Banner
Day for SenderBerl Analyses
February
23, 2003
Video
references are made for fair comment in view that
nearly all, if not all, points rendered on Meet the
Press and McLaughlin Report are positions proffered
by Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. in 2002, and are
further expounded upon above in view of their being
raised at this point of time in a context of putative
if not imminent war, this web page serving the public
interest without commercial interest to oppose
the planned conflict as being in contravention to the
public good.
Reproduction or use of this web page or its links and
material otherwise
accessible are thereby strictly prohibited.
Meet
the Press and the McLaughlin
Report, finally, to our immense
satisfaction, started discussing issues raised by us
long ago. Thereby, we wanted to bring them to your
attention with further comment on our part.
Dennis Kucinich on Meet the Press expressly said that
the desire to control Iraqi oil interests is the
nexus to the pursuit of war by the United States
against Iraq. Click here for video 
He specifically said that oil is the
strongest incentive to proceed to war, since the
administration has made no other argument or proffer
of equal or greater weight that supports putting our
military and country in harm's way. Click here for
video
Richard Perle
appearing with Kucinich says that the Congressman is
giving credence to an outrageous lie when he says
that the predicate to war has its nexus to Iraqi oil,
when there is no evidence of same and because
coincidentally some in the administration have ties
to the oil industry. SenderBerl long argued that the
administration has to show the American people and
the rest of the world clean hands, and among the
routes suggested, has been to come forth with details
of what happened on 9-11 and not, to the contrary,
move to extirpate a meaningful and proper
investigation of what happened on 9-11, with the host
of open issues and questions remaining unanswered and
unaddressed. However, similar to the accident and
death of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed the government
manages the matter to assure that truth never
surfaces. Without legitimate and called for
disclosure, it is fully appropriate, under the
arguments and case made by SenderBerl, to conclude
that the intent to launch against Iraq can be viewed
as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Click here for
video
Since
the rest of the world also disputes the Bush
administration's motives in its compulsive pursuit of
war against Iraq, the administration should show
clean hands by claiming no direct or indirect
interest in Iraqi oil after "liberating"
Iraq from Saddam. However, we portrayed the truth of
the matter by attesting that President Bush would
turn highly agitated if China appears on the scene
per our November 5, 2002, Rense.com interview
offering to guarantee the removal of Saddam, WMD, and
then secure its own version of a just government for
the people of Iraq as a coequal member of US on the
UN Security Council
Our proffer has been that the President's agenda is
part of an Imperial seizure, to be used to finance
the game plan outlined by no one other than President
Bush himself in his National Security Strategy, which
by his own hand contradicts the claimed agenda that
the goal is simply to preclude the imminent threat
against the US by Saddam Hussein by his continuing
another day in power. Further, we have spent enormous
resources in proffering from the very first that
China brought in North Korea to forge the issue that
the only reason for the difference in treatment
between Iraq and North Korea is because Iraq has oil
albeit North Korea has nuclear weapons and threatens
to use them NOW again US interests and allies in
Asia. North Korea receives the President's
appeasement and diplomacy, and Iraq receives the
threat of imminent destruction to its infrastructure,
and the threat of imminent death to its citizens,
including more of its children. The result is that
Bush spurs on a race to acquire nuclear arms, and
will open, as we have long contended, the portal to
bioterrorism that will change the face of the planet.
These postulates were
further buttressed today by the news shows as
follows: The McLaughlin Report spoke to the race by
third world countries to get the nuclear bomb,
spurred on by President Bush's divergent treatment of
North Korea and Iraq. President Bush has created a
race for third world countries to nuclearize, the
very antithesis of the goal of the National Security
Strategy. As we have long said, he also opens the
door to bioterrorism the very day he launches against
Iraq, another antithesis to the National Security
Strategy. Click here for video
Richard Perle highlights the putative danger of North
Korea, which is a CRISIS, while Iraq is not a crisis
at all at this point of time, and as we contend
should not be attacked before there is full
disclosure of 9-11. Richard Perle lent further
substance, not that we needed it, to our contention
that the administration did not have clean hands on
9-11 and thus the the obsessive need to attack Iraq
seems to be the fruit of the poisonous tree. See
below. Click here for the video Anthony Cordesman of the Int'l Center
for Strategic & International Studies said that
bringing democracy to Iraq was nothing other than a
"pious hope." Click here for the video Senator Joe Biden declared that
Americans have no idea of the consequences of the war
President Bush wants to initiate. Click here for
video John
McLaughlin sensing the US will be occupying Iraq for
25 years: Click here for video The
McLaughlin Report confirmed another long held proffer
that the US would impose a military government
(originally confirmed by the New York Times). Click
here for video
Thus, it is clear that the US and its military will
NOT be welcome by the Iraqi people, even those who
were thinking that they were in contention to run the
government, now moving to the position that the US
has to be stopped at all costs from the admitted long
term occupation. Not to discount China's strategic
hand seen when people admire how astute Saddam has
been in handling the US! Thus, President Bush's
intent to launch further confirms to the Islamic
world a war against Islam and the President forgets
he cannot now argue that his only focus is Iraq, when
he made it clear that he wants to mold the entire
Arab/Islamic world to his image for it (Rose Garden
Remarks, June 24, 2002). Click here for video Kucinich adeptly touched on the
outright hypocrisy of President Bush's position to
the UN on the need to move immediately to war with
Iraq: Click here for video Kucinich adeptly further asked the
audience "How did our oil get under
their sand?" Hopefully, Kucinich
will not be attacked as was Pierre Salinger in
bringing forth the truth regarding TWA Flight 800.
