Van Jones needs to quit spinning and simply explain his signature

Another of President Obama’s advisors is in trouble, this time twice in 1 week. Van Jones, the “Special Advisor for Green Jobs”, was shown earlier this week on video calling Republicans who oppose the President’s policies “assholes.” Well, I’ve been called worse but if he’s going to go on record saying that, he needs to be prepared for the consequences that come, which include getting held up for public scrutiny and having his actions reflect on his boss. Jones has already issued the “if I offended anyone I’m sorry” kind of apology but I’m not getting the regret vibe from him.

The more damaging tidbit that surfaced was the fact that Jones put his name to a petition calling for Congressional hearings and investigations by the New York Attorney General into the notion that the 9/11 attacks were either orchestrated by or permitted by Bush administration officials. He is, it would appear, a so-called “Truther.” From ABC’s Jake Tapper:

A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into “evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”

Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called “Truther” movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of “the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”

He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition.

Well, I’m glad that he’s explicit about not agreeing with the statement – now that such an agreement is political poison for both himself and his boss – but the signature on that petition would seems to argue that he’s not telling the truth. If the petition doesn’t reflect his views, “now or ever”, then why did he sign it? An apology isn’t going to cut it this time. Now he needs to explain what his name is doing on that petition and it had better be convincing. Otherwise, he’s done.