How 9/11 Conspiracy Poison Did in Van Jones

[proud2BlibKansan]

As far as I can tell, the only thing the so-called 9/11 Truth movement has accomplished is this: it's caused the Obama administration to lose its most prominent expert on green jobs. So well done, Truthers. Thanks to you, the federal government will now be spending about $80 billion on green economy initiatives without the guiding hand of one of the most knowledgeable experts in this field.

I am, of course, referring to Van Jones, who resigned this weekend from his position as adviser to the head of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. Jones, once a civil rights activist, in recent years has become a leader in the green jobs movement, and as an administration official he was given the task of making sure that billions of stimulus dollars flowing to jobs in enviro-friendly fields (say, wind power) were being deployed in an effective manner. But his (apparently) unpardonable sin was that he had signed a petition--"a "9/11 Truth Statement"--that suggested the Bush-Cheney administration either orchestrated or allowed the 9/11 attack to happen and that called for an investigation. He also had been part of an organizing committee for a 9/11 "truth" march. There were other actions dredged up by Jones' conservative antagonists, including conspiratorial rightwing Fox host Glenn Beck. (Beck was pursuing a vendetta; after Beck recently called Obama a "racist," a group that Jones had founded launched an advertising boycott of Beck's show.) Jones had once referred to Republicans as "assholes." But it was the 9/11 stuff that did him in.

In a way, I tried to prevent this from happening.

Years ago, when the 9/11 conspiracy theories were first emerging on the left, I wrote several pieces decrying them. (See here, here, and here.) My fear was that this unsound idea would infect the left and other quarters--discrediting anyone who got close to it. I even debunked a book promoting an unfounded 9/11 conspiracy theory that was published by Nation Books when I was Washington editor of The Nation magazine. (I tried to persuade the decision-makers of Nation Books that the book ought not even be published--and failed.)

The 9/11 conspiracy theory was just too tempting for many Bush critics. Van Jones says he was not fully aware of what he was signing when he put his John Hancock on that 9/11 petition. This might be true. But I can see how Jones and others on the left--without thinking too much--might have easily said, sure, sign my name to any call for any investigation of Bush and Cheney. And that sloppiness--if that's what it was--has cost him his job.

more . . .
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/07/how-9-11-conspiracy-poison-did-in-van-jones/#comments

[SidDithers]

1. Yup. Good post. Kicked and recc'd..jnt

Sid

[MadHound]

2. The 911 Truth Movement didn't do in Van Jones,

That was done with a combination of RW hate talkers and the fact that the Obama administration once again caved.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. It's obvious since they have ignored Philip Berg

He is one of the first truthers yet since he is a birther, they ignore his 911 stuff.

[The Gunslinger]

30. Correct.

This cave in only helps to legitimize the far right crazies like Beck, and the corporate owned media that pushes a far right agenda. Beck will soon get all his sponsors back.

A note to Democrats.............Boycott Fox News and all other far right media outlets who are out to destroy the Obama administration and this country.

[LARED]

3. Presidents must lead from the center to be effective

That's the reality of American politics. Van Jones did not belong in the Obama administration. He is far too radical to be on the WH team. His truther association was merely the catalyst that brought his radical past into focus.

The fact the Obama tapped him points to the fact that Obama has not yet learned to lead from the center.

[katandmoon]

15. You mean like BUSH did?

[LARED]

35. I don't understand your question. nt

[Raineyb]

42. Obviously

And hence the clear flaw in your argument.

[Overseas]

40. Very convenient for the GOP that the center has been moved

so far to the right of where it was 20 years ago. Their concerted campaign, detailed in "What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman ( www.whatliberalmedia.com ) has been very successful.

Even calling for a thorough investigation and prosecution of war criminals for the crimes our government executed others for in the past has been and will continue to be called FAR LEFT by the right wingers who are quite confident in their control of the national dialogue.

Heck, private health insurance companies have even paid right wing PR firms to gin up dangerous fear and hatred in vulnerable populations to get them to call our president a commie socialist for wanting everyone to be able to choose a government health insurance option. And Old Energy companies are paying the same kind of right wing PR groups to get more "genuine grass roots groups" (just coincidentally silent during the blatant war profiteering of the Bush Gang) to oppose cutting US carbon emissions, as "Energy Citizens" demanding freedom to use up world petroleum and coal resources as freely as they damn well want to.

