Van Jones

JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
edited September 2009 in A Moving Train
Something not widely discussed enough.

Embattled Obama adviser resigns

A White House adviser has resigned in a row about crude remarks he made about Republicans, and over his signing of a controversial 9/11 petition.

Van Jones, President Obama's adviser on green jobs, had issued two public apologies in the past week.

One of the apologies was for signing a petition in 2001, which suggested the Bush administration may have allowed the 9/11 terror attacks to happen.

As he quit, Mr Jones said opponents had "mounted a vicious smear campaign".

The row that has engulfed Van Jones centred on video of a speech he gave before joining the Obama administration, and a petition that questioned whether the Bush administration "may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war".

On Friday, President Obama's press secretary failed to give public support to the environmental adviser, saying only that he "continues to work for the administration".

In a media statement, Van Jones said the reason for his resignation was to avoid being a distraction in the Obama administration's efforts to pass healthcare reforms and climate change legislation.

"On the eve of historic fights for healthcare and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," he said.

"I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future," Mr Jones wrote in his resignation letter.

'Extremist views'

Senior Republicans had been demanding Mr Jones stand down, with some stating Congress should investigate his "fitness" for the role.

Republican congressman Mike Pence said: "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate."

Van Jones, a former civil rights activist, has been a prominent figure within the environmental movement, and had worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality since March.

Reports say he had won praise before joining the Obama administration for his vision of a sustainable green economy, one which the Democrats could embrace.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8240275.stm

It's been no secret that FOX News and its Conservative players were extreme "anti-Jones". They have been talking about him for days before the resignation.

The Radicalization of Obama's 'Green Czar' http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 ... reen-czar/
Amid Controversy Over Obama's Green Jobs Adviser, GOP Renews Criticism of White House Czars http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 ... ite-house/
'Green Jobs' Adviser's Past Could Stir Trouble for White House at Critical Time
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09 ... ical-time/

Nothing like a real smear tactic going against Jones, right from the beginning. Nice.



Meanwhile, Jones has led the way on the environmentalism front, and the creation of many new, green jobs, which led to his position in the Obama Administration.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • g under pg under p Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
    edited September 2009


    The Obama administration's special adviser for environmental jobs, Van Jones,
    has resigned citing what he described as a "vicious smear campaign" against him.
    For the past month, Fox News has run a series of reports on Jones's alleged
    association with communists and his decision to sign a petition calling for a
    congressional probe of the 9/11 attacks. Jones is the founding president of
    Green for All and author of the book The Green Collar Economy. We speak with
    James Rucker, who co-founded the group Color of Change with Van Jones, and with
    Malkia Cyril, founder of the Center for Media Justice. We also talk to Ben
    Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.

    Listen/Watch/Read
    * White House Environmental Adviser Van Jones Resigns Citing "Vicious Smear Campaign Against Me" *
    AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you both to Democracy Now! James Rucker, explain exactly what you understand has happened. What led to the resignation of Van Jones?


    JAMES RUCKER: Yeah, absolutely. Well, Glenn Beck has used the last month or so to wage this war against not only Van Jones but the Obama administration. We, of course, started moving on Beck when he called the President a racist and asserted that he had a deep-seated hatred for white people. When we started our campaign, and our members and others became enraged by what they saw as a narrative that painted Obama, that painted the administration, that painted black people as this subversive force that was really going to be the undoing of this country, we started our campaign—at that point, Glenn Beck went from having mentioned Van Jones to Van becoming essentially public enemy number one in his mind, and he absolutely went about a smear campaign, pulling out, cherry-picking things that Van had said, affiliations that he had had, you know, ten, fifteen years ago, and building the case that Van was this boogeyman, essentially.


    It’s very disappointing that the administration has basically allowed Van to leave, whether he was pushed out or not. And the reason is, Van is simply—and Beck has said this—Van is simply the first, and if the administration is not able to stand up and fight, when you have someone who’s using a news platform to lie about your personnel, to undermine the agenda that you have, it’s going to be a problem for the administration, it’s going to be a problem for the American people.

    I watched this on Democracy Now today and it amazes me the job Fox News has done to have Van Jones resign from his post. I'm very disappointed with the Obama administration in how they've NOT been able to stand up to the pundits, Fox News, bloggers, declining presidential ratings and say we stand behind this man and we believe he will do a great job.
    I now have to admire the Bush administration when they made their appointments, because they didn't give a shit what anyone thought and stood strong by those appointments even if it meant declining presidential ratings.
    This present administration needs to gain a backbone and stand strong to those who want to bring any negativity towards who they may want to appoint in the future.

    Peace
    Post edited by g under p on
    *We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti

    *MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
    .....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti

    *The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)


  • g under p wrote:
    This present administration needs to gain a backbone and stand strong to those who want to bring any negativity towards who they may want to appoint in the future.

    Peace
    I find this absolutely Insane. This administration should be ashamed of itself to allow this happen. What credibility does Glenn Beck have? None. And why is it that Obama is bowing to the needs of the Republican nutjobs rather than the people who elected him. If we wanted a Republican run Government we would have voted for them.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited September 2009
    Jeanwah wrote:
    One of the apologies was for signing a petition in 2001, which suggested the Bush administration may have allowed the 9/11 terror attacks to happen.

