly bury the current administration). Link here to read our special posting following up on Condoleezza Rice. Until President Bush allows the families of 9-11 victims and this country to receive the truth and answers concerning 9-11, it is the obligation of every American to stand on guard against enemies within, especially when the events of 9-11 have platformed an administration winning office by the slimmest of margins willing to change the character and culture of this country and take us onto a path for admitted global domination and control.

Excerpt from Link: 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 serving as pawns are used by the NWO true leadership, having been manipulated as willing and complicit dupes, being led to believe they are really inside and part and parcel of a "team."
They cannot fathom the depth of the evil of the course that surrounds them and that they too are ultimate victims.

Panel calls for Rice to appear
Associated Press
MAR 23 2004

CAPITOL HILL - Members of the federal panel that's been looking into 9/11 say they're not hearing from everyone they want to hear from. The panel has opened two days of hearings on the anti-terrorism efforts of the Bush and Clinton administrations before 9/11. The ten-member panel had invited National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify. She declined, with the White House citing concerns about separation of powers. One panel member says that's not a good enough excuse. Another mentioned the book written by former anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who accuses the Bush administration of downplaying the al-Qaida threat before 9/11. Former Democratic Congressman Timothy Roemer also noted that Rice has been featured in the media disputing Clarke's claims. He suggests the debate shouldn't be played out in the media, but before the panel.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=688
For example, Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows of the 9/11 disaster who also lobbied Congress and the president to appoint this commission made this simple observation: “How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility.”

RECOMMENDED: http://etherzone.com/2004/raim032404.shtml

Bravo!
A must read link for public action re 9-11. Please link.

Here are two questions posited for President Bush!

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?

Support Them!
Questions prepared by:
The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission
http://www.911independentcommission.org/

http://tomflocco.com/index.php

Analysis of Select Portions of March 24^th 9-11 Proceedings

Clarke began his testimony with an apology to loved ones of those roughly 3,000 people killed in the attacks on airliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"Your government failed you, and I failed you," he said. "We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed you. And for that failure, I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."

SenderBerl: This apology by Clarke suggests that there is something to apologize for. Firefighters who valiantly try to save a child from a burning house will apologize to the parents as a matter of courtesy and form when failing to extract the child. This type of apology does not indicate fault. Thus, for the record, failure does not suggest culpable fault. Thus, again, it is important to keep your eye on the ball. The true issue is whether there is complicity for an event without which the plans in hand could not unravel.

March 24 2004 Ben-Veniste questioning Armitage

BEN-VENISTE: Is it correct that -- let me go to the period of just prior to 9/11. At this point you were confirmed?

ARMITAGE: Yes, sir.

BEN-VENISTE: At this point you were aware, were you not, of the most heightened alert level in the United States up to that point with respect to the potential for a terrorist attack of significant magnitude.

ARMITAGE: Yes, I was. I was one of those to whom Director Tenet turned, along with other seniors in the administration, and made it very clear that we had a big problem coming. He didn't know where and he didn't know when, but he said it was coming.

SenderBerl: This is proof positive of affirmative malfeasance. Foreign intelligence agencies pointed out that American surveillance of the skies and seas were lacking on 9-11 and without question the response or should we say lack of military response proved the point.

SenderBerl again highlights to you that the President’s schedule on September 7 dramatically changed to allow him to visit two elementary schools in a non election period and year to read with second graders AFTER being criticized for being away from Washington at his ranch the entire month of August. Thus while the President keeps saying his qualified statement that if he knew terrorists were going to strike on the morning of 9-11 he would have done everything to prevent the attack, it leaves open for the record whether he knew that an attack was otherwise imminent and that there were many around him who were awaiting it to launch the agenda that unraveled immediately after 9-11.

It is relevant right in here to keep in mind the following two questions prepared by the Family Steering Committee

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?

BEN-VENISTE: Now, Dr. Rice told us that Mr. Clark had briefed her that there were Al Qaida sleeper cells in the United States. Dr. Rice told us that she did not know what basis Mr. Clarke had for that. She told us that the FBI was trying to actively find Al Qaida personnel. She did not, she told us, talk to Richard Clarke prior to 9/11 about the potential for Al Qaida sleeper cells. Were she here, I would ask her the question as to why she did not discuss the issue of Al Qaida sleeper cells in the United States with her counterterrorism coordinator. Do you have any information you might be able to shed on that subject?

