We read a WorldNetDaily article this morning that indicated that the 9-11 Commission is no match for Condy Rice, self made woman who rose to the top on merit. The article stated in part:

Unlike a certain junior senator from New York, Condoleezza Rice didn't get to the White House by marrying some slick, skirt-chasing sleaze-ball, who had to redefine "sexual relations" and "is" just to hold onto some semblance of respectability. She doesn't have to stand by an unfaithful man in order to keep her position of power. She doesn't have to lose her billing records or memory to cover up past misdeeds, nor does she have to acquire illegal FBI files to keep others in check. Condi is the real deal. She is a self-made woman. She didn't achieve her success by cutting in the front of the line or cleaver manipulation. She climbed up the ladder to the very pinnacle of power in this country by hard work and determination. Not only is Dr. Rice a Russian linguist and foreign-policy expert, she plays classical music just to relax. **Dr. Rice hasn't been in hiding. She's been making the rounds of the major TV shows, capped by a lengthy "60 Minutes" appearance on Sunday. The poised, articulate Rice had no trouble fielding questions from Ed Bradley – one of the best interviewers in the business. Does anyone seriously think she is going to have any trouble with 9-11 panel members? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37841

We do. And to prove the point we reviewed her recent 60 Minutes interview. See after reading her answers to Ed Bradley and our comments whether you think she will make a good witness (assuming they ask her the right questions --- in this regard see Part I http://www.senderberl.com/questionsfordcr.htm):

BRADLEY: Did you watch Richard Clarke's testimony last week?

RICE: I watched parts of it. I had other things to do -- I was meeting with Israeli officials, I was meeting with Russian officials. I had quite a bit to do that day.

SenderBerl: All she had to say was yes. By answering the way she did she showed herself defensive and carrying a demeaning attitude toward the important work and function of the 9-11 Commission. It was also clear that she lied. It would be irresponsible for her as the NSA not to watch it. Thus her answer right in the first seconds of the interview showed that she is subject to giving poor answers and responses.

BRADLEY: But my question is, how did his apology make you feel? Did you think he was grandstanding? Did you think it was sincere?

RICE: I'm not going to question what Dick Clarke was or was not feeling. I think, from my point of view, the families need to know that everybody understands the deep loss. The President went, on the first anniversary of 9/11, out to that field in Pennsylvania; he went to Ground Zero of 9/11 at the World Trade Center; he met with the families, he walked among them. I, took, walked among them and watched them talk about and listened to them talk about and acknowledge the lives of the people that they had lost. Everybody understands the deep tragedy that has happened here.

SenderBerl: This response shows that she could trigger a line of questions by Richard Ben-Veniste who will not let her pull off any legerdemain in answering a simple question. Not once did she express her feelings. Ben-Veniste is going to preclude her from making general statements with a broad brush. He is going to ask what she did AFTER the high alert was removed due to financial costs and considerations to keep the nation at the highest state of alert then possible.

BRADLEY: When you look back at the period of time between the inauguration and September 11th, is there anything you wish that you had done differently?

RICE: Ed, I really can't answer that question. We were where we were.I know what we did. I know that shortly after we came into office, I asked the counterterrorism team --which we kept in place from the Clinton administration in order to provide continuity and experience -- we asked them what policy initiatives should we take.

SenderBerl: She shows how she obfuscates: "I really can't answer that question. We were where we were." Give me a break. If we heard that we would say before the nation, "Dr. Rice I asked you whether you wished you could do something differently knowing what happened on September 11th. Let me ask you a more focused question: do you wish you had kept up that heightened state of alert another month? Do you wish that you put Richard Clarke's strategy into formal play? Are you telling us that you wouldn't wish you had done either of these things amongst a host of other things?"

***

But we would not be honest with the American people if we said that before 9/11 this country was on war footing. What the President did after 9/11 was to declare war on al Qaeda in ways that had not been done before.

SenderBerl: This is another Rice trick. We weren't at war. If we were, sure things would have been different. But hey Dr. Rice you are the NSA with responsibilities to protect this nation in case of an act of war, in case of terrorism, not after an attack is first launched. Since we now know there was a genuine and serious threat, that the country was on high alert, we want to know how the opposite of high alert coincidentally was in play right after the high alert was removed allowing 9-11 to become the tragic event recorded for history.

BRADLEY: But do you think that you or the administration made any mistakes, any misjudgments between the inauguration and 9/11?

RICE: I think we did what we knew how to do. We read the threat reporting. The President was briefed by his Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, 46 times with items related in one way or another to al Qaeda. His response to that was to say, "I can't swat at flies anymore; I've got to have a comprehensive strategy to take this organization down."

SenderBerl: Here is yet another Rice tactic. Misdirect. We weren't focused on protecting the country but in killing terrorists on a wholesale level; that's my specialty, shock and awe. She is not willing to say mistakes were made. People who reject accepting that mistakes were made can't apologize and thus the difficulty in responding above to the question about whether she would offer an apology to the families of the victims. It all shows that underneath it all she knows the truth and to protect the truth she has to take a 100% defensive stance and route. Once you break her down, she might crumble if she realized she made a single major mistake in her sworn testimony before the nation. Again, we don't believe her comment in May 2002 that they had no idea that terrorists would use planes as missile was a lie (and thus a grievous error). We believe she didn't know because we don't believe she was the genuine NSA. When it came to Richard Clarke, under the umbrella of the covert agenda in play, she no doubt consulted with the true NSA as to how to deal with him (the true NSA no doubt fully aware the terrorists were planning to use airplanes as missiles in terms of his planning for the events of 9-11).

