Elllson Compares 9-11 to Reichstag Fire

[ReillyT]

Did you miss this part?

On Tuesday, Ellison told me that he invoked the Reichstag fire to make the point that "in the aftermath of a tragedy, space is opened up for governments to take action that they could not have achieved before that." Which of the Bush administration's post-9/11 actions did he place in that category? The Iraq war, Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence and certain provisions of the Patriot Act, he said.

Those seem a tad short of unleashing storm troopers, torturing political opponents and demolishing the rule of law.

During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the atheists that "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Granted, such statements might get you dismissed as a nutball. But are they true?

Ellison now says they are not. When we spoke, he agreed that Osama bin Laden -- not the Bush administration -- was responsible for the attacks on 9/11.

But why didn't he do the responsible thing and say that when asked about it at the atheists' meeting?

I don't understand. Nothing in what you just quoted had him ever saying that it was an inside job. In both of the sections which actually quote Ellison, he is making it clear that a) it was not an inside job, and b) it opened an arena for the expansion of executive power. Okay... cool. I got no problem with either of those statements.

The only other instance of him speaking (and it is not quoted) is where the columnist says that "he agreed that Osama bin Laden -- not the Bush administration -- was responsible for the attacks on 9/11."

Cool once again. I don't get. Please refer back to my introductory comparison lesson, and review the portions A & B.

[On a related point, I think pretty much (I don't know them all) all the liberals on this board would say that 9/11 was not an inside job. We would also disagree with someone who did say that. The only 9/11 question left with respect to Ellison is what did he mean. He says he never meant it was an inside job, so.... we're cool.]

 

[red states rule]

I don't understand. Nothing in what you just quoted had him ever saying that it was an inside job. In both of the sections which actually quote Ellison, he is making it clear that a) it was not an inside job, and b) it opened an arena for the expansion of executive power. Okay... cool. I got no problem with either of those statements.

The only other instance of him speaking (and it is not quoted) is where the columnist says that "he agreed that Osama bin Laden -- not the Bush administration -- was responsible for the attacks on 9/11."

Cool once again. I don't get. Please refer back to my introductory comparison lesson, and review the portions A & B.

[On a related point, I think pretty much (I don't know them all) all the liberals on this board would say that 9/11 was not an inside job. We would also disagree with someone who did say that. The only 9/11 question left with respect to Ellison is what did he mean. He says he never meant it was an inside job, so.... we're cool.]

as the writer pointed out - and ypu eiother do not get or are ignoring - Ellison at one time said OBL was responsible for 9-11, now he says he is not

 

[ReillyT]

as the writer pointed out - and ypu eiother do not get or are ignoring - Ellison at one time said OBL was responsible for 9-11, now he says he is not

Actually, the writer suggests (but never actually states) that he at one time said this, but never quotes him actually saying it. He also never quotes Ellison admitting that he ever said it.

In fact, the only way that the writer attributes such statements is with the following:

"During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the atheists that "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Granted, such statements might get you dismissed as a nutball. But are they true?

Ellison now says they are not."

The writer says that "now" Ellison doesn't believe it was an inside job, but never actually points out a situation where Ellison ever thought it was an inside job.

Anyway, my interpretation leads me to believe that Ellison never said it was an inside job. If I am wrong, and in this case I doubt it, and Ellison did say that it was an inside job, then I would disagree with that. See, we have no problem. We agree in all but the details. Happy Day!

 

[red states rule]

Actually, the writer suggests (but never actually states) that he at one time said this, but never quotes him actually saying it. He also never quotes Ellison admitting that he ever said it.

In fact, the only way that the writer attributes such statements is with the following:

"During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the atheists that "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Granted, such statements might get you dismissed as a nutball. But are they true?

Ellison now says they are not."

The writer says that "now" Ellison doesn't believe it was an inside job, but never actually points out a situation where Ellison ever thought it was an inside job.

Anyway, my interpretation leads me to believe that Ellison never said it was an inside job. If I am wrong, and in this case I doubt it, and Ellison did say that it was an inside job, then I would disagree with that. See, we have no problem. We agree in all but the details. Happy Day!

