Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Fitting the Bill/Bull
I can't believe it. The right is STILL trying to tar Mr. Obama with this whole Bill Ayers thing. Yes, folks, I cite specifically that same old bromide that Mr. Obama launched his political career in the living room of Mr. Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, yada yada. It's bullshit. And, yes, anybody who's taken the time to research this topic knows that it's bullshit.......................................................................................................First of all, Mr. Obama (in his quest to be a state Senator) was the hand-picked replacement of his predecessor, Alice Palmer. Secondly, Mr. Obama made his official announcement (that he was running) at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on 9/19/95. Thirdly, Mr. Obama's initial "coffee" was NOT at the home of Bill Ayers but at the home of local rabbi. Yes, folks, there ultimately was a coffee at the Ayers house but it was supposedly for Palmer and not for Mr. Obama (though, yes, the future President was introduced to those in attendance)..................................................................................................In my opinion, this whole mess has been ginned up by the right in an effort to marginalize/demonize Mr. Obama....He served on a board. So what! There were a lot of Republicans who served on that same board and some of them even praised Mr. Ayers's contribution to local education. But, no, focus in on this one individual in an effort to bring him down. It's extremely sad, I think........................................................................................................P.S. And as far as this whole "I wish I had done more" comment attributed to Mr. Ayers, so, too, has that been gussied up. Ayers was talking in a general sense (he wishes that he had done more to opposed the Vietnam War). He wasn't saying that he wishes that he had blown up more property........................................................................................................."Palling around with terrorists", my ass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Oh, just for the record, I don't give a rat's ass about Bill Ayers. And I'm certainly not excusing what he did 40 years ago (though, yes, I am still FAR more pissed at LBJ and Dick Nixon for THEIR transgressions). My only point is that it probably isn't all that fair to tie this individual to the hip of President Obama.
Will ~ If Bill Ayers were the only radical in Obama's circle, then I would happily agree with you. What we see in his administration is a PATTERN of behavior where he seems to seek out those who really don't like the Consititution or the free market system that we enjoy. Look at the patterns you see in his associations and see them in light of his liberal agenda.
We may have to just agree to disagree on this point.
Bill Ayers,Rev.Wright,Van Jones,Valerie Jarrett,kind of makes you go hmmmm.Sometimes where theres a bit of smoke there also a fire.Just saying.
Linda, Tim Geithner, Christina Romer, and Larry Summers formed the nucleus of Obama's economic team, not Van Jones (who I've freely admitted is a jerk) and some these other bozos that you listed. And why in the heck (I didn't say "hell" because I know you don't like swearing) did you list Valerie Jarrett? She shouldn't be held accountable for what her father in law did in the '40s.
Russ, I agree that Obama's a liberal. I'd even go as far as to say that he's X more liberal than me. I'm just not buying into this whole "he's a socialist" narrative (kind of like when I defended Bush against that constant "President Bush is a fascist" narrative). That's all.
Will ~ Valerie Jarrett is the person who recommended Van Jones to President Obama. I saw an interview in which she admitted to be watching Van Jones (before he was appointed by Obama) and liking what she saw. She is a radical.
I'm far more worried about the Tea Party radicals and their plan to finish dismantling the middle class and the transfer what remains of it's wealth to the upper class.
Remember that the goal of the tea party is the destruction of American... Rusty admitted this in a prior comment on this blog.
Linda, I obviously can't speak for Ms. Jarrett. But I suspect that she was more impressed with his knowledge of green jobs and probably didn't know about that "9/11 truther" thing that he signed. Gotta give people the benefit of the doubt sometimes, no?.....My feeling, wd, is that the Tea Party may in fact have overplayed its hand. I mean, didn't O'Donnell, Angle, Miller and that Paladino douche all lose? And even Rand Paul - even he seems to be falling into line with the regulars. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over these people taking over the world.
Van Jones didn't sign the 9/11 truther petition.
Mind you, I was prepared to defend him if he had, since I don't think it's a bad idea to ask for a REAL investigation into the events of 9/11. Which is all the 9/11 truth movement is asking for.
Some members of the movement believe the government (the bush administration) was behind the attacks... but the petition ONLY proposes that the entire truth isn't known and that we need a real investigation. That's it, nothing more.
My point in putting forward this explainaton is that IF Van Jones had signed the petition that wouldn't necessarily make him a crazy conspiracy theorist (if that's how you view people who believe the bush administration was behind 9/11). Just a guy who believed the entire truth isn't known (I include myself in that group).
But it's a moot point since he didn't sign it.
wd, Mr. Jones's name appears on that 2004 petition of 9/11truth.com. His excuse was that he failed to review the document closely enough before he signed it. I guess it's up to us whether we believe him or not.
Will said... His excuse was that he failed to review the document closely enough before he signed it.
Please provide a link to a credible news story that says this. This isn't what the article (authored by Jones) I linked to says. It says someone else signed his name without his permission.