***

We were discussing the threat spike that took place between June and July, to try and figure out how to respond. Now, to be fair, the threat reporting was all about attacks that might take place abroad -- in the Persian Gulf, or perhaps something against Israel, or perhaps something against the G8 leader's summit that was going to take place in Genoa that summer. And we were responding to that. I called in, along with Andy Card, Dick Clarke on July 5 th and I said, you know, even though none of the threat reporting really is relating to the United States, perhaps you better get the domestic agencies together and see what we need to do to button down the country. And, in fact, the FAA issued warnings as a result of that; the FBI issued warnings; INS and Customs were informed about these threats. But everything pointed to an attack abroad.

SenderBerl: This is the window of how she is going to play the 9-11 Commission. That she and the President were focused on protecting US interests abroad and the BIG LIE is that there was no intelligence that the US was a target of it! She is going to rest on the rationale “I mean after all there was never any incident of domestic terrorism -- so how can you blame little ole me for focusing on what was statistically probable rather than waste my precious time on the remote (per wasting the President’s time in asking him to appear before the 9-11 Commission). Once 9-11 happened, I became responsible on the domestic front.” This is the argument she will proffer. The truth has to be highlighted by the type of questioning we posited in Preparing for Condy Rice (we duplicate it below). A devastating line of questions can be opened up in whether government officials changed their own travel plans due to the warnings. Once this is established, as it should be then it is disingenuous for her to plead for understanding on the basis that her focus was overseas. Of course the real zinger is to ask whether or not she told the President to get the heck out of the Booker Elementary School a publicly known location. Her answer right here can open the portal to the truth. When two planes hit two towers and two more were unaccounted for perhaps she was still unsure as to whether the terrorism would be here or abroad. Further, a major line of inquiry is that she admits that “she” told her aides to button down the country and then coincidentally when 9-11 unravels only weeks after unbuttoning the country the US goes from a state of high alert to complete vulnerability when Armitage confirmed in his testimony that  “a big problem is coming” and Clarke told of Tenet’s hair was on fire about imminent domestic terrorism. It should be highlighted that the intelligence that she did not know about was for use of airplanes here at home and thus it must be asked whether she did know or did not know about it (link to the following major news story breaking just today on this issue http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514). It states in part:

A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraftmonths before the strikes happened. She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".

If Condi Rice testifies she did not know about it then she will prove our case and point that she was not and is not the NSA – the true NSA the one complicit in 9-11 and as we asserted in our exposition that Rice was not the true NSA and that 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.

Of course if she does admit knowing it, then she is dead meat and opens the entire portal to Bush administration complicity in 9-11 and that Clarke’s message that the Bush administration did everything to avoid protecting the country from what unraveled as 9-11 is confirmed.

HER SAYING THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW THE THREATS INVOLVED DOMESTIC US INTEREST WHEN ALSO SAYING WHO KNEW THAT TERRORISTS WOULD USE PLANES AS MISSILES AGAINST BUILDINGS ARE BOTH TRUE AS FAR AS SHE IS CONCERNED FOR SHE WAS OUT OF THE LOOP. SO IF SHE ADMITS THAT BOTH OUR CONTENTIONS ARE TRUE, NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO BELIEVE HER, OPENING THE PORTAL TO THE TRUTH OF THE COMPLICIT SHADOW GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL. IF SHE SAYS SHE DID KNOW SHE PUTS HERSELF INTO THE RING OF COMPLICITY OVER THE EVENTS OF 9-11 ASIDE FROM CONFIRMING HERSELF TOTALLY INEPT AND INCOMPETENT AS THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR (confirming further that she has misled the country when speaking to the media).

THERE IS A CHANCE THAT RICE WILL NOT APPEAR ON THURSDAY BECAUSE OF THESE INESCAPABLE DYNAMICS UNLESS THE 9-11 PANEL IS GOING TO THROW HER SOFTBALL QUESTIONS

BRADLEY: But even the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hugh Shelton, has said that the Bush administration pushed terrorism -- and I'm quoting here -- "farther to the back burner."

RICE: I just don't agree. We did have a lot of -- a lot of priorities. We did have to build a new relationship with Russia and a new relationship with China. It's a good thing that we did with Russia, because, after all, our ability to function in Central Asia was very much dependent on that good relationship with Russia. Yes, we had issues -- you may remember in the early days -- with the Chinese having forced down one of our planes. Yes, there were other issues. But terrorism was considered important enough and urgent enough that the President had sessions with George Tenet 46 times on that issue; that George Tenet and the rest of us were told to develop a strategy that would not just swat flies.

