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 … 7 8 9 10 Next »
He smeared himself by being a twoofer.
Jerricho68 on September 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Seixon – Please explain this:
Excerpts from: Rense.com
San Francisco March To
Demand Congressional
Inquiry Of 911
kingsjester on September 18, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Implicit in his statements is that our actions abroad caused them to bomb us back.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Gee, propping up “creds” again when you have no argument.
Ron Paul is revered by Truthers, but basically argues that America had 9/11 coming. Many paleocons link both mindsets. Resolve that.
Van Jones helped organize a 9/11 truth rally in 2002. You refuse to address it. Resolve that.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Many Truthers started out making the same statements.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:02 AM
How can Jones both believe that the US got what it deserved, and that the US committed the attack on itself? Explain.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 9:50 AM
It’s called dingbat logic. You have been doing a pretty good job demonstrating same.
Really Right on September 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Now you are lying. We’ve supplied you a 2002 rally that Van Jones is credited as helping to organize. You’ve ignored it. Come on, Mr. “Don’t you know who I am?”
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I love going to their website and reading their “corrections” page, something Newsbusters doesn’t need because they actually do their own research before running anything.
Del Dolemonte on September 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
““The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City.”
- Van Jones in 2001
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones in 2002
Which brave soul wants to square these statement with the claim that Jones is a Truther? To an objective observer, he seems to be of the opinion that the US’ chickens came home to roost, just like Jeremiah Wright has said, that the US was at fault for creating the hate that caused these attacks to happen against us.
Isn’t that sort of mutually exclusive with being a Truther? A Truther wouldn’t state that the US got what it deserved – since they believe the US perpetrated the attacks.”
Well, it’s obvious that Van Jones didn’t understand or listen to the content of his comments, and therefore, they can no longer be attributed to him.
uknowmorethanme on September 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
“Implicit in his statements”, huh? So you’re guessing what they mean, like you try (and fail) to take others to task for? Keep it up! This is entertaining to watch the spinning.
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Your only “evidence” of this is his name written on a web page by someone else. Please tell me you’re joking.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Now you’re just going into full-blown denial, I see.
Impressive. Schmuck.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Nice parsing of words there, kid. You obviously had Bill Clinton as a law professor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
Del Dolemonte on September 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Still waiting for your response to Ron Paul and other paleocons as counter-argument to your ridiculous claim that “we had it coming” and “it was an inside job” are mutually exclusive.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:08 AM
You don’t even have any evidence that Van Jones ever knew about this rally, that he was aware that he was written up as on the Organizing Committee of this rally, or whether he knew that other organizations attending the rally had Truther sentiments.
This is even weaker than the already weak circumstantial evidence of him having admitted to signing a petition that included Truther sentiments.
You’re grasping.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Projection.
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I’m sorry that you never learned to comprehend English. The plain meaning of words doesn’t mean anything to you when they say what you don’t want them to, I guess.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM
“You don’t even have any evidence that Van Jones ever knew about this rally, that he was aware that he was written up as on the Organizing Committee of this rally, or whether he knew that other organizations attending the rally had Truther sentiments.
This is even weaker than the already weak circumstantial evidence of him having admitted to signing a petition that included Truther sentiments.
You’re grasping”
And you are in total denial.
uknowmorethanme on September 18, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Prove that Van Jones was aware of this web page, that he was aware that he was on this committee, and that he was aware that another group attending the protest (the one who wrote this page on Rense) had Truther sentiments.
Go.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Quit arguing.Who cvares if he was a TRUTHER. More important, he was an admitted COMMUNIST!
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
cares
Jeff from WI on September 18, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Evidence now is not evidence, it seems. Unless Van Jones comes out and admits to the world that he’s a truther, according to you, he isn’t.
Still waiting for you to address the paleocons like Ron Paul who believe the US had it coming, but still think it was an inside job.
