Recently Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison made the following statement about Persident Bush:


Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag, or German Parliament building, was burned in 1933 ahead of elections that pitted Hitler's Nazi Party against others, including the Communists. Hitler, who was suspected of ordering the fire, declared emergency powers that helped him launch his dictatorial and murderous reign.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289485,00.html

Questions for the Debate:

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.
3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.
4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?

Well you sure can, and do on a regular basis. Just because we can engage in these political-slander peeing contests does NOT mean we should. Besides comparing apples and oranges, the focus shifts away from what was said and ends up on who said it; and that leads to lousy discussions.

2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.

If you must ask, what Coulter does is much worse. She routinely slanders and insults millions of people and in doing so cripples political debate and bipartisanship. Congressman Ellis engaged in a rather tired (and yes, offensive) political ploy which is so universally discredited that it only hurts himself.

3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.

The left? Who should we include in this list? Che Guevara had some interesting things to say, but then again so did people like Keynes; "The Left" is a useless term without context, and a barely useful one with it. What is the point of engaging in some comparisons?

4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

So Ellison Godwinned Bush. I ask, what is harmed beyond his own credibility? Elected officials have been putting their feet in their mouths as long as they've been elected, so one more isn't going to undermine any political institutions; Bush has heard much worse come from people much closer, so it's not likely he's going to care; and 'the people' know a fallacious argument (or at least this one in particular) when they see it, so they will disregard or sneer.

Him being elected means nothing except for the fact that the statement becomes fodder for people with an axe to grind, or those desperate enough to excuse the deplorable behaviour of others by playing the "but XXX said something much worse" card. Not that anyone here would stoop so low...

1 - Sure go ahead. It took a week for this story to get legs and they're already tired.
4 - Well Coulter is supposed to say inflammatory things. It's her job. Ellison, however, should really try his best not to look so much like a Truther.

However, Ted, you're really missing the boat on Ellison. This guy is a piece of work. Keith Ellison For Dummies is a nice primer. The Truth About Keith Ellison is pretty good too. The gist is, this guy is no moderate Muslim. This guy is a hardcore Nation Of Islam wacko. Further he's used his victimhood to bamboozle the Democrats of Minnesota into nominating his current position. In fact, anyone who thought to question anything about him would instantly be branded a Islamophobic.

Questions for the Debate:

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.
3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.
4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

Is there much of a debate here? Ann Coulter says things like that to rile people up, usually for financial gain. Keith Ellison is an elected official, which generally infers he is speaking for his constituency. If his voters feel this is inappropriate, he will be voted out of office. If they agree, they'll keep him in. That said, there isn't much of a difference. Ellison was attempting to use a comparison, and much like all comparisons to Hitler, it was inappropriate. For all Bush's ineptitude, he hasn't committed genocide. He did start a war under false pretenses, which I think is bad enough. But the unrelenting slaughter of innocents? Hardly. At least, not yet.

I don't think it's more or less offensive, mainly because Ann Coulter is an idiot, and Keith Ellison is an elected official. If we did a comparison of things Coulter has said to what Ellison has said, I am certain Coulter would win hands down in the absurdity and lunacy categories. Ellison, for what it's worth, honestly doesn't have as much clout as Coulter does. That's a frightening admission, but true nonetheless. Anytime anyone compares a current leader to Hitler generally invalidates their argument. But Coulter's rantings are her own and people buy her books to read them. Mr. Ellison represents Americans in Congress. If his voters want him to say things like that, then who is to stop him? I'd say it's far less worse for him to say things like that BECAUSE he's an elected official. He's a representative, and if he's representing what his voters want, then we would have to condemn those people of Minnesota who voted for him as well.

What are we debating here? Whether or not Coulter should get a free pass because those on the left also say stupid things?

So people who call all conservatives names are not in the same league? Please sir. Do they cripple “political debate”.

Is Jessie Jackson any less a public figure than Ann C? Or is it ok since he is a Liberal – that word better for you? Still a slime ball and this clown has said more than AC ever will.

Springtime For Slanderers
Who are you calling a Nazi?

By Jonah Goldberg
In South Africa, we call it apartheid. In Nazi Germany, we'd call it fascism. Here in the United States, we call it conservatism,” said Jesse Jackson years ago. There’s no evidence that he’s changed his mind. During the Florida mess he accused Bush of “Nazi tactics” and suggested that Jeb Bush was deliberately targeting Holocaust victims, “once again.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjYzZ...WY3MzY0NjkxNzY=



So it’s ok for an elected official to compare the President to one of the worst monsters in history but a major sin when Coulter calls a politician a faggot?

You have to be joking. Your statement reeks of the hypocrisy so obvious in the AC thread. Ann “cripples political debate” but Jackson and this clown Ellison are just poking fun? Give me a break sir.

Questions for the Debate:

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
Hardly and just for the record Ted you started out by slandering Ellison. He neither says or implies that the BA rigged 9/11, in fact he goes out of his way to say otherwise. The comparison to Hitler one needs to be careful with but it is not in principle out of line if properly qualified. Both the BA and Hitler used their respective events to enhance their personal power beyond necessity and push pre-existing political agendas under the cover of securing the nation against immanent attack. The neocons wanted to invade Iraq and 911 provided the pretext and so they "fixed" the intelligence to justify going in for ostensibly WMD purposes, which was not arguably their actual principal reason for invading. After all, the UN inspectors were there to handle that end of it.

Coulter is an in-it-for-the-money political hack. She'll say just about anything to hurt the democrats, attract an audience and make money. Ellison was making a legitimate analogy from history, but could perhaps have qualified the matter a bit more carefully to make sure he wasn't saying Bush was just like Hitler, which clearly isn't the case.

2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.
Not even close. Coulter on a normal day is much worse.

3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.

Probably Christopher Hitchens leftwing attacks on anyone who criticizes Bush's invasion of Iraq would come the closest. He also called Jerry Falwell a toad. The truth is the antiBush left on wide open political forums can be right up there with Coulter, calling her a transexual, money grubbing, hatchet faced, partisan blah blah blah, which puts them about on her level. My preference is Al Qaeda moll. But on the professional level I don't know anyone on the left who comes close other than Hitchens, who often works her side of the street. Liberals aren't suppose to be that way. Interesting, I've been on a few forums and without question AC is the most frequently linked to conservative political writer by a country mile. She is definitely a forum favorite.