    The Bush administration did allow the 9/11 terror attacks to happen. There's no 'maybe' about it. They were in possession of documents which outlined Al-Queda's plans to attack targets inside America using hi-jacked aircraft. They knew what these targets would be and they knew where the perpetrators were. And they chose to do nothing. The facts are out there for anyone to check.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission

    Criticism of the 9/11 commission

    The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff.[11] Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.[12][13]

    The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.

    In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,[13] and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.[14] On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.


    http://www.911truth.org/article.php?sto ... 3112738404

    The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie

    by Dr. David Ray Griffin - Sunday, May 22, 2005



    'In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.

    Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.

    It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

    Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.

    One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.

    Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:

    # 1 - 115
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    g under p wrote:
    This present administration needs to gain a backbone and stand strong to those who want to bring any negativity towards who they may want to appoint in the future.

    Peace
    I find this absolutely Insane. This administration should be ashamed of itself to allow this happen. What credibility does Glenn Beck have? None. And why is it that Obama is bowing to the needs of the Republican nutjobs rather than the people who elected him. If we wanted a Republican run Government we would have voted for them.
    it is because democrats historically are pussies. i am a liberal democrat and i admit that. they back down from every major confrontation. they try to be bipartisan and they end up compromising their ideals in an attempt to get things passed but all they do is end up passing watered down bills that do not fix anything. i think the time for bipartisanship and trying to let everyone play nice together so we get that warm and fuzzy feeling is over. they bow to what the right wing talking heads say because 80% of all political radio stations broadcast right wing pundits and they reach the most people. there are much fewer progressive radio outlets out there and they get killed inthe ratings just because of the sheer number of stations owned and broadcast by right wing media outlets. that is why glen beck is so powerful. the dems have an overwhelming majority in the house, they have the senate, they have the people behind them, and they have the white house and they are too god damned scared to push the agenda and ram it down the conservatives' throats. they may never have this opportunity to push their agenda again. god knows if the tables were turned the gop would not do anything bipartisan. they have patently ignored and refused to bend on their position on everything. if they had their way the dems would be bent over a barrel taking everything. i say the dems need to do that, that is why i voted for them. but they won't because they are pussies and are afraid they might lose their job in the next election cycle.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • g under p wrote:
    This present administration needs to gain a backbone and stand strong to those who want to bring any negativity towards who they may want to appoint in the future.

    Peace
    I find this absolutely Insane. This administration should be ashamed of itself to allow this happen. What credibility does Glenn Beck have? None. And why is it that Obama is bowing to the needs of the Republican nutjobs rather than the people who elected him. If we wanted a Republican run Government we would have voted for them.

    It's par for the course for this administration/campaign (and party). Democrats always seem to wait too long to hit back.. we saw it in '04 with the swift boat crap, and we saw it through the whole Obama campaign with all of the muslim, terrorist loving, birth certificate, Michelle hates white people, etc crap... the old approach was to not give these baseless charges attention by disputing them, but in an age of 24 hour news and blogs and radio hosts, they do get attention and credibility. You gotta get out there and shut it down as soon as it pops up.

    Instead of fighting back, Obama and crew seem to want to take the high road and ignore them... the problem is, if you aren't doing anything good to talk about, the media void is filled with all of this other crap. For an administration who seems to always be in campaign mode, they do a horrible job of controlling the message.

    Heath care is a whole other issue... the Whitehouse doesn't seem to have any quality/credible surrogates to send out there. You can't use the Clintons because of Hilary's current position and all of the baggage that comes along with their failed attempt, Ried and Pelosi are a mess... Daschle would have made a decent spokesman, but we know how that ended.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    don't blame the republicans ... blame the citizens ...

    smear campaigns like this only work because the populace is ignorant and easily manipulated
  • g under p wrote:
    This present administration needs to gain a backbone and stand strong to those who want to bring any negativity towards who they may want to appoint in the future.

    Peace
    I find this absolutely Insane. This administration should be ashamed of itself to allow this happen. What credibility does Glenn Beck have? None. And why is it that Obama is bowing to the needs of the Republican nutjobs rather than the people who elected him. If we wanted a Republican run Government we would have voted for them.

    It's par for the course for this administration/campaign (and party). Democrats always seem to wait too long to hit back.. we saw it in '04 with the swift boat crap, and we saw it through the whole Obama campaign with all of the muslim, terrorist loving, birth certificate, Michelle hates white people, etc crap... the old approach was to not give these baseless charges attention by disputing them, but in an age of 24 hour news and blogs and radio hosts, they do get attention and credibility. You gotta get out there and shut it down as soon as it pops up.

    Instead of fighting back, Obama and crew seem to want to take the high road and ignore them... the problem is, if you aren't doing anything good to talk about, the media void is filled with all of this other crap. For an administration who seems to always be in campaign mode, they do a horrible job of controlling the message.