SenderBerl: We only hope that she says something equally stupid to the 9-11 Commission. Why? Because the perfect question to her right there would have been whether 9-11 then allowed the Bush administration to then do more than swat flies. Depending on her answer, a skilled examiner can open the portal to the truth. One thing for sure, the Commission can prove that such a strategy was already developed, and inquire whether Rice knew about it, and whether there was any hope that such a strategy could play out without major domestic terrorism. We don't know unfortunately the details of Clarke's strategy but we believe it had to do with protecting the USA (for working on what amounts to an invasion is not the type of strategy one would prepare unless he or she was aware that the agenda in play was to go to war and to encourage or allow domestic terrorism to take place). Rice shows that she can be ripped apart because her answers truly do not reflect a focused mindset on the dynamics in play at a Commission hearing. While she might be avid to appear on television, and she might think she is good at it, WE (AND THE N.W.O. LEADERSHIP RECOGNIZE THAT SHE IS GOING TO BE A VERY POOR WITNESS AND THUS THE N.W.O. LEADERSHIP HAS TO DO WHATEVER IT CAN TO MAKE SURE THE 9-11 PANEL DOES NOT PURSUE ITS RESPONSIBILITIES).

RICE: Ed, I don't know what a sense of urgency, any greater than the one we had, would have caused us to do differently. We weren't going to invade Afghanistan in the first months of the Bush administration. Dick Clarke, himself, said that if the strategy that we were pursuing, that we were developing, had been completed on January 27th, it would not have stopped 9/11. What we were trying to do was to put together a strategy that might finally, over a period of time, actually eliminate al Qaeda.

SenderBerl: Ed Bradley was really kind to her. We're talking about protecting the USA not about strategy to kill the terrorists as a pre-emptive maneuver.

BRADLEY: But the appearance here, because there are other examples of countries with state sponsored terrorism -- Iran, Libya, Syria -- he didn't ask him about that; he asked just about Iraq. The perception is, people listening to what Clarke had to say, is that the President was preoccupied with Iraq.

RICE: Given our relationship with Iraq, which was probably the most actively hostile relationship in which we were involved, given that they were firing at our airplanes every day, given that, I think that it's a perfectly logical question. But I was with the President a great deal in those first days after 9/11, and I'll tell you what was on his mind. What was on his mind was to avoid a follow-on attack. What was on his mind was how to reassure the American people. He was talking many times a day with the economics advisor, Larry Lindsey, about how to get Wall Street back up and running so the financial system wouldn't collapse. He was concerned about how to get airplanes flying again and was talking constantly to Norm Mineta about how to get Reagan Airport operating again.

SenderBerl: This is why Cheney is gong to have a heart attack. Her modus operandi is to deflect and misdirect. She doesn't formulate a response that directly deals with the question. While Bradley lets it pass, we trust the commission members won't.

BRADLEY: We've had this war on terrorism since -- concentrated since 9/11. But it's been reported that if you look at the 30 months since 9/11, there have been more attacks by al Qaeda than in the 30 months prior to 9/11. So what effect does this taking out two-thirds of the leadership have?

RICE: We are being attacked by them because they know that we're at war with them. And they're going to continue to attack until we defeat them.

SenderBerl: Here's another stupid statement that a skilled examiner could take her apart. A question is always in order whether we do business with the families of those we are at war with and whether when the American people are grounded, they, the best resources to find and neutralize Osama bin-Laden, are permitted to leave the country.

RICE: This President doesn't care about his legacy. What he cares about is keeping this country safe and secure. We are safer today than we were on September 10th. We're not yet safe. We've got a lot of work to do. We've got a lot of work to do in homeland security. We've got a lot of work to do against the terrorists abroad. This is a war and it's going to take time. But all of the...

SenderBerl: Oh what a political hole she opened here (aside from admitting to our vulnerability on 9-11). A perfect question would be since she thinks we are safer today than September 10th whether it would be fair to say that we were safer during Bill Clinton's term of office than anytime since the Bush administration came into office? She would squirm over that one. It seems that as soon as Bush came into office, the welcome mat was put into play for domestic terrorists.

RICE: Al Qaeda is not more dangerous today than it was on September 11th, but you don't have to make that choice. Al Qaeda is dangerous. And we're going to have to pursue them and we're going to have to defeat them, and we're going to have to change the context in which they operate by working to develop a different kind of Middle East, in which you don't have ideologies of hatred; in which people fly airplanes into buildings.

This is going to be a long war. It is a comprehensive war. It is not going to be enough to win in Afghanistan, to even kill bin Laden and to return to law enforcement. They declared war...

SenderBerl: War against whom? Would you please tell this committee how we can recognize when this war is over -- will it be only when we conquer the world? If you have taken this country to war not against a nation but a group of people, the American people need to know how to recognize the enemy and recognize what needs to be done to finish the war. Providing this country with a declaration that we will be at war for decades is not the words of a responsible government or administration but words attesting to an administration with serious deficiencies and personal problems of its own -evidenced by its mistakes costing numerous lives and alienating the world because of a personal executive decision to invade Iraq.

BRADLEY: And if the result of those elections the Iraqi people say, we want an Islamic republic, not a democracy?