Quit running, you’re already winded.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Wow. Van Jones is apparently one of the most oblivious people in the world, it seems.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:15 AM
If my employment hinged on debunking false evidence, i.e., “I didn’t know what I was signing” and “I wasn’t an Organizer of that event, they just added my name to the list”, I would have told my Boss this and gone public with it. Not to mention having rense.com say that I wasn’t an Organizer of the event. Van Jones did not do this. Instead he resigned in the middle of the night on a weekend when inquiries would be kept to a minimum. And why would you wait 5 years to get your name off of a signature list? Why would they even think of putting your name on either of these lists unless you were known as supporting this cause?
kingsjester on September 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Ha ha. This poor Van Jones doesn’t understand anything that he says, does, or signs.
Either that or this poor Van Jones guy is getting added to all this stuff without his knowledge.
The guy should have claimed identify theft. It would have been more believable.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM
He resigned. ’nuff said.
bridgetown on September 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Why can’t Truthers revere Ron Paul even though he does not suscribe to their exact views? There’s no there there.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Seriously? That’s your response to your utter failure and hypocrisy? WOW! No wonder the “Norweigan Truthers” feel so much more empowered. Awesome! /sarc
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Wait…what?
His view on 9/11, according to you, entirely counters their most cherished viewpoint: that 9/11 was an inside job.
Yet, somehow, you think they would still revere him.
He regularly appears on the radio show of Alex Jones, the head of the 9/11 truth movement.
…yet 9/11 truthers wholly and completely support the guy who says America had it coming.
It’s not a matter of a slight difference of opinion. It’s complete disagreement on their most cherished opinion.
Resolve that.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:28 AM
Careful, MC.
If you logically box him in, then he’ll stop responding to you.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Seixon, you’re a tool.
Fish on September 18, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I imagine liberals use the very same logic when they tell themselves it’s OK to call Obama’s opponents racist even though they don’t have any actual evidence of racism, such as actual racist comments.
It’s nearly impossible to prove what a person believes and thinks without them expressing it.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:33 AM
In his own words, this sums up Van Jones:
“I had a professor who encouraged me to apply to Harvard and Yale [for law school], which was almost unheard of for students coming from the kind of public schools that I was coming from in the rural South; I was accepted to both places, and decided to go to Yale because Yale didn’t have any grades and was smaller than Harvard. I figured, once I enroll I’m guaranteed to graduate, so I can just go and be a radical hellraiser student, and they can’t do anything about it. Which is pretty much what happened.”
http://www.collagefoundation.org/people/people-vanjones.html
So in other words, Van Jones never really studied or went to his Yale classes. Van Jones is a opportunity grabbing, fraud.
Good thing he is out of the picture.
albill on September 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
So implicit thoughts aren’t relevant because they must be explicit, such as a signature and participation. Got it. Thanks!
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Go find my name on a petition calling Barack Obama a racial epithet. Go find me helping organize a KKK rally.
Comparably, I can find both for Van Jones regarding the Truther movement.
…liiiike having no problem with their name being credited as an organizer of a 9/11 truth event? Do you think they just picked his organization out of a hat?
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Let’s see. The Truthers can choose between having zero congressman who support their types of views 100%, or they can have at least one congressman who talks to them, goes on their lunatic radio shows, and at least says that the US had it coming.
Beggars can’t be choosers.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Ah, now what Truthers say is 100% truth. Amazing.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
SOP for trolls.
Del Dolemonte on September 18, 2009 at 10:39 AM
A signature on a document doesn’t prove how or why it came to be there.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM
You are so thick. He wouldn’t have resigned if had a good ‘defense’ for it.
bridgetown on September 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
A signature on a document might not prove how or why it came to be there, but it’s certainly sufficient evidence for calling someone a Truther.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Aha. So that means that everyone that went to Washington DC on 9/12 was a Truther, because there were Truther organizations that joined the protests? Be careful where you apply your faulty logic, it might backfire quite heavily.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
You repeat your error again? I see you subscribe to old tactics. Saying it over and over will not suddenly make your silly and failed argument correct, but keep trying if it helps that self-inflated ego.
Steel on September 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I sure hope you’ve never commented at a web site that had racist sentiments, because then that would be “sufficient evidence” that you are a racist, according to your logic.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:44 AM
You really are a tool.