4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

Ellison was making a serious point. AC is into making serious money and engaging in driveby political hits meant to attract attention and shock more than clarify or make serious discussion possible. She doesn't care who she hurts along the way and she constantly lies without shame.

While Hitchens' idiosyncratic ideas and positions preclude easy classification, he is a vociferous critic of what he describes as "fascism with an Islamic face," and his critics have been known to describe him as a "neoconservative". Hitchens, however, refuses to embrace this designation. In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Bosnia and Iraq convinced him that he was "on the same side as the neo-conservatives" when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues. He has also been known to refer to his association with "temporary neocon allies".
...He points out that, throughout his career, he has been both an atheist and an antitheist, and that he has always remained a believer in the Enlightenment values of secularism, humanism and reason. Hitchens has launched a detailed criticism of religion in his book God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. He has also stated that, while he "was very much in rebellion against the state" during his youth, he is now "much more inclined to stress […] issues of individual liberty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

While Hitchens is often bombastic, I don’t know if we can line him up on the left all the time. Atheism has sometime been seen as property of the left, yet Ayn Rand was an atheist.

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.
3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.
4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

This kinda reminds me of an old saying, two wrongs don't make a right. Although, there's no real evidence that Democrats are devil spawn or that Edwards is a wimpy homosexual. However, there is evidence that the Bush administration uses the tactics of fascists:



That's from the original StarTribune article that the Fox article links as its source for its op-ed piece.

The reference to Hitler does have some merit in the context of gaining power. But it's not a direct equation, just that events after 9/11 remind this guy of events in early Nazi Germany.

According to Fox, "Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks."

'K, maybe so, but the source link doesn't mention this defensive situation. Have to take Fox's opinion on that, but then again, I don't. I really don't care what impression Fox is left with because I don't trust that outlet's judgment.

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. Coulter says things that have no factual support. I suppose some leftwing pundit does the same thing. Neither are right, so both are wrong. 0+0=0

Ted, I am many things, but a hypocrit isn't one of them. Are you so wounded by political infighting that you seem to interpret any attack on your arguments as an attack on your broader belief-system?



Yes they do cripple debate, but this thread isn't about them. Congressman Ellison's remarks (or at least the ones we are discussing) didn't not include any such sentiments; if they did I would be equally caustic in my appraisal as I was with Coulter, perhaps more so because he is a Congressman.... yet, he didn't. As I said before, the problem with this discussion is that it becomes a debate about who said it and less about what was said.

I was not aware of Jesse Jackson's claims. I find them just as disreputable and offensive as some of the things that Coulter has said; I no more embrace him than I do her.

You sir owe me an apology, or do you not know what they say about someone who makes assumptions?



I can see how you could come to that conclusion: after all I never said it or believed it for a second, so it must be what I meant to say... No, it's not ok. But yes, I do think it is worse when someone uses a hateful derogatory term that offends millions of people in the U.S. than when someone makes a stupid and disingenuous comparison of one person to a butcher like Hitler. Neither is "ok." How you could come to such a conclusion boggles the mind.

edited to be a bit more friendly.

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
Of course we can. Problem is, it isn't slander. Ellison is actually making a fair historical comparison as opposed to a less intelligent argument that Jesse Jackson made as was quoted earlier.
2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.

Not even close. But I don't expect Ted to understand the difference.

Question #3 is a little too open ended for my taste, and I don't really see the point.

4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?
If you source one of Ann's quotes to Ellison, it certainly would be worse. Ellison is expected to carry a higher standard than Ann. Problem is, what Ellison said was neither slanderous nor all that outrageous.

The Reichstag Fire is a pretty fair point of comparison for the US as it relates to 9/11. While the abuses that took place in terms of Reichstag are extreme compared to our own experience, it serves as a useful lesson to those who are willing to give up our liberties in response to a national crisis. Pearl Harbor would probably be a good point of comparison as well.

1) No. Ann Coulter is a pundit; this man is a US Rep.; I would suggest what he has said amounts to treason and could be argued is a violation of his oath of office. He perhaps should be censured, or even impeached. He has not one shred of evidence for his statement, and that is what is so deplorable. In addition, he could have made the allegation--if he had any evidence--without ever mentioning Hitler. He was just trying, as a rookie Congressman, to get some attention in the press, which is doubly deplorable--pure grandstanding at the President's expense, and for our enemy's benefit. I wouldn't be surprised if Ellison's and Cynthia McKinney's statements are not featured in a future al-Qaeda video.

2) Absolutely--see 1 above.

3) Ann Coulter is irrelevant here. She is a pundit, an entertainer; he is a US Rep. The level of responsibility and accountability is light-years apart. What is so funny here is that if a white US Rep. called this Ellison a "n-word", he'd have been censured already; compare the president to Adolph Hitler, one of the most crazed, sociopathic mass murderers in history, and it merits a few lines on Fox news. Boy, are our priorities and our sense of discernment out of balance.

4) See 1, 2 and 3 above.

Firstly (ha, I used it) it's impossible for a person mentioned in the questions for debate to be irrelevant.

You could say she is not relevant to consideration about Ellison but I doubt the thread start would thank you for it.

Second Ellison did not call bush Hitler or even imply that they were the same.

He mentioned Hitler as an example of the abuse of executive authority he accuses Bush of. Not genocide, not invading Poland

..just running rampant over the check and balanced outlined in the Constitution.

Edited to include a video link:
Link

Even if he didn't call Bush a Hitler analogies to the Third Reich have been abused for so long it's virtually impossible to separate legitimate from illegitimate arguments. Add in the media factor and the nonsense gets cranked up several hundred decibels. I have a feeling Ellison won't use Hitler again after this blows over.

On the bright side, maybe I'm more sardonic than usual but I was heartened to read about a Muslim who thinks Hitler was a bad man and he did not empty an Uzi clip into a crowd of heretical atheists.

The link only shows PART of the speech.