RICE: Ed, there is simply nothing that suggests that the Iraqi people want anything but what most people in the world want -- and that is the freedom to say what they think, the freedom to send their girls and boys to school, the ability on basis of conscience to carry out religious practice. This is a sophisticated society, and everything demonstrates so far that what they want is to be perhaps the first really great democracy in the Middle East

SenderBerl: Another Rice gem with the US closing down the Iraqi press it doesn't like -- the one calling for a religious government. Freedom of choice means welcoming free choice if that choice is in line with Bush administration wishes. This is what has caused the world to now not only lose the respect it had for us during Clinton's term of office, but to detest us with a passion. This President makes Bill Clinton look like a hero.

Now, after this the WorldNetDaily has the audacity to tell us that she will have the 9-11 Commission around her little finger. Trust that you will find this will not be the case. Otherwise, we would ask for fifteen minutes to offer our questions which we believe will open portals galore to the dismal truth and secrets of this presidential administration.

We take the liberty of posting Part I directly below. http://www.senderberl.com/questionsfordcr.htm

Preparing for Condy Rice...Part I

Her agenda will be to obfuscate and thus it is imperative for the 9-11 Commission to ask questions from which it will be difficult to escape the truths reflected by the realities taking place in connection with 9-11.

For your interest and possible benefit, we quickly drafted questions within the parameters of a Commission Hearing that even if known should prove difficult for Dr. Rice to fashion an escape. After she testifies, we will review and see whether the Commission pursued these lines. Remember, if the Commission is subsequently seen as soft, then we will assume that Bush has relinquished on more than having Condoleezza appear to testify publicly under oath! Otherwise, keep in mind that the Commission was allowed to pursue its agenda understanding it was obligated in the end to whitewash the truths behind 9-11.

However, if you keep up a calling and writing campaign there is a chance that history will be made. Perhaps it has been your efforts to date that has in fact emboldened the commission to tackle the Bush administration as it has done!

Question.  In July and August 2001, you placed the country on heightened alert. Would that statement be accurate and fair to say?

Comment: She will say yes unless she wants to say it was due to Clarke and Tenet.

Question: Did you say in March 2004 "In June and July, when the threat spikes were so high, we were at battle stations?" Is this statement true and accurate?

Question:  On September 11, 2001, is it true Dr. Rice, that unfortunately and regrettably the country was not on this heightened state of alert?

Comment: She has no choice but to say yes. 

Question: Richard Clarke was one of the people in the current administration who was consistently vigilant in pushing for a strategy to deal with the events that unfolded the morning of 9-11, isn’t that so Dr. Rice?

Comment: She would be hard pressed to say anything but yes.

Question: The President requested that such a strategy be prepared, didn’t he? Did Richard Clarke have such a strategy prepared for submission to the President?

Comment: Hard pressed to say anything but yes.

Question: Was that strategy operative during the heightened alert status of July and August 2001?

Comment: Anything Dr. Rice answers here dooms the administration in terms of malfeasance for the events of 9-11.

Question:  Dr. Rice, as part of your responsibilities as the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States of America, were you obliged to familiarize yourself with the dangers and threats of domestic terrorism?

Comment: She should say yes.

Question: Do you NOW recognize that part of that threat was the deployment of aircraft to strike major buildings and landmarks in the US?

Comment: She has to say yes. There is no need to pursue the issue further with her. She has just admitted to a major failure to meet the standard of the office she holds. If people can’t understand her failure to know, then they have to ask her whether she relied on someone else during this period to make decisions as the NSA including handling the pursuits of Richard Clarke for a strategy to deal with the threat of imminent domestic terrorism.

Question: In your position of NSA, and in terms of your obligation to become fully familiar with what you need to know within the ambit of your responsibilities, would you say that one aircraft off transponder in the New York City or Washington D.C. area would be reason for concern?

Comment: She may say yes or no. If no, then the inquiry should be would her answer be the same or different if there was reliable intelligence of imminent domestic terrorism? If she still says no, then she is incompetent. Needless to say that the logic becomes more concrete and sure with two three and four planes off transponder, as the case on 9-11.

Question: As the National Security Advisor, do you believe that it is part of your responsibility to anticipate threats regarding terrorism?

Question:  If these proceedings were televised Dr. Rice and we all received notice that we were under attack by terrorists, right this moment, would you suggest we leave this room?

Question: Has your office prepared or helped prepare a strategy to protect the vital interests of the United States?

Question: Dr. Rice is it fair to say that part and parcel of protecting the vital interests of the United States includes protecting the President of the United States?

Comment: Without another question, you have Rice with her own answers supporting our position that the President remaining at Booker Elementary was proof positive of complicity by the Bush administration.

Question: Richard Clarke said the following:

“ 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.”

Dr. Rice is anything he said false or inaccurate and if so could you clarify it for us?

Question: Richard Clarke said the following:

“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.”

Dr. Rice is anything he said false or inaccurate and if so could you clarify it for us?

Question: Dr. Rice did George Tenet every say to you in substance "Something is going to happen."  If so, could you tell us to your best recollection when and how the United States dealt with that warning from the CIA director? By the way, did he often generate alarms of this order and magnitude?

