Saturday, April 23, 2016
Presidential Lies of 9/11
When 9/11 hit, had evidence existed that it was from Saudi Arabia, President George W. Bush could have gone to Congress and ask that a State of War exist between the two nations be formally declared.
This would echo the other major attack on American soil: Pearl Harbor.
Instead, Bush said, "Terrorists have hijacked a religion of peace."
The truth could have serious consequences for the nation.
When a man is in a place of great authority and must either tell the truth or lie, the strongest indication of what he is going to do is simply to look at what he has done in the past, with lesser challenges.
If his lesser challenges were met with lies, it is his instinct and natural bent, therefore, to lie on the big stage. The one may see it quite differently as one tells himself,
"I may have lied on small issues, but if ever tested on something very big, I will have to tell the truth..."
This is to lie to himself. It is to convince one self that he is going to hit a home run against a major league pitcher, after striking out against...a high school pitcher, a little league pitcher and then finally, striking out while hitting off a T. The three failures have convinced him that he is going to wallop MLB pitching.
The 9/11 report has a section that is redacted and President Barak Hussein Obama is going to decide whether or not to release it. The Saudi government has threatened financial sanctions against the US if released, and the Saudi king snubbed Obama at the airport.
Most deception is via missing information.
Was Bush' statement above accurate, or the position of Dhimmitude, with, perhaps, oil in mind?
What about Obama's boasting of the "first Ramadan dinner" at the White House?
Tacquia practiced by the president of the United States?
Consider that most deception is done by withholding or suppressing information that completes the knowledge.
When we ask someone a question, the avoidance of the question indicates, technically, sensitivity to the question.
This is the same with the redacted portion of the 9/11 investigation: it is to avoid the question, "Did the Saudis attack us, as did the Japanese, via training and financing the attack?"
The withholding of the report is to avoid answering the question.
Historically, Judeo-Christian ideology, whether held as "faith" or simply culturally, produced in mankind the high respect of laws that permitted advancement with far less impediment. Western leaders often project this deep respect for laws onto those who do not. The mistake at the highest level mirrors the mistake at the lowest level; the individual who is to analyze if one is truthful or not. One person, or one nation, is analyzed for truth or deception.
Obama boasted of the Ramadan dinner leaving out not only offensive details that the Islamic supremacists made, but also of the very purpose of the meeting. It was not to celebrate nor honor Ramadan. It was to fact find, and to negotiate. He "removes" truth regularly.
He wanted to honor Martin L. King jr? Instead of adding a bust of him in the White House, he removed Winston Churchill. He wanted to honor Harriet Tubman? Instead of adding her, he subtracted first. Leaving out, or removing, is a pattern of deception, whether it be current news, or history.
No one likes to be held 'the fool'; that is, to be lied to. We must be aware of our own projection; it exists. It is in the lack of awareness that will impact our analysis, yes, but more so, our ability to learn.
Will we learn that Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11, knocking out the Twin Towers, the 'two front teeth' of New York City and the symbol of Western advancement?
Or, will Obama follow Bush and lie by omission, protecting the Islamic nation and exporter of death by not releasing the report?
While truth is becoming scarce, there is a greater need for committed analysts in the future.
Consider this from the Gates of Vienna. Note the projection and the highlighting of sensitivity for readers here. Quotes are in italics.
"The first two international wars fought by the United States after our founding were the Barbary Wars. Through the Washington and Adams administrations the United States paid tributes to the Muslim Barbary States in the hope of keeping our passage across the Atlantic, and more specifically in the Mediterranean, safe from from attacks by Islamic ships.
Thomas Jefferson refused to continue paying the protection money, and launched a war against Islam.
The next President of the United States, James Madison, also engaged in war against Islam to stop the Muslim pirates from attacking American vessels, and taking into slavery American sailors.