As I said, libs are providing him cover and the liberal media is ignoring the story

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually, the writer suggests (but never actually states) that he at one time said this, but never quotes him actually saying it. He also never quotes Ellison admitting that he ever said it.

In fact, the only way that the writer attributes such statements is with the following:

"During his speech, Ellison went on to tell the atheists that "I'm not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that, because, you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box -- dismiss you."

Granted, such statements might get you dismissed as a nutball. But are they true?

Ellison now says they are not."

The writer says that "now" Ellison doesn't believe it was an inside job, but never actually points out a situation where Ellison ever thought it was an inside job.

Anyway, my interpretation leads me to believe that Ellison never said it was an inside job. If I am wrong, and in this case I doubt it, and Ellison did say that it was an inside job, then I would disagree with that. See, we have no problem. We agree in all but the details. Happy Day!

Wait, the left can not provide one piece of evidence that Cheney ever said he was not part of the Executive Branch, they just make the claim as if it were true AND people like you lap it up. But on this matter your a doubting Thomas?

 

[red states rule]

Wait, the left can not provide one piece of evidence that Cheney ever said he was not part of the Executive Branch, they just make the claim as if it were true AND people like you lap it up. But on this matter your a doubting Thomas?

When have libs ever cared about facts?

 

[Rosotar]

Libs cannot go very long without pulling out the Hitler card. Now elected Dems are doing it - that is what I am talking about

Once again you fail to actually address the similarities.

Tell me RSR, in regard to Hitler's power grab after the Reischtag fire, how is Bush's power grab after 9-11 different?

 

[Rosotar]

You are being evasive RSR.

Please answer my question.

Why the ranting and raving about the logical comparison of Bush to Hitler in regard to consolidation of power in the aftermath of a real or perceived national emergency?

 

[Ninja]

Once again you fail to actually address the similarities.

Tell me RSR, in regard to Hitler's power grab after the Reischtag fire, how is Bush's power grab after 9-11 different?

Well, for one thing, you didn't lose all of your civil liberties on September 12th, 2001.

 

[Ninja]

You are being evasive RSR.

Please answer my question.

Why the ranting and raving about the logical comparison of Bush to Hitler in regard to consolidation of power in the aftermath of a real or perceived national emergency?

It's not logical. Have Larkinn explain it to you. I'm surprised he hasn't already.

 

[ReillyT]

Well, for one thing, you didn't lose all of your civil liberties on September 12th, 2001.

I agree with this. They may be analogous, but they are very different in scope and, obviously, end result.

 

[red states rule]

Once again you fail to actually address the similarities.

Tell me RSR, in regard to Hitler's power grab after the Reischtag fire, how is Bush's power grab after 9-11 different?

I have not seen a Secret Police Unit come and take you off to prison for speaking out against the administration

 

[Paulie]

I have not seen a Secret Police Unit come and take you off to prison for speaking out against the administration

Well with the MCA of 2006 which eliminates Habeus Corpus, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act which eliminates Posse Comitatus and gives Bush sole authority to mobilize state N.G. Units and declare Federal martial law (first president in history with that power), and the Patriot Act (Enabling Act), he's about 1 big terrorist event away from having Carte Blanche to do so.

Wake up and smell it, RSR. The man's a dictator now, as is whoever follows him, should they not overturn those bills...and I would be saying the exact same thing about ANYONE ELSE as well, regardless of their politcal affiliation, had they done the same things Bush and Cheney have done since 9/11.

 

[red states rule]

Well with the MCA of 2006 which eliminates Habeus Corpus, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act which eliminates Posse Comitatus and gives Bush sole authority to mobilize state N.G. Units and declare Federal martial law (first president in history with that power), and the Patriot Act (Enabling Act), he's about 1 big terrorist event away from having Carte Blanche to do so.

Wake up and smell it, RSR. The man's a dictator now, as is whoever follows him, should they not overturn those bills...and I would be saying the exact same thing about ANYONE ELSE as well, regardless of their politcal affiliation, had they done the same things Bush and Cheney have done since 9/11.

