Brilliant letter from a Republican

Open Letter to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice
By Catherine Austin Fitts
www.globalresearch.ca

Friday 09 April 2004

Catherine Austin Fitts is the Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, President George Bush I.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

April 9, 2004

Dear Ms. Rice:
I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Point #1: You are a liar.
Attorney General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by his FBI security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States knew to avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001.

It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who flew on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same warnings as those they paid to protect us.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 - sufficient to let the American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a possible attack. It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade Center had the knowledge they needed to evacuate their building upon seeing the North Tower hit by a plane.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

Point #2: Your motives are transparent.
The World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City - one of the great financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of Washington -- the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and credit and the US Treasury - the largest issuer of securities in the world.

Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work.

Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.

Those personally impacted and the global researchers they network with have the intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, "Cui Bono?" (Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National Security Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.

All the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people that you have their best interests at heart.

Point #3: You are going down.
The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are better at lying than you.

The myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about the risks of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust heap with the notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are dying to protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Your lies of 9-11 - like your lies about the Iraqi war - have been profitable for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies, however, have not misled the crowd. The American people and global citizens are looking for the truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning and honor to those who died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end to further bloodshed. We demand a refund of all that you and your backers have stolen from those of us who remain alive.

Point #4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.
If you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your own mirror.

Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.

Sincerely Yours,
Catherine Austin Fitts

Is it real?

Someone should post this on the FR. Watch their heads implode.

Even more so, since it came from one of their own (ex Poppy employee no less)

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

To Ms. Fitts: I admire your courage and commend your intelligence. It is vitally important that all Americans stand up to this administration, no matter what political party they support. We are all suffering so, now. Your letter is vital. Good Republicans everywhere need to stand up and be counted. Yes, this Democrat knows there are some very fine Republicans. They need to come out of hiding as you have done to help end this administration's horrible blight on our country.

Democrat Richard Ben-veniste asked Ashcroft about this to give him the chance to debunk it.

Ashcroft was advised by his security detail in the early spring not to take commercial aircraft on official business as attorney general for security concerns and because of the weaponry the people he travelled with carried. When he was travelling on business as attorney general he took government aircraft. He was on a government plane on Sept 11th.

However, he and his family took regular commercial aircraft when they travelled on personal business. his wife flew to Germany and back in Aug on commercial flights and he and his wife flew to Washington DC on Sept. 4th in a commercial jet.

Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked Ashcroft this question because he wanted to clear up the misconceptions. None of the commissioners challenged Ashcroft on this point although they challenged him on most of the rest of his testimony.

I'm no fan of Ashcroft. He was negligent in the lead-up to 9-11, but there is about as much substance to this story as there is to the rumors that Clinton had Vince Foster murdered.

The fact that the letter writer got this point wrong should cast some doubt on the veracity of her other claims.

Besides, the Pentagon is in Virginia...not "in the heart of Washington."
An ex-government employee should know that.

Otherwise, it is a very poignant and eye-opening piece of correspondence.

Are you relying on Ashcroft's testimony for verification or do you have a source that proves the veracity of his remarks.


Just wondering.

to get the transcript of Ashcroft's testimony.

The reason I'm taking Ashcroft's word on this is that he was under oath and because it is easy for the commission to verify whether or not Ashcroft and his wife actually took those commercial flights.

If it were not true, he would be subject to perjury.

Also, the commission members challenged almost everyhting else Ashcroft said, but no one challenged him on this.

there were several lists at the time of at least 3 lies

so just just because he said it 'under oath' doesn't make it true

(do not have the links from 2001)

It's not like the dispute between what Pickard said and what Ashcroft said. That's just one person's word against another's. I believe Pickard, but there is no way to prove Ashcroft lied.

But with regard to flying, either Ashcroft and his wife took those flights or they didn't. It's not a matter of opinion and there would be a record of Ashcroft and his wife taking those flights.

Furthermore, nobody on the commission challenged Ashcroft on this portion of his testimony, although they challenged almost everything else he said.