And golly, ditching Van Jones has nothing to do with his calling out advertisers who support Glenn Beck, the latest in a long line of right wing psychos stirring up more fear and hatred on our national airwaves. :sarcasm:

GOP hardball has been successful in diverting this summer's healthcare dialog away from the miserable failures of the private sector to prove that they could do things better after the last time they stomped out national health insurance-- over to kookville-- death panels and gun toting. They succeeded in keeping us from discussing serious problems and effective solutions.

Why should they stop now?

[Junkdrawer]

4. FYI: Here's the petition that Van Jones signed:

We Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?

2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?

3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?

4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?

5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?

6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?

7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?

8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?

9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?

10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?

11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?

12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.

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.

Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.

In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.

Signed,

[SpiralHawk]

5. "Move along. Nothing to see here. Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[Junkdrawer]

9. I'm still waiting for a single MSM outlet to publish the petition...

A man is ridden out on a rail for signing a petition and all we get from ALL mainstream media outlets is Glenn Beck's characterization of that petition.

You know why? Because if they did publish the petition, quite a few people might say "Gee, I want answers to those questions too."

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. He was ridden out on a rail for going after Glenn Beck

The 9/11 petition was just icing on the cake.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

45. The 9/11 petition asked valid, reasonable questions, unanswered by the commission.

Beck and others lied about the nature and point of the petition and the blame isn't on the petition, but on the misinterpreting liars.

[greyl]

47. Incorrect. Every single question was seriously flawed; factual errors, irrelevancy,

already answered, sinister insinuations with no basis...
They seem like great questions at first glance, but that's how push polls/petitions are designed.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153045

[wildbilln864]

50. I don't think the victim's families....

care what some Amazin randi numbskull's opinion is about the relevance of their questions. They obviously thought they were relevant.
:shrug:

[greyl]

53. I'd prefer facts to your thoughts. nt

[wildbilln864]

58. I know you only rely on randi forum poster's thoughts. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

60. I agree about the petition

I just don't think 9/11 or this petition is the reason Van Jones was attacked.

[anigbrowl]

63. No, they're loaded, politicized questions

There are questions worth asking, and I also think the 9/11 commission report is flawed in a variety of ways. But even so, I consider the petition as reproduced above to be a piece of agit-prop on behalf of those who make a cottage industry from shopping tales of conspiracy.

One part of me wants to write a short essay demonstrating the shortcomings of this approach, but long experience has convinced me that it's largely a waste of time to do so. Let me summarize this way: to convincingly refute the official version of events, one needs to present a credible alternative hypothesis. Examining unanswered questions and inconsistencies is part of that process, but not the end result.

Treating the existence of questions as evidence in and of itself is the same intellectual mistake (or tactic, depending on your point of view) found in creationist challenges to evolutionary theory. It's not scientific, it's rhetorical.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Thank you.

[gmoney]

7. Most of those sound like pretty reasonable questions to me...

and even if the answer to all of them is "Someone fucked up" then why wasn't anyone fired or reprimanded or something?

Am I a truther now? :eyes:

[Democracyinkind]

8. Now that's really unacceptable!

ASKING QUESTION is so UNAMERICAN. How dare he ask such questions.

living in a country where you can attend University courses on unanswered questions about 9/11, this whole debate seems rather silly to me.

[Edweird]

21. I know I want answers to those questions. Of course, I've already

formed my own theory - LIHOP.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Me too

I have been LIHOP all along.

[Edweird]

39. I tried to be fair and give them the 'benefit of the doubt'.

But there's just no way around these issues. There are too many 'coincidences'. I reached a point where there was no doubt in my mind that it was LIHOP.

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. I don't have a problem with this petition and I applaud anyone who did sign it

I just disagree that 9/11 was what did in Van Jones.

[Junkdrawer]

27. If you post an article you 100% disagree with, it's a good idea to say that in the OP n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. I don't 100% disagree

[Gidney N Cloyd]

25. 41% of NY Staters with the calm reflection of 3 years passed. That's a helluva big "fringe."

[spanone]

10. legitimate questions about the greatest terrorist attack on usa are poison?

naaaaaaw

[Democracyinkind]

14. Yeah they are. Totally Crimethink! Just ask the thought police

aka the institute for nontoxic historical narratives.

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Totally agreed...9/11 truther nonsense is uber-fringe stuff

And embarrassing.

[spanone]

16. yea, god forbid we question our government.

[Gman2]

34. That is silly. There is a difference between wanting to know what really happened

and thinking workmen preinstalled thermite.

[JohnyCanuck]

12. Highly-Credible People Question 9/11

That is if you believe the 9/11 Commissioners are credible.

