Why is the US First Figuring Out That Truther UN Offical is Falk-ing Nuts ?

In the twisted world of the United Nations, where fair is foul and foul is fair, Richard Falk is the perfect man to be work at the UN. As I pointed out when he was appointed to his position, Falk believes many of the wacko conspiracy theories circling the globe.

Falk is a big believer in human rights, who called the Ayatollah Khomeini a liberator. He blames Islamofacist terror on the fact that much of Islam "finds itself under the heels of U.S. economic, military, cultural, and diplomatic power." (Well at least that is cleared up). Falk is also a member of a lawyers organization that the CIA once called a "front" for the Soviet Union and just like Rosie O'Donnell is a member of groups who are still waiting for the "real" story of 9/11.

Even when I wrote about it, this was not new news:

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, "The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."Nearly nine months later, student followers of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for the following 444 days.

Back in March 2008 Falk was interviewed by radio host Kevin Barrett and said,

 "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

 So what gives, after almost three years and two Administrations sitting on their hands, why is this an issue now?  Well for one thing Falk doubled down on the truther claim. A November post on his blog stated:

The arguments swirling around the 9/11 attacks are emblematic of these issues. What fuels suspicions of conspiracy is the reluctance to address the sort of awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations that David Ray Griffin(and other devoted scholars of high integrity) have been documenting in book after book ever since his authoritative The New Pearl Harbor in 2004 (updated in 2008). What may be more distressing than the apparent cover up is the eerie silence of the mainstream media, unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an al Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials. Is this silence a manifestation of fear or cooption, or part of an equally disturbing filter of self-censorship? Whatever it is, the result is the withering away of a participatory citizenry and the erosion of legitimate constitutional government. The forms persist, but the content is missing.

 That post three months ago led  UN Ambassador Rice to react today by sending out a press release saying in part:

Mr. Falk’s comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. I have registered a strong protest with the UN on behalf of the United States. The United States has in the past been critical of Mr. Falk’s one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether.

In my view, Mr. Falk’s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN. I would note that U.S. and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the UN General Assembly.

The United States is deeply committed to the cause of human rights and believes that cause will be better advanced without Mr. Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create.

Again my question is why now?  When President Obama made the mistake of joining the hate group also known as the UN Human Rights Council why didn't he know about Falk then?  And if he didn't know, why not?  This latest move by Ambassador Rice either points to the incompetence of the Obama Administration for not knowing what they should, or they knew but hid the fact that Falk was a nut job as not to bring about more controversy for the misdirected move of joining the UN HRC.

H/T Politico