- Kissinger to Head Independent Sept. 11 Probe
- By Adam Entous
- 11-27-2
-
-
- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite
initial objections, President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday approved
creation of an independent commission to investigate the government's failure
to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks, and tapped former Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger to lead the effort.
-
- "This investigation should carefully examine all
the evidence and follow all the facts wherever they lead," Bush said
at a bill-signing ceremony before flying to his Crawford, Texas, ranch
for a long Thanksgiving holiday weekend.
-
- "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson
of Sept. 11," added Bush, who was surrounded by lawmakers and families
of Sept. 11 victims.
-
- The Bush administration had long opposed the commission,
arguing that a congressional investigation was better equipped to preserve
national security secrets.
-
- Even after it accepted the idea in September, it argued
with lawmakers over the panel's composition. But families of the victims
of the attacks led a public campaign for its creation, pressuring Bush
and congressional leaders to back down.
-
-
- SenderBerl: You can see who deserves the credit here.
Family members of 9-11 victims. They have been vocal, forceful and aggressive
about it, and no doubt the credit thus goes out to the Internet for bringing
up issues which might otherwise escape these family members who carry great
political clout.
-
- So Bush brought in a man to lead the panel who will surely
mask the truth to save those whom he has so well served.
-
- They key person who will be targeted politically, not
because the Democrats are interested in truth, but because they are interested
in undermining Bush, will be Bush.
-
- Bush would be crazy to be openly questioned about 9-11
so he won't do it giving Daschle political fodder of the first magnitude
for 2004.
-
- However, SenderBerl is interested in truth not politics
and it is in mourning for what took place on 9-11 and since that day. Thus,
President Bush should be compelled to answer interrogatories, questions,
concerning the event, in lieu of personal testimony. From our perspective
we spent an hour preparing some questions we think should be posited in
such format to the President, the very questions and anticipated answers
as indicated below we pray might shake up the President to reconsider what
he has done and is doing to this country.
-
- Draft of type of questions which should be posited to
the President in interrogatory format:
-
- 1. Mr. President when you previously told the nation:
""Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill
on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect
the American people," does your statement hold exactly true if you
said: "Had I known that the enemy was going to attack New York or
Washington in September 2001, I would have done everything in my power
to prevent it from happening."
-
- SenderBerl: We offer anticipated answers by the President,
some which we are aware might not be true but which realistically will
be given to the question.
-
- Anticipated Answer ("AA"): Yes.
-
- 2. Mr. President as a result of your answer to the previous
question, what was your understanding regarding the Air Force failing to
immediately launch intercepts to four flights off transponder?
-
- AA: When the historical decision was made to ground all
air traffic, Military Command erroneously understood that it was a command
of this administration to ground ALL air traffic including military flights.
That is the very reason this administration has undertaken steps since
9-11 to assure that such errors and misconceptions do not again compromise
the interests of this country.
-
-
-
-
- 3. Are you not aware that even one commercial flight
off transponder invokes concern as expressed by your own administration?
-
- AA: Yes. That is exactly why I have indicated that errors
were made and this administration has taken steps to assure that it will
not happen again.
-
- 4. Is not immediately sending out military jet intercepts
as planned and intended inapposite to any expression of an attempt to protect
the American people from terrorism?
-
- AA. Yes. I have answered this line of thought in the
previous responses.
-
- 5. What exactly were your findings in regard this one
facet of failure to intercept hijacked airliners?
-
- AA: That the emergency response network was in need of
consolidation and overhaul and this administration has undertaken all steps
possible to assure that the incident will not repeat.
-
- 6. Did not your National Security Advisor publicly state
that your office was not aware of terrorists planning or plotting with
commercial airliners to effectuate terrorist strikes?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 7. Was she not thereafter shown to be mistaken?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 8. Is it fair to say that it is shocking that your NSA
should not be aware of major facets of anticipated terrorist attacks known
throughout the intelligence communities here and abroad?
-
- AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "9."
-
- 9. Why then would she say what she did say?
-
- AA: Condy Rice's actions are always intended to serve
this country and the administration she serves. During this period, she
was acutely aware that certain disclosures might compromise national security
interests. When she was asked the question, it was my understanding that
her response was intended at that time to protect national security interests.
-
- 10, Was this because an affirmative answer by her would
have highlighted the failure under such knowledge to intercept the planes?
-
- AA: This administration acknowledges the need for improvements
in the emergency response network which have already been effectuated.
Dr. Rice's response as indicated was only with a given mindset to protect
the national security interests of this country.
-
- 11. In that very regard, Mr. President when Andrew Card
advised you when you were seated with the children at the Florida elementary
school of the second attack on the World Center Trade buildings, why did
you not respond to what he told you?
