Video: MSNBC whitewashes Van Jones Truther petition, of course
posted at 6:55 pm on September 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Consider this a sequel to their now infamous clip featuring the crazy white guy with a gun at the Obama town hall who, um, wasn’t white. Here too viewers are missing a key fact: Just what did the petition say that Jones signed? Shuster, very curiously, doesn’t seem to know, even though (a) he’s moderating a segment about it on a national news channel and (b) you can find it online with 30 seconds of Googling. Quote:
An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today announced the release of the 911 Truth Statement, a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe the government had foreknowledge and “consciously failed to act,” with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
This wasn’t an accusation that Bush didn’t take the intelligence warnings about an AQ plot involving planes seriously enough. Very specifically, it claimed that he knew and let it happen. Shuster admits during the clip that Jones should have been canned if he supported the latter theory — while leaving it perfectly ambiguous for the audience whether he did or not. Good work.
Oh, weighing in on the liberal side here: Jane Hamsher, who seems to find perfect moral equivalence between Birthers and people who whitewash terrorism by accusing the U.S. government, in all seriousness, of conspiring to commit mass murder of its own citizens. If you missed Tom Maguire’s post about her yesterday, read it now. Her defense of Jones, as Maguire memorably phrases it, really does amount to arguing that VJ’s no crazier than the rest of the left. Which, in her defense, may have the virtue of being true.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
If you read my previous posts you would see that I pointed out that I thought Trutherism was on another level of craziness. However, I don’t think that excuses the Birthers.
terryannonline on September 8, 2009 at 8:11 PM
First of all I enjoyed how you sanitized what Birthers believe. Secondly, this is my THIRD stating that I think Trutherism is more grotesque but that STILL doesn’t excuse the Birthers from the wacky label and they don’t belong in government.
terryannonline on September 8, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Fine. The fact remains that you still think birthers are crazy and that they shouldn’t be in government positions. That still makes you an ignoramus.
2Brave2Bscared on September 8, 2009 at 8:35 PM
What is your point in bringing this up all of the time ?
Do you want somebody to mention the birthers everytime someone critizes the truthers ?
STFU already.
kangjie on September 8, 2009 at 8:39 PM
I wasn’t the first one to bring up. I was just agreeing with another poster.
terryannonline on September 8, 2009 at 8:42 PM
When BO puts a Birther in a Czarist position as an adviser to him as he did with a Truther, then will compare apples to apples!
chickasaw42 on September 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM
The whole Van Jones story had nothing to do with improper vetting, and we need to get away from allowing it to be framed in that manner. Obama got caught red-handed trying to pay off a political crony by inventing a brand new job for him, one that would circumvent the Senate confirmation process that he had to know Jones would never survive.
And he was counting on (and getting) the cooperation of the media in looking the other way, at least until conservative bloggers and commentators raised enough of a stink about it that they could no longer ignore it and maintain even a pretense of “credibility.”
Blaming it on improper vetting shifts the responsibility toward some faceless bureaucratic “process” that needs a few tweaks, which is a hell of lot more innocuous than what the real story in all this is – namely, the types of people that Obama has associated himself with for his entire career, the lengths he’ll go to to pay those people off for their political loyalty, and the fact that all doubt has been removed about just how far in bed the media in this country is with this administration.
Gator Country on September 8, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I’d rather watch a sock puppet than Shuster. Come to think of it, I think he IS a sock puppet.
Star20 on September 8, 2009 at 8:52 PM
Exactly right. This is ultimately about Obama and HIS agenda, not Van Jones.
2Brave2Bscared on September 8, 2009 at 9:21 PM
What a Flaming Hypocrite that commentator is. He starts interrupting the conservative right at the start, then says he agrees with him, then says that is not what Van Jones said, and then says he isn’t sure exactly what Van Jones said. They really don’t have a clue as to what the Hell is going on when it’s right in front of them.
ronnyraygun on September 8, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Hey, makes sense to me. Democrats are always signing stuff they never read. Legislation and mortgages immediately come to mind. It’s not like that stuff is really important.
GarandFan on September 8, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Mr. Shuster, President Bush was never “warned that Bin Laden planned to strike with PLANES in the US”. That is a liberal re-telling of the truth and embellished with “planes”. You liar.
Marcus on September 8, 2009 at 9:50 PM
How so? The Troofers claim that Bush murdered almost 3,000 innocent people for oil.
The Birthers are claiming that O’bama won’t release his birth certificate.
Big difference there.
Del Dolemonte on September 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Yeah, and after all, Adolf Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany.
Dave R. on September 9, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Other than Van Jones’ name appearing on the 9/11 Truth petition, are there any quotes attributed to Van Jones in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories?
There are many 9/11 Truth splinter groups, each offering their own theories regarding various levels of Government involvement and/or complacency. Not all of them believe that the WTC towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, and not all of them believe that the Government enabled the attacks.
Remember that the Bush administration was opposed to any formal, independant inquiry into the events of 9/11, and eventually relented with the underfunded 9/11 Commission that many feel was inadequate.