Until I see your proof I'll believe Jones' own version of events over what you think you read somewhere.
abcnews.com "An administration official said that Jones says that he didn't read the petition closely enough before signing it.".....WHY would somebody forge a guy's name that nobody had ever heard of prior to Mr. Obama's appointment. He's obviously lying, wd. Why do you feel the need to support him? Even Jonathan Alter has said that this guy was somebody who had to go.
"An administration official"??? Give me a break. Not credible. I'm sure there are dozens of names of people (at least) on that petition that nobody has ever heard of.
In any case Google says... No results found for "An administration official said that Jones says that he didn't read the petition closely enough before signing it".
There are probably many many things that are "obvious" to you which are not obvious to me.
Why did Jonathan Alter say (according to you) "that this guy was somebody who had to go"?
Barack Obama doesn't want people interested in the truth serving in his administration (that's if you believe VJ signed the petition, which I don't)? Maybe so, but I doubt anyone in the administration would come right out and say that.
Why do you always make me jump through hoops? I didn't make it up, dude. You want the link - here it is; blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/controversial-obama-administration-official-denies-being-p. Mr. Jones was #46 on the petition and "he did not explain how his name came to be on the petition.".....And, really, ABC news is not credible? You don't trust them but you trust Van Jones? Wow - that's all I can say.
And you didn't answer my question. Why, pray tell, would anybody frame a fellow who nobody's ever heard of? It just doesn't make any sense.
At the very end of the article you linked to (which took me awhile to find, as the link you provide is NOT the complete URL)...
UPDATE: It's worth pointing out that Ben Smith at Politico has spoken to 2 signatories of that petition, Rabbi Michael Lerner & historian Howard Zinn, who say they were misled about what they were signing. And the conservative website Little Green Footballs points out that [author] Rachel Ehrenfeld ... has posted on her website... "PLEASE NOTE: Dr. Ehrenfeld is not a signatory of the 911Truth.org. She has asked several times to have her named removed... but the organization failed to comply".
So, counting Van Jones, that would be (at least) 2 people who say they didn't sign but their names are on the petition anyway. Instead of convincing me that he's lying your article has further convinced me that he's telling the truth.
Also, according to Wikipedia, On July 27, 2010, the group 911truth.org released a statement that they had "researched the situation and were unable to produce electronic or written evidence that Van agreed to sign the Statement".
BTW, who says NOBODY heard of Van Jones prior to his Obama Administration appointment? Just because you hadn't (and I admit I had not) does not mean NOBODY had ever heard of him.
He supposedly signed the 911 truth petition in 2004... Prior to 2004 Van Jones had founded several non-profit organizations, including the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Color of Change, and Green for All. And had been awarded the Rockefeller Foundation "Next Generation Leadership" Fellowship, the Reebok International Human Rights Award, and the International Ashoka Fellowship.
I think someone probably heard of him.
I didn't mean ABC News isn't credible, I meant "an administration source" isn't credible.
ABC news wouldn't quote a noncredible source......So, you're still maintaining that somebody forged his name in 2004? That's what you're still saying here? Wow......And all because he's a Democrat......When I say that nobody had heard of him, I obviously didn't mean that literally. I meant that the public at large hadn't heard of him.
wd, not only did he sign that petition, he was also on the organizing committee for a 9/11 truther march in 2002. My source for this? Try the Nation's David Korn politicsdaily.com/2009/09/07/how-9-11-conspiracy-poison-did-in-van-jones/ Come on, dude, give it up on this guy.
First of all, and I already said this, I don't care if he did sign the petition. He says he did not. Not only did I read it
in an article he authored, but I heard him tell Brad Friedman he didn't sign it (Brad Friedman was filling in on the Mike
Malloy radio program a few weeks ago).
While I consider David Corn to be a credible source, his information must be wrong. Anyway, that David Corn article is over a
year old, and that was when everyone was assuming that Van Jones signing the petition was a fact. The article doesn't say "I
know Mr. Jones says he didn't sign it, but he did, and my information comes from (fill in the blank) credible source".
I need to see/hear that from a credible source before I'd be disinclined to believe the actual guy who did or did not do the
signing (and march organizing, according to Mr. Corn).
If you didn't notice, the David Corn article starts out by heaping much praise on Mr. Jones. David Corn doesn't call Van
Jones a liar (because, at the time, everyone took for granted that he HAD signed the petition). I wonder if Mr. Corn would
call him a liar now -- now that VJ has been making the rounds (apparently) denying that he signed the petition.
As for your claim that ABC News (and every single person that works for them) is infallible -- I don't believe it. What about
the update at the end of the article? I think that if this information had been available when the article was originally
written -- that the article would have been worded differently -- it would have said, "The source says (Jones says that he
didn't read the petition closely enough before signing it), BUT (insert info about another person saying their name is on the
petition but they didn't sign it).