Question: Dr. Rice did the President on or about August 6, 2001, receive a 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?

Question: Dr. Rice was the White House told in July 2001 that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles?

Question:  Are you aware of conflict of interest standards?

Question: Is it customarily fair for judges in a court case to even avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest?

Question: During your tenure as National Security Advisor did you have an opportunity to speak with oil companies regarding their opinion about matters of public interest? Did any conversation at all encompass events in the Middle East?

Question: Did any US oil company ever suggest that the United States would be better off not making a military incursion into Iraq?

Question: Were our air and shorelines on 9-11 under an above average level of monitoring for terrorism or attack?

Question: Dr. Rice, is the country better off because 9-11 took place? Did we make lemonade out of the lemons we were handed? Would this be the case if the Iraqis had welcomed invading troops with open arms?

Question: On March 19, 2003, the attack on Iraq commenced at 9:00 PM and the President addressed the nation at approximately 10:15 PM. At 6:00 AM you confronted President Bush with the bad news that Saddam had survived the bunker buster bombs. In view of what you learned regarding 9-11, did you anticipate that US troops were at great risk for WMD attack between 9:00PM and 6:00 AM the next morning when clumped together in Northern Kuwait? Had they been subject to such attack would the catastrophe have been beyond your imagination to anticipate? Was the fact that Saddam survived the bunker buster attack beyond your imagination? How long exactly was it before the Commander in Chief authorized the troops to move from their clustered positions in Northen Kuwait?

END MAR 30 04 11:00PM SENDER, BERL & SONS INC.

Is Colin Powell Sending a Message to Condoleezza Rice?
April 3, 2004

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin Powell directly criticized the intelligence community for the first time Friday for giving him apparently flawed information that he used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Powell said the "most dramatic'' of his allegations -- that Saddam Hussein's regime had mobile germ labs -- was based on questionable U.S. intelligence. The allegations were central to the evidence that Powell dramatically presented to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, as he urged a skeptical world body to confront Hussein. Powell said that as he prepared for his U.N. presentation, intelligence officials gave him data from four sources on mobile weapons laboratories. He insisted that he had pushed them to make sure their analysis was correct. "It was presented to me in the preparation of that (portfolio of evidence) as the best information and intelligence that we had," he said. "They certainly indicated to me ... that it was solid. "Now it appears not to be the case that it was solid,'' he said. He called on a federal commission investigating prewar intelligence to examine how the data had been gathered. The comments were an abrupt reversal for Powell, who had acknowledged disagreements among analysts but had not criticized the intelligence agencies.

SenderBerl: Let us interpret the timing of this admission: he is telling Rice they used me, fooled me, as a pawn and a dupe for an egregious act still unfolding for history; don't trust them (there is no doubt that Condy is under full time surveillance and supervision and there is little doubt that if Powell tried to tell this to her directly now, it would not prove wise for either of them). He is close to Condy Rice and no doubt sees that if as Secretary of State he could be summarily used to actuate their invidious agenda, being given the string of lies of how the mission was to serve the country and world, he has little doubt that Condy Rice can be further fooled to cover for the even more invidious crime behind the NWO curtain. If the 9-11 panel asks the questions they no doubt should ask then Rice's testimony could prove critical to the course of the future, that is how potentially important it may turn out to be. Bush and Rice are independently now looking in the mirror and re-assessing what they see. We noted the President making a lonely run to Marine 1. But please understand, it is your calling the Congress, your writing, calling faxing, shouting, hollering for the truths behind 9-11 NOW that means a great deal for the future of this country and the world.

A reminder about SenderBerl theses and interpretations: SenderBerl invokes you to THINK. To look at the facts from a prism of possibilities when you are dealing with controlled media and an administration unquestionably capable of making amoral decisions of historical magnitude. We have a plethora of expositions on the willingness to subscribe to mass murder to implement the NWO course, however, our favorite is the one we did using a Weekly Standard review of the Lucas Star Wars movie to uncover the NWO Straussian mindset. http://www.senderberl.com/lucas.htm. It is appropriate to reread it based on Powell's decision from where we sit to send a message to Condy Rice.

"The Myth of Bush as Hero" http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html#bushashero

Posted on March 29, 2004

Finally ... finally we can talk about what's really going on. Rather than accept the myth that 9/11 turned President Bush into a "hero" ... former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke has bravely spoken out to tell us the real story - that Bush did not treat terrorism as an urgent issue. And that going to war in Iraq, in addition to tragically costing us so many lives, has diverted money and resources away from where they should have been focused - on dismantling al Qaeda and strengthening our homeland security.

We now know that the Bush White House never made counterterrorism a priority leading up to September 11th. In fact, on April 30, 2001, the new administration released the government's annual report on terrorism, with a noted change: extensive mention of bin Laden, which previous terrorism reports contained, had been left out. A Bush State Department Official reportedly told CNN at that time that the U.S. government under Clinton had made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden.