In any event, there is no evidence that 9-11 was perpetrated by our own govt to generate support and motivation for future actions. Ellison throws around inflammatory comments rather than using statesmanlike and measured language for grandstanding purposes--he is exactly the kind of person we do not need in leadership in our nation. In any event, to throw around such accusations without evidence is beyond deplorable, esp for a man who, just like the men he is accusing, took an oath to uphold the Const of the US and protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic, even if he took the oath holding a Koran....

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?
2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.
3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.
4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

I just want to make a single point here, which is that it has never, not since 1939, been outside of the bounds of political courtesy for a congressman to compare another politician to Hitler, Mussolini, or some devil from the days of depression-era fascism.

And while Ellison's remark is far from constructive, it hardly reflects a new low in politics: in fact, since it invariably comes tethered to some drawn-out historical comparisons -- which is more than I can say for the term 'islamo-fascists,' for instance -- it might even represent an upswing in the quality of our Hitler comparisons.

Most glaringly, how many times have we democrats been compared to Neville Chamberlain, by the GOP presidential frontrunner no less?

1.) Maybe Chamberlain never killed millions of innocents -- but Ellison is not accusing Bush of mass-murder, just of capitalizing off of a tragedy. Even Bush would have to admit he capitalized off of 9/11, for good or for bad, you decide. So, I think that's a blunt and inaccurate comparison -- the type of rhetoric more likely to ricochet off the press and come back to hurt him -- but its hardly on the same level of counter-productive, hype-for-hype sake PR that the Coulter machine makes routine headlines with. That's like comparing a klutz like Cindy Sheehan to a calculated news-maker like Paris Hilton.


Personally I have called for a moratorium on WWII comparisons many times on AD, and I'm sorry to see someone on the left use the tactic. Since Vietnam America has obsessed over our last and greatest unambiguously just war, and frankly, I think we as a people suffer greatly for it.

Here's what this blog had to say about the subject:



Clumsy Hitler comparisons are one form of shutting off that conversation; infering that a top teir presidential candidate is a homosexual is much more brutal way to shut off that conversation.

Joe, I never said you were a hypocrite (you are not imo) I said the statement is hypocritical since clearly if AC says anything that “cripples the political process” – whatever that is – Jessie J and numerous other liberals do exactly the same and your saying you abhor his statement does not rise to admitting that.



D
So how hard would it be for me to find statements by liberals where they use the term “conservative” followed by terms at least as bad as anything AC ever said or will say? Far too easy and JJ’s comment is not the only one from him. We could go to Sharpton and on down the line.

Of course you don’t because then you might have to consider that there are lots of other – perhaps less popular- bomb throwers on the left – and I know you don’t want to admit that – do you.

I think there's a key misunderstanding here.

The fact is the American left typically does not fall on its sword to defend its own Ann Coulter's... if you could ever find any.

If you want to make a parade for us to judge be my guest, but don't expect the same devotion that some have showed Coulter after she called Edwards a faggot.

You won't find it.

I have admitted as such on other threads, Ted, not that I'd expect you to pay attention to it. The difference that you fail to understand, as Turnea has pointed out as well, is that you won't find any of us defending the bomb throwing like you have with Ann C.

However, in this case, I think I made a pretty fair argument that Ellison's remarks don't even enter the same room as Ann's. Care to tackle those or are you more interested in doing your own bomb throwing?

Ah, Jackson and Sharpton. This shows the weakness in many of your posts Ted. It's like the eagle flies from thread to thread leaving droppings as it goes.

Instead of just accusing Jackson and Sharpton of being as or more virulent than Coulter, why don't you illustrate with some concrete examples. You know, J. J. and Al's Greatest Hits.

Oh and, this thread was about Ellison, but you've shifted gears to include Jackson and Sharpton.

I did quote a classic JJ above.




No the thread is NOT just about Ellison (nice try) . Try reading the questions. I am specifically asking that you look for statements on the left that compare with AC speech. There are plenty and I can’t wait for your reply.

IMO to imagine AC has any monopoly of rough political speech is a little silly. Your buddy Jessie labeling all conservatives as fascists is about as nasty as it comes.




Yes you think calling Bush Hitler is ok and I disagree and you duck the JJ quote. Certainly you can find more. Do you really believ anything AC has said is any worse than the rhetoric from liberals? Why?

Ok, the title mentions a Democratic Congressman. Jackson and Sharpon are not Congressmen.



Try reading your own thread. Question four specifically mentions Ellison and the title "a Democratic Congressman."

This is the way Fox headlined Ellison's comments. In Meeting With Atheists, Rep. Ellison Compares President Bush to Hitler

Ellison offered this comment at an atheist convention. See if the headline holds up.

http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1291147.html



But to Ellison's point. After 9/11 terrorism was broadly defined so what was primarily a fairly narrowly focused policing and intelligence problem(Yes, the Afghan exception is noted) was turned into an opportunity to engage in an extended war agenda, with unlimited war making powers handed to the president. In both cases demagoguery was used and a broad pervasive enemy was created and extraordinary powers were assumed. Under the slogan "War on terror" Iraq, whose leader was an enemy of Al Qaeda, was invaded, based on bogus promises to Congress and without Security Council authorization and arguably cooked intelligence that was "fixed" to support the invasion agenda. The UN inspectors who were dutifully seeking out hidden WMDs were dismissed.

The PNAC plan was put into action, with Iraq being the first stage on what was to be an extended transformation of the Muslim world, with Iran being the big prize. The BA's PNAC domino policy got waylaid along the way but has certainly not been abandoned. As part of the process, we get the seizing of terrorist suspects anywhere and confining of "enemy combatants" without a hearing and the use of torture, often through rendition in foreign countries. As in the Reichstag burning, a limited act, in this case by a Dutch nutcase, is broadened into a general all encompassing war against a pervasive enemy, in the Nazi case Jew-communists; in the BA case, anyone they want to call a Muslim terrorist or supporter. An attack by a specific group with a transparent agenda is broadened into a general right to attack any Muslim group that the BA finds distasteful. A police problem becomes a crusade in the heart of Islam with an American president assuming extraordinary powers to conduct the crusade, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

Ellison's comments were casual and could have been tightened up a bit but basically they were accurate. A partisan demagogue like Coulter isn't even in the same ballpark.

