a dog-eared town

So, the 9/11 Commission is the be all end all, at least it seems according to supporters of congresscritter Paul.

So, let’s take a look at the commission. We have Jamie Gorelick as a commissioner. Why is she important? From her bio

Gorelick was deputy attorney general of the United States, a position she assumed in March 1994. From May 1993 until she joined the Justice Department, Gorelick served as general counsel of the Department of Defense.

And she was at Justice until April-May 1997 where she left to join Fannie Mae.

If you look here, you see that the commission looked all the way back to 1988 regarding Bin Laden. Coincidentally, that time includes when the dear commissioner was employed by the government. You’d think she would be asked questions instead of asking questions. You know, that thing about policing the police. It’s a clear conflict of interest and yet, we’re just supposed to ignore it because of the almighty report.

The report was released on July 24, 2004 and it seems there is yet another conflict of interest with commissioner Gorelick.

Newsweek has a story regarding commissioner Gorelick’s current employer.

An internal list of other law firms retained in the case, reviewed by NEWSWEEK , reads like a veritable “who’s who” of the U.S. legal community. Among those firms and their Saudi clients are: Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering (Prince Mohammed al Faisal); Kellog, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans (Prince Turki al Faisal); Jones, Day (the Binladin Group); Ropes & Grey (Khaled bin Mahfouz); White & Case,(the Al-Rajhi Banking Group); King & Spalding (the Arab Bank and Youssef Nada); Akin Gump (Mohammed Hussein Al-Almoudi); and Fulbright & Jaworski (Nimir Petroleum.)

The bold is my editing and it’s important because Prince al Faisal was sued by 9/11 survivors in 2003 and commissioner Gorelick’s firm was retained by Prince al Faisal. So we have a commissioner’s employer, directly involved in defended someone regarding the 9/11 attacks which are being investigated by commissioner Gorelick. Can you say conflict of interest?

Nice job if you can get it I guess. Get on a commission, have inside information about what went on during your job and yet you never get asked about it. Nice.

Oh and one last thing. What was in Sandy Berger’s pants? Remember Sandy? He’s the ex-Clinton official who was convicted of taking classified documents from the national archives and destroying them? And why might Mr Berger take documents?

Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger served as the 19th United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. In his position, he helped to formulate the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration.

You think the commission might want to see those documents? Oh yeah they can’t because they were destroyed. From Wikipedia,

On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unlawfully mishandling classified documents in October 2003, by removing them from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission.

Supposedly these documents didn’t really mean much to the commission, though we won’t know, but it seems odd especially reading the following story about Sandy.

Samuel R. Berger, the Clinton White House national security adviser who was caught taking highly classified documents from the National Archives, has agreed to forfeit his license to practice law.

I’ve worked with lawyers and they don’t just give up their law license unless it’s really bad. They get so much extra for just having it that it’s well worth it to keep it even if you’re not actively practicing. It really makes me wonder what documents were destroyed and were never seen.

Oh and commissioner Gorelick would have been a co-worker with Sandy Berger. Seems like yet another conflict of interest. She obviously couldn’t and shouldn’t be allowed to ask him anything as a co-worker.

And that’s the problem with just one commissioner. And yet, now because congresscritter Paul says the report is the whole truth, I’m just supposed to agree with it? Ah no. I don’t think so.