While we don't know what evidence Salinger really
had, we do know that he did know from French military
sources, that the plane was taken down by a missile.
He thereafter was derided by his own colleagues as a
misfit. If this is the consequence for Kucinich now,
then you again see the danger of our current
condition. Click here for video
Tim Russert of Meet the Press pointed out that
General Wesley Clark the prior week noted that there
was no need for war, that it was an elective option
for the President.: Click here for video We
produce the transcript below from that segment. We
also include Senator Byrd's worthy address on the
Senate Floor, both which adeptly buttress our
position against the initiation of war at this time
against Iraq. SenderBerl has been 100% for Saddam's
removal, however, we also have all along identified
why he was kept alive, and the nefarious design
behind the interpreted design originally made public
by us in early 1997 with the publication of
Recapturing America and today expanded upon, the link
thereto on the main page of our web site.
Richard Perle
seeming to Kucinich and to us criticized President
Bush. In realizing it he then went on to say some
incredible things thatt further support the precept
of advance knowledge by the Bush administration
NBC
TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT
MR. PERLE: Excuse
me, the lesson of September 11 was that you
shouldn’t have been voting on September
12 because we should have acted against
al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We
heard the communications. We knew that
they were planning additional acts of terror
as they had undertaken previous acts of
terror. And
we waited. We failed to
take action in a timely manner and the
congressman is now saying that we have to
wait.
REP. KUCINICH: Are
you saying that to be critical of President
Bush? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. PERLE:
I’m critical of the failure to recognize
the threat (not
in accord with video)
that Osama bin Laden posed
before— everything we did after
September 11 could have been done before
September 11. But if we had proposed doing
that, I have no doubt the congressman would
say, “There’s no evidence.
There’s no imminent threat.”
Click here for video
|
We give
you our perception of what Perle really said above.
He said that while there was overseas terrorism prior
to 9-11 and there were plans of continued terrorism,
the Bush administration could not go forward with the
extreme agenda before us today, which Perle thought
the President should have had the courage to
undertake prior to 9-11, until there was an incident
of major DOMESTIC terrorism. Ipso facto, there was a
group in the administration, including, no doubt,
Perle, who were waiting for a successful
implementation of major domestic terrorism to allow
them to push forward an agenda in contravention to
precepts of our Constitution and historical
precedent. Our argument that the Bush administration
had the courage to allow this condition precedent of
moral outrage to take place is therefore totally
consistent with the fair import of Perle's remarks as
heard on the video.
We simply further add that Perle was the man to our
understanding in the forefront of calling that Saudi
Arabia be the initial target of the NSS agenda, no
doubt discussed as part and parcel of the extreme
agenda planned at Crawford in August 2001.
Eleanor Cliff on the McLaughlin
Report and John McLaughlin both today highlighted
Condy Rice's statement that no one in the government
expected terrorists to use an airplane to commit
domestic terrorism. They said she said this knowing
that there were reports (there were more than one) to
the contrary, and in fact they were the subject of
discussion at the ranch in Crawford in August 2001
(and no doubt much more). The
point is that between the President's behavior and
the statements of his own administration and those
serving it and his NSS agenda, all speak to
complicity in 9-11 and the need to curtail an
administration taking this country on a path already
diminishing it and its future.
The continued import of the evidence
continues to negatively reflect on the President. We
wrote last week about how glad we were to see six
million people marching globally against the war. We
wrote on February 19, 2003:
Just yesterday President Bush referred to the fact
that six million people, ironically a symbolic amount
and reference in itself, marched against war with
Iraq, as irrelevant. This is a very dangerous sign,
when a world leader can go out and tell the nation he
represents that six million people marching has no
impact on his aberrational desire to launch a war,
when doing so may have the very consequence he seeks
in the pursuit of it: biotoxic warfare.