You asked for additional evidence to support Hot Air’s claim. Then, when it’s provided to you, you say that such evidence alone doesn’t prove the point 100%
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:44 AM
How did you go from signature to comment?
You don’t know anything about logic.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM
If I signed a racial petition, then someone would have sufficient evidence to label me a racist. THAT’s my logic.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Van Jones was the national director of the Ella Baker Center. The Ella Baker Center was part of the protest that the organization who posted the web page containing his name. Does this make the Ella Baker Center a Truther organization?
If so, you fools have just branded every single Tea Party group that was at the 9/12 protests as Truthers – since they were also there.
Well done folks, your partisan Truther Logic has failed you completely.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Or are you claiming that Van Jones was merely commenting on the Truther petition?
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM
No. Just because the director is a Truther doesn’t mean that the entire organization is Truther.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
…so they pick the guy who makes one of the most anti-Truther arguments out there, that all the rest won’t even touch.
You seem to have more faith in people’s utter obliviousness than Scientologists do in aliens inhabiting our bodies.
Van Jones’ signature was on a petition, and approved by him or someone who represented him, according to the people who made the petition. He didn’t order it removed until five years after the fact, when he was in a cushy appointed government position. Yet, you claim he didn’t know.
He’s listed as an organizer for a 9/11 truth march seven years ago. Seven long years have passed, and he hasn’t brought it up at all. No qualms. You claim he didn’t know.
Truthers worship and praise Ron Paul, the dude who categorically denies their version of events with a compelling argument…because you claim they have no other choice.
Good grief. You really do live in your own world.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Nothing failed. You see, the man resigned. He’s OUT.
That was the point. That’s not failing. That’s succeeding.
bridgetown on September 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Ha ha. You are such an idiot.
Nobody has stated anything which would allow such a disconnect in logic.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Yep.
…except that the 9/12 protests weren’t a Truther rally. You know that, and you just raped logic’s mother in order to try and form an argument.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Yeah, keep telling yourself that we only disagree with you because we’re all partisans.
Our disagreement has nothing to do with your stupidity.
blink on September 18, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Meant to type: Yep, as long as Van Jones is the director of the Ella Baker Center.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 10:53 AM
The problem is that the Ella Baker Center, of which Van Jones was director of, is only listed as a participant and organizer of a “protest”. This Carol person writing on behalf of “War Times” is writing this web page stating who is organizing the protest, and writes about what she and her peers want to get out of it.
Where’s your evidence that this protest was a Truther protest? You have none. In fact, there are about 30 organizations on that list. Are all of them Truther organizations? All you have is a Carol Brouillet stating her own beliefs, what she seeks to get out of the protest, and no indication that she is writing/speaking on behalf of anyone other than herself.
So basically, you’re calling a protest a “Truther protest” without any evidence that that’s what it was. Truther organizations went to the 9/12 protests, but that doesn’t mean that the protest itself was a Truther protest. Have any evidence to show that the same was not the case for this protest in San Francisco 7 years ago?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Ah, so because you believe Van Jones is a Truther, and he was the director of the Ella Baker Center, that makes the entire organization a Truther organization.
So that means the Republican party is a Truther organization? I mean, there are members of the Republican party that are Truthers.
Ouch, your rabid Truther Logic is biting back yet again.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Just let me get this straight guys.
If a Truther organization had written up a web page like this one on Rense, writing about the protest on 9/12, but writing what they aimed to get out of it…
Then they listed all the organizations that would be at the rally, along with their directors of contact purposes…
That would mean that every organization and every person who attended the protest would be a Truther? That is exactly what you’re proposing with Van Jones and this San Francisco protest.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM
You like to keep saying “you have none” because you think if you say it enough, it will become true.
Right here, schmuck.
These questions are the core of the Truther ideology.
I would think you’d know this, being such an expert since you’ve talked with…um…Norweigian Truthers.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Is there no fallacy you won’t wallow in?
Van Jones was the Director of the Ella Baker Center. He is a Truther.
Michael Steele is the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. He is not a Truther.