We are at war - the US can't fight and win a PC war Paultitics. If the left would only want to defeat the terrorists wand stop worrying about the terrorists "rights"

 

[Paulie]

We are at war - the US can't fight and win a PC war Paultitics. If the left would only want to defeat the terrorists wand stop worrying about the terrorists "rights"

That's where we differ, RSR. You think it's a legitamite war...I don't.

We use our military might to tighten our grip around the international community in the name of 'fighting terrorism', while we leave our own front door unlocked, and then argue whether we should lock it or not.

It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and it insults my intelligence.

 

[red states rule]

That's where we differ, RSR. You think it's a legitamite war...I don't.

We use our military might to tighten our grip around the international community in the name of 'fighting terrorism', while we leave our own front door unlocked, and then argue whether we should lock it or not.

It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and it insults my intelligence.

You have some before I can insult it

If our front door is unlocked - where are the attacks?

The terrorists have declared war on America, while you want to ignore them and hope they go away

 

[Annie]

Well with the MCA of 2006 which eliminates Habeus Corpus, and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act which eliminates Posse Comitatus and gives Bush sole authority to mobilize state N.G. Units and declare Federal martial law (first president in history with that power), and the Patriot Act (Enabling Act), he's about 1 big terrorist event away from having Carte Blanche to do so.

Wake up and smell it, RSR. The man's a dictator now, as is whoever follows him, should they not overturn those bills...and I would be saying the exact same thing about ANYONE ELSE as well, regardless of their politcal affiliation, had they done the same things Bush and Cheney have done since 9/11.

Okkkaaaayyyy, I guess you are buying into the rhetoric. Lots of links for those that read. I'm not keen on Bush, but what you are suggesting is wott. Ellison on the other hand:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018270.php

July 18, 2007
What is CAIR?

CAIR is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). It holds itself out as a civil rights group. Yesterday it held a panel discussion on "Islamophobia" at the National Press Conference. At the event, CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed denounced the Bush administration as a fount of "Islamophobia." Audrey Hudson and Sara Carter report on Ahmed's comments in today's Washington Times.

By apearing on the panel with Ahmed, in my view, David Keene unfortunately dignified CAIR by treating it as the civil rights organization it pretends to be (even if he only appeared to express his disagreement with the theme of the event). For those with eyes to see, the mask has long since fallen from CAIR. Even such stalwart Democrats as Senators Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer have come to recognize CAIR's "association with groups that are suspect," its "ties to terrorism" and its "intimate links with Hamas." Most recently, Aaron Mannes elaborated on CAIR's Hamas connection in "CAIR and Hamas: Implications and an illustration."

In fact, in the words of Anti-CAIR, since its founding in 1994, CAIR, its employees and its officials have worked with third parties including the Islamic Association for Palestine, the Holy Land Foundation, and the Global Relief Foundation to provide material support to known terrorist organizations, to advance the Hamas agenda and to propagate radical Islam. See generally "CAIR: Islamists fooling the establishment" by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha and "CAIR backs down from Anti-CAIR" by Daniel Pipes.

Is CAIR still fooling the establishment? For a while after 9/11, it certainly did so. The subsequent convictions of CAIR officials and employees for terror-related activities have made it increasingly difficult for CAIR to continue its charade with the same high level of success.

Nihad Awad is the executive director of CAIR (and a key friend of Keith Ellison). Meet Nihad Awad:

• Awad publicly declared his enthusiasm for Hamas at Barry University in Florida in 1994: "I'm in support of Hamas movement more than the PLO." (This was of course at the time the PLO had entered into the Oslo Accords with Israel.)

• The same year, according to the Weekly Standard, when Mike Wallace of CBS's "60 Minutes" asked Awad if he supports the "military undertakings of Hamas," Awad stood up for the terrorist group and told him, "The United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation [the right] to defend themselves against illegal occupation."

• In an August 19, 2006 interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Awad rationalized suicide terrorism by suggesting it's really about fighting injustice. He referred to the writing of author Robert Pape on the subject: "He found out that it [suicide terrorism] has more to do with occupations and fighting injustice than religion. It really responds to the myth and the known notion now that has been used by several commentators and some politicians as a cliché because it sounds maybe dramatically well but factually it is not."

