It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9/11 Trauma Defense - It's a Lie

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   

9/11 Trauma Defense - It's a Lie


www.atlargely.com

I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice and Cheney in the vice president's office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   


Richard Clark, the former counter-terrorism "czar" under Presidents Clinton and Bush is fed up with Bush administration officials using the attacks of September 11, 2001 as justification for their various policies:

Top officials from the Bush administration have hit upon a revealing new theme as they retrospectively justify their national security policies. Call it the White House 9/11 trauma defense.

I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice (then the president's national security adviser) and Cheney in the vice president's office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive. I remember the next day, too, when smoke still rose from the Pentagon as I sat in my office in the White House compound, a gas mask on my desk. The streets of Washington were empty, except for the armored vehicles, and the skies were clear, except for the F-15s on patrol. Every scene from those days is seared into my memory. I understand how it was a defining moment for Cheney, as it was for so many Americans.

Let me also add that I understand the horror Mr. Cheney felt on that tragic morning. I also understand what most Americans felt as their nation was being attacked. But only a few of us can say that we have had the extra horror of having our homes, neighborhoods, and lives destroyed by those attacks. I lived at 25 Broad St., almost at the corner of Wall St. If you look at a map, you will see just how close my home was to that carnage. Yet despite what I saw and continue to see in my dreams, I would never support the kind crimes carried out by the Bush administration and I will never accept that the 9/11 attacks unhinged them. The fact is that the Bush administration was already planning a way to go to war with Iraq. The attacks of September 11 had nothing to do with that choice and cannot be an excuse for those actions. But I digress as I often do. Here is some more from Clark's piece:

"Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. "If you were there in a position of authority and watched Americans drop out of eighty-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people," Rice said in her recent comments, "then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again.'

Those Americans who dropped out of eighty-story buildings were smashing into the ground of my neighborhood, into the small park where I played chess. Those American bodies were literally on my doorstep, in front of my grocery and movie theater that I went to every weekend. Those attacks and those dead bodies hit me at home, not on television. So I fully agree with Clark that these justifications are insincere. I would go further and call them lies. No one I know who was hit in their home or lost a loved one supports what the Bush administration has done. Yet people far away from the dead bodies, and the smoldering furnace of ground zero claim to be the most traumatized. I have noticed also that people in the deep South who were no where near the attacks were the most vocal about creating a police state in order to avoid another attack. Cowards die a thousand times, so the saying goes.

In any case, Cheney was so traumatized that he met with his lawyer David Addington that very same day - while the fires raged and while the country was uncertain if the attacks had stopped - to find a way to blame these attacks on Iraq. That is not trauma. That is opportunism of the most cynical kind.


The full story can be read here: www.washingtonpost.com...

Interesting story that more and more prominent people come forth with a slightly more nuanced theory than the official '911 -> war on terror' story. The full truth will once be known. I don't believe this conspiracy is good enough to never be ''cracked''.




www.atlargely.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-5-2009 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Wait a second, wasn't bush in my homestate of sunny Florida when the planes hit the towers?

He must have gotten back to DC very quickly?

EDIT:

oops im sorry didnt say bush in the article, damn adhd have me skimming over things lol

[edit on 31-5-2009 by GreenBicMan]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GreenBicMan
 


Ok, never mind then


[edit on 31-5-2009 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Yes, i edited my post, "my bad" lol



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
An important aspect to Richard Clarke's article is that the Bush administration should NOT have been surprised or caught off guard due to the many warnings received from both internal and international intelligence agencies! Incompetence at best, collusion at worst and to date not a single administration offficial has been held responsible for allowing the attacks to happen. This is the very least that should have been accepted as the TRUTH about 9/11 yet nothing. Which of course leads any thinking person to the next conclusion that there was indeed a conspiracy within our own government or shadow government. It took 3 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor to assign responsibility for that disaster. The Bush administration did everything possible to block an investigation and then underfunded and assigned admin cronies to lead the "investigation".

Richard Clarke goes on to mention that this was no excuse to shred the constitution and to remove civil liberties protected by the constitution. More suspiscion of a criminal traitorus administration which continues to this day.


I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years -- on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping -- were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney's admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Without the terrorist attacks of 911, there wouldn't have been support for a war on terror: no invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. If only we'd know which people are involved and how much they have benefited from it, because one thing is clear: this war on terror has been extremely profitable for a select group of people. I guess I am not the only one who has made the link to 24's last season, in which private contractors staged a terrorist attack on the US for their own sake.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I remember seeing Dr. Rice on "The Tonight Show" with Jay Leno.

When Leno went into his "hard question phase", lol, about intelligence failures and the justification for war, she rolled out this defense. I remember thinking wow, I really can feel her emotion, and maybe she WASN'T part of "the plan".

Then I remembered who she is and that she's merely a paid liar like the rest of them.



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Those who think that it should have been easy to know what was going to happen and warn the American people should read up on one, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. This lady put a virtual Wall of silence between agencies so that no one agency with information or intelligence could legally tell another what they had. Here's an article laying out exactly who was responsible and who covered it up for the Clinton administration:

Jamie Gorelick

Zindo



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2

The full truth will once be known. I don't believe this conspiracy is good enough to never be ''cracked''.



That's because there isn't one.

The definition of a conspiracy that can't be cracked is that it is the truth, because you can't prove that it isn't.

Terrorists fly large jets full of fuel into tall buildings which then burn and collapse. It's a mystery all right

So, the government muct have done it, and now we have to devote our lives to finding some tenuous thread of evidence that proves it, and if we never do, then that just means it's true but we can't prove it !!!



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join