In fact, Bush never even held a cabinet level meeting devoted to terrorism until the week before the attack. While FBI agents were fielding concerns about non-citizens in flight school uninterested in learning how to land planes, and the CIA was aware that potential terrorists had entered the United States, because terrorism was not a priority in the high levels of the federal government these discussions were never elevated to a place where the information could be shared across departments, where the appropriate people would have an opportunity to connect the dots...

Here is a brief timeline (much of the information is from the Center for American Progress) of some of the more egregious warnings of looming terrorism that Bush overlooked as he spent the first eight months in office planning tax cuts for the wealthy, devising a way to invade Iraq, and taking long vacations out at his ranch in Crawford, Texas:

1) A 1999 report prepared by the Library of Congress for the National Intelligence Council specifically theorized that al Qaeda could fly airplanes into buildings - so we know that the scope of the attack was not entirely beyond anyone's imagination.

2) In early 2001, a surge of al Qaeda activity and plans for attacks against American "interests" were noted, including by Israeli intelligence agencies.

3) Also in early 2001, the Bush administration departed from Clinton's policy of tracking money to terrorist organizations. (Was Bush trying to protect the Saudi royal family?)

4) In July 2001, U.S. and Italian officials were warned that al Qaeda may use planes as missiles at a Genoa summit of industrialized nations.

5) On August 6, 2001, while on vacation in Crawford, the president received a one and a half page briefing advising him that al Qaeda was capable of a major strike against the U.S., and that the plot could include the hijacking of American airplanes. And then what did the president do with this important information? He went fishing - bringing new meaning to the phrase, "Gone Fishin'"!

6) In July, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines because of a "threat assessment."

7) Newsweek has reported that on September 10th, 2001, a number of Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for the next morning due to security concerns, and "that as many as 10 to 12 warnings" were issued before 9/11 - "more than two of the warnings specifically mentioned the possibility of hijackings."

8) Also on September 10th (as I posted in a statement on November 21, 2002), Attorney General John Ashcroft rejected the FBI's request for a $58 million increase for their counterterrorism budget to pay for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. He did that despite the fact, discovered later by a Congressional investigation, that the FBI had only one analyst monitoring al Qaeda and a severe shortage of Arabic translators.

Soon after September 11th, Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center." And now Bush says, "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us, I would have used every resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." Did he really say this? I heard it on the radio but I couldn't believe my own ears. Indeed, the scope of the horror of 9/11 is beyond the realm of what even the most savvy threat assessors may have thought possible.

However ... as the brief timeline above shows, THE PRESIDENT WAS REPEATEDLY WARNED that al Qaeda was planning some sort of attack, and that the attack may involve airplanes. So these are my questions:

-WHY DIDN'T OUR GOVERNMENT DO MORE TO BEEF UP SECURITY AT AIRPORTS AND ON AIRPLANES?

-WHY WEREN'T WARNINGS ISSUED TO THOSE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT OUR FLIGHT SECURITY?

-ISN'T LEADERSHIP ABOUT ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY, ANTICIPATING THE UNFATHOMABLE, HEEDING WARNINGS AND FIRMLY ACTING UPON THEM?

-WHEN THE PRESIDENT RECEIVED A MEMO THAT HIJACKINGS OF AMERICAN PLANES MIGHT OCCUR, SHOULDN'T HE HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN ACTION?

I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND LEARNS THE FACTS, WOULD HAVE TO SERIOUSLY ASK THESE QUESTIONS ... AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER!

Focus: The key dynamic regarding Clarke's testimony is not that Bush shifted resources too early from Al-Qaeda to Iraq, to weaken the war against terrorism, because, on the historical dimension, this can be argued to be nothing more than an error in presidential judgement, but the fact that Clarke was jumping up and down for a presidential response to the IMMINENT MAJOR TERRORISM KNOWN FORTHCOMING against the United States of America; that he was deliberately denied direct presidential contact; that his efforts to communicate with the President concerning his concern and alarm, ultimately shared in by Tenet, was deliberately stifled; that the President thereby knowingly and willingly never implemented a formal strategic design, only relenting for a period of several weeks in elevating the American defensive shield, with the terrorism of 9-11 not so coincidentally taking place only days after the heightened defenses were not only diminished but severely and inexplicably dropped to a degree making America nearly totally vulnerable, days before the President changed his schedule to travel to Florida to read with second graders, after criticism for being away from the White House for the entire month of August. Couple this with the fact that the Secret Service did not implement its own protocol to protect the President, and that it allowed him to remain there for an extended period of time, a publicly known location, to speak to the nation on television, and that the American trillion dollar military alert defensive response system failed to send up a single jet plane to defend this nation, when four American planes went off transponder, military and civilian intelligence fully aware of the implications thereof, ESPECIALLY AFTER HAVING JUST GONE OFF HEIGHTENED DEFENSIVE ALERT, speaks to exactly where the focus of Clarke's testimony should lie. Further couple this with Paul O'Neill's admission, supported by Richard Perle, that the Bush administration was sitting with plans in hand to implement a design for world domination and control (first stop OPEC) and just waiting for an act of major domestic terrorism, then you have the slam dunk case that 9-11 was allowed to happen and that the Bush administration knew what was about to take place and wanted it to take place and was complicit thereby therein. If the White House for a second thought the President was in danger, the President would have been whisked away from the Booker Elementary School. His staying there was proof positive that they knew the parameters of the terrorism in play that day and that it would not put the President at risk when seated with the second graders in Florida at the Booker Elementary School.

