"Green Jobs" advisor Van Jones tied to 9-11 "truthers"

[Eredar Warlock]

President Obama's "green jobs" adviser could become a mounting liability for the Obama administration, as the latest revelation about Van Jones shows his apparent belief that the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks may have been an inside job.

Jones joined the "9/11 truther" movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

The statement asked a series of critical questions hinting at Bush administration involvement in the attacks and called for "deeper inquiry." It was also signed by former Rep. Cynthia McKinney and Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans.

But on Thursday, Jones tried to distance himself from the position, saying "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. If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize. As for the petition [9/11 statement] that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."

In addition, an aide to Jones told FOX News the Green Jobs Czar "did not carefully review the language in the petition."

The aide did not say when Jones signed the petition or when he became aware of the controversy.

The apology comes after one from Jones Wednesday for "offensive words" he uttered in February when he called Republicans "assholes." He said the remarks "do not reflect the views of this administration" and its bipartisan aims.

But such statements just scratch the surface of Jones' past commentary.

He also has consistently leaned on racially charged language, pointing the finger at "white polluters and the white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities, as he makes the case for lifting up low-income and minority communities with better environmental policy.

A declared "communist" during the 1990s, Jones once associated with a group that looked to Mao Zedong as an inspiration.

Jones' exceptional past is reminiscent of associations noted during the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama doggedly fended off claims that he was tied to radicals and overzealous activists.

But with now-President Obama entering the perhaps trickiest phase of his young presidency -- building the kind of consensus around health care reform that President Clinton could not -- a divisive figure could prove disfiguring.

"In this environment, I think the Obama administration should be very careful of its dealings with anybody who can be labeled communist accurately," said Christopher C. Hull, an adjunct government professor at Georgetown University who runs the public affairs firm Issue Management.

"That's just going to play to the political sensibility that those on the right have that the Obama administration is socialist, literally socialist. ... It is unwise to bring in people who actually do label themselves socialist or communist."

Jones has mellowed considerably since the '90s. In some respects, he is about as mainstream as environmentalists come -- with recognition streaming in from high places over the past few years.

He's won plaudits from former Vice President Al Gore, who declared, "I love Van Jones," in an interview with The New Yorker.

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio penned the write-up on Jones when the presidential adviser was featured in Time magazine's 100 "Most Influential People."

"Steadily -- by redefining green -- Jones is making sure that our planet and our people will not just survive but also thrive in a clean-energy economy," DiCaprio wrote.

Jones was also named one of the magazine's "Heroes of the Environment 2008." He's earned a slew of other recognitions from other publications and institutions. He was even named one of Salon.com's "Sexiest Men Living" in late 2008.

Plus he's the author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller, "The Green Collar Economy."

Now a member of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, his book's central premise is that environmentalism and green jobs can lift up the economy and lift up low-income Americans.

He is the founder of Green for All, which focuses on creating green jobs in poor areas. He helped the city of Oakland pass a "green jobs corps" program in 2007. Green jobs is also one platform of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which he co-founded in 1996.

He also co-founded Color of Change, an advocacy group that focuses on black issues, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

In Thursday's statement, Jones addressed his work current work.

"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."

Jones' history has drifted between mainstream activism surrounding issues of race, poverty and the environment, and activity he has described as "revolutionary."

Originally from Tennessee, Jones graduated from Yale Law School in 1993. But his life took a turn after he was swept up in arrests during a rally following the Rodney King verdict.

Jones has claimed he was monitoring police activity at the time, but that he met people in jail who changed his thinking.

"I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was like, 'This is what I need to be a part of,'" he said in a 2005 interview with the East Bay Express. Jones told the newspaper he stayed in San Francisco, and for the next 10 years worked with a lot of the people he met in jail. Months after the King verdict came down, Jones said, "I was a communist."

At the time he became involved with a group called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which described itself as committed to Marxist and Leninist ideas. He also started putting pressure on police in San Francisco, monitoring and drawing attention to allegations of police brutality. He was quoted accusing the police department of "killing black people."

He became a vocal critic of the federal government during the Bush administration. He and groups he was associated with assailed "U.S. imperialism" after the Sept. 11 attacks and called the assumption that an Arab group was responsible a "rush to judgment." He later co-signed the petition calling for an investigation into government involvement in the attacks.

For conservative critics, he has -- as Hull warned -- served as a ready target.

"You can't nominate all of these czars ... and then say, well, you know, I'm not responsible for all these people," said conservative commentator Ann Coulter. "People will start to blame Obama."

The White House has voiced great confidence in Jones, announcing in March that the "green jobs visionary" would in his new role advance the goal of improving energy efficiency and tapping renewable resources.

Article.

...I'm not sure how to respond to this. This is very damning, and casts real doubt on the Obama administration as a whole.