ARMITAGE: No, of course not.

BEN-VENISTE: Dr. Rice, following 9/11, made a statement that -- I want to make sure I get it right -- she said, I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center. Take another one, and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.Do you recall that she made that statement publicly?

ARMITAGE: No, I didn't see that.

SenderBerl: When a witness uses this type of technique in answering the question, it shows he was prepared to obfuscate the Commission’s inquiry and further he is not serving his duty to his public office.

BEN-VENISTE: Similarly, yesterday, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld made a statement with respect to anticipating the use of commercial airplanes as weapons. And then after I questioned him about it, he retracted that statement and said that he personally could not have or did not imagine that such a thing might happen. Dr. Rice told us privately that she wished to correct that statement that she made publicly by saying to us that she misspoke and that she, like Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday, would say that she could not have imagined using planes as missiles. Can you shed any light on who then in the apparatus of protecting the United States against threats, both foreign and domestic, ought to be coordinating this information for the benefit of the president?

ARMITAGE: I know that the director of Central Intelligence had, on at least one occasion to my knowledge, talked about hijacking of aircraft. I just don't think we had the imagination required to consider a tragedy of this magnitude. I don't know what other answer to tell you. We didn't have a homeland security czar. We've traditionally, generally, in terrorism unfortunately looked overseas. Of course, that's the major direction of Secretary Powell's and my attention.

SenderBerl: This should make the families of the victims bitter indeed. Al-Qaeda historically has shown little imagination in implementing terrorism but here the United States government declares it lacked the imagination to perceive planes being used against buildings but Al-Qaeda not only then had the imagination to plan the deed but also had the capability of carrying it off! Do you see the folly of Armitage’s argument to wit that therefore Al-Qaeda is more competent and imaginative than the U.S. government and therefore better suited to implement such actions. Further, if this in fact is the case the entire current government responsible for security should be sent to pasture because if they admit to not having the creative ability to anticipate the terrorism how in the world can such people be suited to protect us against further attack? Will they claim the next act of terrorism as successful due to their inability to imagine it? The point of course is that they didn’t need imagination at all. When four planes went off transponders, our military defensive apparatus, costing taxpayers untold billions of dollars, should have intervened. But they were kept grounded. This is where the Commission shows itself to be a whitewash. The real message of the Commission is for Bush and friends to retire; similar to Netanyahu telling Peres don’t succeed in winning in Israel after Rabin’s assassination unless you want the public to start seeing proof revealed regarding what really took place.

Further, the National Security Agency misses nothing monitoring telephone and E-mail around the world. If they didn't know that there were allegedly nineteen hijackers here in the United States with plans to implement 9-11, we will eat crow. We know that out government is quite expertise and adept when it wishes to be and demures from the truth when it has reason to hide truths from the American people. What did Commission Member Kerrey say when he threatened to resign his post: "I am no longer ... feeling comfortable that I'm going to be able to read and process what I need in order to participate in writing a report about how it was that 19 men defeated every single defensive system the U.S. put up to kill 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11."

BEN-VENISTE: Well, can you tell me, since you're sitting in for Dr. Rice, what it was that Dr. Rice had before her to suggest that the United States might be a target in this period of extraordinarily heightened threat during the summer of 2001?

ARMITAGE: I can't.

***

BEN-VENISTE: Have you paid attention to at least some of the appearances Dr. Rice has made on the airwaves?

ARMITAGE: No, actually I haven't.

***

BEN-VENISTE: Well, when did you learn for the first time that Al Qaida was responsible for the Cole?

ARMITAGE: I don't know the exact date. I think it's just like building coral: came to the conclusion.

BEN-VENISTE: Some time after March?

ARMITAGE: Yes, that would be my recollection.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary.

SenderBerl:: When did you learn that Al-Qaeda was responsible for 9-11? A real inquiry would pursue the important issue whether he and others could believe, even with their admitted lack of imagination, whether from their knowledge of previous acts of terrorism, whether Al-Qaeda could have pulled this event off by itself. No one of course appears with demolition expertise and no one of course has appeared to confirm that those at flight school would have near zero chance of hitting two building with the dead point accuracy done on 9-11. It’s all a farce, and the only way more truth will unravel is if Bush insists on re-election. Bush 41 will paint the picture for his son. As we interpreted on November 19, 2003, Bush will not be allowed to undertake a second term unless he can manipulate an environment to platform an attack and occupation of Syria and Iran. Madrid was the first evidence of such an effort but yet again he has fumbled on the twenty-yard line. Now, we have Sharon out to help him out. Its time to bench them all.