I just don't see why VJ would lie about this now. He already resigned and moved on to another position -- senior fellow at
the Center For American Progress. And he's received an appoinment at Princeton University, as a distinguished visiting fellow
in both the Center for African American Studies and in the Program in Science (among other appointements and awards).
Why would all these respectable organizations be heaping rewards and praise on a liar??
Ivy League schools will hire any educated far-left person who fills the bill/tows the party line. And the Center for American Progress, I'm surprise that they haven't nominated him for President yet.
So, you've set up a win-win scenario here. "He didn't sign it BUT, if he did (and lied about it), that's OK, too.......Dude, the guy helped organize a 9/11 truth march in 2002. Why is so hard to believe that he also signed the petition in 2004?
You can see the full list of the organizing committee at rense.com/general18/march.htm Unless there's more than one Van Jones, racial activist out there, the guy's been pretty much nailed on this.
the guy helped organize a 9/11 truth march in 2002.
Because David Corn says so? I read the David Corn article and he did not say where his information comes from. I doubt he knows VJ helped organize a 9/11 Truth march BECAUSE HE WAS THERE. What he's saying is -- I've got a source, and you can trust me that the source is accurate.
And I would trust David Corn, if Van Jones wasn't saying he didn't sign the petition (and didn't help organize any march, I'm assuming).
If the David Corn article said Van Jones was lying -- I'd give him a shot to make his case. The article doesn't say that however. Give me a link to THAT article and I'll consider it. That said, I don't think there is enough proof to convict Mr. Jones.
I fail to see how incorrect information being on the internet "nails" Van Jones as a liar. You're not one of those people who believes everything they read on the internet, are you?
So, you've set up a win-win scenario here. "He didn't sign it BUT, if he did (and lied about it), that's OK, too.
No, it's not OK with me if he's lying. I guess, if it's the political poison that David Corn says it is, there is a reason he might lie. I wouldn't know, as I don't run in those circles.
How "not OK" with it I'd be (if I was convinced he was lying) would not be major though. I'd be disappointed, but all-in-all not really care. It wouldn't be as if he lied about something important.
That is, if he lied. And I'm not convinced that he did. He says he didn't sign the petition (even though his name is on it) -- and there is evidence that (at least) one other person claims the same thing (a fact you seem to be ignoring).
wd, you can see the entire list of organizers at rense.com/general18/march.htm
Rense.com is NOT a credible source. I'll take Mr. Jones' word other anything on Rense.com.
So, they set him up (BACK IN 2002!!), too? Wow, the conspiracy widens. LOL
That webpage has been there since 2002? Prove it. If you can do that then you've got something.
How do we even know the march that Van Jones supposedly helped plan was a real event and not invented at some later date (say, around 2009)?
BTW, you imply that Rense.com and the 9/11 truthers are not affiliated, and are seperately "setting up" Mr. Jones. I'm not convinced of that either.
You're putting a LOT of faith (that the information they have regarding Mr. Jones is accurate) in an organization you'd otherwise dismiss -- do you not realize that both traffic in conspiracy theories?
If you're willing to believe them when they say Van Jones is a big time supporter (signing petitions and planning marches), does that mean you're willing to believe them when they say the bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks?
If not then I say you should STOP insisting either is a credible source. It's laughable.
DUDE! All that these people did was post the promotion letter for the San Francisco event; entitled, "San Francisco March to Demand Congressional Inquiry of 9/11". It comes directly from the head organizer, Carol Brouillet and gives her phone # and E-mail address. And, yes, it lists as one of the co-organizers a fellow by the name of Mr. Van Jones, national director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. What else do you frigging need to know?
Oh, and, yes, the memorandum is dated January 3rd 2002.....The way that I see it, there are 4 possibilities here. a) Rense.com created the memo out of whole cloth (highly doubtful in that nobody has filed a law suit yet). b) Rense.com added Van Jones' name after the fact (plausible but still highly unlikely). c) Ms. Brouillet, in an effort to buttress her following, added Jones' name to the list in 2002 (extremely unlikely). d) Mr. Jones is a dirty no-good lowdown liar......I'm leaning toward d myself.
I'll stick with A, B, or C.
Seeing as you believe these scenarios are "highly unlikely" does that mean you also believe it "highly likely" that the bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks?
Or are you selectively choosing what information of their's you will believe?
I find it highly UNLIKELY that the Bushies organized 9/11......Are you saying that rense.com falsified documents in an effort to prove such a scenario happened?
The lady gives her phone # in the document (as of 2002, anyway). Maybe we should call her and see if she has any problem with the way that this web site displayed the document.
Perhaps "they" falsified documents to lend credibility to their theories. "They" not necessarily (and most likely not) being everyone who worked, or has worked for Rense. It could be a few or less people who are responsible. Or it could be an honest mistake. I'm not clear if we're talking about an actual signature, of if Mr. Jones' name just got added to a list of supporters (in error
Post a Comment