Congressman Ellison, Keith, buddy, you know I’m a big fan of yours and I know that your heart’s in the right place but you have got to just come out and apologize for the Hitler/Reichstag remarks. Now, I think everyone who knows you understands exactly where you were coming from when you said this:
It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted
Clearly the President took advantage of 9/11 to expand executive power. An editorial in the Star Tribune did a good job of explaining:
Forget about Hitler for a moment. The terror attacks of 9/11 were indeed a starting gun that kicked off a rush to expand government power. Could the Patriot Act have passed without 9/11? Would Congress have authorized a war in Iraq? No credible observer believes that the attacks were some kind of inside job (though an alarming number of people in Muslim countries are happy to think so). But neither is it credible to suppose that the Bush administration has failed to take advantage of the popular support presidents enjoy in times of crisis. Any president would do so.
Few, however, would go as far as this president has gone. Bush and his team seem intent on enlarging his authority and defying those who would challenge him or his administration. Geneva Conventions? Quaint. Habeas corpus? Flexible. Court approval of wiretaps? Outmoded.
Correct on all points, but there’s still that first line: “Forget about Hitler for a moment.” Problem is Keith, no one has forgotten about Hitler and there’s a reason for that: as you put it yourself, “the murderous Nazi regime is historically distinct and the horror of the Holocaust must be acknowledged as a unique event in human history” [Strib 7/18/07]. So, you should understand that it may have been inappropriate to compare Bush and Hitler, even though you said, “I did not intend any direct comparison between the totalitarian state of Nazi Germany and the current administration”[IBID].
I hate to jump in on this one Keith because so far it’s mainly been a one-sided conservative-bash fest that has, at best, misrepresented your comments, but I think that their over-amped outrage has obscured the more modest transgression. Even though the comparison was not intended to be direct, the mere mention of Hitler was inappropriate. I believe that it was an innocent, unintended mistake, but sometimes even the most innocent mistakes can have major consequences. An apology is in order Keith. You can get away without one, but you still command the high-ground, why not keep it that way?
Loading ...
Those of you that are so young that that it was your grandparents or great grandparents that fought in the Second World War would be well served to review the history of Republican and American conservative support for Nazism. America First was not just isolationist, Charles Lindberg and Henry Ford were not just anti-semitic, a good share of the conservative elite in this country supported and admired Hitler.
Objectively verifiable reality: Conservative Republican Bob Dole characterized the Second World War as a Democratic war. Arguably he was correct, documented history shows that if the conservative elite in the 1930’s and 40’s had their way this country would have been allied to Germany.
Instapundit noted Ellison’s whatever apology, saying “Well, that was big of him.”
Personally, I don’t think the story would have ever gone national if he wasn’t the first Muslim in Congress. The headline ‘First Muslim in Congress compares Bush to Hitler’ is a lot more saucy than ‘Minnesota Congressman compares Bush to Hitler’
That’s just an opinion, though.
BP…shame on you. How dare you say that americans whether they be conservative or lib would support Germany/Hitler. That was the most idiotic statement I have ever read. Get out of this country and don’t come back.
I have personally read an extremely large amount of literature about 911, and I am 100% convinced that the Bush Administration took full advantage of the situation, and - at the VERY LEAST - had loads of intelligence beforehand, and planned every second of what to do afterwards, so that they could go into the Middle East with bells on. I no longer care if people agree with me on that one; the fact are out there clear as day, and anyone who can’t put two and two together on this one just isn’t paying attention.
Anyway, comparing Hitler to George W. Bush is perfectly logical, if we are talking about a imperialistic leader, hell-bent on power at all costs, who was perfectly okay with taking advantage of the demos in a time of disaster. However, there is one major distinction that should be made between the two: Hitler was damn smart. GW is damn dumb, and relies on the trickery of others. Bush will do down in history as not only evil, just like Hitler, but worse, he will go down as a dunce.
I think taking special issue with Ellison for comparing Bush and Hitler is nothing but politically correct. He is certainly NOT the first person with major influence to do so. Furthermore, I think we should really be taking issue with the headline of that article! That is blatantly racist!
I usually don’t like really extreme rhetoric. But lets look at our situation here with this administration.