• Shortly after September 11, 2001, Awad and CAIR placed on their site a picture of the World Trade Center in flames and under it a call for donations. It read, "What you can do for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks," and by clicking on "Donate to the NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund" one was unsuspectingly sent directly to the website of the Holy Land Foundation. A week later, the wording of the site was changed, as visitors to the site were directly told to "Donate through the Holy Land Foundation." The link was on CAIR's website until early December 2001, when the information mysteriously disappeared.

• On December 4, 2001, the reason for the disappearance was apparent, as the Holy Land Foundation's assets were blocked by the United States government for funneling money to Hamas. According to the White House site, "The U.S.-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development [provided] millions of dollars each year that [was] used by HAMAS."

• On Sept. 16, 2000, at a Washington rally sponsored by CAIR, AMC, and MPAC, Awad declared: "They [the Jews] have been saying 'next year to Jerusalem,' we say 'next year to all of Palestine!'"

Awad is a former official of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which was a front group for Hamas. As one can infer from the items above, Awad and CAIR appear to act as voices of the "Wahhabi lobby" and as a front for supporters of Islamist terrorism. Below is a photo of Awad speaking on April 20, 2002 in Washington, D.C. on a stage bearing the flag of Hezbollah.

awad.jpg

And who is Parvez Ahmed? Ahmed is a prominent supporter of Sami Al-Arian, the convicted terrorist financier and head of the North American branch of the terrorist Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

 

[Paulie]

Okkkaaaayyyy, I guess you are buying into the rhetoric. Lots of links for those that read. I'm not keen on Bush, but what you are suggesting is wott.

over the top? I merely stated the facts. Habeus Corpus is an inalienable HUMAN RIGHT...it was never intended to be taken away at a president's will. And for a President of the United States to have authority over each state's National Guard unit for domestic deployment to police the nation, it sickens me.

No other president has had this type of authority literally handed over to him by congress...in a most treasonous way, i might add.

Your rebuttal please, Kathianne.

 

[Annie]

over the top? I merely stated the facts. Habeus Corpus is an inalienable HUMAN RIGHT...it was never intended to be taken away at a president's will. And for a President of the United States to have authority over each state's National Guard unit for domestic deployment to police the nation, it sickens me.

No other president has had this type of authority literally handed over to him by congress...in a most treasonous way, i might add.

Your rebuttal please, Kathianne.

When did the president not have the right to call out the National Guard? Seems to me that RFK did so for good cause during the Civil Rights days.

Habeas Corpus is important, I agree. Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, but a 'human right?' You base that claim on what?

 

[Paulie]

When did the president not have the right to call out the National Guard? Seems to me that RFK did so for good cause during the Civil Rights days.

The president has never had that right. Each state's governor presides over that authority, until a tiny little provision in the John Warner Act of 2007, which i'm sure we all know most lawmakers didn't bother to proofread, changed that.

And RFK wasn't a president. Kathianne, you don't make enough sense to debate me here. Almost every post you make towards me has something in it that makes no sense.

Habeas Corpus is important, I agree. Lincoln suspended it during the Civil War, but a 'human right?' You base that claim on what?

On what? It's very definition. When you step into this, or many other countries, whether you are illegal or not, you are protected under the Writ of Habeas Corpus. It is not only a US Citizen's right, its a HUMAN right in this country.

You say someone is a terrorist? Then charge him with something and let him have access to a lawyer, and Due Process. To not do so, and blindly just accept that the government is legit and truthful about their accusation, is Treason.

Most of the public doesn't really care much farther than that accusation. We've all been so programmed to accept terrorism and it's imminence, that we couldn't care less about the legal rights of someone who is accused, as long as they are accused of "terrorism".

I've seen very vague proof, if any - in many cases, that most people accused by the administration of terrorism are actually even viable terrorist threats to begin with.

What Bush has effectively done is set the table to declare federal martial law in the event that the public FINALLY becomes outraged enough to hit the streets in mass protest of the administration's actions.

We're one big event away from Nazi US.

I'm sure the establishment is counting on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" and "America's Got Talent" to keep the public's outrage sequestered.