The latest in a number of dubious Obama high level appointees is Mr. Van Jones. Obama's so-called "green-jobs czar" resigned his position with Obama's Administration due to controversy surrounding his signature on a 2004 "911 Truth Statement" petition, as well as some choice words directed at Republicans.
I find the petition controversy the most interesting. In 2004 a so-called "alliance of 100 prominent Americans", as well as 40 family members of 9/11 victims, called "for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur". The Statement demanded "real answers about 9/11". The 12 questions suggested a "Bush administration cover up", and generally implied that the 9/11 tragedy may have been deliberately allowed to happen by "people within the current administration", "perhaps as a pretext for war".
Van Jones, who was executive director of the "Ella Baker Center for Human Rights", signed the "Truth Statement". Other well known signatories (at least well known to me) included actor Ed Asner, Daniel Ellsberg, Janeane Garofalo, Richie Havens, and Ralph Nader.
Now there is nothing inherently wrong about individuals questioning whether people in the US Administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. The idea that US Administration officials wanted thousands of Americans to die in a terrorist attack is abhorrent to me, but hey, in America people can believe whatever they want. Go for it. So if Mr. Van Jones wanted to put forth a 9/11 "conspiracy theory" along with others, that was his right.
But what is Van Jones' reaction to the news that he signed the petition? Did he stand by it, and explain why he felt that way at the time?
Oh no. He now states that he does not agree with the 9/11 truth statement and in fact he never did, even when he signed it. He evidently "did not carefully review the language in the petition before signing", according to an Obama source.
Give me a break! The Statement is as clear as day. Did he never read it? Does a person sign a short and concise highly provocative statement limited to 100 prominent signatories and posted on a web site without bothering to read it?
It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"It's one thing for a person to express one's controversial views. It's another for that person to run and hide from them when they become inconvenient and embarrassing."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to bear that in mind when, some years down the road, someone digs up past nuggest from your recent posts.
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your implied criticism of Van Jones.
But what does this say about Obama? Should Obama have known about Jones having signed that statement, and therefore avoided appointing him? Or does Van Jones' recent behaviour reflect on Obama? I would answer yes to former, no to the latter. But what's your opinion? You called Jones a dubious appointee, but it's unclear on which of those grounds you are criticizing the appontment.
Ron
Hi Ron:
ReplyDeleteAccording to today's Edmonton Journal story on this issue, Van Jones' radicalism is evident in some of his other pronouncements. The story reports that Van Jones "attended a vigil which blamed "US imperialism" for the Al-Qaida strikes". He also "accused whites of using pollution as a weapon against blacks by "essentially steering poison into the people-of-colour communities" - at least according to the Journal story.
So let us assume that Van Jones was (is?) a radical activist. Now, as I stated in my posting, there is nothing inherently wrong in that. He is entitled to his views.
Now getting to your question. Obama either knew about these radical views, or should have, before he appointed Jones to a senior Administration post. If Obama did not, this is very poor vetting.
Assuming Obama knew about Van Jones' views, he decided to appoint him anyway. I think that appointing a person to a high position in the Administration who apparently believes that the US government allowed 9/11 to happen, blames Al Quaeda attacks on US imperialism, and accuses whites of purposely polluting communities where blacks live, is a dubious appointment. It also seems to be politically stupid, as Obama ought to have foreseen the flak this would cause, and the inevitable resignation or dismissal.
There is a blog by David Sirota which is heavily critical of Obama for not standing by Van Jones and essentially firing him - Sirota called it "psthetic behaviour". This to me at least is yet another example of Obama distancing himself from those who has known and admired (or throwing them "under the bus"), as soon as they become a political liability, but that is another story.
So the appointment led to attacks by the right, the firing or resignation of the appointee, followed by attacks by the left. "Dubious" appointment? I would think so.
Hi Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteFor a balanced look at Jones, I recommend this profile by Elizabeth Kolbert, the New Yorker's climate writer, from January of this year.
She doesn't mention any of the recent allegations, which, I agree, were silly and regrettable-- like the 9/11 conspiracy thing. But Jones seems an ambitious person, if naive, who thought that preventing climate change could also alleviate poverty.
I'm not saying he was a great choice. But concentrating on process--does this mean Obama is weak? Is he abandoning his appointees, like Tom Daschle, when it is politically opportune?-- obscures much more important questions about the problems Van Jones was hired to find solutions to, and what (if anything) the President is doing about them.
-Scott
When Obama's administration first took over, there were several reports about the extensive questionnaires (one in particular with 64 questions) and background checks that staffers would have to complete. It was another indicator of the meticulousness of the Obama team whose attention to detail had made the difference in the primaries.
ReplyDeleteAccording to recent reports, Van Jones never bothered to fill out the question and no one in the administration noticed and/or cared. I think oversights like these are a sign of an incredibly diligent campaign that has become a lackadaisical administration.