MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Van Jones: Condemned for Thoughtcrime
Ordinarily we like to keep The Eye focused on local or state matters, but today – the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist massacre –
Leave a comment
it’s only conspiracy theory, until it becomes conspiracy fact.
“Nor does it especially trouble Krauthammer that Jones at one time was “a self-proclaimed communist.”
Maybe it doesn’t bother Krauthammer, but it is troubling for millions of other people.
I agree with you. I also would like to see 911 further investigated.
I would like to know why after the plot was first discovered in 1994 following the first attack on the Twin Towers why it was ignored.
I would like to know why after the Philipine Gov’t warned of the possible attack, and that terrorists were in the US training for such an attack, it was ignored.
I would like to know why after two congressional committees recommended that sky marshalls be hired, and security at airports tightened, it was ignored.
I would like to know why Jamie Gorelick, a member of the DOJ under Clinton, and then a member of the 911 Commission, told the FBI, and the CIA, they could not share information. And maybe we can find out why she received $779,625 in bonuses from Fannie Mae.
I would like to know why the FBI agents investigating these terrorists following the bombing of the embassies in Africa were told not to investgate. http://911review.org/Reports/FBI_wright.html
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I don’t care if it was the Republicans, or the Democrats, who were at fault.
“”Nor does it especially trouble Krauthammer that Jones at one time was “a self-proclaimed communist.” Maybe it doesn’t bother Krauthammer, but it is troubling for millions of other people.”
It troubles me too because communism is a foolish and discredited ideology and I have to question the judgment of anybody who (as an adult) believed in it. I am equally troubled by a devotee of Ayn Rand holding a position of power — such as former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said he was “shocked” when he discovered Wall Street had failed to “regulate itself.” But somehow adherents of the idiotic doctrine of Rand are considered credible and trustworthy in this country while adherents of the idiotic doctrine of Marx and Lenin are not.
A Zogby poll in May 2006 asked the following question:
“Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?”
Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
If this poll is to be believed, then by Krauthammer’s definition nearly half the US population is psychotic, paranoid, dangerous, and should not be permitted in polite society. In fact they probably should be sent to “re-education camps.”
“So what, in Krauthammer's eyes, is Jones's unforgiveable sin? It's just this: He dared to question the official orthodox explanation of 9/11.”
Question the “Official orthodoxy”? Is that all he did? You questioned the offical orthodoxy in a somewhat inquisitive albeit mis-guided manner (which is fine), but what Jones did was to sign-on that our President and our real President (your bud Cheney) were directly culpable….amazing. Jones also holds that white environmentalists are responsible for the pumping of poisons into “neighborhoods of color.”
This goes far beyond the pale for a position of power that would be responsible for directing billions of stimulus dollars to green industries. Unfortunately, it reveals the contempt this administration has for our government structure when it must create all these czar jobs (much more than any other administration). BO knows these wack jobs could never survive senate confirmation. Having this extensive shadow government should make us all uneasy.
Your guy got borked…and rightfully so, although it diminishes the term. So get over it.
I’m never surprised when some take a comment out of context, and ruh with it. In doing so they most often use their own bias as a starting point to avoid accountability.
Van Jones was not “condemned for thoughtcrime” as the header suggests. He was “condemned” for his antiAmerican activities beginning with his stint in jail following the Rodney King riots in ’92.
Then there is the comments regarding Bush, and 911. While ignoring the fact that Clinton had 6 years to accomplish what they expected Bush to do in less then 8 months, if one uses the “logic” of the left can you imagine how many people it would take to carry off this “conspiracy”. And do you think that in 8 years not one of these conspirators would have slipped up somehow, or come forward like “Deep Throat”?
As to Scheuer, one should consider his entire comment, and the subject at hand, before acting in such an irresponsible manner, and relying on a single soundbite to try and prove a point. The whole conversation is here, and one should read it before jumping to conclusions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/01/glenn-beck-guest-fantasiz_n_223807.html
“Van Jones was not “condemned for thoughtcrime” as the header suggests. He was “condemned” for his antiAmerican activities”
I was referring to what Krauthammer was condemning Jones for. Krauthammer says he doesn’t really care about the other stuff.
As for the Scheuer quote, I read the whole interview that you linked to and at the end of it Scheuer says exactly what he’s quoted as saying. The dialogue goes like this:
BECK: Yes, sir. OK. So you have seen this. Do you really, honestly believe that we have come to a place to where those very senior people in the highest offices of the land, Congress and the White House, really will not do the right thing in the end, that they won’t see the error of their ways?
SCHEUER: No, sir, they will not. Not — the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it’s going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only — it’s an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.
BECK: Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.