RUSSERT: 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."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

Kean and Hamilton Reached?
(an important analysis of the Meet the Press transcript below)

We think so. After all, suddenly it is understandable to these political icons that a White House so beset with so many problems and issues in September 2001 (so many the President just had to run off and read with second graders), the Bush administration just could not deal with every contingency. This is from the same set of panel members who said that didn’t believe that the events of 9-11 had to happen. We suppose that sufficient reward was put before them to straighten out their perspectives to the political realities at hand.

It very disheartening. However, these two were the ones Bush and Cheney wanted to exclusively meet. So perhaps other panel members might still remember what service to the country and their office entails.

Just remember that the focus is not whether or not Al-Qaeda and terrorism were major items of central interest. Focus must be on the facet that Clarke’s efforts to protect the country under intelligence relating to domestic attacks were sandbagged and that we went from the highest state of alert domestically to one that left the barn door open on 9-11 for the events to unfold for history.

We didn’t need Al-Qaeda or terrorism to be front page because aside from the inescapable fact that we just had gone off that high alert, we have a trillion dollar military defense system to intervene when planes go off transponder. Would they push this malarkey upon us if those planes had nuclear payloads? Of course not.

Don’t forget the NSA is there to protect our nation and anticipate our needs. She is not there to sabotage efforts to protect our nation against the very attacks that concern this country's terrorism chiefs. Someone had better clearly explain how we went from the highest state of alert to de facto no alert. Someone better explain how the welcome mat for terrorists opened during Bush’s term and why he felt so self assured about hanging around the Booker T. Elementary School once Andrew Card told him that America was under attack. Many also want to know why Card didn’t stay by the President’s side just in case he had a question about what was happening. But history records that the President was more concerned about his mission with second graders during a non election year when he traveled to Florida after being criticized for being away from Washington all of August 2001.

Washington knows the truth. The Congress and the Democratic leaders all know the truth. They have honed political instincts and 9-11 to them represents an opportunity to grasp for themselves the riches of this obscene agenda. When we are lucky enough to have a person with inside information tell us that Condy Rice surely knew about the plans of terrorists to use planes to drive them into buildings, we see Kean and Hamilton say that she is among the many persons supplying the panel with information. Because of foreign press interest in her – highlighting that the US media is avoiding this important story – they are rushing looking into it. This entire political structure smells.

The Bush administration was asleep at its post on 9-11 – the important question whether it represented negligence or a deliberate intentional deed. If this country put its guard down to allow and assure the success the events of 9-11 so that Bush according to Rice could do more than swat at flies, then its time to take this president and his cohorts to task.

In this regard, the Commission better answer whether these terrorists could have commandeered two planes with precision into the World Trade Center based on flight school lessons, why one, two, three four planes off transponder did not trigger an immediate launch of a prepared response to defend this country. There was de facto no response to an attack that could have been so much worse than it was – that it was 3000 rather than 30000 or 300000 or even 3000000 therefore is attributable to luck or strange coincidence and all we can tell you if were the higher numbers no one would tolerate the feeble rationalizations seen to day by these two on Meet the Press. However, in respect to the 3000, what is the difference? Our position to protect this country should be the very same regarding 3000 than 3000000.

When we hear the White House say that was no way that this country or this administration could have prepared for the vents of 9-11, we get angry for that type of big lie bespeaks the need of this country to have committed trillions over decades to national defense. 

Don’t you see the lies get bigger and bolder since JFK – TWA Flight 800, Princess Diana, and now 9-11?  You are the victim. So sit around passive and you will get what the N.W.O. believes you well deserve.

What the American people better not forget that is that for six weeks this country was on the highest alert ever.

There is one line of questions this panel had better pursue.

In view of the highest state of alert in US history during the six weeks in the summer of 2001, what would have been the difference had the 9-11 attack taken place during this six-week period of time?

Answers to this line would show that there was no response on 9-11 and that the state of readiness WOULD have intervened in the events of 9-11 (accounting why the enemies within waited until this heightened level unknown to the terrorists abated).

There was a sense of urgency during that period of time. How do you account from moving to a state of urgency to one of complacency and de facto neglect?

Call and write this panel. Tell them you are watching and expecting them to ask the incisive questions. Tell them if they softball Rice, they better first tell the American people they now have developed a conflict of interest and are not discharging their duty. They know 9-11 needn’t have happened but it was allowed to happen and they better not sweep it under the rug.

From Meet the Press transcript:

MR. HAMILTON: Well, I'm not sure that it is. Let's take the question raised by Mr. Clarke's testimony. He said that the Bush administration put an important priority on al-Qaeda and terrorism but not an urgent one. Well, how do you draw that line between important and urgent? That's a very subjective kind of a judgment and it can easily be colored by your own biases, by your own position, if you would. That's very typical, it seems to me, of the kinds of differences we confront here.