- The Leader must be mentioned positively by all subordinates (anyone been following the Surgeon General case? Three times per page?)
- Loyalty to the Leader is the sole criteria for political position. (prosecutor firings, anyone?)
- The Leader continually flogs an endless conflict as the sole source of security and national greatness. (Iraq)
- Any criticism of the Leader is treasonous, and if you dissent, you are possibly in league with the enemy (Fox News/Bush press office/whats the difference really?)
- Special schools set up to encourage people to always obey the Leader. (Jesus Camp)
- People the Leader doesn’t like are taken beyond the normal justice system, because if they don’t like the Leader, they must be evil. (Gitmo)
- And of course, a national tragedy is used to excuse all of the Leader’s actions.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, etc., it probably is a duck. Fascism is a scary thing. Keith is sometimes a little out there for me. But I think he deserves props for calling a horse a horse.
Now Bush has flogged 9/11 for years now. As the Homeland Security budget gets cut to protect red states. As he funnels security money to Haliburton. As he does so many things which makes New York, and other cities, more vulnerable.
But they’re blue, so why should he care. Bush’s use of 9/11 is not somewhat like the Reichstag fire. It is exactly like the Reichstag fire. And god bless Keith for realizing that.
Hitler stormed the SS into the Reichstag shortly after the fire in order to force an authorization of total and complete power to him. He then used this power to start a world war and systematically attempt to wipe out an entire ethnicity. Sorry John, I see where you’re coming from but Bush’s use of 9/11 was not “exactly like the Reichstag fire.” It was similar in many respects, but entirely different in a few very important ways.
Ugh, you’ve pushed me to defend Bush; this is just awful.
Context Matt, context.
American democracy is on far, far firmer foundations than the Weimar Republic ever was. And any comparison breaks down if you push it too far.
But what Bush has done, while slower and more creeping, seems exactly like it. 9/11 was an event Bush did not plan (sorry, uber-lefties), but allowed him to take actions that would not be accepted in ordinary times. He has used this event to vastly increase his own power, at the expense of the Constitution.
And I should also point out something - the first targets after the Reichstag were Communists and the few remaining parties, mostly on the left, that still had organization to oppose him.
Of course, Bush is not a genocidal maniac (again, apologies to any uber-lefties here). And of course Bush is not Hitler. But in method, there are some truly, truly creepy similarities. And before the Right-wing noise machine got their hands on it, I have the feeling thats what Keith’s comment was about.
I don’t like people falling for the media hysteria machine again, especially when there is a legit point - there is no denying that Bush has used 9/11 in his attempts to subvert the constitution. And I think that was meat of Keith’s comment.
(sent too fast)
And while I don’t think Bush is Hitler, the idea that Hitler is an unmentionable is absurd. To keep as a one-off, a singular event in history, people must be vigilant against the sort of things that put him into power.
He did not spring into power fully formed, but subverted a democratic country to get there. Making what he did un=mentionable is allowing people to will-fully ignore the past, a past we should draw lessons from. Just because it is slightly smoother than armed men doesn’t make it less dangerous.
All told, it is indicative that those organs most responsible for bombarding the American people with obey, don’t question, etc, are the ones who lead the outrage.
I completely agree with you John but your slight change in tone is indicative of the difficult terrain any Nazi comparison leaves one in.
Again, I completely agree with everything you’ve just said and, moreover, I agree that this was the intent of Keith’s comments. You have, however, slightly moved away from your “exactly like Reichstag” wording under the defense that any comparison breaks down when pushed too far. I’ll even agree with that, but when something is as emotionally and historically charged as Nazi Germany is one has to take great care to note where the comparison breaks down. If Ellison had, as you have, noted that American Democracy is on far firmer grounds than Weimar Germany was and then continued on to his commentary, I would not be asking for an apology. But Keith, in what I really do believe was an innocent oversight, failed to delineate how the comparison fails and the extent to which he sees it working.
Absent that distinction, the comment is inappropriate. If for no other reason than that it minimizes the scope of the tragedy that was Nazi Germany.
Comparisons do indeed have their limit, but when something is as charged as the imagery of Nazi Germany is, one has to take great care to limit the associations that naturally pop into one’s mind. Without explicitly limiting those associations, you’re comparing the whole kit n’ caboodle by default; as unfair as that may be.