SCHEUER: Absolutely.
BECK: Michael Scheuer, as always, sir, thank you very much.
Before that there’s a lot of babble about securing the border and Democrats wanting to take away everybody’s guns, but at the end Scheuer does say EXACTLY what I said he said.
“if one uses the “logic” of the left can you imagine how many people it would take to carry off this “conspiracy”.”
If it had involved blowing up the WTC, as the tinfoil-hat truthers believe, it would have taken a hell of a lot of people, which is one reason that theory has zero credibility. OTOH if all that was necessary was to simply ignore the threat, it would have required only a handful of people in the inner circle of the White House. This wouldn’t mean that the WH necessarily knew the magnitude of the planned attack — only that some attack was likely and that it would rally the country behind the president (who had been elected, let’s not forget, by the slimmest possible margin) and maybe build support for military action in the Middle East.
Again, I’m not saying this DID happen, only that there are enough unanswered questions to warrant further investigation — an option Krauthammer wants to simply take off the table.
BTW the issue is not what Clinton did or didn’t do, it’s what Bush did or didn’t do. We’re not talking about stamping out terrorism, which neither Clinton nor Bush managed to do. We’re talking about Bush’s response, or lack of response, in a specific situation at a particular point in time.
HDM writes, “OTOH if all that was necessary was to simply ignore the threat, it would have required only a handful of people in the inner circle of the White House. This wouldn’t mean that the WH necessarily knew the magnitude of the planned attack — only that some attack was likely and that it would rally the country behind the president (who had been elected, let’s not forget, by the slimmest possible margin) and maybe build support for military action in the Middle East.”
Therefore, for you to be intellectually honest, HBM, you must subscribe to the notion that FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor so as to give him a reason to go to war and be bailed out of the depression.
“Therefore, for you to be intellectually honest, HBM, you must subscribe to the notion that FDR allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor so as to give him a reason to go to war and be bailed out of the depression.”
I do not subscribe to it, although there were (and are) quite a few Republicans who did, and do. (You may well be one.) But I also DO NOT “subscribe to the notion” that Bush intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen. I don’t know enough about the events surrounding 9/11 to subscribe to it. I’m just suggesting there are enough unanswered questions surrounding that terrible event to warrant further investigation. And as an American who believes in our Constitution, including the First Amendment, I am furious when somebody like Krauthammer declares from his own personal Mount Olympus that it’s forbidden to even discuss such a thing.
It’s funny how some of the right-wingers (and I’m not saying you’re one of them) continue to insist on “more proof” that Obama really is a native-born American citizen, but want everybody to clam up about the story behind the worst terrorist attack in history.
H. Bruce Miller says:
It’s funny how some of the right-wingers (and I’m not saying you’re one of them) continue to insist on “more proof” that Obama really is a native-born American citizen, but want everybody to clam up about the story behind the worst terrorist attack in history.”
No, what is “funny” is how you want to exempt Clinton from further investigation.
Let us remember that in the first two years of the Bush administration the Democrats still controlled the Senate. During that time Daschle worked hard to hold up Bush’s appointments of cabinet members, and the national security budget, as well as the general budget.
Remembering that little fact, tell me what Bush could have done to prevent 911? Could he have hired sky marshalls (as was recommended in 1996), or better secured the airports (as was recommended in 1996), without congressional approval? Could he have tracked down the terrorists that were suspected, and the Clinton administration ordered not to be followed? Could he have gathered enough information from either the CIA, or FBI, to put together a case even if he allowed the two to collaborate after
Gorlick strictly prevented said collaboration?
Unlike you, I want a FULL AND HONEST investigation of the facts, not just those involving Bush.
BTW, many books have been written by high ranking Democrats about the events leading to Pearl Harbor, and yet to be answered is the question as to why the authorities at Pearl Harbor were not informed of the coming invasion, or why the American Pacific Fleet was sent to Pearl Harbor when they had been warned of a possible invasion in mid-November, and the Soviet Union knew where the Japanese fleet was at.
Further note on Pearl Harbor:
“On 15 November 1945, the Joint Congressional Committee Investigation into the Pearl Harbor disaster held its first session. Established by a Joint Congressional Resolution, this investigation promised to be the most thorough possible. The Truman administration released all of the relevant classified documents, including the MAGIC translations. All of the participants still alive, with the exception of the seriously ill Secretary of War Stimson, were examined. In 1946 the committee’s findings were released in forty volumes. A single volume report contained twelve findings that apportioned the blame among all the principals: Hawaiian area commanders and the War and Navy Departments. A minority report also censured Roosevelt but concluded, like the majority findings, that Secretary Stimson, Secretary Knox, Generals Marshall and Gerow, and Admiral Stark, as well as General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were culpable for the disaster.” — US National Security Agency
Note that this Congressional investigation continued for more than a year and that it produced 40 VOLUMES of findings. In contrast, the 9/11 Commission report covers less than 600 pages, including the index.
