- 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>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 aircraft months 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>
-
- http://www.senderberl.com/questionsfordcr.htm
|