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?


Well, I suppose we could, but it won't fly with the liberal left in this country. You know, those "tolerant" ones who want to live in peace and harmony. Keith Ellison is immune from criticism for three reasons.....

1 - He's a liberal Democrat and we all know liberal Democrats don't make hate speeches.
2 - He's an African-American and thus immune from any charges of racism (see Jessie Jackson and Hymietown)
3 - He's a Muslim and we all know how tolerant Muslims are of others. Nevermind that little misunderstanding about him supporting Farrakhan and calling for a separate nation for blacks. link. He gets a free pass on that. He "didn't know any better".



2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.


Apparently not, not here at least.


3. What other statements from the left compare with Ann Coulter from the right.

Well, Jullian Bond's comments might come close, but then again, he's immune. Liberals don't make hate speeches.




4. Are they all equal or is the Ellison statement worse because he is an elected official?

Let's try this and see how it flies. Keith Ellison is a political pimp. He stands on the political corner and gives his Johns what they want. That's what a pimp does isn't it? So, if he can compare Bush to Hitler and at the same time embrace atheism as a Muslim to play to his audience, he'll do it. That's what pimps do. "Hey man, whatever you want." Not quite sure what the Koran says about that, but it's okay, he's covered. He's still a liberal Democrat and an African American, so he's covered. We only beat up on white women here and call them whores.


Edited to add......

The fact that he is an elected official doesn't make it worse or better. It does however indicate that some of the people in Minnesota are suffering from permanent brain freeze. Sheesh! Who in the hell lives where the temperature is like 20 fricking degrees below zero? Heck, they ought to be electing someone who is in favor of this so-called "global warming" thing. Who knows, we might be able to warm the temperature up to 15 below if we have enough SUV's out there. Might even help out Canada. Doubt that..... Oh well, he was elected and that must count for something.


Aquilla

1. Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?

Yup, sure can. This kind of thing should be covered on every station just like when Ann fouls up. If Bush was even remotely similar to Hitler at least we would have probably won the war by now, only problem is the positives end their, we would then probably try and use our power to initiate war with anyone who varies from us, and thats almost everyone. You really cant compare Hitler to Bush to any extent, I think thats ridiculous. Oh lets not forget how much fun the Jews in America would sure be having, along with anyone else who disagreed with our presidents war plans. So Bye Bye anti-war enthusiast, if Bush was anything like Hitler, your opinion would no longer matter, in fact it could easily get you killed. In short Hitler makes Bush look like an angel sent straight from heaven.

2. Is this type of statement actually more offensive than anything Ann Coulter has ever said or is she in the same league.

I'm not going to say its more offensive, its certainly just as offensive, and since people want to make an example of Ann perhaps if our media was fair this kind of thing would get the same degree of attention she did.

Can we compare this outrageous slander to statements made by people like Ann Coulter? Why or why not?

I can't take this debate very seriously. The posts here have both self-identified liberals and self-identified conservatives arguing who deserves the most "politically correct" ire. I'm surprised in fact that folks who declaim political correctness seem to employ it when it suits their agenda.

I just don't see this as something to get worked up about. I guess I don't buy into the whole political correctness thing. Nor do I buy into the whole "tit-for-tat" playground antics I see people use as justification for their positions.

But, to directly answer the debate question... Of course, we can compare slander statements between AC and Ellison -- it's being done right here. Unless... Perhaps, the question is trying to get us to compare who is the more "politically incorrect", AC or Ellison. I can't answer that -- I'm not a moral relativist.

Hmmm, since my last post I've gotten an interesting education.

Poster #1 informs us that liberal democrats, blacks and Muslims are immune from criticism. Interesting.

Poster #2 takes at face value that Bush and Hitler were being directly compared and darkly reminds us that if in fact Bush was Hitler we wouldn't be around to criticize him. Nice strawman.

Poster #3 lets us know he is above it all and sagely announces that liberals will sound like liberals and conservatives like conservatives. Insights like that make my day.

Simple point: there are events in the third Reich and the BA that lend themselves to meaningful comparison if properly handled. Ellison offers an important one - the arson against the Reichstag and the 911 attack. Properly analyzed there is a comparison. I've been there and done that. Nothing in Ellison's comment involves a direct personal comparison between Bush and Hitler.

Ellison didn't call Bush Hitler, that's the part you don't get. Get beyond the sound byte Ted and look at his actual argument. Its a little extreme, but the historical parallels are deniable (especially since you choose not to even discuss it).

I'm not ducking the JJ quote, I even said it was poor compared to Ellison's argument.

What you, Aquilla, and Net2007 don't get is that most liberals are willing to hold flame throwers on their side accountable (I can provide a definition if that's a foreign concept). If memory serves, I don't think there was a single person defending what Bill Maher said regarding Cheney. But if we dare admonish good ole Ann for getting out of line for calling Edwards a faggot, the only retort you can make is "they've said bad things too! wahhhh!"

Net and Aquill and Ted- I have to ask- is there an acceptale way, in a historical debate, NOT on a TV soundbite mind you - but in an education setting- is an academic discusson even ALLOWED when discussing the paralells between the burning of the Riechstag and9/11 as a POLITICal sentinal event?

Is it simply NOT ALLOWED in any setting?

Answer that question first please?

Aquilla- you seem the most reasonable of the group-what I am asking here- is there ANY acceptable forum to discuss the political paralells, in context of a historical debate? OR is simply "not allowed in any case"?

And you don’t get it either . The “faggot” comment was explained 50 times here and by AC but as with Bush – nothing is believed – all is lies. So why even discuss. She is villanized and the JJ comments are generally ignored or approved of.


Who was it who held JJ accountable? How about Franken, how abot Sharpton on Romney, and who said we all love everything AC says. I certainly don’t but to say she is alone in this type of speech or even the worst is ludicrous.

Her sin is she is popular – which imo Is due to common dislike by the majority of Americans for the liberal biased press. AC is seen as a person not afraid to take on the NYT and others.



I don’t see the connection. How exactly do the two events relate. What dictatorial powers has Bush assumed? How exactly did Bush “rig” the 9/11 attacks? Anyone who says nonsense like this should be given a sanity test and IMO should not be in the US Congress.