The problem was never that Ashcroft took the threat so seriously that he wouldn't fly on commercial flights. The problem was that no one in the Bush administration took the warnings of the summer of 2001 seriously at all. That is especially true of Ashcroft.

Of course, you're free to. I prefer to limit my judgments to tangible proof and not profers of "Since no one questioned it it must be true."

To each his/her own.

But I do trust the 9-11 commission. None of them challenged him on this and it is easily proven or disproven. Ashcroft could have just denied it without offering that he and his wife took commercial ailrlines on those specific dates.

If he made that up, he would be subject to perjury. Commissioner Gorelick said on c-span that there was nothing to the charge about Ashcroft not taking commercial flights because he was warned.

I've read all of the commission statements and the transcripts. It's obvious that the Bush administration, especially Ashcroft, didn't take the warnings about Bin Ladin seriously at all.

This is the same kind of rumor Republicans would spread about Clinton and Vince Foster. We're better than that.

PS The commission also said there was no evidence that Clinton was offered Bin Ladin by the Sudanese government and refused.

These commissions tend to be self-insulating and self-protecting. The commissioners are all members of the same clique, regardless of party. This doesn't necessarily mean it's a sham, but statements should be independently verified, where possible.

Let me be clear. I think Ashcroft's use of "private" air travel was less one of trying to keep his ass safe as one of keeping his ass comfortable. He used leased aircraft according to his divine right to fly in luxury. His lying about it, if he's lying, could be just as much a function of his knowing that he's been soaking the taxpayers for 3 1/2 years.

everything else he said. Commissioner Ben-Veniste sure hasn't given the administration a pass. jamie Gorelick has pretty good reason to be upset with Ashcroft. If he made such an easily provable outright lie under oath, they would have exposed it by now.

Ashcroft is guilty of many things. Not taking commercial flights for personal use is not one of them.

Very,very strange!!!!!!

BEN-VENISTE: I agree with you, sir. The problem was in the communication of information which did not reach those who might have made a difference. Let me ask you, as my time is expiring, one question, which has been frequently put to members of this commission; probably all of us have heard this one way or another. And we are mindful that part of the problem with the Warren commission's work on the Kennedy assassination was the failure to address certain theories that were extant and questions and much of the work was done behind closed doors. So I would like to provide you with the opportunity to answer one question that has come up repeatedly. At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack. Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?
ASHCROFT: I am very please pleased to address this issue.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

ASHCROFT: Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft. I have exclusively traveled on commercial aircraft for my personal travel; continued through the year 2000, through the entirety of the threat period to the nation. The assessment made by the security team and the Department of Justice was made early in the year. It was not related to a terrorism threat as a threat to the nation. It was related to an assessment of the security for the attorney general, given his responsibilities and the job that he undertakes. And it related to the maintenance of arms and other things by individuals who travel with the attorney general. And it was their assessment that we would be best served to use government aircraft. These were not private chartered jet aircraft. These were aircraft of the United States government. And it was on such an aircraft that I was on my way to an event in Milwaukee on the morning of September the 11th.


Please note that Ashcroft was under oath when he gave this testimony. Whether or not he and his wife flew by commercial airlines on the dates he gave is very easy to prove or disprove. Ashcroft would be subject to perjury charges if his claims about flying on Sept 4th were not true.

None of the commissioners challenged his testimony on this point.

to tell the WHOLE truth. Just because of Ashcroft's position, he cannot tell the whole truth, he would divulge national security secrets.

I have always wondered why the "Under Oath" situation is so volatile, one need not be "under oath" to tell the truth, in fact, it seems obvious to me, that being 'forced' to tell the truth by being placed under oath, that the probability of lying is there to begin with.

Ashcroft can say his wife flew commercially to Germany once, big deal...how many times did they fly on our dime?

The big question is, why, in this particular instance, did he take the warnings seriously enough to avoid commercial travel?

:)

commercial flight on Sept. 4th.

If he were lying on this they could prove it.

Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.


CHOKE ON IT, CONDI!! :thumbsup: