Preparing For Condy Rice
By Joseph Ehrlich

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.

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?




This Site Served by TheHostPros