- Richard Clarke's remarks and revelations on Meet the
Press are so vital to the public interest that we decided on top of all
else we have recently done to highlight and analyze what he said in the
context of 9-11.
-
- First, we want to say that it is shameful that it takes
the courage of one man to represent the oversight that should have been
the task and burden of government. If we had loyal government officials
Clarke would not have to stand alone, as he does, in the attempt to tell
the American public that something is seriously amiss with government.
Jessica Lynch and Richard Clarke have done a great deal to serve and save
our nation and the tragedy is that we can offer the accolades to two people,
both of whom have been targeted in their own special ways to be forever
forgotten. Thus, it is incumbent for us to keep bringing up their contribution
and it is imperative that you don't let their sacrifices to the nation
expire. What about Richard Clarke making money on his book. As he alluded
to today, he will be an outcast instead of a hero until and unless Kerry
comes into power. If Bush wins a second term, heaven forbid, he will not
get the time of day because that's the way Washington plays the game, it
feels it has no choice but to bow to the powers seated in the Oval office.
However, if the treachery of the Bush administration unravels, Washington
and the rest of the country will -- and it better -- hang Bush, the oil
cabal, and all those complicit in 9-11.
-
- Now, what is important is that Richard Clarke filled
in some vital missing links of information that compels us to now conclude
that Condy Rice was a knowing member of the NWO agenda regarding 9-11.
While we knew she did carry board memberships with ExxonMobil and TexacoChevron,
we didn't think she would sink that low to be complicit in the deaths of
3000 souls on 9-11. However, it appears that we were mistaken.
-
- Now, to the analysis (based on excerpts in sequential
order)
-
- MR. RUSSERT: But to be clear, Mr. Clarke, you would
urge Congress, the intelligence committees, to declassify your sworn testimony
before the congressional inquiry two years ago as well as your testimony
before the September 11th Commission?
MR. CLARKE: Yes, and those documents I just referred to and Dr. Rice's
testimony before the 9-11 Commission because the victims' families have
no idea what Dr. Rice has said
*** SenderBerl: One of the reasons for Rice foregoing public testimony
is the hope that it keeps her remarks (not under oath) away from those,
like ourselves, who wish to scrutinize it. Quite frankly, what Richard
Clarke said today on Meet the Press says it all because we doubt Condy
Rice is going to reveal anything further unless under oath and questioned
by Richard Ben-Veniste.
***{One year post 911, Time Magazine}
Time magazine had come out with a cover story, after extensive research,
and the cover story was devastating. The cover story of Time magazine
was that the White House had been given a plan by me on January 25 and
had taken the entire nine months to get around to looking at it, at the
principals level, that there had been over 100 meetings of Dr. Rice's committee
on subjects involving Iraq, Star Wars, China, but only one on terrorism
and that one was on September 4.
*** SenderBerl: It is obvious that someone, and they probably thought it
was Clarke, leaked that terrorism was a subject persona non grata at the
Bush White House (until of course 9-11, which fact would be consistent
with the element of complicity).
MR. CLARKE: Because I have no obligation anymore to spin. When you're
in the White House, you spin. And people have been doing a lot of that
against me this week. You know, they're engaged in a campaign. People
on the taxpayers' rolls, dozens of people, are engaged in the campaign
to destroy me, personally and professionally, because I had the temerity
to suggest that the American people should consider whether or not the
president had done a good job on the war on terrorism. The issue is not
me. The issue is the president's job on the role on terrorism.
*** SenderBerl: This is where Clarke has the resolve and courage to pursue
his course to let the American people know that something is wrong. In
the upside down world where evil controls over good, people tend to shun
the very person who offers them truth. Thus, it is fitting that the Mel
Gibson movie speaks on this issue. It would be a stain on this country
if the American people don't speak up to criticize the Administration about
moving out on all fronts to attack Clarke. He didn't violate any secrets
but like all those intent on serving the greater good he wanted to bring
truth to the American people, made especially important when government
controlled and influenced media fail miserably in that very regard.
After 9/11--I say by going into Iraq, he has really hurt the war on terrorism.
Now, because I say that, the administration doesn't want to talk on the
merits of that. They don't want to talk about the effect on the war on
terrorism of our invasion of Iraq. And so, instead, A, they try to do
character assassination of me; but, B, they try to punish me for having
said it by going after my professional life, by going after me, besmirching
me. This is just not appropriate.
***
Every day George Tenet was going in to see the president in the Oval Office.
