HAHAHA, Van Jones Is Not A Truther

And what makes it even more hilarious is the fact that conservative lynch pin website Little Green Footballs really help break the story

As people dig around for incriminating evidence on Van Jones at 9/11 Truther sites and crazy conspiracy sites like the antisemitic, Holocaust-denying rense.com (which, by the way, is not a credible source of information about anything), here are a couple of tidbits that tend to back up Jones’ claim that he is not a Truther and signed that infamous document under false pretenses.

First, Ben Smith contacted two of the other “signatories” of that document, and learned that they had indeed been misled by the Truthers, and thought they were signing a legitimate document calling for further investigations.

To Ben Smith's post at Hackio, and to Smith's credit, this is pretty diligent stuff.

I corresponded yesterday with a couple of the other better-known signatories of the statement, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn, both of whom said they'd signed something narrower than the press release put out by the organization circulating it -- though something that clearly conveyed suspicions well outside the political mainstream about the September 11 attacks.

Call it a Truther-lite statement.

Lerner emails:

I was asked to sign a letter which I was told had four demands:

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.
I did not authorize my name to be used for all the other stuff that I now see was included surrounding the letter, namely the sponsors of that 911truth.org, and would not have had I been aware that all that stuff was presented in ways that suggested that I agreed with it, and though I do recognize a few of the people I'd consider "nut cases" among the list of signatories, my guess is that most of those who signed were, like me, unaware of the context in which our names would appear.

Continue

Zinn sent me a curt email in response to a question of whether he'd intended to suggest Bush's complicity in the attacks: "I did not sign a statement suggesting that 'Bush had prior knowledge.' I signed a statement calling for an investigation.

That may be enough for some to disqualify Jones, but it's certainly somewhat weaker tea than some of the surrounding language, like: the suggestion that "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."

Now Politico's Smith become Hackio's Smith right there, because any sign of evidence that shows that Jones didn't sign on as a Truther should end any discussion about the White House possibly firing Jones.

Now apparently, Smith reports something that he feels may not get Jones fully out of the Woods yet on this, but I'll just let you read that for yourself.

But because all the idiots under Professor Glenn Dreck were screaming "Truther" and "Fire him Obama Administration" at full throttle all week, they sure look so smart now, don't they?

Or, I let LGF of all blogs have the final word:

If Van Jones is forced to step down over the issue, I’m not going to be unhappy. He’s clearly much farther to the left than a presidential aide should be.

But it’s a little pathetic that people would eagerly accept the word of Truthers and rense.com, without any other evidence.