    Heath care is a whole other issue... the Whitehouse doesn't seem to have any quality/credible surrogates to send out there. You can't use the Clintons because of Hilary's current position and all of the baggage that comes along with their failed attempt, Ried and Pelosi are a mess... Daschle would have made a decent spokesman, but we know how that ended.


    kind of off topic but your post made me think of it....a few days ago i saw a bumper sticker that said "Obama, please show us your birth certificate!"

    and i agree with g under p, the democrats have always seemed like pussys where republicans, like Bush, will pick someone and not care what they do or say. it was just as disappointing when Clinton asked for his surgeon general to step down after she said marijuana should be legalized.

    as for credible surrogates....he kinda did that to himself; when he was having those roundtable meetings and all that on health care he didn't invite anyone who supported a universal system. also the secret closed door meetings with pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists and execs, didn't he make a campaign pledge to broadcast anything like that on CSPAN??, didn't help
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • I'm not part of an organized political party, I'm a democrat.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    I agree Democrats are pussies. We've got two parties, created to balance each other, and instead, one's the bully and the other's the coward.

    I think it's quite sad that Obama would not defend Van Jones, especially from the lies Glenn Beck created. Does Obama have a spine?
  • You can only fight so many battles at once. If Obama wanted to be able to concentrate on winning health care, Van Jones had to go.

    He was too controversial. He was probably a nutjob.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited September 2009
    You can only fight so many battles at once. If Obama wanted to be able to concentrate on winning health care, Van Jones had to go.

    He was too controversial. He was probably a nutjob.
    Way to assume the worst there, Walmart fan. I also gather you believe everything you read.
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • slightofjeffslightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    edited September 2009
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You can only fight so many battles at once. If Obama wanted to be able to concentrate on winning health care, Van Jones had to go.

    He was too controversial. He was probably a nutjob.
    Way to assume the worst there, Walmart fan. I also gather you believe everything you read.

    Read?

    I've seen the video clips.
    I've seen his name on the 9.11 petition.

    I mean, facts are facts. The Obama administration should have vetted him better.

    The Republicans would have l-o-v-e-d for Van Jones to stick around awhile. Anything to distract Obama from the health care debate, and sap some of his political capital.

    EDIT: Good grief. Did you really just edit your post to go with a different supposed insult of me? That's just great.
    Post edited by slightofjeff on
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You can only fight so many battles at once. If Obama wanted to be able to concentrate on winning health care, Van Jones had to go.

    He was too controversial. He was probably a nutjob.
    Way to assume the worst there, Walmart fan. I also gather you believe everything you read.

    Read?

    I've seen the video clips.
    I've seen his name on the 9.11 petition.

    I mean, facts are facts. The Obama administration should have vetted him better.

    The Republicans would have l-o-v-e-d for Van Jones to stick around awhile. Anything to distract Obama from the health care debate, and sap some of his political capital.

    Why are you on MT anyway? Go back to the Porch. All you did was watch Fox News clips. You clearly didn't read the OP.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    EDIT: Good grief. Did you really just edit your post to go with a different supposed insult of me? That's just great.
    Actually, I was editing while you already quoted me. I tend to edit because I change my mind all the time. So I went back and changed it back.
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    Why are you on MT anyway? Go back to the Porch. All you did was watch Fox News clips. You clearly didn't read the OP.

    Do you seriously have that big of a problem with people disagreeing with you? I'm not being combative. I'm just stating my opinion.

    You seem to have some weird personal issue with me, which is astounding to me considering this is just a silly little message board.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Why are you on MT anyway? Go back to the Porch. All you did was watch Fox News clips. You clearly didn't read the OP.

    Do you seriously have that big of a problem with people disagreeing with you? I'm not being combative. I'm just stating my opinion.

    You seem to have some weird personal issue with me, which is astounding to me considering this is just a silly little message board.

    Yet you felt that replying before reading the OP was satisfactory.
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    EDIT: Good grief. Did you really just edit your post to go with a different supposed insult of me? That's just great.
    Actually, I was editing while you already quoted me. I tend to edit because I change my mind all the time. So I went back and changed it back.

    I'll admit, Glenn Beck fan is a lot better insult than Wal-Mart fan.

    Who the hell is actually a "fan" of Wal-Mart? I mean, people shop there and whatnot, but I don't really know anybody who is a "fan." Nobody I know has a Wal-Mart poster on their wall.

    So, definitely, "Glenn Beck fan" was the way to go. Glad you changed it.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • Jeanwah wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Why are you on MT anyway? Go back to the Porch. All you did was watch Fox News clips. You clearly didn't read the OP.

    Do you seriously have that big of a problem with people disagreeing with you? I'm not being combative. I'm just stating my opinion.

    You seem to have some weird personal issue with me, which is astounding to me considering this is just a silly little message board.

    Yet you felt that replying before reading the OP was satisfactory.

    Um, I did read it. And I disagreed with it (quite respectfully, I might add). That's sort of how the Internet works.

    If you only want to deal with people who think exactly like you, I suggest you start your own message board and start talking to yourself.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
Sign In or Register to comment.