Many conservatives are just as upset over Bush’s power grab as are liberals. Among them are Bob Barr, former congressman from GA who led the impeachment effort of Clinton, Bruce Fein, who drafted the article and so on. The analogy that Ellison used while clumsy, is apt. The previous posters are correct about Bush, Cheney, etal using 911 over and over and over to take away personal liberties, usurp the rule of law, suspend Habeus corpus among other high crimes and misdemeanors.
if you didn’t see last Friday’s Bill Moyer’s Journal, I suggest you go to the PBS web site and watch it. In it a compelling case is made for impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney for previous listed offenses.
It is not political, but Constitutional principles that are at stake. Count me among those who stand for impeachment.
As for Ellison, he is not one to shy away from the outrageous statement to make a point, sometimes to his detriment. Do we really want a Sabo-ized smooth and polished Keith Ellison? I think not.
I don’t think anyone is hoping for a smooth and polished Keith. But the negative attention this creates and the clumsy nature of the analogy detract from any good Keith is doing in Washington, and it marginalizes at least in the short-term, his ability to be a leader on anything, because no matter what he says the response will be “Why did you compare the President to Hitler.”
Keith has taken many wise votes in the house. He’s done right by the people of the 5th and Minnesota many times, but this isn’t the first time his press shop has allowed a situation that shouldn’t have happened and should have been handled quickly to turn into a press-bonanza and fundraiser for the right. And they haven’t done a good job of publicizing the things Keith has done right. Sean
Sean is Correct and a wonderful person:-)
I suggest the movie “911: The News Special you Never Saw”. I can’t remember the guy’s name, but he is basically the Bill Moyers of Canada. It is extremely important that Americans analyze the evidence of 911 on their own, because the government and law enforcement is not going to do it for us. It is entirely related to this thread as well.
Arguably, Hitler actually had more “political capital” to spend than Bush when he went bad. He was, after all, democratically elected. I agree with John that the era of Hitler cannot be unmentionable. Furthermore, that it ought to be studied very closely, because the similarities and indeed connections (literally) with the Bush Administration are striking. Call me a crazy lefty if you want. The bottom line is the facts. Read them, think about them, compare them with what you hear on the so-called news, and then get back to me.
Matt,
It wasn’t the “SS”,which was a part of the Wermacht (army), it was the “brown shirts” I believe called the “SD”. The SD were thugs used for street action, beating Communists, Labor Unionists and other opponents of Hitler’s rise to power and were behind the “Krystal Nacht” (“Crystal Night)” and other pre-war atrocities. The SD was disbanded by Hitler after it had served it’s purpose during the purge known as “the Night of the Long Knives” if I’m not mistaken. It gets confusing (but I watch way too much History Channel).
History has revealed that many U.S. captains of industry were Fascist sympathizers and anti-semites(sic?) and only repudiated Hitler later when he invaded France and the Low countries and when their was profit to made arming America. Hitler had the full support of German industry in his rise to power, they saw profits to made in re-armament. That is why the head of Krupp Steel was prosecuted for war crimes. One of the reasons Eisenhower warned of the Military-Industrial complex is that Fascism has always gone hand in hand with Big Business in the countries where it has flourished.
Isolationists were in vogue in the Republican party especially and many saw Fascism as a better alternative to Communism. History will repeat itself unless we are vigilant and on guard against attacks on our liberties.
When you make an analogy to Hitler, you basically discredit whatever it is you are saying. I had been impressed with Ellison since he got to Washington, but this was a dumb, dumb move.
KathyG - You really need to read American history, ignorance can be cured. It is simply a historical fact that many American conservatives supported Hitler.
As for leaving this country, no, I won’t. I would much rather stay and fight for this country and the constitutional principles that underpin our society.
To paraphrase a holocaust survivor, the best of us died in the concentration camps. Those who speak truth to power are punished severely and often to the death. One of the fundamental moral differences between liberals and conservatives is that try to bring light to the darkness of the human soul, conservatives prostitue themselves to and celebrate the darkness.
Just because it’s a cliche doesn’t mean it’s not true. Granted their are degrees of evil, you can rank them if you like.
Tied for 1st: Hitler and Stalin
3rd: Pol Pot?, Idi Amin, pick your despot. and so on.