-
- AA: I had already discussed with my Chief of Staff steps
that should be undertaken if the first attack on the World Trade Center
North building was confirmed to be an act of terrorism.
-
- 12. Did he ask you for instructions to convey to governmental
authorities awaiting your advice?
-
- AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "11."
-
- 13. Since there were two plane attacks, did it cross
your mind that there could be more?
-
- AA: I was advised that the FAA had issued a warning about
possible multiple hijackings before I sat down with the children in Florida.
The FAA advised four planes could not be located on filed flight plans.
-
- SenderBerl: We are now entering a very sensitive area
where the President has to admit whether he did or did not know about the
threat and potential of multiple hijackings. We believe he would be ill
advised to deny it, since it was a matter which had already been relayed
to the military network who had already fired up military jets for take
off. The President admitting to not knowing about it would therefore show
a void in the chain of command. If the President did answer affirmatively
to the above we would then also ask subsequently whether at this stage
he needed a second incident to conclude terrorism, and regardless, with
four planes off transponder, one already going into a landmark building,
why he would continue in his non essential routine rather than return to
Air Force One.
-
- 14. After Andrew Card told you as you publicly stated
that "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack,"
you no longer carried doubt that there were terrorist attacks in progress
against the United States of America.
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 15. Could terrorists have targeted as part of their agenda
that day the elementary school where you were sitting with children?
-
-
-
-
- AA: !!!!!!!!!! THE ONLY TRUTHFUL ANSWER HERE IS YES.
-
- SenderBerl: This is an area which shows serious culpability
on the part of the administration. First, once knowing active terrorism
against the United States was in progress, it was the responsibility of
the large team traveling with the President to whisk him out of the school
and into his car back to Air Force One or any alternative plane under such
contingency planning.
-
- SenderBerl: It was apparent to anyone in this area of
defense that the President's current location was a matter of public record.
Thus, with an ongoing "attack on America" as the administration
likes to say, the President was a primary target and his security was totally
compromised. His staying seated, continuing on at the school, and in fact
giving an impromptu press announcement at the school, staying at the school
some twenty or thirty minutes thereafter, only reveals complicity by the
administration in what took place that very day.
-
- SenderBerl: If not the security of the President of the
United States, what about the school and its children? SenderBerl has been
highly disturbed that the President after being criticized for being away
from Washington the entire month of August, could CHANGE his schedule on
or about September 7, 2001, to include trips to two elementary schools
in Florida. Even the people in the area of his visit when interviewed prior
to the 9-11 terrorism, noted their surprise at the President's personal
visit to read with elementary school children. In any event, the compromise
of his security and safety and that of the children are compelling evidence
of putative administration knowledge if not complicity in the events of
9-11.
-
- 16, Was it not advisable to leave the area and to tell
the children to do likewise?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 17. Was not your visit to the elementary school publicly
announced in a White House Briefing on September 7, 2001?
-
- AA: Yes
-
- 18. Was not your visit to the elementary school publicly
announced by newspaper coverage?
-
- AA: Yes
-
- 19, Do you not deem yourself to be a primary target of
domestic terrorist attacks?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 19a. Did you want to get up to call your wife, who was
still situated in Washington?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- SenderBerl: Formal interrogatories would go into knowledge
that Washington, DC was an expected target of the other hijacked airplanes.
-
- 20. Did you instruct Andrew Card or someone else to do
so? If so, when?
-
- AA: !!!!!!!!!
-
- SenderBerl: The President has to be very careful here
in his response. No matter what he says he will reveal more than he wants.
Since we expect him to say yes, that he expected his team to know what
to do under the circumstances, it comes back then to what they were doing
letting him stay seated in a primary target area compromising his and the
children's lives.
-
- 21. How much time exactly expired between the time Andrew
Card first told you about the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
time you gave any instructions regarding the terrorist attacks?
-
- AA: I anticipated that my entire team knew what to do
and if they didn't they would ask me directly. I learned of confusion and
mix-up after I left the classroom and before giving my podium statement
at the school. There were errors made that day. They have been corrected.
Detailing them would not be consistent with national security interests.
-
- 22. Was it necessary for someone to obtain your authorization
before military planes could intercept and if need be take down commercial
aircraft?
-
- AA: See my response to Interrogatory numbered "21."
-
- 23. Did you not find that you would provide for the security
of the children you were with and the safety of this country and serve
the national security interests of this country by immediately leaving
the elementary school to be in your car and then as soon as possible position
yourself on Air Force One?
-
- AA: Asked and answered.
-
- 24. Are you aware of Secret Service guidelines attendant
to preparing a site such as an elementary school for a non emergency discretionary
presidential visit?