Major Comment Mar 22 04 from Joseph B. Ehrlich

This weekend’s news shows gave us enormous support for interpretations long made and held by Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. The following is highly important from our respectful point of view:

1. While Richard Clarke’s interviews were quite damaging to the Bush administration, the most important thing he said is something generally overlooked by the media and others. Clarke said that Clinton could not get the CIA and FBI to deal with terrorism issues. This is directly supportive of our analysis that when Bush 41 lost in his re-election bid it was imperative under the N.W.O. agenda to make sure that Clinton didn’t eliminate Saddam for he was the bogeyman serving as the future platform for the intrusion into the Middle East for oil. The oil cabal surely had no intention on seeing Clinton reap the windfall of an attack and victory over Iraq. They had no intention on seeing him and his own cabal, Democrats no less, in the oil business. Thus, this confirms what we knew all along: that Clinton was directed to deal with Saddam in a manner where he would remain the latch key for what unraveled as 9-11, the final required predicate for the Middle East invasion.
   
2. Clarke noted his surprise and dismay over Cheney failing to speak out against Al-Qaeda. When you understand that there are inside agendas and then there are deeper inside agendas, you will easily understand and see how all the pieces fit together.
   
3. The most important thing Clarke said to foreshadow Bush’s upcoming woes is his remarks on Condolezzaa Rice, which parallel our own perceptions. He said no NSA was ever closer to the President of the United States than in her relationship with President Bush. He described it as an unusually close relationship with Bush. When we featured the interpretation inserted immediately below, we had concluded that Condy Rice was George Bush’s true Achilles Heel. Although highly educated and well positioned with experience, there is a dark side to her role in the White House. We want to say no more than her service to President Bush sends a mocking message to Bill Clinton and one that regretfully truly mocks us the citizens of the USA and our government. However, suffice it to say, Clarke verified that she seemed to not even recognize the dynamics attendant to Al-Qaeda and there is no question that she operated as the most ignorant NSA ever to publicly serve the President. The truth of it as she and other deep insiders know: she is not the NSA and thus her dread and refusal to appear under oath in public especially if PUBLICLY questioned UNDER OATH as we said by the counsel for the Democratic side of the 9-11 Commission. Thus, as far as we can see, Kennedy and others, have moved to have Bush agree to throw the election for the good of the country (similar to what took place on several dimensions after Jack Kennedy’s assassination), but it seems to date that Bush is resisting, stubborn as he is, and thus more and more is being leaked until he gets the point that he has no choice. As we said, what Bush 43 doesn’t fully know, is that even his N.W.O. backers have covertly and very silently agreed not to support his re-election. There is no way the Democratic insiders and others are going to tolerate his continuing on, with not only the degree of global alienation, but more importantly his continuing to fail in his missions including the one where he was supposed to be from the get go in Syria and Iran and now his fumbling Madrid.
   
   

   License to Lie

   
   INSERTED FEB 4 2004
   
   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?
   
   Someone really detests this nation and we are quite frankly upset that the American people tolerate the way this country is being demeaned and defaced instead of built to its great potential because of people who have concluded that it must be abandoned and left as a weak, maimed country with a globally perceived depraved people incubated and nourished by television programming standards that increasingly become the central focus of daily life for the vast majority of American people. This country's heritage is too precious to squander as this generation seems all to willing to do. What purpose is education if the American people act lame, blind and stupid? How much longer will the American people sit and allow themselves to be so disgraced by those carring absolutely no respect for them?
   

4. Clarke’s most apparent and open damaging remark from where we sit is that Bush will be recorded and seen by history as the President who among other failings spurred on a new wave of emerging elevated terrorism. President Bush, Clarke asserted, was a living recruitment poster boy for Al-Qaeda and he did specifically note that if Bush were to move against Syria and Iran to ultimately move to undermine the Saudi Regime, one would shudder to think of the consequences. Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. has said and concluded that the window that he missed was during the initial invasion against Iraq. Our exposition details that the Pentagon had two levels of high confidence: that Saddam would use it during the invasion against Iraq and if incredibly as it sounded then if he did not that they would use the back stop: it’s discovery. The most important event and dynamic of this time (which should be tacked on to Arafat turning down Clinton and Barak’s offer of Jerusalem and the West Bank) is the fact that Saddam did in fact dispose of all of it and there were no WMD to be found. Now, in this regard, there is an earth-shattering article that appeared on the Internet – so earth shattering that we reproduce it in full. It says there was a black op agenda by the shadow government to plant WMD as a double backstop concurrent with the invasion. However, when the team of 100 assigned to the task confronted the opportunity of loading the plane with cash, billions of it from Iraqi banks and Saddam’s art collection, they fumbled the mission in terms of WMD. When collected together in Iraq it seems, from what we can glean from the article, asserting that they all died from friendly fire, Cheney or another (Tenet perhaps) misdirected two bunker buster bombs for them.
   