Now, I’ve never heard Ralph Nadar express support for theories of controlled demolition, but I have heard him question the process and integrity of the 9/11 Commission.
He’s #67 on the list.
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Second attempt at this. First attempt was filtered for whatever reason.
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
…
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Who’s lying again?
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Help me out here cuz I’m a little slow.
Why would Obama NEED circumvent the Senate?
The Senate is controlled by the Dems.
In Fact they have a “supper majority”.
If he was trying to circumvent the Senate, then he was circumventing Democrats, not Repubs.
Obama didn’t think Van Jones would fly do to the Democrats?
I’m a little confused.
Or not.
DSchoen on September 9, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Don’t know if this comes under the “quote” category,
But he did help organize a 2002 “9/11 TRUTHER” protest in San Francisco.
So now there’s the petition in 2004 AND the 2002 “9/11 TRUTHER” protest in San Francisco.
Does that help?
DSchoen on September 9, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Without knowing the context of the protest and for the reasons stated above, no, not really.
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 5:49 AM
bileduct,
Who’s lying now? Why you are, bileduct. At least you are muddying the waters. Your quote does not suggest an “attack with planes.” You might be unclear on the concept, but ‘hijack[ing] a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman’ is not in fact what happened on September 11, and there was no attack on any New York federal building that day for that matter. Just a little FYI in case you missed what happened that day.
shazbat on September 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM
You didn’t even read what I pasted. It clearly states that the whilst the FBI were unable to corroborate the Blind Sheik threat, they did in fact provide information indicating “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks”.
They knew Bin Ladin was “determined to strike in US”, the entire memo was devoted to the Bin Laden threat, and they were warned that observed behaviour primarily suggests that planes would be involved.
Furthermore, if you really want to play word games, the language of the PDB suggest that a hijack is a type of attack.
Who’s muddying the waters again?
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 9:16 AM
If Van Jones is an example of the “Best and the Brightest,” they have to bring to the table, it says more about them, than it does about anyone else.
If he’s so G’Damn bright, they should’ve nominated him for president.
franksalterego on September 9, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Where is the real Birth Certificate?
BigMike252 on September 9, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Let’s look to those whom the Old Media hate and loath for the truth.
kens on September 9, 2009 at 1:24 PM
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
Who’s lying again?
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 3:01 AM
You are. There is nothing in that quote (or anywhere else) that indicates planes would be used as missiles, where such attacks may occur, or anything else that could conceivably lead to stopping what happened on 9-11. This is a fact and you know it, meaning you are simply lying about what was in the PDB.
Making a supposition that arab terrorists “might” hijack an airliner is like saying a 2 year old “might” crap in his diaper. It’s ridiculous of you to assert Bush could have done anything about it. In fact, the only thing he could possibly have done would have been to profile every single arab getting on any airplane for the rest of his presidency, and you idiot leftists wouldn’t let him do that AFTER 9-11.
runawayyyy on September 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM
The PDB is there for anyone to read.
In addition, noone said that the PDB specifically mentioned that the planes would be used as missiles – but I understand why you’d want to lie about that, considering your position and all.
What was said, and what I am saying, is that the PDB mentions specifically that Bin Ladin was determined to attack the US and surveillance suggested that he would use planes! That is EXACTLY what the August PDB says, and that is exactly what is being argued here.
Keep up with the real argument and not an imaginary one in your head. Thanks in advance for that.
Spin, spin, spin!
Terrorist hijackings by Arabs are a common occurance on domestic US flights, are they?
There was no “might” about it. The PDB clearly suggests that the FBI were on the trail and were aware something was in progress. It’s in plain english, there for anyone to read.
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
BTW, runawayyyy, perhaps you could inform me as to what President Bush’s reaction to the August 6, 2001 PDB.
Was there a response, or did he just shrug his shoulders, say “meh” and toss it in the too hard pile like you would have done?
bileduct on September 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM
That’s right, there was no reaction.
Bush thought that the entire content of the PDB was “historical” in nature (Rice lied about this whilst under oath), and that had he known that cells were operating within the United States he would have “moved on it“.
This is despite the fact that:
1) The PDB clearly establishes that Al Qaeda operatives (some of whom were US Citizens) were present in the United States;
2) The PDB specifically mentions a New York based cell recruiting Muslim youths for attacks;
3) The authors of the PDB have stated that it was drafted in such a manner to describe that there was a threat that was current and serious;
4) The PDB alerts that patterns of suspicious activity suggest that preparation for hijackings was in progress.
These facts are not up for debate.
What is up for debate, however, is why Bush chose to do nothing instead of “moving on it”. MIHOP/LIHOPers will tell you inaction was deliberate, but I prefer the more simplistic explanation – Bush was on vacation and didn’t really care.
Bush snooze, 3000 lose.
Furthermore, your point about refusing airliner travel for all Arabs is an intentional strawman and truly indicative of the fact that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. The FBI and the CIA were monitoring the activities of some of the hijackers prior to 9/11/2001 and knew their names.
The same names they used when they boarded planes that morning.
bileduct on September 10, 2009 at 2:26 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2