Media Matters: Hot Air “smeared” Van Jones by calling him a Truther
posted at 5:55 pm on September 17, 2009 by Allahpundit
Some free publicity for their new “Smearbusters” page, displaying the sort of honesty and integrity for which the David Brock brand is known and loved. Here’s how they describe the “smear” of asserting that a guy who signed a petition for 911Truth.org might, in fact, be a 9/11 Truther:
In 2004, Van Jones did sign a petition requesting further investigation into the 9/11 attacks. The petition did not suggest that the Bush administration “blew up the World Trade Center,” but rather that the response to the pending attacks was inadequate. Jones has stated that the petition does not reflect his views.
Listed as a source for the “smear” is this post at Hot Air. Question: Anything missing from the Brock bunch’s characterization of the Truther petition? Reading it, it sounds like Jones did nothing more than accuse Bush of not having taken the early intel about an Al Qaeda plot involving planes seriously enough. Let’s revisit the petition language, shall we?
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.
“Deliberately allowed” — i.e. high treason and conspiracy to commit mass murder — goes a hell of a lot further than accusing Bush of an “inadequate response,” but this isn’t the first time we’ve seen a lefty propaganda shop sanitize the foulest element of the petition for the benefit of its audience. Remember when David Shuster conveniently neglected to spell out for the MSNBC faithful just what was in the document that Van Jones signed?
While you’re over there, you might want to read their new dossier on Andrew Breitbart, who’s done a very bad thing this month by exposing systemic corruption at a taxpayer-funded left-wing nonprofit and must be punished accordingly.
Update (Ed): We should point out that Media Matters has begun a pattern of screaming “Smear!” when people point out what others have actually said. Van Jones signed the 9/11 Truth petition, a voluntary act; we just pointed it out. Similarly, Media Matters yesterday accused Fox of “smearing” Tresa Kaelke in accusing her of committing murder by … airing the tape where she claims to have committed murder. Media Matters must have looked up “smear” in Orwell’s Dictionary, 1984 edition.
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 … 8 9 10
Check our Maguire’s September 7th post “No Looney Lefty Left Behind”.
and, in the same post…
SeattleJohn on September 18, 2009 at 5:27 PM
Joe Wilson has some ’splainin’ to do:
Has Joe Wilson had a change of heart since his big government socialized health care for illegals vote in 2003, or is he simply another hypocritical phony taking advantage of pissed off conservatives?
2Brave2Bscared on S
Joe Wilson stated as fact “you lie” .
It has nothing to do with what peter pan said 50 years ago.
You lie, it was a statement in fact that has proven to be correct.
Next!
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 6:29 PM
Seriously Seixon, get your logic straight! Truther have both LIHOP and MIHOP as the MAIN categories, I’m sure among the nut cases you will find grey men form mars did it.
There nutcases that’s what they do!
Cuz their nuts!
BTW didn’t you state he didn’t sign the petition or didn’t know how his named got on that petition?
Your augment is crumbling for yur eyes!
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 6:37 PM
These are the words of a nut case. Note: this statement was in 2001
He was an organizer of the 2002 truther protest (yes I know Truther org didn’t name themselves truthers till 2004, its irrelevant)
Pay back, blow back Fits into the Made It Happen category.
It changes nothing nutcases can evolve their nutty beliefs to more nutty beliefs cuz their nuts, that’s what they do.
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Jones is a communist and a racist too. He’s quite proud of that. If he isn’t a truther, he wouldn’t have signed the petition.
Nice try at spin, but once again the libs are counting on the ignorance of their readers and listeners.
dogsoldier on September 19, 2009 at 8:52 AM
It occurs to me from this whole discussion that you, and many others, are more interested in what things say rather than what they mean.
As someone else already pointed out, you cannot be an unwitting Truther. Maguire writes that Van Jones is an unwitting Truther because, as he also wrote, it would seem that Van Jones is guilty of signing a petition that he hadn’t read carefully. Thus, he opened himself up to be called a Truther, because he signed a petition that included Truther sentiments. That doesn’t mean that he actually is one, but he becomes an unwitting Truther because of it.
Look above. Maguire putting Truther in quotes as in the “‘Truther’ controversy” should maybe have clued you in.
I see that no one has answered my question: is Ralph Nader a Truther?
Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM
No I did not. He’s already admitted to agreeing to have his name attached to the petition, but nobody has asked him how or why, and as such, nobody knows.
If you cannot establish how or why he signed the petition, you cannot establish whether he is a Truther or not, since there is no other evidence that he is.
Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM
All Truthers are unwitting Truthers.
blink on September 19, 2009 at 11:58 AM
This is the first time you’ve acknowledged this point.
Look. If your claiming that Hot Air smeared Van Jones, then it’s you that needs to prove that Hot Air smeared Van Jones. In order to do that, you need to prove that Van Jones isn’t a Truther.
You haven’t even come close to doing so yet.
blink on September 19, 2009 at 12:02 PM
blink, you have long since demonstrated that critical thinking is not in your sphere of abilities.
Here I thought a Truther actually knew they were a Truther because they believe in Trutherism. I guess that could make me an unwitting Christian, even though I don’t believe in God. Maybe I believe in something without even knowing!!