   US tried to plant WMDs, failed: whistleblower

   Daily Times Monitor
   
   According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the Environmentalists Against War report. Nelda Rogers is a 28-year veteran debriefer for the DoD. She has become so concerned for her safety that she decided to tell the story about this latest CIA-military fiasco in Iraq. According to Al Martin Raw.com, “Ms Rogers is number two in the chain of command within this DoD special intelligence office. This is a ten-person debriefing unit within the central debriefing office for the Department of Defense.” The information that is being leaked out is information “obtained while she was in Germany heading up the debriefing of returning service personnel, involved in intelligence work in Iraq for the DoD and/or the CIA. “According to Ms Rogers, there was a covert military operation that took place both preceding and during the hostilities in Iraq,” reports Al Martin Raw.com, an online subscriber-based news/analysis service which provides “Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence”. Al Martin is a retired Lt Commander (US Navy), the author of a memoir called “The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider,” and is considered one of America’s foremost experts on corporate and government fraud. Ms Rogers reports that this particular covert operation team was manned by former military personnel and “the unit was paid through the Department of Agriculture in order to hide it, which is also very commonplace”. According to Al Martin Raw.com, “the Agriculture Department has often been used as a paymaster on behalf of the CIA, DIA, NSA and others”. According to the Al Martin Raw.com story, another aspect of Ms Rogers’ report concerns a covert operation which was to locate the assets of Saddam Hussein and his family, including cash, gold bullion, jewelry and assorted valuable antiquities. The problem became evident when “the operation in Iraq involved 100 people, all of whom apparently are now dead, having succumbed to so-called ‘friendly fire’. The scope of this operation included the penetration of the Central Bank of Iraq, other large commercial banks in Baghdad, the Iraqi National Museum and certain presidential palaces where monies and bullion were secreted.” “They identified about $2 billion in cash, another $150 million in Euros, in physical banknotes, and about another $100 million in sundry foreign currencies ranging from Yen to British Pounds,” reports Al Martin.
   
   “These people died, mostly in the same place in Baghdad, supposedly from a stray cruise missile or a combination of missiles and bombs that went astray,” Martin continues. “There were supposedly 76 who died there and the other 24 died through a variety of ‘friendly fire’, ‘mistaken identity’ and some of them—their whereabouts are simply unknown.” Ms Rogers’ story sounds like an updated 21st-century version of Treasure Island meets Ali Baba and the Bush Cabal Thieves, writes Martin.
   
   “This was a contingent of CIA/ DoD operatives, but it was really the CIA that bungled it,” Ms Rogers said. “They were relying on the CIA’s ability to organise an effort to seize these assets and to be able to extract these assets because the CIA claimed it had resources on the ground within the Iraqi army and the Iraqi government who had been paid. That turned out to be completely bogus. As usual.” “CIA people were supposed to be handling it,” Martin continues. “They had a special ‘black’ aircraft to fly it out. But none of that happened because the regular US Army showed up, stumbled onto it and everyone involved had to scramble. These new Iraqi “asset seizures” go directly to the New US Ruling Junta. The US Viceroy in Iraq Paul Bremer is reportedly drinking Saddam’s $2000 a bottle Napoleon-era brandy, smoking his expensive Davidoff cigars and he has even furnished his office with Saddam’s Napoleon-era furniture. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=story_12-8-2003_pg1_9
   
   This is an incredible event and one that signifies to the N.W.O. the operation of forces of a heavenly nature against their schemes and designs. They are being sent continual messages but as arrogant and stubborn as they are, they are accustomed to prevailing and they don’t want to read the handwriting on the wall. We endeavor to tell those complicit in such greed that they will be held to account. What is incredible to us is that they who have such wealth, wealth for several lifetimes, just have no conscience in moving for more of it and stand willing to do the evil they do to obtain it seeking permanent control of the planet’s resources to boot.