H. Bruce Miller says:
Before that there’s a lot of babble about securing the border and Democrats wanting to take away everybody’s guns, but at the end Scheuer does say EXACTLY what I said he said.”
Yes, no one denies what he said. However, if you want to take it out of the context in which it was said you could come to the conclusion you desire.
The discussion was about the security of the US, and the lack of will on the part of the Democrats to do what is necessary for that security.
Currently you have an administration that is persecuting CIA agents, and groups that are releasing photos of CIA agents to the terrorists. You have an administration that refuses to secure the Southern border even though we know that Hamas, and Hezbollah, agents have crossed there, and are now in the US.
Becks point, and that of Scheur, is that like in the Clinton administration, and even to some extent in the Bush administration, it took 911 to wake the people up. The question is, will it take another similar event to make the people “wake up” now. Appeasement did not work under the Clinton administration, and it will not work now.
So, it is not a question of will there be another attack. It is only a question of when. And will we be ready for it.
Amen to Old Trapper.
BTW, the 9/11 report concluded that “they were at war with us, we were not at war with them.” The 9/11 report could have been written with that line alone.
Jamie Gorelick, who was one of the 9/11 commissioners and designated Clinton protector, should have been at the witness table under oath and under penalty for perjury rather than asking questions.
“You have an administration that refuses to secure the Southern border even though we know that Hamas, and Hezbollah, agents have crossed there, and are now in the US.”
How, exactly, would you propose to “secure” a border almost 2,000 miles long? Build a Chinese wall?
The Bush administration had eight years to “secure” the border. It didn’t. It’s not a question of “refusing” to do it; it’s something easier said than done.
And what about the northern border? What’s to stop terrorists from crossing from Canada?
Also, I would note that the 9/11 hijackers were all in the United States LEGALLY.
“Could he have hired sky marshalls (as was recommended in 1996), or better secured the airports (as was recommended in 1996), without congressional approval?”
Did he ASK FOR those things and get turned down by Congress? If so you might have a point. Otherwise your question is irrelevant.
Have we EVEN NOW adequately secured our ports against attack? The terrorists may be crazy but they’re not dumb, and it would be dumb to repeat the same tactic they used eight years ago. My biggest fear is that a nuclear device will be smuggled into one of our major ports in the hold of a cargo ship.
“Unlike you, I want a FULL AND HONEST investigation of the facts, not just those involving Bush.”
I’ve never claimed that Clinton couldn’t have done more to deal with the terrorist threat and I would support an investigation like the one you suggest, IF it was truly thorough, honest and nonpartisan. (NOTE: I didn’t say “bipartisan,” I said “nonpartisan.” It should be carried out by experts who are not elected office-holders or officially connected with either party.)
The fact remains, however, that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.
This nation is in a very troubled state of POOR and inexperienced leadership – period. The values our founding fathers valiantly fought to obtain as a free nation have been eroding for over 60+ years (except under President Ronald Reagan), and especially under the current Statist/Socialist pseudo-American President. There ARE many unanswered questions on the 9/11 terrorist attack whether it was planned within/or outside – terrorists just the same. Even the so-called “suicide” of Vince Foster (Clinton White House Counsel) remains unanswered…so what’s new? This nation’s leadership is morally corrupt and remains so.
“what Jones did was to sign-on that our President and our real President (your bud Cheney) were directly culpable….amazing.”
My bud Cheney? MY bud Cheney??? I’m not even sure that sumbitch is human. He may be one of the Undead. He’s had four (or is it five?) heart attacks, he’s got more hardware in him than Home Depot, but he just keeps going.
Van Jones did himself in with his own words and inane philosophy. Plain and simple.
Winston: Yeah, yeah, I know — the Democrats are to blame for everything from Pearl Harbor to 9/11 to the lousy economy to adolescent acne.
The fact that you’re still harping on the Vince Foster suicide proves you are a right-wing nut case, pure and simple. Good bye.
Not that I don’t agree with some of the points you make, I wish you hadn’t responded to the article in our daily local newspaper. I’d pay money to watch your head explode.
Cheers
H. Bruce Miller says:
How, exactly, would you propose to “secure” a border almost 2,000 miles long? Build a Chinese wall?
The Bush administration had eight years to “secure” the border. It didn’t. It’s not a question of “refusing” to do it; it’s something easier said than done.”
