Blogads

Blogads

Asbestos Dangers



Mesothelioma is a dreaded cancer that is nearly always caused by just one factor: asbestos exposure.

FACT: Family members of those who are regularly exposed to high levels of asbestos also have a high risk of developing malignant mesothelioma.

Get the news, get the facts.

User login

RSS Feeds


Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Web Stuff

This site best viewed with Firefox


Lehman: Commission PURPOSELY Set Up So that 9/11 Staff Had Conflict of Interest

( Home » blogs » GeorgeWashington's blog » Lehman: Commission... )
Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.
Submitted by GeorgeWashington on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 1:56pm.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/lehman-commission-purposely...

We already knew that the 9/11 Commissioners had conflicts of interest. And we already knew that Philip Zelikow had huge conflicts of interest, which the new book The Commission explores.

But did you know that a 9/11 Commissioner recently said that all of the 9/11 Commission staff had a conflict of interest?

Specifically, 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news:

“We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest" (3:48 into video)

He went on to say:

"All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest" (4:09 into video)

This is important because many people have assumed that -- even if Zelikow and the Commissioners had conflicts of interest -- the staff would at least do a thorough and unbiased job in investigating what happened on 9/11. We now know this is not true.

Indeed, Lehman strongly implies that the Commission was purposely set up so that every single person involved would have a conflict of interest which would prevent them from conducting an honest investigation.

Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.

When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.

» login to post comments | 1 point

" I did NOT... trade arms or anything else with that woman"

"Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11"

Why ? Not that I disagree with you but it's just not how the real World works, in my experience most people don't WANT to know .
Lots of people still think the Warren-Omission investigated the JFK-murder and didn't have any "conflicts of interest" ..
Yet people who question the Warren-Omissions "findings" are still labeled "conspiracy-theorists" and nobody seems to object, quite remarkable
when polls show that upwards of 75% of adult americans don't believe the truth was told ! People even believe that JFK.Jr died in an "accident" ffs .

I'm sorry for sounding like a show-stopper or something, it's just that I have never been able to forget this :


..and the next day his approval-rating went through the roof ..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Submitted by Peter on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:16pm.
» login to post comments | 3 points

Thanks for your concern

but I don't accept that. And you contradict yourself--75% of Americans doubting the JFK story shows that people do want to know and don't accept coverup commissions. Regardless, I don't, nor do the people here.

Trading arms for hostages doesn't compare to killing the president or innocent people on 9/11, anyway. Trying to get hostages released, while also meeting some geopolitical goals of checking Iraq and the Soviets, could be sold to the American people. Going around Congress was wrong and unconstitutional and the real goal in Nicaragua was not checking the Soviets, but this was the Cold War and these justifications could be sold. 9/11 of course shows that this kind of secret government behavior is dangerous and should not have been condoned.

CIA drug trafficing would not have been condoned by the American people, because it was directly harmful to Americans. That's why it was never admitted and Gary Webb was attacked by the New York Times,et al.

Submitted by Dwightvw on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:51pm.
» login to post comments | 0 points

..

Well, they got away with it, didn't they ? Some contradiction .. Even though a wast majority of Americans
don't believe the Warren-Omission they still voted for the perps, they will even elect one of them President ..
I also strongly suspect that most Americans didn't really believe Ollie North acted all by himself but Reagan is
to this day one of your most popular Presidents . Your right, trading arms for drugs for hostages isn't the same as killing a president
but crashing a bunch of aircraft in some Iranian desert is pretty damn close . It didn't give Carter many votes, that's for sure.
And Yes, I am concerned, not just for you people in America but for all us ..
these neo-conservative madmen scare the shit out of me and quite frankly I'm concerned that there's not enough of us to stop them .
I grew up during the cold war and never have I been more concerned about nuclear holocaust happening than I am now .
Maybe I just need a break from all the crap :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Listen carefully now : DO NOT DESTROY OIL-WELLS" Dubya

Submitted by Peter on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 6:13pm.
» login to post comments | 2 points

So what Lehman is saying

is that these staffers would have made great witnesses under oath. He says they "needed these people to find their way through the morass and volumes of information." Independent staffers could have used sworn depositions to work through that information. This would have required spending more money and time, though probably not as much as was spent on Whitewater and the blow job. Not to defend Clinton - he should have been deposed also.

Submitted by Dwightvw on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:18pm.
» login to post comments | 2 points

The hits keep coming

And John Lehman always struck me as a Kissinger surrogate on the Commission.

He's a former senior staffer for Kissinger and a member of PNAC, among other things.

Submitted by simuvac on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 4:37pm.
» login to post comments | 0 points

Exactly

Which is why I find it puzzling that he should be so candid now in his comments about the commission and its conflicts of interest. Just speculating off the top of my head--might it simply be meant as a reminder to any commission staffers who might be considering spilling the beans on what they know that they are still in the same boat as the commissioners and the executive director, and that they will all go down together unless they all stick together?

Submitted by rm on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 5:30am.
» login to post comments | 0 points

Philip Shenon Interview today on "Fresh Air" NPR

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18660248

Submitted by Joe on Mon, 02/04/2008 - 7:12pm.