5. Richard Clarke was pushed out since he was out of the loop and too aggressive and open in questioning the many things that dismayed him when he sat in on terrorism issues and questions. He further noted that what disturbed him was that he sensed post 9-11 that the event was the platform for political benefits and decisions. No doubt about it. The one thing he would not say otherwise apparent from what we all know is that the Bush administration at the ultimate high levels, meaning the President and those truly backing him, with select military, were complicit in 9-11. Either Bush has to agree to pass on re-election (covertly of course), or else the Democrats will open the gateway to the truth of it all via their involvement in the 9-11 Commission. Thus, the Commission stands operative as insurance that Bush will do as he agrees. The problem however we note is that he has not agreed to date. Bush 41 ultimately will have to paint the obvious for his son. Thus, under any construction our November 19, 2003 interpretation that Bush would not be supported by his own people (including his father) for re-election unravels as an accurate assessment.
   
   Bush's Mission: Expecting the Second Platform of Moral Outrage
   Regime and Culture Change Unmasked
   
6. Condy Rice wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post and we do not intend to pick on her but she keeps on burying herself big time. She asserts in the first paragraph of her Op-Ed that the U.S. government worked hard prior to 9-11 to counter the Al-Qaeda threat.  She has the gall to say under the complicity of this administration in 9-11 that “The seriousness of the threat was well understood by the president and his national security principals.” She is the same person telling Chavez after the coup attempt to respect Constitutional principles, when the US directed that Venezuela’s Constitution be revoked and a dictatorship imposed. More relevant is that she is the person who announced to the general public that the administration had no idea that Al-Qaeda had any plans to use planes for terrorism by directing them into buildings (when there were already some three reports in that very regard in the intelligence pipeline).
   
7. What Senator Kennedy emphasized on Meet the Press was Bush’s dismal failing in his “No Child Left Behind Program.” The very sad reality my fellow citizens is that they both, Democrats and Republicans, have failed in education and in allowing drugs to become mainstream and available to everyone including our children. Thus, the very sad point is that the contest between the two parties is which group will control the crime in place against America and the American people. Those deep insiders in the Republican party connect with the agenda in Recapturing America, and their design to abandon us, when the now confirmed, this past week, new admitted reality that Whites ultimately will be a minority in the USA when it turns into a Black Hispanic country. Not to be overly cynical, one of the myriad of reasons the Hispanic people were allowed to flood into the USA was not to make it a manifest future BLACK AND WHITE  issue. Thus, this allowed us to recognize plans way back when to weaken the military for when the country is abandoned they did not intend to leave it with the world’s foremost military machine and THUS OUR ABILITY TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH BEHIND THE EMERGENCE OF THE NEW ALTERNATIVE TO NATO POST THE IRAQI INVASION -- A NATO WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF THE U.S.

All the pieces fit and increasingly so. Our point is that we did not set out to be right but to make you aware that your future was going to be dim dire and dark. The entire bull market during the Clinton tenure was for you to wallow in your own greed and wealth, while this country’s true wealth was being stripped away from it layer by layer – your allowing the covert shadow government to emerge and implement their evil design primarily attested and seen by the events of 9-11. When Israel sat stupid and silent after the assassination of its Prime Minister, it opened the portal to its destruction. History will surely show that if the US sits equally stupid and silent regarding 9-11, that it will join Israel in the slide into the deeper and darker levels of the abyss.

Joseph B. Ehrlich
Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
March 22, 2004

BUSH STONEWALLS 9/11 COMMISSION, LEAVING THE FAMILIES TO WONDER WHY

Under the Patriot Act laws, albeit no served subpoenas, are public officials who refuse to testify regarding an official investigation of 9-11 a concern to national security?
Is pre-emptive action in order?
Read this and see what you think.

