Friday, September 04, 2009

Van Jones: I Am Not A Truther-American

I'm willing to let him slide by with this excuse.

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of "the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition. An administration source said Jones says he did not carefully review the language in the petition before agreeing to add his name.


That's generally not a good idea, but the guy was a nobody back in 2004, so I'm inclined to give him a little slack. I can appreciate that with other things he's said the political types may not agree here.

Update: Gateway Pundit points out that Jones was involved with some of the very early Troofers, including being a part of Carol Brouillet's original march to Diane Feinstein's office. However, this is a little trickier than the petition (which was clearly objectionable). Look at the statement Jones was signing back in 2002:

Tuesday, January 8th, 2002, at noon at Justin Herman Plaza, people will gather to march up Market Street to the office of Senator Feinstein (at Post St.) where a delegation will meet with the Senator's staff to raise their concerns over the "War on Terrorism." They will demand that the Senate launch an inquiry or hearings of the events of 9-11, and the U.S. government's international and domestic response.


Nothing really objectionable there. Later on they do get into some elements of Trooferism:

Who created, trained and funded the Al Qaeda Network? What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group? Why were no fighter planes dispatched to intercept the four hijacked planes on September 11h , in violation of standard procedures? Who actually was in control of the "hijacked planes"? What is the U.S. relationship with Pakistan, and especially with its intelligence service, the ISI? Why did the then director of the ISI have $100,000 transferred to the man whom the FBI now calls the ringleader of the Sept. 11th attacks, and why does the U.S. not pursue this question? Did the CIA have foreknowledge of the attack, who tried to profit with put options on American, United, Merrill Lynch stock just before the attack? Why were the FBI told to not investigate the Bin Laden family links in the US? If the CIA met with Bin Laden last July, why didn't they try to arrest him? If the US is serious about ridding the world of terrorism, why do we continue to fund and train terrorists? Why are we bombing Afghanistan, when none of the alleged bombers actually came from there, could there be another reason for our presence in that region, like oil? Is the war against Afghanistan illegal?


That's certainly the type of stuff that Troofers were pushing in 2002, but is it really objectionable back then, prior to the 9-11 Commission?

Update: Krauthammer says he can stand a communist, but not a Troofer:



:)

Update: Ben Smith contacts some of the other signers. Rabbi Michael Lerner says he doesn't remember all of that nonsense:

Lerner emails:

I was asked to sign a letter which I was told had four demands:

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

I did not authorize my name to be used for all the other stuff that I now see was included surrounding the letter, namely the sponsors of that 911truth.org, and would not have had I been aware that all that stuff was presented in ways that suggested that I agreed with it, and though I do recognize a few of the people I'd consider "nut cases" among the list of signatories, my guess is that most of those who signed were, like me, unaware of the context in which our names would appear.


So it sounds a bit like another Kennebunkport Warning, but Lerner himself is a "nut case"; see here:

“I would not be surprised to learn that some branch of our government conspired either actively to promote or passively to allow the attack on 9/11,” Lerner wrote in an essay published in the new book, “9/11 and American Empire: Christians, Jews, and Muslims Speak Out.” Lerner added that he would also not be surprised if it turned out that the attacks were not the result of a government conspiracy.

“I am agnostic on the question of what happened on 9/11,” he wrote in his essay for the book, which includes articles by other contributors arguing that a government conspiracy was behind the September 11 attacks. “As other authors in this collection have shown, there are huge holes in the official story and contradictions that suggest that we do not know the whole story.”


Update V: The Troofers at 9-11 Truth dot org respond:

As the eighth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, what doesn't make sense to us is that media outlets choose to impugn the character of the signatories rather than carry out your responsibility as watchdogs to call attention to the as yet unanswered questions raised in the 2004 statement. Five years later, we challenge you to finally print those same unanswered questions and pursue their answers with the same vigor with which you pursue the signatories.


They also claim the petition as posted was the one Jones signed:

For readers' convenience, following is the actual Truth Statement signed onto by Van Jones in 2004, currently being discussed in the media.

Labels:

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home