Do we need to even discuss such lunacy? What would happen if Gore was President and a Republican made that comment?

That is not my question- my question is- not that the comment is correct or not- but can the debate even be allowed to be held? Can there be no discussion on this in any setting?

Are you saying that it is unacceptable for someone to even debate it at all?

Okay- is there a place, where a congressman can even adress, say, the Gore vice presidency as compared to, oh, paralells to Stalin and socialism? Are you saying even debating that topic is unacceptable?

Are you saying that it is completely unacceptable for any congressman to honestly adress the issues or commonalities in some historical aspect regarding Gore and some program Stalin may have instituted?

Doclotus






Thank you, so so much. I was just dieing to have somebody try and point that out, in fact I was waiting for it. If you were my neighbor id have my gal cook you up a big batch of chocolate brownies and send them right over.

Interesting point there Doclotus, your worried about context so congratulations, in the forum about Ann Coulter you said......

I won't deny that Maher should have been taken to task for his comments regarding Cheney.



Another fair point, but the reason I'm glad you mentioned context, is because Just as I was trying to point out that context does matter in the case of Ann Coulter, now we will likely have a dozen liberals who didn't care about context in the case of Ann Coulter attempting to say context does in fact matter with Ellison, I'll do it with both. I'm willing to try and and use some degree of fairness and put my political affiliation aside. So lets look at what Ellison said........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsjw_51Lfw4

There is obviously the comparison being made as is clear, he didn't however say George Bush is Hitler directly unless he did in some other context I haven't seen but as Ted said in the original post the comparison was certainly made. Now the difference I see between the two Is that Ellison believes this, he is speaking very seriously and from the gut. Ann was being immature, and probably does not believe John Edwards is gay. Neither comments are excusable, and while I have seen Ellison on the news for this, its not near as much as Ive seen Ann Coulter being depicted for what she said.

So the question is should I as a conservative say that we should take what Ellison said and over exaggerate it to the point that people exaggerated what Ann said? After all he is in a much higher position than Ann, and deserves just as much exploitation for this if not more. I could do that, sure, but if thats what he believes than you know what? All I can do is disagree, and say I believe he is wrong in that assertion as well as his assertion of 9/11. I'm not going to make what was a stupid comment worse through exaggeration. But in all seriousness at this point I shouldn't I be in the position to do just that after reading the post in the Ann Coulter forum, and after watching the news? Do you know how many people Ive heard say flat out that Ann wishes John Edwards was killed in a terrorist plot? Too many, even his wife who would obviously have reason to exaggerate anyone talking about her husband. So I don't know, exactly how fair should conservatives be on this issue with the recent events of Ann Coulter being considered?

Thanks for the offer, brownies are always welcome You were close to the mark on this, but not quite...



The issue here isn't Ann Coulter. Its Ellison's comments and context really isn't as important as the actual argument of whether there are parallels between 9/11 and the Reichstag Fire. Context isn't necessary here, his words speak for themselves unless you fly off the handle like Ted did.


Ellison is one of 400+ members of the House of Representatives, and an extremely Junior member at that, so its not all that suprising that he's getting less press than Ann. If Ellison lands a few best sellers or lands his cell phone on a madam's call list, he might be more noteworthy.

I would argue that the closest contemporary that Ann has on the liberal side might be Al Franken. He has about the same profile and can be as outspoken as Ann (though maybe slightly less hysterical, and I don't mean in the funny sense, Al's books can actually be pretty funny at times). One key difference though is Al seems to wield the sword of satire a little better than Ann, because people seem to think she's serious far more often, whether intended or not. /shrug


Here's the difference Net, and you get so close to divining it here, you can actually address Ellison's argument, even defeat it if you choose to deliberate on it (which I've invited others to do in this thread, unsuccessfully thus far). Ann didn't make an argument at the young Republican's forum, she just used a rhetorical device to call John Edwards a faggot without doing so directly. There's nothing to debate there. That is part of the reason why Ellison's comments aren't showing up on CNN or MSNBC's ticker. Is it newsworthy? Sure. Does it equate to the hysterics with some of what Ann has said over the years? Not even close.

Interesting speculation here. Had Gore won in 2000, and had he come to power in January of 2001, what changes would have happened before 9/11/2001?

Hm, well, maybe none. It probably would have been a continuation of the Clinton administration, just without the blue dress factor. There would not have been a big thing about neocons, nor a big push to do things differently no matter what, just a Republican Congress totally ticked off and sitting around with arms folded, moldering.

Then say 9/11 does happen, would this moldering, folded-arm Congress have handed war powers to Gore? Probably not. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Unlikely. Would the people be up in arms about attacking someone? More than likely. That would get Congress' attention.

So along comes a junior Repub Rep and says Gore is like . . . who? Chamberlain? But who's Hitler this time, Saddam? Nope, he's under control. No more invasions from him. Maybe Afgahnistan, those nasty Talibans. Yeah, that OBL dude! Get him.

See? The Hitler card was played with abandon during the first Gulf war. Saddam was Hitler! Anyone not seeing this was Chamberlain! Don't be a fool, nip this suckah in de bud, bud.

So the debate would have been about how Gore is mishandling the response to 9/11, not whether he's acting like Hitler once did. One side would be saying, go do something! The other would be saying, like what? That's up to Congress.

Moldering with arms folded.

Then say another attack comes! Holy cripe, we better tighten up security!

Moldering with arms folded.

Task forces, investigations, do what can be done anyways . . . the country UP IN ARMS!!! Gotta do SOMEthing.

But not hand over war powers to Gore for dog's sake. Nope, not in a million moldering years. With arms folded.

I watched Ellison's vid. He was NOT on nightline, or meet the press, or on Rush's show, or any other major media outlet.

He was in an academic setting, and didn't call bush "hitler"- he pionted out the paralells between 9/11 and the fire at the Riechsteg, and how political groups used this to thier advantage to limit civil rights and take away checks and balances designed to limit goverment.

Now- had he done something, oh, even CLOSE to Ann, such as, getting on the 6 o'clock news, and said "GW Bush is a straight up goose stepping nazi"- that would be the only way you could compare the two.