Because George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, now gives
the president his daily briefing. And almost every day the president was
hearing from George Tenet that there's an impending al-Qaeda attack. As
far back as February, George Tenet testified before the Congress that al-Qaeda
was the major national security threat. And yet, they have 100 meetings
before they get around to dealing with it. KEY QUOTE
MR. RUSSERT: On a scale of one to 10, how would you rate President Bush's
performance on the war on terror prior to September 11?
MR. CLARKE: Well, there wasn't any personal performance by the president
prior to September 11. Now, the only thing that I was ever able to detect
that he did on the war on terrorism was after Tenet had been briefing him
day after day after day after day about an al-Qaeda threat, the president
said, in May, "Well, let's, you know, get a strategy." That's
the only thing I ever heard that he got involved in personally. And when
he said that, Dr. Rice called me and said, "The president wants a
strategy." And I said, "Well, you know the strategy was what
I sent you on January 25, and it's been stuck in these low-level committees."
And she said, "Fine. I'll deal with that." Well, she didn't
deal with it until September.
And, interestingly enough, the president never said after that May conversation,
"Where's the strategy?" And, again, if you go back to what the
president himself says to Bob Woodward, he said, "I knew there was
a strategy in the works. But I didn't know how mature the plan was."
He's saying this on September 11. He didn't know where the strategy was.
The strategy that he had asked for in May? He'd never come back and asked
where it was. You know, basically, it wasn't an urgent issue for them
before September 11.
MR. RUSSERT: It sounds like a failing grade.
MR. CLARKE: Well, I think they deserve a failing grade for what they did
before because, frankly, they didn't do--they never got around to doing
anything. They held interim meetings, but they never actually decided
anything before September 11.
-
- ***SenderBerl: This is critical and direct support for
anyone who wishes to connect the dots, as we have to date to attest to
government complicity allowing 9-11 to occur. As you know, we considered
the evidence to date a given as to complicity. Now, what Clarke does is
give DIRECT factual support therefor. When you tie these facts into what
we have highlighted is Bush administration complicity, you have more than
probable cause, you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of it. Thus, as
we said from day one, this country should not have allowed Bush to invade
Iraq because it would prove to be a fruit of a poisonous tree. How right
we were. KEY
You know, they're saying now that when I was afforded the opportunity to
talk to him about cybersecurity, it was my choice. I could have talked
about terrorism or cybersecurity. That's not true. I asked in January
to brief him, the president, on terrorism, to give him the same briefing
I had given Vice President Cheney, Colin Powell and Condi Rice. And I
was told, "You can't do that briefing, Dick, until after the policy
development process."
MR. RUSSERT: Who told you that?
MR. CLARKE: Condi Rice. And I said, "Well, can I brief him on cybersecurity?"
"Oh, yes, you can brief him on that."
-
-
- ***SenderBerl: This is de facto conclusive that Condy
Rice was directly complicit. It was malfeasance of office for her to preclude
Clarke from speaking to Bush regarding terrorism based on the fact that
there was a known serious threat that ultimately unraveled as 9-11.
MR. RUSSERT: We'll get to that particular debate, but let me go back to
September 11 and what led up to it. The Washington Post captured this
way: "On July 5 of 2001, the White House summoned officials of a dozen
federal agencies to the Situation Room. `Something really spectacular is
going to happen here, and it's going to happen soon,' the government's
top counterterrorism official, Richard Clarke, told the assembled group,
including the Federal Aviation Administration, Coast Guard, FBI, Secret
Service, Immigration and Naturalization Service. Clarke directed every
counterterrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put
off scheduled exercises, place domestic rapid-response teams on much shorter
alert. For six weeks in the summer of 2001, at home and overseas, the U.S.
government was at its highest possible state of readiness--and anxiety--against
imminent terrorist attack."
Did Dr. Rice instruct you to organize that meeting?
MR. CLARKE: No. I told her I was going to do it. And I had already been
doing it two weeks before, because on June 21, I believe it was, George
Tenet called me and said, "I don't think we're getting the message
through. These people aren't acting the way the Clinton people did under
similar circumstances." And I suggested to Tenet that he come down
and personally brief Condi Rice, that he bring his terrorism team with
him. And we sat in the national security adviser's office. And I've used
the phrase in the book to describe George Tenet's warnings as "He
had his hair on fire." He was about as excited as I'd ever seen him.
And he said, "Something is going to happen."
***SenderBerl: Evidence that Condy Rice was affirmatively complicit. Her
only out is that she is not the National Security Advisor and that she
relied on Dick Cheney for her position regarding Clarke's posturing for
action on terrorism.
