The White House Press Secretary stated that Obama did not endorse Jones's "past controversial statements," but note that nothing is said of Obama not endorsing Jones's sentiments.
Am I reading too much into that? Perhaps I am, but then this question must be answered: Why did Obama appoint the man in the first place if he did not approve of Jones's sentiments?
The NYT piece quotes Howard Dean on Jones's resignation:
This guy’s a Yale-educated lawyer. . . He’s a best-selling author about his specialty. I think he was brought down, and I think it’s too bad. Washington’s a tough place that way, and I think it’s a loss for the country.
Having an avowed militant marxist resign from his executive post is a loss for the country? This should tell you where to stand (or at least be suspicious) on any issue that Dean endorses.
Dean further defended Jones's having signed a petition that accused the Bush Administration of being complicit in the 9-11 attacks:
Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign. And he learned the hard way you ought not to do that.How surprising that someone who spouts out marxist rhetoric might not really think about what he's endorsing!