If the head of an organization is a Truther, and that organization is helping organize Truther protests, then yes, it’s a Truther organization. The Republican Party is not led by a Truther, nor has it organized those types of protests.
You continue to take your bowel movements and present them as logic. Knock it off.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM
The Truthers didn’t organize the 9/12 protests.
How long are you going to keep this mind-boggling nonsense up?
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Yes, they are. Yet this was written by Carol Brouillet. What’s she got to do with Van Jones?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM
You have not shown evidence that this Sanfrancisco protest was a Truther protest. You have shown evidence that there were Truthers there. You’re as careless with your evidence as Michael Moore.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Where’s the evidence that the Truthers organized this protest in San Francisco? You have an article written by a Truther stating who was organizing the protest. How does that translate into the protest being organized by Truthers?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM
San Francisco protest: Truthers attended.
9/12 protest: Truthers attended.
San Francisco protest: organized by an array of different organizations.
9/12 protest: organized by a coalition of Tea Party organizations.
You’re missing a link between the San Francisco organizers and the Truther who wrote about it, and smearing everyone who attended the protest as a Truther because of it. Sounds like something Michael Moore would do.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:23 AM
From Media Matters: Breitbart calls Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard,” and a “prick.” Following the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Breitbart posted a series of Twitter messages in which he called Kennedy a “villain,” a “duplicitous bastard,” and a “prick” who “destroyed lives.”
And? What is not true here?
allstonian on September 18, 2009 at 11:24 AM
I’m going to say this one final time, and if you still can’t comprehend it, you need to have a brain installed to replace the dead Tamagotchi acting as a placeholder.
The link I and others posted specifically states the entire intention of the protest: asking Truther questions.
You claim that’s not enough to prove it was a Truther protest.
You would also claim that just because there’s thousands of trees covering an area, that doesn’t make it a forest.
Wise up, or get lost.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM
OK, so because a Truther writes an article about an upcoming protest, and writes what she feels that it is about, that is the ultimate proof of what that protest is about. Oh, and Truthers are the epitome of truth?
Really?
So what you’re saying, let me just get this on record…
For a protest to be a Truther protest, all that has to happen, is that a Truther must write about the protest and claim that it is about Truther stuff.
Wow. Just wow. I’ve got to hand it to you. That is a marvelous piece of work you’ve put together.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:37 AM
What is all this nonsense? Break it down- are you saying that Van Jones is not a Truther?
Fish on September 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
No, I’m just saying that it was wrong of Hot Air and the rest of the conservative blogs to call him one due to the fact that they do not have sufficient evidence to do so, and that Media Matters is quite correct to say that they have smeared Van Jones as a Truther.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM
They had plenty of evidence. Heaps and heaps and HEAPS of evidence.
His name appeared on the list, he admitted to signing it himself, and everyone who signed the petition was asked personally to confirm that their name should be added to the list.
This is open and shut. You have nothing on which to base a rebuttal argument. Nothing.
Fish on September 18, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Ever heard of digital signatures?
Del Dolemonte on September 18, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I don’t think there’s any doubt about his perspective. When you truly think that corporations are deliberately polluting poor areas to rid the planet of minorities, that says it all. Nevermind the Truther petition.
It’s like Gates’ perspective. When a policeman shows up to make sure your home isn’t being robbed, and your reaction is to find insult and start screaming, that says it all, too.
The reason Obama fired him? Simple. He’s not so stupid as to think that the majority of Americans identify with this type of victim thinking.
And if you read his editorial yesterday about how much he loves Obama, that ALSO says it all. Goodness, we’re talking about someone who is super-expressive, effusive, and lacks good judgement. He actually directed people to his “I love Jones” website.
How embarassing.
AnninCA on September 18, 2009 at 11:56 AM
From Wash Times:
Mike Berger, a spokesman for 911Truth.org, told the Washington Times over the phone that all of the signers had been verified by their group. He said 9/11Truth.org board members “spoke with each person on the list by phone or through email to individually confirm they had added their name to that list.”
“I think in most cases they spoke to them personally,” he added. “No one’s name was put on that list without them knowing it.”