 

[Netto Azure]

Nice...another FOX article. While I do not support his stance on the whole 9-11 Conspiracy theories, I do wonder how this ties with the issue of "Green Jobs."

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Nice...another FOX article. While I do not support his stance on the whole 9-11 Conspiracy theories, I do wonder how this ties with the issue of "Green Jobs."

It's a matter of how he got so far into this administration. With his background, he shouldn't have authority really anywhere, certainly not the Executive Branch.

And second, enough with the ad hominem attack on Fox News. It's tired.

 

[Fig]

So...you going to claim that any and all Republicans who ever wrote, alleged or otherwise hinted that they believed Roosvelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen or could have stopped it but didn't are unfit to be anywhere in the administration, too?

Frankly, given the situation in 2004 - where a certain government was using, abusing and raping the 9-11 tragedy into the ground as a pretext to get away with anything short (or maybe not short) of murder -; given also that we had a lot less information available in 2004 than we do in 2009 (For crying loud, Arcane - the 9-11 Commission report only came out midway through 2004!); and given that the Bush administration, for whatever reason, had done a grand job of making it looks like they had a lot to hide regarding 9-11...

Well, you know, when a great tragedy happens that arguably shouldn't have happened, and someone - sorry to say - appears to benefit a great deal from it, and acts rather suspiciously about their involvement in the tragedy (eg, put a lot of limits on their testimony)...it's not *exactly* out there to ask for questions - questions of the criminal investigation variety - to be asked!

I'd have asked for the investigation, too, in 2004. I wouldn't ask for it now, in 2009, but that's with five more years and a lot more information. Chief among which is the Katrina disaster, which probably made a lot of people shift (due to the FEMA head selection process) their opinion of the Bush administration from "Evil and opportunist" to "Inept and opportunist".

 

[Eredar Warlock]

"and cast real doubts on the Obama administration as a whole"

What, that in 2004 - when the information available on 9-11 was less complete than it is now, and when Bush and friends were using it as a pretext to do whatever they bloody wanted with the country - he wanted an investigation in whether some people in the administration could have stopped the attack but chose not to for political reasons?

It's not simply the "truther" stuff. He is a radical leftist through and through. Second, the question arises then - when did he sign it and how long was he on board? It's a very serious question of character. Someone who is a self-avowed communist shouldn't be anywhere near the White House, and it comes out that he could possibly be a nutcase? That is why there is a lot of doubt. This is the straw that broke the camel's back.

I seem to remember Republicans and other right-wingers having made a cottage industry of accusing Roosvelt of much the same with regard to Pearl Harbor, yet I've never heard it called "damning" for people to write such things...

If this is true, you are more informed about history than I am. I've never heard of this. It is damning, though, because it's crazy either way.

 

[Fig]

Radical leftist, so long as they stick within the boundaries of democracy and the Constitution (as determined by the Supreme Court, not Joe the Plumber or Arcane Mind), have as much of a place in government as radical Neo-Cons. Which certain past administrations *coughBushcough* were rather full of.

(Also, you're an American right-winger. Given the definitions of "Communism" I've seen some of you guys use, I'm going to keep some healthy doubt on whether Van Jones is a true radical leftist at all )

And you never heard about the Roosvelt-engineered-Pearl theory? Man, that stuff is like, basic WW2 history. A lot of books run with the insinuation or the outright claim that there's no way Washington could have been this inept and incompetent, therefore Roosvelt must have known and allowed it to happen to get America into WW2, etc, etc.

The proportion of credence books give to the story is usually inversely proportional to the scholarly reception of the book, admitedly.

 

[Falconwing]

Duh it was an inside job. We trained the damn terrorists. We let them into our country and gave them the skills needed to fly a jet into several buildings.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

(Also, you're an American right-winger. Given the definitions of "Communism" I've seen some of you guys use, I'm going to keep some healthy doubt on whether Van Jones is a true radical leftist at all )

He has described himself as a communist and a revolutionary. I don't have to define anything. It's all there, out in the open.

And you never heard about the Roosvelt-engineered-Pearl theory? Man, that stuff is like, basic WW2 history.

And the Weather Underground is not basic Vietnam War history?

Really, I haven't heard this yet.

 

[TTEchidna]

I shrug my shoulders and ask, "so?" We all had a hell of a lot of questions then.

Also, I really don't get the fear of communists. Mostly I just laugh at them whenever I encounter one of their meetings. They're 90% harmless. Sure, there are the 10% wackos who'd blow up the White House because it's "EVIL CAPLTIZT" central, but most of them would rather vote it in than force it.

Plus, if a terrorist attack happened now, the right wing would be the FIRST to jump right on it and point at Obama for it, even if the attack was done by people who were wearing "OBAMA IS THE DEVIL" T-shirts.