Today, the following comment was made on the
McLaughlin report by Eleanor Cliff: Click here for
video
We close by highlighting that when a
President pursues a just course, he doesn't face
global opposition and he doesn't need to spend untold
billions to bribe, coerce, cajole and threaten world
leaders into joining him in a coalition and/or
permitting the use of their country as a staging
area. His father had no trouble, but he does, for
there is another agenda, as we have relayed today, in
play, but to the world it seems to be a legitimate
global opposition, masking the deeper nefarious plan.
However, no matter how clever the opposition,
President Bush and his cohorts will attack
for many if not all the reasons he needs to do so,
to serve an agenda and course that we have explained
is outrageously Machiavellian, one never before seen,
to implement world domination and control, not to the
benefit of the United States of America, but to
those, the limited few, the true beneficiaries
thereof deploying our country, its people and its
wealth, to serve themselves and their elitist centrix
group and families.
Video references are made for fair comment
in view that nearly all, if not all, points rendered
on Meet the Press and McLaughlin Report are positions
proffered by Sender, Berl & Sons Inc. in 2002,
and are further expounded upon above in view of their
being raised at this point of time in a context of
putative if not imminent war, this web page serving
the public interest without commercial interest to
oppose the planned conflict as being in contravention
to the public good.
Reproduction or use of this web page or its links and
material otherwise
accessible are thereby strictly prohibited.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK (Retired, Former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander): And if you really want
allies, you got to listen to their opinions, you've
got to take them seriously, you’ve got to
work with their issues. Every one of our allied
leaders is an elected leader, at least in Europe. And
that means they have domestic politics and political
factors at home and economic factors at home that
influence their opinions. And those have to be respected
just like we would expect them to respect us
for our political system in the United States.
If we deal with our allies
on a basis of respect, if we give them
the opportunity and the evidence and the arguments
and the analysis that’s needed to help shape
their public opinions, then we can expect them to go
along with us.
*** And then there’s the problem of the
weapons of mass destruction themselves. Where are
they? Do we know where they all are, and are they
mobile? And what about these labs? What we don’t
want to do is go into Iraq, knock the heck out of the
forces, get rid of the administration and then find
the scientists, the bags of anthrax, the vials of
botulinum, have disappeared because al-Qaeda is
there. Somebody wants those. Those are like 21st-
century gold right now. They may be under the control
of Saddam’s special Republican Guards today, but
when we destroy those forces we’ve got to make
sure we have got the
weapons of mass
destruction under control, and that’s
going to be a real task.
***MR. RUSSERT: If Saddam, in fact, embarks on a scorched-earth
strategy where he blows up his own dams, his own
electrical grids, sets his oil fields on fire, in
fact, flooding and starving his own people, how do we
cope with that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think
the first thing is the military planners have to
recognize that this is a potential defensive strategy
on the part of Saddam. So we’ve got to have in
place the measures to prevent as much of that as
possible. That means we’re not going to wait for
him to do that. We’re going to take the
initiative. We’re going to try to grab those
assets, defeat his ability to sabotage and so forth.
But after that, we’ve got to be prepared to deal
with the humanitarian consequences, the logistics,
the infrastructure, I mean, the disease.
The thing that worries
me the most about this is if he has
bioweapons—and I certainly believe he does, and
I certainly believe he has the means to deliver
them—and the most easily deliverable and the
most dangerous actually is anthrax because it can be
spread in advance and it remains active for days,
weeks, as spores on the ground. If he does spread
this anthrax in the southern Shiia regions before
the United States attacks, and we have a
million or two million or three million Iraqi
civilian casualties in there as we’re moving
through it, that’s a nightmare that no U.N.
agency, and certainly not the United States, not even
the agencies we’ve created under former retired
and retired military officers—we’re not
going to be able to deal with that easily. So there
are real risks here.
MR. RUSSERT: Is this a necessary war?
GEN. CLARK: Probably
not. I would say this is an elective
operation at this time. This is like elective
surgery. And the risks that we’re facing
right now is we’ve got North Korea out there. We know
they are moving to produce weapons of mass
destruction. Brent Scowcroft has an op-ed I saw in
the newspaper today. It’s a very important
opinion. And he’s certainly in a position to
know. But we almost went to war in 1994 against North
Korea because we thought they were going to have
nuclear weapons. This has been a red line for United
States administrations. Now, maybe in this case, this
administration has decided, “Well, it’s not
that significant. Let them have six nukes or 12 nukes
or 14 nukes. I don’t know.” But we
don’t seem to have gotten a grip on this.