UPDATE: A response was provided to reporters Thursday evening. In it, Mr. Jones apologized for signing the statement and said he doesn’t feel that way today and never has had such thoughts, although the 911Truth group claims to have personally confirmed support from all of their signers.
“In recent days some in the news media have reported on past statements I made before I joined the administration – some of which were made years ago,” Mr. Jones said. “If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.
“My work at the Council on Environmental Quality is entirely focused on one goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and use renewable resources,” he added.
UPDATE TWO Friday 1:45pm:911Truth.org responded to a follow-up email asking for any information why there could be confusion between the White House statement and their personal verification of the signers with this remark: “As the eighth anniversary approaches, what doesn’t make sense to us is that you and other 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.”.
Again, here is the statement:
The Statement
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.
You have no argument.
GO.
Fish on September 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Is this thing working?
John on September 18, 2009 at 12:16 PM
This is actually a good point, I think this guy has reached the quota of stupid posts. This is like trying to explain something to a 3 year old.
Where the F**ck is the ban stick around this place and when did we get invaded by David Gergen’s bitch boy crew.
Last night I thought his guy said he was tired of trying to educate us and he was moving but alas it was not to be
kangjie on September 18, 2009 at 12:17 PM
Hey, I’m back.
Anyway, Seixon, I think you’ve pushed your argument a bit far.
Jones appears to have signed the Truther statement. That’s circumstantial. As you say, it doesn’t prove how his name got on it.
Jones never denied signing it even when it would have been to his advantage to do so. Okay, that seems to indicate he signed it.
From these two facts it’s certainly fair to say that Jones intentionally signed a Truther statement.
Now it may still be possible that Jones didn’t know what he was signing, i.e. that he’s not a Truther it just looks that way.
The point is, Hot Air was well within bounds to claim Jones was a Truther based on the evidence. It’s not a smear since they have no access to “what Jones was thinking” or “what Jones really believes about 9/11.”
Based on the document and Jones tacit admission of signing it, any reasonable person would conclude he agreed with it.
John on September 18, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Like Obama denied agreeing in writing to campaign finance reform and then claimed later someone on his staff signed it?
And the left bought that bs.
AnninCA on September 18, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Even “Tom McGuire” refers to him as a Truther… but, what does Tom know.
SeattleJohn on September 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM
AnninCA,
Or back when Richard Dawkins signed a petition whose 20 summary said “religious indoctrination” (i.e. Sunday school) should be made “illegal.” Then he later retracted and said he hadn’t read it carefully and of course wasn’t for that sort of intrusive behavior.
Is it possible? Sure. It’s also possible he’s a weasel and lied about it because he was taking heat.
Same for Van Jones. Maybe he’s not a Truther. But there’s enough evidence to suggest he is that anyone who says so isn’t smearing him by doing so.
John on September 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM
That was “20 word summary.”
John on September 18, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Indeed he does.
Seixon must be shocked, shocked to be on the blog roll of such a smearmonger.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 12:37 PM
OK, I finally waded into the Media Matters cesspool and read the “article” in question.
Media Matters bases their claim on a single source, namely a newspaper in Florida that endorsed O’bama. Media Matters itself previously admitted that this newspaper was Leftist.
Del Dolemonte on September 18, 2009 at 12:38 PM
BTW, Seixon,
If you’ve actually read the Media Matters site on this, even their refutation labels it “half true.” And they only get that far because of Glenn Beck’s claim that Jones “thinks the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Center and covered it up.”
The response they quote ends:
So they are saying, at best, that Beck went too far. That’s very different from saying it’s not true or that we don’t have enough evidence to decide.
John on September 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM
No doubt. I agree with you. It’s not a smear.
It is also a dillema for the right. Anyone who posted anything supporting the Birthers better write off their fantasies of ever really having a cushy job in gov’t.
AnninCA on September 18, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I’m okay with that.
Don’t tell me Seixon gave up the moment I got here. Was it something I said?
John on September 18, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Gaaah!