 

[Fig]

No, the Weather Underground is not basic Vietnam history. It's a footnote to history. Incidents of very minor importance in the grand scheme of things. Ditto, say, the people mail-bombing abortion clinics, until and unless some big, America-defining result come out of that.

As opposed to the endless books published years after years after years, sometime by serious historians (who are more nuanced) but mostly by average jouranlists and politically motivated writers regarding one of the most defining events of American history.

As for him defining himself as such, I'll give you that much.

He still has, so long as he respect the constitution and stick to his job, about as much of a place in the administration as any radical Neo-Con.

Being a communist, or having revolutionary ideals for a time, is no more a crime than wanting to kill somebody or being tempted to steal something. It only becomes a crime when you actually break the law (or the constitution).

 

[H-con]

And second, enough with the ad hominem attack on Fox News. It's tired.

Maybe we'll stop when you stop attacking "leftist" idea.

 

[The Big Al]

This isn't even worth the debate. Last time I checked, you're free to have whatever political views you wants in this country. I'd argue fascists were a part of the Bush Administration and he'd their views behind the name of "Believers in the Unitary Executive" and they actually broke the law. Yet, you wouldn't bat an eye about that.

Oh, and we'll attack Fox News all we want. Anyone who isn't addicted to it can tell it's opinions disguised as news.

 

[Big Lutz]

Been shown this by Peter, I am staying pretty much ONLY for this thread.

Nice...another FOX article. While I do not support his stance on the whole 9-11 Conspiracy theories, I do wonder how this ties with the issue of "Green Jobs."

His views reflect that of the White House. Like it or not by hiring him, and if they keep him on now, they are saying "We endorse your views" and that can not stand. Period.

So...you going to claim that any and all Republicans who ever wrote, alleged or otherwise hinted that they believed Roosvelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen or could have stopped it but didn't are unfit to be anywhere in the administration, too?

Yup, a radical conspiracy nut job is a radical conspiracy nut job no matter which side he is on.

Frankly, given the situation in 2004 - where a certain government was using, abusing and raping the 9-11 tragedy into the ground as a pretext to get away with anything short (or maybe not short) of murder -; given also that we had a lot less information available in 2004 than we do in 2009 (For crying loud, Arcane - the 9-11 Commission report only came out midway through 2004!); and given that the Bush administration, for whatever reason, had done a grand job of making it looks like they had a lot to hide regarding 9-11...

I could go on and on that, even that means NOTHING when it comes to if 9/11 happened and who was responsible for it. But instead I will go the simpler route, Van Jones has been linked back to a 9/11 Truther march in San Fransisco back on January 8th 2002. Just what 5 months since 9/11?

You can find the original Jan 11th 2002 Web Page that links back to him here

Well, you know, when a great tragedy happens that arguably shouldn't have happened, and someone - sorry to say - appears to benefit a great deal from it, and acts rather suspiciously about their involvement in the tragedy (eg, put a lot of limits on their testimony)...it's not *exactly* out there to ask for questions - questions of the criminal investigation variety - to be asked!

That is quite a poor spin and you know it, seeing how this event delt with a major national security matter of course they will put limits on testimony, just as others did in the investigation. Either way that is no excuse for the views he held back in 2002 or in 2004.

(Also, you're an American right-winger. Given the definitions of "Communism" I've seen some of you guys use, I'm going to keep some healthy doubt on whether Van Jones is a true radical leftist at all )

Van Jones is a self described communist, he has called himself one.

Duh it was an inside job. We trained the damn terrorists. We let them into our country and gave them the skills needed to fly a jet into several buildings.

First no we did not "Train" the terrorists, we let them into the country but that was based on poor standards of security, and the CIA not willing to share with the FBI. As for giving them the skills, you can find any of those skills at any flight school, and thus is not proof of a inside job.

I shrug my shoulders and ask, "so?" We all had a hell of a lot of questions then.

There are questions, and then there is the stupidity of saying the Government was involved.

Plus, if a terrorist attack happened now, the right wing would be the FIRST to jump right on it and point at Obama for it, even if the attack was done by people who were wearing "OBAMA IS THE DEVIL" T-shirts.

Except Obama, unlike Bush at the time, has been lowering our ability to gather reliable intel. Granted right now if a terrorist attack were to happen, it would be both President's fault, as the planning would have happened under both of their administrations. The further we get from January 2009, and the more Obama scares the hell out of the CIA, the more he is at fault.

This isn't even worth the debate. Last time I checked, you're free to have whatever political views you wants in this country.

And if the White House keeps him at the job now, they are endorsing such lunatic Political Views.

I'd argue fascists were a part of the Bush Administration and he'd their views behind the name of "Believers in the Unitary Executive" and they actually broke the law. Yet, you wouldn't bat an eye about that.

