Silicon Valley Jim sent the link to the San Francisco Chronicle story on the Van Jones resignation. Here’s the big graf on Jones’s trutherism:
Jones resigned amid a furor over his signature on a 2004 petition questioning the government’s actions around the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
And here’s the bigger graph on his explanation:
Regarding the 2004 petition calling for a congressional investigation into the actions of the Bush administration surrounding the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Jones issued a statement last week saying, “I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”
At no point does the article — written by Joe Garofoli — ever detail the actual Truther position, that the government knew beforehand of the 9/11 attacks and did nothing to stop them, as a pretext for war. The impression you get from Garofoli is that the petition simply called for an “investigation,” and Jones didn’t even go that far.
If all you have to go on is Garofoli’s story, the only controversy is on the right, where a bunch of hysterical racists ginned up “a retaliatory witch-hunt” to go after Jones.
So — what’s it called when you use misleading statements to create a false impression, Mr Garofoli?
One of the problems with these disgraced politicos is that they never have to answer follow-up questions when they resign or confess. If he doesn’t agree with the statement, why’d he sign it? If he signed it without knowing what was on it, what does that say about his judgment? What about his involvement in the Truther movement in 2002? If evidence of Hillary’s foreign policy expertise was her sniper fire adventure and that turns out to be a lie, then what evidence is there? And lest our lefty readers think I’m applying double standards, I’m not. I also have some follow-up questions for George Allen.
“So — what’s it called when you use misleading statements to create a false impression, Mr Garofoli?”
Okay, I’ll bite: “journalism?”
High fives all around, but Mike won this one — cold.
A couple more links to things that were up at sfgate.com earlier today:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bmangan/detail?entry_id=46989
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=46991
At least these are supposed to be opinion pieces.
And I wonder how many writers and editors at the Chronicle are truthers themselves?
Van Jones is one of these people who would be misquoted in his own autobiography.