9/11 COMMISSIONERS

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) 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, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

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.

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 . . . ."

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "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 said that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts 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 spin. This is not true."

(Go to original for embedded links)
http://911summary.com/911c.php

In light of the fact that we are only now finding out that accumulating evidence has for a while pointed to the frame up of Megrahi for the Pan Am 103 bombing (goodness gracious, looks like the CIA and the Brits conspired to introduce fake evidence in court, bribe witnesses, withhold relevant evidence from the court etc. to misdirect attention from the real terrorist(s)), it would be naive to accept that US government and mainstream media have not kept unadressed and/or hidden some relevant facts and answers to questions surrounding 9/11 to which people want answers.

[Echo In Light]

26. +1

[Vincardog]

36. +1

[LeftishBrit]

37. At least one of the signatures in '911summary.com' seems to be questionable

That is 'Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris'. I am very familiar with the Psychology Department at Oxford University, and there has been no professor of that name in that department. (Unless there is an Oxford University other than the one in the UK.)

I suspect that the Truth Movement are not always totally 'truthful' about their supporters in general.

They might, for example, might use people's statements that they want *further investigation* of what happened on 9-11 as evidence that they believe in a full-blown MIHOP theory. This may have happened to Van Jones.

[Junkdrawer]

43. Scholars for 9/11 Truth has him listed as:

Graham Harris M.A (Oxon); D. Phil.; Physics; Psychology Retired University Lecturer

http://stj911.org/members/index.html

Looks like some kind of transcription error to me. But feel free to assign a more sinister motive if you must.

[LeftishBrit]

44. Not necessarily sinister.Just careless.

Especially as this has been there for over a year (at least) and no one has changed it. It does make one question how reliable and accurate such an organization is - that's all.

[leftstreet]

41. +1

[greyl]

49. One would have to be an idiot to not "question 9/11".

However, that statement is woefully vague. So vague, it's virtually meaningless.

One person asks how nukes were planted in the towers, another person asks why cockpits weren't secured or why the August PDB was given little attention.

[Gman2]

13. Horsepucky. Van Jones was booted cuz he's a socialist.

They have moved to the next name on their hitlist. They will smear with any words they need. Make them up if necessary. As far as I can tell, Van Jones signed that thing, cuz a coupla families asked him to further investigations into what happened. Normal shit, not thruther.

[katandmoon]

17. You mean because BushCo was just SO trustworthy? And EVERYTHING about 9/11 adds up?

[Apollo11]

18. Here is what Al Gore had to say about 9/11

"The administration did, in fact, have the names of at least two of the hijackers well before 9/11 and had available to them information that could have led to the identification of most of the others. One of them was in the phone book. And yet, because of incompetence, unaccountable incompetence in the handling of the information, it was never used to protect the American people."

Al Gore - January 16, 2006
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/16/AR2006011600779.html

Does that make Al Gore a truther too? :eyes:

[90-percent]

19. just goes to show you

BULLYING WORKS!

It's all they've got, and why not? They're getting better results than the Progressive side is!

At least now the bullies will be even more emboldened!

The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them, but that takes courage.

-90% jimmy

[OwnedByFerrets]

28. Yes, lets continue the whitewash of this tragedy. Yeah, that works for me.

NOT

[spanone]

29. it's almost as absurd as putting forth the theory that the president started a bogus war

based on 911

:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

31. proud2BlibKansan and I often disagree, but this one gets a kick and a positive REC

:kick:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

32. What happens if the previous admin did 9/11

does he get reinstated?

They burnt witches at the stake in the middle ages because they knew too much

[omega minimo]

65. they knew too much

and got in the way of the profiteers of their day....



from post below:
"Because of this, the term has become an incredibly effective propaganda tool for those who would prefer to silence dissenting opinions rather than debate them. After all, if you can’t win an argument with evidence and reason, dismissing the topic by negative association is your next best bet. "

[TexasObserver]

33. It's not the truthers, but the non truthers, who insisted Van Jones go.

Obama has an instant burn policy when it comes to staffers in trouble. Doesn't really matter why they end up in trouble, they're gone as soon as they're exposed.

[MilesColtrane]

38. That petition didn't bring him down.

It was his, "By August, I was a communist." quote.

Even 50 years after McCarthy, uttering the C word is suicide for a national political figure.

[proud2BlibKansan]

62. It was Glenn Beck

Revenge for Color of Change going after Beck's advertisers.

