Giannoulias addressed Netroots Nation in Las Vegas last week, was scheduled to attend Netroots Candidate Event as well
Last week, Giannoulias announced on his Facebook page that he would be “leading the Illinois Caucus” at the Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas. The Netroots website showed Giannoulias confirmed to attend the conference’s candidate event as well.
“Alexi Giannoulias’ decision to root his campaign in the far-left should be a troubling signal to independent voters,” Kirk spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski said. “Alexi Giannoulias claims to be mainstream but has no problem associating with 9/11 truthers like Van Jones and other left-wing radicals. Alexi Giannoulias claims to stand with Israel but has no problem aligning his campaign with J-Street and its supporters. The people of Illinois deserve a thoughtful, centrist leader not someone who panders to left-wing fringe groups.”
The conference agenda included a “conversation” with 9/11 “truther” Van Jones who resigned his post as “Green Jobs Czar” last year after news reports revealed he had signed a petition accusing former President Bush of allowing September 11th to occur. Columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, “You can’t sign a petition demanding not one but four investigations of the charge that the Bush administration deliberately allowed Sept. 11, 2001 — i.e., collaborated in the worst massacre ever perpetrated on American soil — and be permitted in polite society, let alone have a high-level job in the White House.”
Another panel, “Israel Palestine Caucus,” was scheduled to be presented by J-Street staff members Isaac Luria and Amy Spitalnick. J-Street is a controversial group known for its harsh criticism of Israel. Earlier this year, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “I reject J Street because it spends more time criticizing Israel than supporting it. They shouldn’t call themselves pro-Israel.”
Congressman Mark Kirk is an established leader on the U.S.-Israel relationship and does not support the J-Street agenda. He is opposed to the legalization of marijuana and rejects 9/11 truthers as kooks. For 2009, the non-partisan Congressional Quarterly rated Kirk in the exact center of the House on presidential support.
Of course, Van Jones isn’t a truther.
I UNDERSTAND how Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official who was forced to resign last week, must have felt.
Last year I, too, resigned from an administration job, after I uttered some ill-chosen words about the Republican Party and was accused — falsely — of signing my name to a petition being passed around by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Partisan Web sites and pundits pounced, and I, too, saw my name go from obscurity to national infamy within hours.
Our situations aren’t exactly the same. Ms. Sherrod’s comments, in which she, a black woman, appeared to admit to racial discrimination against a white couple, were taken far out of context, while I truly did use a vulgarity.
But the way we were treated is strikingly similar, and it reveals a lot about the venal nature of Washington politics in the Internet era. In my case, the media rushed to judgment so quickly that I was never able to make clear that the group put my name on its Web site without my permission. The group finally admitted that it never had my signature, but by then it was too late.
Just can’t stop lying.
Of course, not every position at the conference is held by many who attend or even most. Truthers were banned from Daily Kos years ago and Netroots Nation certainly doesn’t tolerate them either.
Another lie, another day. It’s a hell of a streak for Mark Kirk.
“J-Street is a controversial group known for its harsh criticism of Israel.”
Wow, seriously?
How’s about AIPAC is an ultra-right-wing organization that repeatedly sanctions foreign intelligence operations on American soil.
Just ask Jane Harman.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-28-2009/your-government-not-at-work—jane-harman-scandal
And citing Dershowitz? You might as well pulled a Waxman quote.
Oy.
Other than that, nice post.
Interesting that he didn’t deny signing the thing at the time, he just said he didn’t agree with it.
Jones, a Yale Law School graduate, said in a statement Friday, “I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/05/MNNQ19IR6U.DTL#ixzz0uuQMLe3h
So why didn’t he deny he signed it back when this was a big issue?
Every statement I have read reads as a denial of holding those beliefs–it sounds like he was trying to figure out if he signed something on accident–turns out he didn’t sign anything.
What is your source for that?
@ OneMan- When did you stop beating your wife?
AIPAC is a controversial group known for its harsh criticism of the United States.
[…] Kirk takes some time off from his lying to lie some more — this time about Netroots […]
My source is that he and a few others who were listed asked for documentation that they signed such a document and 911truth.org can’t provide any such documentation. It’s not just Jones who claims to have not signed on to it. Jones discussed it later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjRhujDDxWQ&feature=player_embedded
You stay classy James…
The comment was
I may think something, it doesn’t make it fact. Since the whole idea behind virtually everything about Kirk here is to question is credibility, I think it was/is appropriate to expect some level of documentation in what is being used to rebut Kirk.
Arch was in fact able to provide source where he says he didn’t sign it.
Oneman is pretty straightforward on this stuff, and I think it’s a legit question to see Jones did actually say he didn’t sign. I didn’t realize until a few days ago that he denied signing anything and had to look it up myself during the Sherrod stuff. I had thought he had said he signed on thing and then the online version was very different.
In fact, I’d be pretty forgiving if Kirk retracted the statement. But I doubt that’s forthcoming…though even when it broke Van Jones made it clear he didn’t think there was a cover-up.
And actually I’m pretty willing-at least when I think about it–to forgive misstatements and such. I’m a little extra pissy about Kirk right now for two reasons. One was I actually defended him a bit about the teaching and it turned out to be not so true. Two, is his inability to just say I screwed up. The statement about how he clearly didn’t say it was getting dark and then trying to walk it back with he didn’t mislead and such really kind of annoyed me.
I would have accepted, “well hell, I guess I screwed up!”
I think we can count the candidates who say “Hell I screwed up” on one hand…
LOL–that’s true, but there are politicalese ways of saying it
[…] Kirk takes some time off from his lying to lie some more — this time about Netroots […]