Ed Begley: I Was Lured In by Tinfoil Hatters

Interesting bit with Begley who now claims he was just interested in the air quality issues, which is legitimate, and was appalled by the claims of controlled demolition. I like that he goes immediately to the "Cheney planted bombs in the towers, but he didn't plant WMD in Iraq?" argument.

It may be argued (and probably will be) that this is an effort by Begley to help out Van Jones by pointing out how the Troofers dupe people into supporting them by highlighting relatively non-controversial questions, and before you know it, everybody's saying you're one of the nutbars. I'd have to look back at Begley's moderation of the NY 2004 event and see what he was saying at that time to see if he's just butt-covering here.

I've always liked Begley; his performance as Victor Erlich in St. Elsewhere was terrific and he's one of those rare environmentalists who really does make serious efforts to reduce his carbon footprint, unlike Al "$10,000 utility bill" Gore.

Van Jones Reactions

Predictably, the fruitloops see a conspiracy to put them down just when (insert impending 9-11 Troof breakthrough here).

BTW, I find the the timing of this revelation (that Jones signed the petition), right before the 9/11 anniversary, really suspicious.

I've gone to many media comment sections to read the reactions to the Van jones resignation- and it's nasty. I've never read so many racist, hateful comments, generated in such a short amount of time. It seems the shock troops were organized to do the greatest amount of damage to the Truth Movement, Obama, and environmental progress.

It is my personal speculation that the smear campaign against Jones was designed to hit the news just prior to September 11th in order to denegrate 9/11 Truth. The "black ops media" wanted to throw a first punch, just like the National Geographic first strike.

Ah, but some see the eternal silver lining:

This event is going to force more people to look at the facts. I've concluded that now. It is an opportunity to discuss this in various environments, in which previously, it would be impossible, with raging denial the result. Every time I've brought it up at a particular blog I frequent, I've encountered the wall of denial. Despite the many many links I'd left to all who scoff at my remarks. The Left leaning ones, were particularly heartbreaking to denounce me. However, now, the blog I engage in conversation, and debate with, the Lefties are now seeing things with a new light.

That may be. Perhaps the oddest reaction comes from uber-left blogger Jane Hamsher, who wonders what the fuss was all about:

Now he's been thrown under the bus by the White House for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 -- that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11.

Say it loud, say it proud, Jane!

Van Thrown Under the Bus; Troofers Mystified

Van Jones resigned yesterday after his Trooferism became an issue.

Jones issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition that questioned whether Bush administration officials "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war" and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist members and leanings, had also become an issue. And on Saturday his advocacy on behalf of death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was convicted of shooting a Philadelphia police officer in 1981, threatened to grow as a fresh point of controversy.

Hilariously, the "Truthers" can't figure out why his 9-11 nuttery was an issue.

It is very telling how the MSM is dealing with this. I haven't seen one mention of the fact that Jones is entitled to his own opinions or that there might be something legitimate to these questions.

Others question the timing:

To have this story become so huge, an Obama appointee resigning because of supporting "9/11 conspiracy theories", on a Sunday when everyone will read it in the paper, on the week of the 8th Anniversary, to me, smacks of the wave of attacks that came on the 5th Anniversary, with Bush himself noting the "conspiracy theorists" ominously in a speech -- another strong-arm effort to turn away anyone with hopes of a career in anything that matters ever supporting "9/11 conspiracy theories".

Perhaps the nanothermite paper has made a dent. This is the first really anti-9/11 truth effort of the new administration.

Excuse me? How is this some anti-9-11 Truth plot by Obama? In fact, it's Obama's political opponents who are using this against him.

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.

Obama's Green Jobs Czar a Truther

Van Jones has been in the news lately for his comment early this year that Republicans are a**holes. Turns out, the Vanster's also a 9-11 Truther (see signature #46 on the petition).

Hat Tip: The Good Lt. at JREF. Further coverage of this at the Jawa Report and at Gateway Pundit.

Update: Manny points out that Jones' initial take on 9-11 was pretty similar to Ward Churchill's:

Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, "mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world" on the night after Sept. 11, 2001.

However, this does not mean that he didn't become a "Truther" later; most of the more famous kooks--for example, Richard Gage, Eric Hufschmid, and even David Ray Griffin--weren't 0-day conspiracy theorists.