This Seixon guy, beyond being too full of himself (“do you know who I am?”), keeps using Occam’s Razor in a laughable way!
Occam’s Razor states that “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”
Pray tell me, which one is the simplest theory?
1) Jones signed a petition (including his title at the NGO he worked, mind you) that he agreed with – a petition which was not like those petitions circulated on the internet with thousands of casual signers, but one that was circulated and signed only by “important” people in the activist scene, a very exclusive crowd.
-or-
2) Jones put his name to a petition but didn’t really read the two of the paragraphs in it, or if he did, he did not really aggree with some parts but did not care enough to voice his objections.
which is the simplest explanation, the least convoluted one?
if Saxion insists on his intricate play on words to explain away in a way that not even Jones tried to, please do not use Occam’s Razor for that…
Brazilian Neocon on September 18, 2009 at 2:09 PM
No. Just fed up with arguing with a braying jackass who seems to think that deploying a small army of straw men is logic whereas inductive reasoning is “logic”, and who presumes, on the basis of unsourced quotations from the Internet, to lecture actual attorneys about the law.
So have fun continuing to pretend that you’re the most reasonable man in the room, and we’re all a bunch of mindless partisan cultists. I’ve wasted enough of my time indulging your narcissism. FOAD.
Centerfire on September 18, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Brace yourself for a rehash of the “300 million Facebook users” straw man, John. And then when you point out that it’s unreasonable to hold a sophisticated individual like Jones to the same low standard as the average Facebook user when it comes to endorsing documents, brace yourself for a rehash of the “John Edwards baby-daddy” or “OBL gold ring” straw men.
It’s all the guy’s got. Straw man, straw man, straw man, straw man. You will never persuade him, because he isn’t interested in being persuaded; he’s interested in stroking his own ego by posing as the only reasonable man in the room.
Centerfire on September 18, 2009 at 2:29 PM
I have to admit I was skeptical at first, but the “OBL gold ring” argument finally convinced me…
SeattleJohn on September 18, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Boy, Seixon really took a powder when his best buddy Tom Maguire adopted the same conclusion as Hot Air.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Did HA smear Jones?
You be the judge of that; what I know is that you’re a lot less easily smeared when you ain’t a sack of —-.
Doorgunner on September 18, 2009 at 2:49 PM
You really are beclowning yourself here.
Media Matters? The blatantly left wing activist site? Seriously???
Jones pretty much acknowledged he signed the document. His excuse (like so many other Truthers) was that he’s not really a Truther and doesn’t agree with every word of the petition, only “asking questions”.
This is a (former) Communist who openly pushed conspiracy theories involving the deliberate poisoning of black neighborhoods, signed a Truther petition, was an orginator of a far-left anti-war newsletter, and spoke at the same rallies that had Truthers as speakers. Yet it’s a “smear” to suggest he’s a Truther?
What more do you need? A notarized document signed in front of 3 witnesses and a live video feed?
Hollowpoint on September 18, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Hollowpoint Hollowpoint Hollowpoint… can you *prove* he signed it *and* that he *knew* what was in it? Well, can you, punk? (Didn’t think so)
Oh, by the way, did you know that Osama Bin Laden wore a gold ring – as if you needed any further evidence that Van Jones is not a Truther.
SeattleJohn on September 18, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Seixon is still ignoring my point about his much-mentioned yet unknown benefactor, Tom Maguire, agreeing with Hot Air about Van Jones being a truther.
Come on out, pal. Show us you have at least half a testicle.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM
They was truthers before truthers were cool!
Perhaps they hadn’t hit on the “thruther” moniker at that time?
It does not change the fact that they are truthers.
Your arguments just get stupider.
DSchoen on September 18, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Except for the fact that Maguire did no such thing. “Unwitting truther” is not the same as “truther”, and obviously the wit of Maguire ironically making fun of Jones for signing something he didn’t know what entailed, thus “unwitting”, was lost on you.
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM
So just a follow-up question here:
Is Ralph Nader a Truther?
Seixon on September 18, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Unwitting truther.
Note the bolded part, and f*** off.
MadisonConservative on September 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next »