Just as “trutherism” (the belief than 9/11 was an inside job) has become prevalent on the web, so too has it come to pervade large segments of the American left. And while Charles Krauthammer “can’t get too excited” about a number of the chages against former White House green jobs Czar Van Jones that have worked some of his ideological confrères into a lather, he finds it appropriate that the Obama appointee lost his job for identifying with the “truthers” and troubling that the Administration (and its left-wing allies in general) haven’t done a better job of policing their extremes:
He’s gone for one reason and one reason only. 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.
Unlike the other stuff, . . . this is no trivial matter. It’s beyond radicalism, beyond partisanship. It takes us into the realm of political psychosis, a malignant paranoia that, unlike the Marxist posturing, is not amusing. It’s dangerous. In America, movements and parties are required to police their extremes. Bill Buckley did that with Birchers. Liberals need to do that with ‘truthers.’
You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier — a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice.
But reality doesn’t daunt Jones’s defenders. One Obama administration source told ABC that Jones hadn’t read the 2004 petition carefully enough, an excuse echoed by Howard Dean.
Carefully enough? It demanded the investigation of charges “that people within the current [Bush] administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”
And left-wingers whip themselves into a frenzy about “birthers,” suggesting they represented the mainstream of conservative opinion or Republican opposition, they seem eager to ignore or are reluctant to criticize the truthers in their midst.
(H/t: Jennifer Rubin.)