-
- AA: I am aware that there are guidelines but I am not
aware of the details. This area of responsibility is left to the Secret
Service upon who I totally rely and have full confidence.
-
-
-
-
- SenderBerl: This opens up a wide area of questions for
the Secret Service and military detail with the President during his trip.
-
- 25: Did you just complete a one month vacation period
in Crawford Texas?
-
- AA: If this question implies that no presidential work
was done during this period, then the answer is no.
-
- 26. As a matter of historical fact, was your approximate
30 day stay in Crawford in August 2001 the longest stay away from Washington,
DC by any President of the United States?
-
- AA: Answer is a matter of historical record.
-
- 27. Did you receive criticism for the length of your
stay away from Washington for so long?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 28. When you returned to Washington, did you not have
a long string of important and urgent matters to attend to?
-
- AA: If the question implies that I as the President did
not have a long string of important and urgent matters to attend to when
I was away in Crawford, then the answer is no.
-
- 29. Was not domestic terrorism a real ongoing concern
of your administration prior to the events of 9-11?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- 30. Was it not within days after Labor Day that your
schedule was officially changed to include visits to not one but two elementary
schools in the State of Florida?
-
- AA: Yes.
-
- SenderBerl: We have committed our allotted time to postulating
the type of questions that crosses our minds relevant for the President
of the United States to answer. It suggests that Kissinger who can expend
much more time and manpower resources to these issues has a host, a long
host, or questions and areas to pursue. However, the grounding of the military
jets, the President's obtuse change in schedule for him not his wife or
another high administration official to visit two elementary schools in
Florida, and then his failure to immediately exit the school on the first
plane striking the building, knowing that three other planes were unaccounted
for, and then passively remaining after admitting that Card told him America
was under attack, and then to boot, giving an informal news conference
AT THE SCHOOL where terrorists would know he was at that very morning leaves
no other conclusion that the administration's involvement in 9-11 is far
different from they could suggest. It is disturbing, and as Americans Conclusion:
SenderBerl has long highlighted that it did not believe until June 24,
2002, that further acts of terrorism would be seen. Moreover, just this
morning two missiles were shot at an Israeli plane and missed. No one was
more surprised that the World Trade Center buildings collapsed than Osama
bin-Laden. The terrorists just don't have what it takes to carry off major
terrorist acts. When we saw the two buildings implode we said that day,
9-11-01, that only two countries could have interceded with the mickey
mouse level of terrorism within the ambit of Osama bin-Laden: the US and
China. We thus as Americans concluded China, who we long proffered was
destined to be this country's enemy. We have been highly disturbed by what
this administration has done on the platform of a single day's events.
Moreover, we are further disturbed that the administration has done its
level best to side step a full investigation of 9-11. Moreover, we are
further disturbed when the Congress rubber stamps Before this country goes
out now to engage any other country which will result in massive death
and devastation for Americans, our government owes the American people
some important answers to some very important questions. Kissinger is planning
on taking a very long time to dilute the entire process to further cover
his true agenda which is to whitewash 9-11 or even await as we long feared
a far deadlier act of terrorism, making 9-11 a forgotten painful memory,
superseded by new hysteria and concerns.
-
- Joseph Ehrlich Sender, Berl & Sons Inc.
Thanksgiving Day 2002
-
- PS. We have prepared a video excerpt of Card moving to
the President when at the school to tell him about the second attack and
then moving away without any instruction from the President whatsoever.
www.senderberl.com/card.mpg
-
- We also include the tape of his impromptu platform remarks
announcing to the nation the terrorism and moreover of great interest stating
in view of everyone on board dying in the crash, that the US was going
to conduct "a full scale investigation and hunt down and find those
who committed this action." This showed a degree of awareness concerning
the terrorism inapposite to the illusion of happenstance being portrayed
by the President as per his non essential visit to listen to children read
at the elementary school. www.senderberl.com/remarks.mpg
-
- These remarks are made at the school some twenty minutes
after being told about the second plane striking the World Trade Center.
In our respectful opinion, one plane with the FAA intelligence of three
more off transponder was enough to surmise terrorism. With two a certainty.
However, what is the President doing lingering at the school? If terrorist
could take down two landmark buildings in NYC, if we were responsible for
the President, the last place we would have him standing is before the
nation on national television at a location openly and publicly known.
We cannot escape the meaning of this contradiction in seen realities. Unless
someone knew that the President was totally safe in standing before the
nation at the Booker school and would not be assassinated as per the Kennedy's
on national TV, then it was ludicrous to have White House and Secret Service
staff stand idly by allowing him to remain there.
-
- The full video taken by the school itself can be found
at: http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/bvl.htm
-
-
|