New York Times Feb 26: The commission, which has 10 members and is bipartisan, said in a statement that it had also been informed by the White House that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had rejected its request that she testify in public about the intelligence reports that reached her desk before the Sept. 11 attacks. Democratic members of the panel said the administration's moves raised new questions about its willingness to cooperate with the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement blunders in the months and years before the 2001 attacks. The White House initially opposed creating the panel. The commission called on Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney to reconsider their decision against meeting with all 10 members of the panel. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have agreed to meet privately with the chair and vice chair but prefer not to meet with all members," the statement said, referring to the chairman, Thomas H. Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey; and vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat and former House member from Indiana. "We hope the president and the vice president will reconsider." The panel said it was "disappointed" by Ms. Rice's decision not to testify at a public hearing, adding, "We believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the commission." Ms. Rice has submitted to several hours of questioning at a private session. Her spokesman, Sean McCormack, said the decision against public testimony was made at the recommendation of administration lawyers who warned of separation-of-powers issues (SenderBerl: checks and balances mandates oversight. It is to be praised not condemned and the public misled with "separation-of-power issues.").

SenderBerl: Let us summarily say that when elected high officials shield themselves from public scrutiny and oversight authorities under our system of government, see Essentials: Checks and Balances, Americans Want an Investigation of 9-11 audio excerpts to the left and below (from 2002), then they are a threat to national security, as they have made it very clear during their tenure that they are a threat of our form of government. See Essentials: Regime and Culture Change. The Commission is there as a whitewash and still they are petrified to appear because the Democrats through their very able counsel may throw out one or two questions that resonate through time and history.

President Bush is making a big mistake here for the very reasons set forth by us in 2002 in our interview on the Jeff Rense Show (further attesting that his supporters have covertly abandoned him). Leaders used to be on the front line when their nation went to war and stood at personal risk. Today's leaders are far from the battlefront, and show themselves when they fail to account to the nation they serve, not rule. We know why Bush, Cheney and Rice dread an appearance albeit they have been assured that nothing untoward will happen (Bush and Cheney don't even pretend to offer sworn testimony). Bush and Rice are masters of prepared text; when hit with a question from left field they may slip and touch upon the truths we have been highlighting to the public for seven years. We would love to see Rice asked whether she was aware (and when) of the numerous reports that Al-Quaeda were planning attacks with airplances on major buildings. If she says yes, she then lied when she said what she did after 9-11. If she did not, then how are we to believe that she is the true National Security Advisor? SenderBerl here would like to deploy the logic behind the Patriot Act to suggest that public officials who seek to hide from responding to Committee questions regarding 9-11 and whose associates have indicated plans in hand to put the country under military control should be subject to pre-emptive action and removed from office pending investigation of the disturbing and thus suspicious behavior as outlined by the New York Times story.

The sad aspect of what we write is that we know the truth about what took place on 9-11.
If you have reviewed this site, you should know the truth as well.

Condy Rice on Feb 18 apparently not happy that Bush is not getting rid of her problem
See Essentials: Condy Rice
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice (R) leans on the chair
belonging to U.S. President George W. Bush in the Oval Office of the White House, February 18, 2004.

Feb 28 04

9/11 panelist may quit over Bush secrecy
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/168092p-146920c.html

WASHINGTON - Frustrated by Bush administration restrictions, a former senator said yesterday he might quit the special commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks. Ex-Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), now president of New York's New School University, told the Daily News that resigning is "on my list of possibilities" because the administration continues to block the full panel's access to top intelligence officials and materials. "I am no longer ... feeling comfortable that I'm going to be able to read and process what I need in order to participate in writing a report about how it was that 19 men defeated every single defensive system the U.S. put up to kill 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11," said Kerrey.

INSERT MAR 4

Campaign To Force Bush et al To Testify Re- 911

Insert MAR 24 04

Clarke didn’t mince words. “Frankly,” he told Stahl, “I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe We’ll never know. I think he’s done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.” Ouch! These revelations are particularly damaging because they undercut the only category in which the public approves of Bush’s performance, his alleged leadership in the war on terrorism. According to all recent polls, almost 70 percent of the American public believes Bush is doing a good job in the war on terror. By contrast, most Americans don’t like his economic policies, believe he’s in bed with big business, and are now even questioning his handling of the ongoing war in Iraq. Clarke, a registered Republican who former Clinton Administration aides described as a “hawk,” claimed Bush and his team jumped all over him to come up with evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attacks. When Clarke pointed out that the CIA, FBI, and White House staffs had already thoroughly investigated any potential link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and found none, Bush told him for a third time and in no uncertain terms, “Look into Iraq, Saddam.” http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=689

THE ANSWERS TO MANY OF THE MYSTERIES CAN BE FOUND IN:
Bush's Mission: Expecting the Second Platform of Moral Outrage
Regime and Culture Change Unmasked