He was engaged in debate and conversation on a poltical subject, in an academic setting, and never called Bush anything.


I would think adults would be abe to tell the difference.

There is a GULF of difference here.

One is simply engaged in name calling and demonization- Bill Maher, Ann coltier, Rush LImbagh, Hanity-

another can be an honest debate, right or wrong, that uses historical context to compare policies and actions.

After watching, like, oh, nine you tube feeds on this- Ellison my have been wrong, from some points of view, but he was not engaged in simple name calling like Coltier.

Quite frankly, anyone that can't see the difference is either niave or too blind to tell the difference.

Not even close guys, not even close.

yea he was much smoother with his comments, He knew he could depict the bush administration in a negative way and get his ridiculous point across without using names, So he used vague comparisons, to stay lower on the radar than Ann. Bush is easy to demonize and people take full advantage of this primarily because of their political differences with him. Its not enough to simply disagree anymore, we have to fabricate these ridiculous conspiracy theory's concerning 9/11, and assume the absolute worst is the truth. Well thats some people anyway, I see Ann Coulter as an immature opinionated right wing republican who will ocasionaly though out these wild comments on liberals because of her strong differences with many of them. Perhaps there are better ways of approaching these issues.

Ellison however is no better, in fact, what I've seen of him shows me he is a much more sincere person than Ann Coulter, if you want to make the comparison I think he has a strong disgust for this administration, and when he implicates something about this administration its because its what he actually believes not because he is trying to be cute or sarcastic. It didn't appear to me he was joking at all, he is an elected democratic official in congress and in turn has a political agenda of his own. If our elected members of congress and those in the senate can not work together to find some common friggin ground with this administration thats one thing, but what is worse, is when one takes it upon himself to preach propaganda that does does nothing but divide us. He has the right, and in fact we all have the right to disagree with this presidential cabinet, but the elaborate lengths in which some people will go to encourage others to believe this administration has some evil hidden agenda that goes far beyond weakness or incompatance, makes me Ill.

So you know what yea I see the difference CruisingRam, and that difference in no way in my opinion, gets him a get out of the spotlight free card, sorry.

So Net- are you saying that there is simply no place that it is okay to even HAVE this conversation or debate?

In other words- because Coltier can't get away with calling poeple "faggots" or just straight out name calling- it is NOT okay to have a reasonable political debate based on historical events?

reasonable political debate based on historical events?

Historical events? And what historical events would that be exactly? The point he made about his beliefs in a 9/11 conspiracy, or his belief that the Bush Administration in many ways can be compared to Hitler, As he strongly hinted? Which one of those is documented history, I'm confused?

Furthermore do take notice of what I said in my last post, as I often say, and strongly believe...........

in fact we all have the right to disagree with this presidential cabinet

Um, dd you watch the vids?

1) He is in basically a classroom sitting- there aren't banks of TV cameras here where he can hope to get the maximum exposure while he calls bush a nazi- which, of course, you agree he never did.

2) First historical analysis- he says "Cheney has claimed not to be part of the executive branch, not answerable to anyone, and does not need to give ANYONE any explanation for anything he has done, and is above the law- the defnition of totalitariasm"- okay- very much academic at this point- and very true. Cheney did claim he doesn't have to answer to anyone remember?

3) He presented a reasonable argument regarding usng 9/11 whipping boy to increase his power, while demonizing his enemy- the riechstag is what he presented as a historical analogy- listen to his EXACT words "without 9/11, there would be no way Bush could get away with torture, no way he could get away with ____( fill in the blank with Bush excesses)- then he said "Anyone know about the Riechstag, that is what that leader used to limit freedom"- a very, very apt analogy, and one that is very, very true- without uitilizing the hysteria of 9/11- like with the Riechstag fire- a very, very apt analogy- Bush would have NOT had the "political capital" to A) Demonize any one that denies his power - a context with which to decry "national security" over civilrights abuses.

The bottom line is Net and others- Ellison, regardless of what you feel about him- was engaged in honest debate in a small setting, NOT grandstanding for national media attention.

Had Ellison actualy got on the 6 o'clock news, and said "Bush and hitler are just alike" or something even close- WHICH HE DIDN'T DO EVEN IN THIS SETTING- I would say " what a scumbag politician, no better than GW himself"-

but as it was- I think it is a pretty bad example.

Farrakhan is a much better target.

Just so we're "Fair and Balanced" here, do you think O'Reilly will get a pass on this one?: (link)

O'Reilly is on a national cable channel and will unquestionably get zero flack for comments like this, in spite of them being just flat out wrong. So now you can see why Ellison's comments just don't cross the hysteria line for media coverage. There's just too many to choose from.

edit: forgot to include link

CruisingRam






Did I watch the vids? I posted a video of his quote, did I not? Yes, I watched it, and It only takes one camera to become the focus of a story, and everyone should know this. Ironically Ann Colter says the same thing, she says she was speaking to a room full of conservatives and didn't expect what she said to be televised, watch the video in the Ann Coulter forum i posted of her talking about that in specific to Glenn Beck. Glenn responds by saying we live in the day of youtube and you should expect someone to exploit comments of others if given the chance. Thats the world we've created, one where shock value in the form of short clips is more important to many than context if it can sell an agenda. The context here Ive considered, he is a democrat bashing a republican by making wildly false comparisons and I've watched the clip from start to finish, read below.





There is little comparison here anyway, nobody died in the Reichstag fire, and it was allegedly set on fire by 5 people, only one of whom was convicted for the crime. Further more it obviously wasn't even destroyed, Ive seen the pictures. And the building itself is by no means anywhere close to the stature of the twin towers or the pentagon to begin with, it more closely resembles a capitol building in its structure. I'm not doubting its symbolic importance to German parliament, but that could easily be not enough reason to initiate war, it was no 9/11 thats for sure, given the difference in circumstances, and the degree at which 9/11 makes that event seem minute why make the comparison ? Had we gotten attacked by 5 Al Qaeda members on foot setting a 2 story gouvernment building on fire resulting in no deaths our interest in Al Qaeda would have increased perhaps resulting in a conflict comparable to 1998's Desert Fox, but probably not to the extent of this war. The 1993 attack on the WTC is evidence of that, even it claimed more lives than the Reichstag fire, 6 I believe, yet it started no war.