[greyl]

48. Answers to the petition questions here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153045

They seem like great questions at first glance, but simply do not stand up to fact checking and scrutiny.
Most internet polls and petitions aren't fact checked and scrutinized before people answer, are they?

I support Van Jones, and I think he probably educated himself since signing that petition.

[spanone]

51. they seem like great questions on the fifth or tenth or one hundreth glance.

[greyl]

54. Without looking at the answers, as you haven't, of course.

As David Corn said in the OP article:

When I pointed all this out years ago, I discovered that 9/11 Truthers were not capable of being convinced they had gone off the rails.

[Junkdrawer]

55. Bullshit answers...Example:

Quote:
12.Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?"

Irrelevant. Everyone knows that the 9/11 commission report wasn't going to be independent, nor was it going to get complete help from the politicans...

[greyl]

57. Cherry picking. That wasn't the only answer.

because they thought he was the best man for the job, is what they said. But if you think that replacing him with, say, Cleland would have meant discovering that the "Pentagon's missile batteries were ordered to stand down" then I think you're seriously mistaken.

Thanks for taking a look, anyway. ;) Seriously.

[wildbilln864]

59. your quote relies on opinion....

"...then I think you're seriously mistaken." :eyes:
Keywords are "I think"!
eta: Thoughts and opinions are not adequate answers!

[proteus_lives]

52. Why has this post been unrecced?

[Kaleva]

56. An opinion that will some here a mental wedgie. Rec'd

[JohnyCanuck]

61. Why Conspiracy Theory Rhetoric is Hurting our Democracy

Why Conspiracy Theory Rhetoric is Hurting our Democracy
By Tim Hjersted

Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, President Bush asked the American public to “never entertain outrageous conspiracy theories.” The irony of his statement is easily lost. Most people consider themselves reasonable, thoughtful individuals that don’t believe in crazy conspiracy theories, but the Official story of 9/11 – that 19 radical terrorists conspired for several years to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings – is, in fact, a conspiracy theory. It just happens that this theory has the official endorsement of the U.S. government. So, believe our conspiracy theory, not theirs, Mr. Bush asks us. Don’t look at the facts. Don’t investigate for yourself. Just believe what you’re told.

This is, in effect, what the government and the mainstream media is asking us when it labels any idea a “conspiracy theory,” and we can see how incredibly effective this tool has been in stunting rational debate.

Over the decades, the term “conspiracy theory” has gained an increasingly negative stigma. People associate conspiracy theorists with kooks and wackos, paranoid rabble-rousers and self-proclaimed prophets with delusions of grandeur.

Long story short, the term has a whole long list of negative connotations, and most reasonable folks who value their reputation will avoid any conspiracy topics like the plague once it’s clear that the topic is now deemed ultra hazardous “conspiracy” territory.

Because of this, the term has become an incredibly effective propaganda tool for those who would prefer to silence dissenting opinions rather than debate them. After all, if you can’t win an argument with evidence and reason, dismissing the topic by negative association is your next best bet.

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/tribalzendancer/2009/sep/05/why-conspiracy-theory-rhetoric-is-hurting-our-demo/

False flag operations

SNIP

Is it logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so? Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

For lots more on the astonishing Operation Northwoods, see the ABC news report; the official declassified documents; and watch this interview with James Bamford, the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. One quote from the Northwoods documents states: "A 'Remember the Maine' incident could be arranged: We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

What about Al-Qaeda?

You might think Al-Qaeda is different. It is very powerful, organized, and out to get us, right? Consider this Los Angeles Times article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled The Power of Nightmares, which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski testified to the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative."

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but had – at the last minute – cancelled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report.

(embedded links at original)
http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intelligence-Examiner~y2009m9d5-False-flag-operations

[omega minimo]

64. That's a bigger, more damaging conspiracy theory as "loony" as anything from the 9/11Truth movement

This writer joins the right wing in attacking the left, the Republicans in attacking Democrats.

And falsely accuses anyone and everyone calling for investigations of causing Van Jones downfall, rather than pointing that finger at Glen Beck and the rest of the "psychopaths."

The writer even states that "his (apparently) unpardonable sin was that he had signed a petition--"a "9/11 Truth Statement"--that suggested the Bush-Cheney administration either orchestrated or allowed the 9/11 attack to happen and that called for an investigation."

It "suggested" a possibility and "called for an investigation." :scared: :wtf: SO?

ARE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICAN LITES GOING TO SIT BY AND AID AND ABET THE REPUBLICONS IMPLEMENT A NEW MCCARTHYISM?

:evilfrown:

And they won't care, until they come for "YOU."