MR. RUSSERT: But you kept your guard up for six weeks, through the end
of August. Why didn't you stay on high alert through September 11th?
And you regret this day that you didn't because you may have stopped that
attack. KEY
***SenderBerl: It is so difficult for people even professionals to comprehend
the truth in front of their faces. Here on top of everything else just
evidenced, it was no coincidence that the implementation of the terrorism
of 9-11 took place after Clarke (and we now assume Tenet) could no longer
maintain the status of high alert. Of further interest, it went from a
status of high alert to complete abdication of protection of the air and
shorelines. The enemies within struck as soon as those standing guard had
no choice but to lapse in their vigilance seeing that they only received
cold shoulders from others in their efforts to protect the country. What
is so shameful is that it seems at best there were only two people within
the entire government fighting to do the job! No one had the courage to
stand with them because Bush, Cheney and Rice displayed displeasure at
those who stood with Clarke and now the man whose hair was on fire.
MR. CLARKE: I had spoken out again the notion of bombing Iraq immediately
after September 11. And the Defense Department, deputy secretary, the secretary,
talked to my bosses in the White House and indicated how unhappy they were
with my attitude on Iraq. And as I say, I had asked to go and become cyberspace
security adviser, so I did and I wasn't asked about foreign policy in that
role. But when I had spoken out, when I said, "Invading Iraq after
9/11 is like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor," that didn't go over
well and I was very quickly sidelined as someone whose opinions were going
to be taken into account.
MR. RUSSERT: Why do you think the Iraq war has undermined the war on terrorism?
MR. CLARKE: Well, I think it's obvious, but there are three major reasons.
Who are we fighting in the war on terrorism? We're fighting Islamic radicals
and they are drawing people from the youth of the Islamic world into hating
us. Now, after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, "Wait
a minute. Maybe we've gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement,
this radical movement, has to be suppressed," and we had a moment,
we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the
Islamic world. Instead, we've inflamed the ideology. We've played right
into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We've done what Osama bin Laden
said we would do.
Ninety percent of the Islamic people in Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt,
allied countries to the United States--90 percent in polls taken last month
hate the United States. It's very hard when that's the game where 90 percent
of the Arab people hate us. It's very hard for us to win the battle of
ideas. We can arrest them. We can kill them. But as Don Rumsfeld said
in the memo that leaked from the Pentagon, I'm afraid that they're generating
more ideological radicals against us than we are arresting them and killing
them. They're producing more faster than we are.
The president of Egypt said, "If you invade Iraq, you will create
a hundred bin Ladens." He lives in the Arab world. He knows. It's
turned out to be true. It is now much more difficult for us to win the
battle of ideas as well as arresting and killing them, and we're going
to face a second generation of al-Qaeda. We're going to catch bin Laden.
I have no doubt about that. In the next few months, he'll be found dead
or alive. But it's two years too late because during those two years,
al-Qaeda has morphed into a hydra-headed organization, independent cells
like the organization that did the attack in Madrid.
And that's the second reason. The attack in Madrid showed the vulnerabilities
of the rails in Spain. We have all sorts of vulnerabilities in our country,
chemical plants, railroads. We've done a very good job on passenger aircraft
now, but there are all these other vulnerabilities that require enormous
amount of money to reduce those vulnerabilities, and we're not doing that.
MR. RUSSERT: And three?
MR. CLARKE: And three is that we actually diverted military resources
and intelligence resources from Afghanistan and from the hunt for bin Laden
to the war in Iraq.
CONCLUSION: WE BELIEVE IF THE TREACHERY IN PLAY NOW UNRAVELS THAT ALL OF
THOSE COMPLICIT INCLUDING MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, IF THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE
COMPLICIT, WHICH WE NOW BELIEVE THEY SURELY ARE, WILL ALL HANG. NO ONE
IS GOING TO SELL US THAT TAKING 3000 LIVES IS THE PRICE FOR STEALING THE
OIL AS THOUGH THAT WOULD EVER PROVE TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE SHOWN PUBLICLY SINCE
1997 THAT THE ULTIMATE AGENDA IS TO MAIM AND WEAKEN THIS GREAT COUNTRY
- WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE AND THEY'RE FAR FROM FINISHED.
-
- THIS IS AN ADJUNCT ANALYSIS TO "CONDY RICE IS NOT
THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR"
-
- <>www.senderberl.com/bushrice.htm
|