Its just a bad comparison anyway you look at it, ands its goal was to draw as much negative attention to this administration as possible, as if bush actually needs Ellison's help in that, but he dislikes this administration to the point that he is willing to make that comparison regardless, not because its a solid comparison, oh no, and he probably darn well knows its not a solid comparison, however he uses it, but why? Lets think about it for a sec, if its not a solid comparison why would a highly educated member of congress use it? Could it have anything to do with him getting to compare the Bush administration's intension's with that of The Third Reich intentions? I think thats safe to say, after all the The Third Reich was infamous around the world for their totalitarianism, why he would make the comparison makes sense to me considering that fact. If he could have just said "you know what boys and girls? I don't agree with Bush, I don't think this war is worth the sacrifice, or that we should have even gone" I wouldn't have a problem, I would disagree, but to distort the truth to make a comparison of the Bush administration to the Germany of the 30's is just childish and sad.



Well at least you understand it was a bad example, and I hold any elected official to a higher standard than others.

Net- how was this "grandstanding" when he picked such a small, niche' audience? I think the forum he chose to discuss this was very appropriate.

In fact, if Coltier wants to jump up and have an honest debate on the filth that comes out of her mouth- I would love to see it- same with O'Rielly. Just watch what happens to O'Rielly when he doesn't get to control the mike- he gets slaughtered in ANY honest debate- Coltier and O'Rielly and Hannity only do well when they have a soapbox- they just can't make it as anything other than an entertainer, and they have to control the mike at that!

You and I and Ellison can debate Riechstag and 9/11 just as we are doing right now- in fact, you made my point- you started to debate whether or not the Riechstag was comparable.

Notice that the debate doesn't focus on whether Ellison 'called" Bush hitler- as the lie in the title of this thread suggests - but rather, compares acts of this administration, it's policies, to the early day of the Hitler administration- I will open this topic in another thread in a minute- because the points are valid IMHO. But let's hold that for another thread, shall we?

Bottom line is- this was not bomb throwing or name calling, unlike Coltier or the right wing pundits.


Another striking difference is how few liberal folks will defend bad behavior by "thier" pundits.

I'm not certain why this keeps popping up in the thread. Ted's FOX News article clearly has Ellison saying the opposite thing.



Ellison did not state that Bush and the government where somehow behind 911. What Ellison was saying is that the reaction to 911 wasn't well thought out and resembled what Hitler did to consolidate power in Germany after the Reichstag fire. You may not like the comparison, but there are comparisons that can be made, no matter how tenuous. Hitler's chasing of the communists after an unrelated event is comparable in Ellison's opinion to the neocons using 911 to justify their dream war in Iraq.



Cruisingram's question is very important-are analogies not to be made at all?, is there not to be a debate on these matters? Making comparisons is tantamount to calling someone a world leader a killer, hence the outcry?



There is no accusation that Bush conspired to create 911, the analogy was in relation to how he reacted in using the event to justify war in Iraq, much like Hitler used the Reichstag to chase communists.



What does this have to do with the debate topic?

Actually, the Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes Ellison as saying, "The fact is 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 (emphasis added). You can Google - Atheists applaud Ellison's views on Cheney, Libby, 9/11 for a more complete text of Ellison's comments. As the paper reports it, this comment came directly after the more frequently quoted passage that has Ellison comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire.

That being the case, Ellison seems to be suggesting that were it not for the administration putting "you in the nut-ball box" he might be having a conversation with his constituents about the possibilitiy that Bush was involved in plotting the 9/11 disaster. This seems to be an additional, back-door parallel Ellison wishes to draw with the Reichstag fire as the more popularized view (though largely unsupported) argues that Hitler himself was instrumental in starting it.

IMO, this is where he goes over the line. Obviously, there are parrallels with the Reichstag fire though nothing noteworthy enough to speak on unless you are suggesting that Bush may have had a hand in WTC's demise. Otherwise, why would Ellison need to suggest that were it not for the Bush Administration Ellison may well be delving into conspiracy theories on 9/11?

You don't need the transcripts if you watch the vid.

BTW- there are about 2000 right wing whackos attacking Ellison- but it is very hard to seperate the unedited full vid of Ellison. Right wing talking heads have been chopping small excerpts from it to show what I call "the Ted lie"- he never "calls bush hitler" not even once.

I think his emphasis, if anything, is like mine- GWs administration is simply not competant enough to carry out a conspiricy of any kind well.

CruisingRam



He knew there was a camera in there and his audience however big or small heard a mouth full of nonsense regardless, wouldn't you agree?



I watch O'riley and Hannity all the time and they are great shows. I enjoy watching colmes too, that dude is a trip. Its sometimes amusing how often colmes gets offended by conservatives like he did yesterday when hannity said something about morals, and Colmes responds morals? whats wrong with my liberal morals? I have good morals. There funny, I like the clash in opinions between the two and I think the odd matchup makes for an interesting show and even distribution of opinions. It just wouldnt be Hannity and Colmes if it were two liberals or two conservatives giving the same point of view. Sometimes I do disagree with Hannity, like when he said we had grounds to lock up Alec Baldwin for his telephone convo with his daughter, in most cases though I think he makes solid points.

Same goes with Bill O'riley I think he is a very solid conservative news show host, he may not make points you always agree with and some things he says like anyone else on news shows is an opinion based on his evaluation of facts, but I think he makes good points, and believe me I've seen him in situations where the mic was out of his hands like when he was a guest on the Daily Show with John Stewart. He holds his own, I was shocked at some of the things he said, but you know O' Riley when he talks to the opposition. He said to the audience in reference to Stewart "The whole world could explode and he be gigling" While Many things hold value, A conversation between O'riley and Stewart....... Priceless.