Actually it’s not, but I guess you don’t remember that well, either.
I have to prove a negative? No, you see, this is exactly backwards. To demonstrate that Hot Air didn’t smear Van Jones, you have to prove that Van Jones is a Truther.
I cannot prove Van Jones isn’t a Truther no more than I can prove that he isn’t Santa Clause.
Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 12:37 PM
You really are stupid.
Truthers don’t know they’re truthers. Truthers are just askin’ questions ya know? Nothin’ wrong with askin’ questions. Some stuff about it just don’t add up. Truthers just happen to believe an unrealistic version of events, but they don’t know they’re truthers. Except I’ll give you that maybe 5% of truthers know they’re truthers.
Why are you so proud of that stupid phrase?
I don’t have to demonstrate that Hot Air didn’t smear Van Jones. I merely have to demonstrate that you’ve failed to demonstrate that Hot Air smeared Van Jones which many of us have done repeatedly.
The only thing you’ve demonstrated is your lack of knowledge about the law, your lack of knowledge about defamation, and your lack of an any sign of intelligence.
Good luck with your new blog. Keep those google search skills up, because you’re devoid of any hint of analytical skill.
blink on September 19, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Because it shows just how completely without logic you are, which is quite clear from your strained attempts to avoid facts, the plain meaning of words, and the fact that you believe it is OK to make claims without any sufficient evidence.
Why is no one answering the question about whether Nader is a Truther or not? Could it be that Nader obviously isn’t a Truther, and thus the single piece of circumstantial evidence you’re all clinging to does not justify calling Van Jones a Truther for the same exact reason?
Uh oh!
Seixon on September 19, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Who cares?
Was Nader an Obama czar? No
Does Nader have access to millions of taxpayer dollars that he could spend, un-checked? No
I no more care if Nader is a truther than I do if the guy on the street talking to the lamppost, wearing a “the end is near! repent” sandwich board is a truther (btw he is a truther, just like Van Jones, a nutcase) he can’t do harm.
Van Jones is a truther its been proven a hundred times over.
DSchoen on September 19, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Your using the “4 year-old” argument.
Father walks into kitchen, sees 4 year-old son with milk jug in hand.
Sees milk and milk cup on floor.
Ask son “what happened”
Son says “I don’t know”
Your claiming Van Jones has the mind of a 4 year-old.
All of this occurred back in 2004 when he first got hold of the petition.
He has said, yes he saw the petition.
He has said, he did not understand the petition.
And he did not agree with what was written in the petition he did not understand.
He has said, yes that his signature on the petition.
But he does not know how his signature got on the petition. “I don’t know”
WOW! Golly why the flock did Obama have this guy in his admin!
We need to SERIOUSLY look deeply into EVERY person in Obama’s admin top to bottom.
If this idiot got through who knows what we will find!
DSchoen on September 19, 2009 at 8:41 PM
Seixon
Read it!
White House lukewarm on Van Jones after his “9/11 Truth” petition signature surfaces — but Newsom “stands by him
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=46917
DSchoen on September 19, 2009 at 8:47 PM
DSchoen,
Is Ralph Nader a Truther? Answer the question.
Seixon on September 20, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Are you really this stupid?
Let me try again.
YOU are the one making the claim. YOU are claiming that Hot Air smeared Van Jones. YOU are the one asking us to prove that you didn’t. YOU are the one asking us to prove a negative.
YOU didn’t say that Hot Air was irresponsible. YOU didn’t say that Hot Air should have had a few more data points prior to making their claim. YOU didn’t say that Hot Air was too aggressive in their claim. YOU didn’t merely say that Hot Air can’t prove its claims.
YOU decided to state that Hot Air smeared someone. THAT’s a definitive statement. YOU decided to make a definitive statement.
If Van Jones is a truther than your definitive statement is 100% wrong. YOU agree that Van Jones might be a truther therefore you agree that you might be 100% wrong.
blink on September 20, 2009 at 10:54 PM
You stated that claims can’t be made unless they’re proven. In response to this utterly stupid notion, I replied that claims CAN be made without any evidence at all and that the claim is TRUE if the claim is TRUE regardless of the information used to make the claim. I didn’t say that it was responsible to do so. I didn’t say that it was smart to do so.
But the fact remains, that the information used to make a claim has no bearing on whether or not the claim is actually true.
If someone makes a well researched claim based on hard evidence which provides 99.99% certainty, then the claim will be wrong 1 time out of every 10,000. In that 1 occurrence, the fact that the evidence was strong has no bearing on the fact that the claim was WRONG.
If someone makes a claim based on scant information which provides a mere 0.01% certainty, then the claim will be right 1 time out of every 10,000. In this occurrence, the fact that the claim was based on scant information doesn’t diminish the truthfulness of that claim at all.
You can argue that Hot Air’s information wasn’t very strong, but you can’t definitive state that Hot Air’s resulting claim was wrong – unless you know that it is – which you’ve already admitted that you don’t.
And you’re an idiot for being unable to understand this very simple concept despite all of our efforts.
blink on September 20, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Are you freaking kidding me? You can’t even answer if Van Jones is a truther or not.
blink on September 20, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 8 9 10