By Ryan Rabalais Feb 14, 2010 source: Nolan Chart
Must a candidate for public office embrace the government’s official version of 9-11?
The recent scuffle between Glenn Beck and Debra Medina regarding her personal views of 9-11, while exposing Beck as a shill, also raises another question. What is acceptable for a candidate for public office to believe regarding 9-11? Are all candidates required to agree with the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it now a litmus test for all those seeking office? That would seem to be asking a lot, especially considering what the Commissioners themselves have said about the 9-11 Commisssion:
In a New York Times article dated 1-2-08, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, co-chairs of ther 911 Commission, said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation“.
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.
Kean and Hamilton now admit that political considerations played a large part in the Commission’s investigation.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right“, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history. “We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. . . . It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access to KSM. We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA.”
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting“, Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission”
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, reporting: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised“; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up“.
9/11 Commissioner John Lehman told NBC Nightly News that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest. All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest“.
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described . The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not true.” Farmer’s book, ‘The Ground Truth’, unveils how “the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks,” and Farmer himself states that “at some level of the government, at some point in time there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened.”
Considering all of this is it that unreasonable for a candidate to suggest that there may still be unanswered questions about 9-11? We must have a real, independent investigation of 9-11 based on science – and not politics or emotion – or this country will be torn apart. It doesn’t seem likely that this is an issue that will just go away. 9-11 is an event that is ‘too big to stay secret’ and the truth about it will eventually be revealed. We should not hold it against anyone running for office or otherwise if they still have questions about 9-11. Personally, I would apply a litmus test against anyone who claimed to subscribe strictly to the government’s official story.