SenderBerl: Misdirection, deflection. The issue must center on the high level of alert for the six weeks, the basis therefor, the reason it was lowered and the degree it was lowered. Tack on to this that we had a trillion dollar defense system to preclude attack on our country, with a system structured to respond to four planes off transponder and there was no response at all. Of course at any time couple on the issues regarding the President’s more than weird behavior at the Booker T. Elementary School and there is much the 9-11 panel needs to answer as fiduciaries for the USA.

MR. KEAN: I think that's probably fair and probably right, but I think they were skeptical about a number of things at that point. No question, there was a period in the summer when people refer to it as their hair being on fire, there were so many threats of one kind coming in, but most of them, in all honesty, were not threats to this country, they were threats to things abroad. And we put a barricades around our United States embassies. We tried to protect our American citizens over there. We did a number of actions in that area. Did we do enough at home? No, but I think to your question, there was some skepticism, no question about it.

SenderBerl: When we heard this we knew Kean was compromised. If he says something like this on national television he had better explain before making such a statement why this country was on the highest alert ever one that could not be sustained for more than six weeks apparently and how he can justify such a high state of alert unless someone in a high position had intelligence that supported a domestic attack.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post wrote this in May of last year: "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'," said "Richard Clark," the terrorism czar. "The group included the Federal Aviation Administration"--"the Coast Guard"--the--"FBI, Secret Service"--"Immigration and Naturalization Service."

"Clarke directed every counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer nonvital travel, put off
schedule exercises and 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."

Congressman Hamilton, it sounds like people in the White House really expected something big to happen and really did ring the alarm bell.

MR. HAMILTON: Yes. I think they did and especially Mr. Clarke at that. That's kind of a high watermark in the summer when the chatter on the intelligence lines was very high, a lot of reports coming in at that moment about possible terrorist activity. And there wasn't any question that there was a sense of urgency at that point and may have been the high watermark prior to, of course, September 11 in terms of the government being keyed up, ready to go and ready to act.

SenderBerl: You see that Russert understands and sees that these two have been compromised and it is only confirmed by Hamilton’s lame answer. These people should be hung until they fess up to the truth.

MR. RUSSERT: It says they were on high alert for six weeks, canceling vacations, the whole bit. And then, did we let our guard down before September 11th?

MR. KEAN: We did a bit, because the threat level went down. All these tremendous things that were coming over stopped coming over, and we weren't getting the level of threat that we got, and as that threat level went down and people had been sort of at the ready all along, they did let down their guard a bit. There's no question about it. We were not at the state of readiness on September 11th that we'd been back in August.

SenderBerl: You know…if we didn’t know better we would think that Kean spent the day with Condoleezza Rice. This is why the Constitution warned us to be on guard against enemies foreign and domestic.

MR. RUSSERT: Why do you think that is?

MR. KEAN: I think when the chatter went down, when they didn't hear all these people talking to each other so much, there were other priorities out there. You can't keep people sort of at the ready constantly, day after day after day after day, and I think gradually they had a plan. They had a meeting, as you know, just before September 11th. They thought they were operating on some of these things, but the actual tension relaxed as the chatter relaxed.

SenderBerl: Russert is a professional. He does his job, and then it is up to you and you and you to listen and act. He asks the right questions for a television journalist and he shows he knows that these people are among the low of the low, but he has to leave it to others to see the handwriting on the wall. Thus, we do what he cannot do but it is up to you to do the next step – holler loudly! By the way, how come not one representative of the families of 9-11 victims that prepared the questions for Rice and Bush have been invited onto these shows?

MR. HAMILTON: That no one has been let go?

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah.

MR. HAMILTON: Not really. First of all, government's not very good at that. not just this government but many governments, in holding people strictly accountable. Secondly, I think the problem is really more systemic in nature. The more I look at it, the more I see kind of systemwide problems rather than individual responsibility. That doesn't mean the commission will not make criticism. We may make criticisms--I don't know--of individual people. But what I'm quite sure is, we will find somewhere along the line that there were a lot of problems. A government has to manage huge amounts of data, not all of it in English. Millions and millions of bites of data come into the government all the time, and analyzing those, collecting them and disseminating--very, very tough job, and it takes systems analysis and management to an extraordinary degree.

SenderBerl: If you are not nauseated by this type of whitewash before the formal whitewash then there’s nothing we can say that will bring light to you.

MR. RUSSERT: There's a report in a British newspaper, The Independent, about a former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance, says she's provided information to the panel investigating the attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qaida's plan to attack the U.S. with aircraft months before the strike happened. Sibel Edmonds is her name. She said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission and provided information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting an attack using aircraft was months away, that terrorists were in place. Is she credible?

MR. KEAN: We've had all her testimony. It's under investigation. I can't say--we're certainly not there that she's credible or uncredible yet.

MR. HAMILTON: We've talked to her.

MR. KEAN: Yeah.

MR. HAMILTON: We've talked to people she has identified. We've looked at documents. Look, the commission gets leads by the dozens, every day. I had a dozen of them last week. And we do our level best to follow up on all of them. In this case, and several others that have been prominent in the European press, we have been very, very careful in our research. We're not totally completed with it, as the governor has mentioned.