Yes, its important to keep context real so thanks, but I think he knew that comparison was false, I really do, and therefore in turn I believe that his motive was not to reveal it because it was a valid comparison, but because it could project his disgust of the Bush administration onto younger more corrigible individuals. Perhaps he knew he could count on a room full of younger atheist not knowing how different the Riechstag fire really was from 9/11. The circumstances that would justify reason for going to war were completely different in these two cases, not everyone has the time to look that kind of thing up to see how different the two events really are. So perhaps he should be held to a higher scrutiny level than Ann, Her comments were in the form of an imature joke resorting to name calling, or comparing rather. What he said was much more sincere in context and tone, and he said what he did as if he believed it. Like I said I dont defend either Elison or Ann for what they did say. I'm just considering context and its my conclusion that both comments made by both people were unnecessary, but can also easily be exaggerated by some.



Well Ted's title could perhaps been phrased a little differently, but the context of his post was much more specific and made a fair point. The point that he was trying to make was that the comparison was certainly made between the two dictators.... Well one was certainly a dictator, however to compare the actions of Bush to that of the Third Reich helps achieve Elisons Goal of portraying Bush as an irrational Dictator much like Hitler was. I don't believe Bush is a dictator, I think he is a weak leader. In Ted's post he says..............

Recently Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison made the following statement about Persident Bush:


Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, is defending himself Monday after comparing President Bush to Adolf Hitler and leaving the impression the administration may have rigged the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
Speaking to an atheist group on July 8, Ellison said that the president acted much the way Hitler did when the Reichstag
........................and so on

Followed by various questions that ask what our opinions were on this and how it might compare to what Ann Coulter said, fair enough questions.
perhaps his title was meant to be in the form of a question, you know "Democrat Congressman calls Bush Hitler ?" but forgot the question mark, I dunno you'll have to ask him what he meant.




This is true no more of liberals than it is conservatives, the majority of us on both sides are reasonable enough in most cases to be considerably fair, forums across the web can be the exception to that, but what side has the majority of individuals that will stick by there people even if their wrong is anybodies guess, but I will tell you this much right now with firm confidence, most liberals will say its the conservatives and most conservatives will say its the liberals, who da thunk it? SNL humor, hehe

1. I don't compare the statements of one idiot or another, because it is a waste of time.

However, Ellison's statement is absolutely true. Bush did act like Hitler after the Reichstag fire. He basically lined everybody up as "good guys" and "bad guys" based on his agenda. It was sickening. You had to wear a flag lapel pin, and fly a flag on your car, and scream "bomb those terrorists back to the stone age," or you risked being called "Un-American" or some other. The right should be ashamed of that dark period in American history following 911, when we, as a nation, acted like Nationalistic Idiots, bent on revenge. It was beyond sick. It very nearly destroyed this nation. Thank God people are finally starting to wise up.

2. Again, I don't compare inflammatory statements with other inflammatory statements. If I were going to, I would start with Bush's cowboy rhetoric of "You are either with us or against us," and "bring it on," which were the most inflammatory and ridiculous statements ever made, and he was PRESIDENT at the time.

3. I don't care what statements from the left compare with what statements from the right. Why would anybody? It doesn't matter, and is silly.

4. As soon as someone points out the inaccuracy in Ellison's statement, we can continue. Which part was wrong, again?

I guess I see it differently. Show me some proof of you allegations about Bush please – I don’t believe you.

As far as “dark days” after 9/11 – I consider it some of our best days – we pulled together as a country and struck back at the $%%(*& monsters that murdered 3,000 Americans - and we are not done yet.

If you have a problem with that or are in the “we deserved it” crowd all I can say is you are way the hell off base and you can count me in with the “Nationalistic Idiots” – and I am not sure where that pus you? Apologist?



As far as AC and “inflammatory statements” I agree – they are all silly and AC is no better or worse than most of the others – Her sin is she is “popular” and the I can see how it rankles the left.

I don't need to "prove" my "allegations" about Bush. It's right in his speeches. "Axis of evil." "With us or against us." "Bring it on." That was not the way responsible heads of state speak. Show me any other head of state in the history of the world who said things like that. Good luck!

Who did we strike back against? The monsters who carried out the attack were all killed in the attack, and the monsters who planned it are still fine, and occasionally show up on videotapes. Please let me know, as I must have missed it.

I don't know who is in the "we deserved it crowd," but as far as I know, most people who are lumped in there shouldn't be, as they were more likely just looking for cause and effect. Either way, you can't call me an "apologist," because I have never apologized for terrorists.

We certainly did not "pull together as a country." The Right turned on everybody else, and brought back McCarthyism. Those of us in the middle or on the left will probably never forgive the zealots who threw away unity for sorry idealism.

What the Right did after 911 was shameful. It was wrong, and it crippled this country, and much of the world. It destroyed any chances of a meaningful action against terrorism, endangered millions, and killed thousands.

We will never forget.

If this is about “speech” you are way off any comparison since Hitler did more than speak – obviously. If if you are one of those people who blame Iran or anything else on Bush’s “axis of evi” speech we have nothing to discuss since this is just so much horse poof its not funny.


So you don’t count the camps, the troops in Afghanistan, their allies and the rest of the AQ organization? Come on sir – give me break. Yes there are more out there hiding and we need to, and will KILL THEM.



Have no clue what you mean – examples of “McCarthyism” are? And IMO we did pull togeather.





And just what should we have done? Put all of AQ on the FBI most wanted list? Stay home and allow the bases and training camps in Afghanistan to go on? Tell me your plan.

"If?" "Then?" I'm sorry, I didn't follow the logic of that particular datastream. We do you always want to make me "one of those people?" I am not one of any people. I am one people. (person) I am part of a much larger group of people, called "humans." I am not one of any groups of "those" people, and neither is anybody else. All of those groups of "those" people are imaginary, and have nothing to do with real life. They exist only for the purpose of being vilified. "Those" people have been ruining the world just as long as we have been imagining them. The only way to stop them is to stop imagining them. Meanwhile, back in Realityville, USA, Bush's speeches were irresponsible, and un-statesmenlike. They are one of many stones in the big wall of proof that he consolidated power, and acted irresponsibly after 911. There is the USA Patriot act. There is the unconstitutional assumption of power to declare war. There is the invasion of a country that didn't attack the United States, without letting the United Nations inspectors finish their jobs. There is the illegal spying on Americans without judicially issued warrants. There is also the jailing of Americans without due process of law, illegal kidnapping and "rendition&