*** And so that’s
really the most urgent problem in my view. It
doesn’t mean that you can’t deal with Iraq
also. But we haven’t come full to grips with
North Korea yet in my view, and now, we’ve got
homeland security. And now, we’re starting to
see really the threat of al-Qaeda, and a lot of
people are asking, “Could we have done more
against al-Qaeda?” And, you know, I find
it hard to believe that we haven’t put the full
funding and resources of the United States government
into Homeland Security. Early after 9/11, the
administration made a decision to pursue offense,
rather than defense, I support that decision, in
principle. But it’s the balance that’s
important. And when you’re contemplating
a $100 billion resource expenditure against Iraq, but
you can’t put another $5 billion into Homeland
Security to protect the American people, you have to
ask: Which strategy best protects America?
And so that’s really the most urgent problem in
my view. It doesn’t mean that you can’t
deal with Iraq also. But we haven’t come full
to grips with North Korea yet in my view, and now,
we’ve got homeland security. And now,
we’re starting to see really the threat of
al-Qaeda, and a lot of people are asking, “Could
we have done more against al-Qaeda?” And, you
know, I find it hard to believe that we haven’t
put the full funding and resources of the United
States government into Homeland Security. Early after
9/11, the administration made a decision to pursue
offense, rather than defense, I support that
decision, in principle. But it’s the balance
that’s important. And when you’re
contemplating a $100 billion resource expenditure
against Iraq, but you can’t put another $5
billion into Homeland Security to protect the
American people, you have to ask: Which strategy best
protects America?
Statement by US Senator
Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 2003
"To contemplate war is to think about the most
horrible of human experiences. On this February day,
as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every
American on some level must be contemplating the
horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent --
ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no
discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the
pros and cons of this particular war. There is
nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate,
paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned
by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial
pages of our newspapers is there much substantive
discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging
in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate.
This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No.
This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a
turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a
turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of
a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary
way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of
preemption -- the idea that the United States or any
other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is
not imminently threatening but may be threatening in
the future -- is a radical new twist on the
traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in
contravention of international law and the UN
Charter. And it is being tested at a time of
world-wide terrorism, making many countries around
the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or
some other nation's -- hit list. High level
Administration figures recently refused to take
nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a
possible attack against Iraq. What could be more
destabilizing and unwise than this type of
uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism
has tied the vital economic and security interests of
many nations so closely together? There are huge
cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and
U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging
worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on
mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming
rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once
solid alliance against global terrorism which existed
after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist
attacks with little guidance as to when or where such
attacks might occur. Family members are being called
to active military duty, with no idea of the duration
of their stay or what horrors they may face.
Communities are being left with less than adequate
police and fire protection. Other essential services
are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is
grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are
rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over
two years, must be judged on its record. I believe
that that record is dismal.
In that scant two years, this Administration has
squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6
trillion over the next decade and taken us to
projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This
Administration's domestic policy has put many of our
states in dire financial condition, under funding
scores of essential programs for our people. This
Administration has fostered policies which have
slowed economic growth. This Administration has
ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health
care for our elderly. This Administration has been
slow to provide adequate funding for homeland
security. This Administration has been reluctant to
better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to
find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we
heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging
them to kill. This Administration has split
traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all
time, International order-keeping entities like the
United Nations and NATO. This Administration has
called into question the traditional worldwide
perception of the United States as well-intentioned,
peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the
patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and
name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly
on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,
and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole
countries as evil, denigrating powerful European
allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude
insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We
may have massive military might, but we cannot fight
a global war on terrorism alone. We need the
cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies
as well as the newer found friends whom we can
attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine
will do us little good if we suffer another
devastating attack on our homeland which severely
damages our economy. Our military manpower is already
stretched thin and we will need the augmenting
support of those nations who can supply troop
strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so
far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already
be starting to regain its hold in that region. We
have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the
peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may
yet again flourish in that remote and devastated
land.
Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces.
This Administration has not finished the first war
against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on
another conflict with perils much greater than those
in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short?
Have we not learned that after winning the war one
must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in
Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is
rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an
occupying power which controls the price and supply
of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To
whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after
Saddam Hussein?
Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in
devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate
with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and
Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals,
bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to
terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to
a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose
language and our callous disregard of the interests
and opinions of other nations increased the global
race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation
an even more lucrative practice for nations which
need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless
and arrogant Administration has initiated policies
which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any
President after the savage attacks of September 11.
One can appreciate the frustration of having only a
shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on
which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind
of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign
policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing
is inexcusable from any Administration charged with
the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the
destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet.
Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this
Administration are outrageous. There is no other
word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is
possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and
destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq
-- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is
under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is
possibly only days before we send thousands of our
own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical
and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On
the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist
attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is
business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through
history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this
great nation and its good and trusting citizens are
not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And
war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.
I truly must question the judgment of any President
who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack
on a nation which is over 50% children is "in
the highest moral traditions of our country".
This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure
appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our
mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly.
Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a
box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way
if we allow more time.
END