Bush supported amnesty for illegals, and “comprehensive” immigration reform. And, he had the support of the majority of Democrats, and some Republicans. It was like the building of the “wall”. It was only after the people demanded the border be secured, and that there be no amnesty, that there was even an attempt to secure the border.
Now, we have a choice. Militarize the border, or just say to hell with it, and let any scumbag that wants to do so cross it.
“And what about the northern border? What’s to stop terrorists from crossing from Canada?”
They already have. Canada is getting better at helping in that matter, however, you are right. It is another hole for them to cross through.
“Also, I would note that the 9/11 hijackers were all in the United States LEGALLY.”
At least 5 were here illegally, perhaps more.
http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2719/Default.aspx
“Did he ASK FOR those things and get turned down by Congress? If so you might have a point. Otherwise your question is irrelevant.”
Why is it irrelevant? Clinton had 6 years to do it. Bush had less then 6 months. Do you really think if he had asked for them that there would have been enough time to hire, and train, them?
“Have we EVEN NOW adequately secured our ports against attack? The terrorists may be crazy but they’re not dumb, and it would be dumb to repeat the same tactic they used eight years ago. My biggest fear is that a nuclear device will be smuggled into one of our major ports in the hold of a cargo ship.”
Agree that it could be done that way, and there are means to protect from such an attack if the government has the will to do it. One way would be to return to a manufacturing base here in the US, and quit importing so much.
If they can smuggle in cocaine, and marijuana, etc., what is to prevent them from smuggling anything in?
“The fact remains, however, that 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.”
The first attack happened on Clinton’s watch, as did many others. The fact is that Clinton had several chances to get bin Laden, and didn’t.
Ever wonder why Dubais, and the Saudi’s, have given millions to Clinton?
“The first attack happened on Clinton’s watch …”
Ans Clinton caught the perpetrators and put them behind bars.
“The fact is that Clinton had several chances to get bin Laden, and didn’t.”
The fact is that Bush had seven years to get bin Laden and didn’t. After a token effort in Afghanistan he embarked on a wild goose chase in Iraq.
But I’m tired of this “discussion.” We’re just rehashing the same arguments everybody’s been hearing for eight years. Time to move on.
HBM writes: “My bud Cheney? MY bud Cheney??? I’m not even sure that sumbitch is human. He may be one of the Undead. He’s had four (or is it five?) heart attacks, he’s got more hardware in him than Home Depot, but he just keeps going.”
I see I struck a nerve. But that is no way to talk about the best president this country has ever had. Luckily he is on the government health plan and he can be assured of having anything it takes from Home Depot, Schucks, or Best Buy to keep him going.
of course krauthammer vehemently opposes an independant investigation of the many anomalies of 9/11. there is much circumstancial evidence of israeili involvement in the events of that day. google sivan kurzberg. labeling truthers as crazy for just wanting answers that have not been forthcoming for eight years doesn’t cut it.
H. Bruce Miller says:
“The first attack happened on Clinton’s watch …”
Ans Clinton caught the perpetrators and put them behind bars.”
Still, it happened on his watch, so by your standards he must be at fault.
“The fact is that Bush had seven years to get bin Laden and didn’t. After a token effort in Afghanistan he embarked on a wild goose chase in Iraq.”
Ah yes, by the time Bush came into office bin Laden was so deeply hidden who could have gotten him? The Taliban has been hiding him for how many years, and if he is in Pakistan then what?
And if Clinton had just taken care of the problem when he had the chance then it would have been over.
“But I’m tired of this “discussion.” We’re just rehashing the same arguments everybody’s been hearing for eight years. Time to move on.”
Always time to “move on” when the discussion isn’t going the way you want it, right.
Like I said, you don’t want an honest investigation if it would involve Clinton’s errors.
“Always time to “move on” when the discussion isn’t going the way you want it, right.”
This is how right-wingers “win” arguments: They bore their opponents to death.
“But that is no way to talk about the best president this country has ever had.”
Tellya what — run a Dick Cheney / Sarah Palin ticket in 2012. Yeah, that looks like a winner.
HBM writes: “Tellya what — run a Dick Cheney / Sarah Palin ticket in 2012. Yeah, that looks like a winner.”
Well then, I get to choose your dream ticket. And I’ll base that choice upon the voices that appear to be most representative of your party…..Pelosi/Van Jones or Dumb and Dumber.
But you are right, this is getting tedious so I’m moving on also.
“Well then, I get to choose your dream ticket. And I’ll base that choice upon the voices that appear to be most representative of your party…..Pelosi/Van Jones or Dumb and Dumber.”
Ooo. Ooo. Ooo. I have an even better one. Mondale/Ferraro.