Apples and Oranges, name one one that shares the same lunatic views as Van Jones did, and we can talk. Problem is you cannot find one that comes CLOSE as Van Jones.

 

[Fig]

"We will be welcomed by the Iraqi with flowers and open arms."

That's ridiculously lunatic right there. And unlike Van Jones who expressed the allegedly lunatic ideas years before joining the White House.

Regarding truthers, frankly, the only ones who didn't have doubts of some sort about 9-11 back in the 2001-2004 time frame were the Uber-Nationalist and the Bush Fanbois. Who, instead of buying into the idea that perfectly uninvolved American politicians may have been behind 9-11 (enough to warrant serious, independent investigation) instead bought into the idea that perfectly uninvolved Iraqi politicians were behind 9-11 (enough to warrant poorly planned, poorly executed invasion and occupation).

There wasn't a shred more evidence of the one than the other.

 

[Big Lutz]

"We will be welcomed by the Iraqi with flowers and open arms."

You can't get much more lunatic, really.

Except last time I checked we pretty much were welcomed by the Iraqis with open arms. There was story after story about Iraqis coming out to meet the troops, and of course who can forget the image of the Iraqis pulling down the statue of Saddam. That being said it was the ensuing terrorist attacks and resulting near civil war that soured their opinion on us because we proved unable to protect them for many years.

That being said it's quite poor to compare a quote like that to SAYING THE GOVERNMENT WAS INVOLVED WITH THE MASS MURDER OF 3,000 OF ITS OWN CITIZENS.

You have a pretty skewed and quite frightening definition of lunatic.

And unlike Van Jones who expressed the allegedly lunatic ideas years before joining the White House

Except that wasn't a lunatic idea, it was based on the fact that the Iraqis were sick and tired of their dictator and would welcome US troops with open arms, which they did.

Regarding truthers, frankly, the only ones who didn't have doubts of some sort about 9-11 back in the 2001-2004 time frame were the Uber-Nationalist and the Bush Fanbois.

As I have said, there is questions, and absolute stupidity, Van Jones endorses the absolute stupidity side. The only ones who endorsed what Van Jones believed have severe mental problems, even in 2001 - 2004. Mind you for the Government to be involved in 9/11 it would be both Bush AND Clinton that would have to have worked in a joint fashion to pull it off.

Who, instead of buying into the idea that perfectly uninvolved American politicians may have been behind 9-11 (enough to warrant serious, independent investigation)

That is pure stupidity, anyone with half a brain knew now and back then that such a stupid idea would have involved not only a multitude of people that would need to be kept silent, but would have also had to cross from one political administration to the next.

instead bought into the idea that perfectly uninvolved Iraqi politicians were behind 9-11 (enough to warrant poorly planned, poorly executed invasion and occupation).

Except we didn't invade Iraq under the pretense they were involved with 9-11?

There wasn't a shred more evidence of the one than the other.

That is very true, although one seems to have been created in your mind

 

[Fig]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

In 2003, 69% of Americans were convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 (including lots of democrats and independants, too, obviously). A position being gleefully helped along by the Cretins-in-Charge at Fox.

That, too, was a conspiracy theory.

 

[Big Lutz]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

In 2003, 69% of Americans were convinced Saddam was behind 9-11 (including lots of democrats, too). A position being gleefully helped along by the Cretins-in-Charge at Fox.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the US Government as Bush himself repeatedly denied a connection.

The only thing close is Cheney on Meet the Press who laid out several pieces of evidence that we all believed was true at the time about a Al Qaeda/Iraq connection, some of which still remains true.

That, too, was a conspiracy theory.

It was and you are getting pathetically far off topic. But it is funny to watch you grasp at straws to defend Obama, it makes me laugh.

 

[Falconwing]

Can we keep the current president out of this debate? Seriously, what does Obama have to do with this discussion?

 

[Big Lutz]

Can we keep the current president out of this debate? Seriously, what does Obama have to do with this discussion?

You mean other than it is a high ranking adviser in his administration, and the people in his administration failed again to successfully vet a person? Not to mention every day they keep this guy on it dominates a news cycle that could be used to push for his Health Care speech next week, and that if this guy does stay it is pretty much his Administration endorsing his views?

Outside of that it has nothing to do with Obama.

 

[Falconwing]

Yes, because this guy works for Obama that means Obama supports his views. Yes, that makes perfect sense. You know what? My boss doesn't support my views. I still work for her.

Van Jones is probably a rather hard working, intelligent human being who knows how to do his job. Why the heck would Obama hinder himself and let this guy go because he thinks that 9-11 was an inside job (I've already proven it was, since we gave the terrorists the ability to fly the stupid jets)?

but seriously, we aren't here to discuss Obama's decision to keep the guy on his staff. He's got his reasons. If you don't like the President, I'd like to see you try to be better. Go on. Surprise me.