That doesn’t mean that G.W. Bush doesn’t belong somewhere on the list with Saddam Hussein, granted Bush is way behind in the number of Iraqi’s killed, but he’s doing his best to catch up.
How many innocent Iraqi’s must be killed before people recognize evil?
Many on the left supported Stalin and Mao and they have just as much blood on their hands, if not more, as Hitler. Democrats were also the party of Jim Crow and slavery. None of the comparisons do any good because for every similarity a difference can be found. Remember how the Hitler analogy was used to help build support for the war in Iraq.
Kerasene..that is my point as well…we get into this asanine argument that BP democrat brought up and then we counter it…it DOES NOTHING to advance the political dialogue. It is just a stupid pissing match on who aligned wih who in broad generalization. Again, that is why I said you should leave…you do nothing to make America better, just worse.
I think there are many on the right who would readily admit that if there was a terrorist attack on American soil that it would help their Party stay in power.
That being said, we as a Country sure give the terrorists much much more attention than they are worth. Are they enemies of America?…sure. But because they regularly make such huge headlines on certain cable news and right wing radio shows, some Americans have become rather lemming like, angry and afraid. Republicans take full advantage of that. Insecure people want security.
What I’d like to see is the terrorists completely destroyed, of course, but they are not worth changing our way of life and constantly being afraid. I wish Americans would rise above the terrorists and say to them “We will not live in fear because of you!” Is anyone in America ready to say that, or are we all frightened, little, lemmings? What political leader is ready to say that? Not one I know of. I think that’s pretty pathetic.
I’m not condemning Conservatives by putting Bush on that list (many conservatives believe Bush has betrayed their principles), and you may notice that I listed 2 of the worst communist butchers, could have added many more, Mao, for one, or Franco from the right. The list was not intended to be complete which should have been clear from my post. The point I was trying so clumsily to make is that Bush has put himself on the pantheon of mass murders along with the rest.
He and Cheney have run roughshod over the constitution, signing statements (I’ll obey or enforce the laws I want to), civil liberties and all the rest.
Someone needs to Speak Truth to Power, Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable. The media isn’t doing a very good job. So I’m trying to do my little part here, along with others, being read by the precious few.
Terrorists win when we react to their terror, when we remove the rule of law and overreact. That is the goal of political terror, in which (thanks to Bush) Al Queda has succeeded. Bush wants us to live in fear, it’s the GOP’s strategy. While we are busy looking for the boogeyman, Bush and Cheney are picking our pockets.
Who is this stranger posting on MN Publius, and what have they done with Matt Martin? Perhaps liberal bloggers should leave the right-wing bloggers’ talking points to right-wing bloggers, and let this story die out like it already had, two weeks ago.
Who is this stranger posting on MN Publius, and what has he done with Matt Martin? Perhaps liberal bloggers should leave the right-wing bloggers’ talking points to right-wing bloggers, and let this story die out like it already had last week. Why do we feel this compulsive need to give GOPers the ammunition necessary to shoot down our own best thinkers and proposals?
Matt & Sean,
Are you proud that your blog attracts 9/11 conspirators? Ellison went beyond comparing Bush to Hitler. He actually implied that Bush had something to do with 9/11 as Anonymous also parroted.
Also, Ellison spoke to Athiests for Human Rights. I wonder if the Athiest group thinks it is a human right NOT to be blown up by someone screaming, “Allah akbar!”
KathyG — Does it advance political dialogue to tell the people with whom you disagree to leave the country?
Conspiracy has nothing to do with, at least for those seeking truth about 911. If there is any conspiracy it on the hands of the American government. We have our questions, and they have not answered them.
I forgot to mention that Randy made a great point. The day when people who question authority, or at least question the story the authorities have given us, must leave the country because we are not worthy of being US citizens, is the day when democracy is squashed. That day may have already come, if you ask me. I see absolutely nothing democratic about our current regime. By questioning the government and official story - about whatever subject - we are essentially doing what used to be the duty of the journalistic establishment in this country, dig?
There’s three possible scenarios for 9/11. Either, Osama Bin Lada outsmarted us or the Bush administration knew there was a plan afoot and allowed it to happen or the administration actively aided in the planning and implementation of the attack. Which one of these scenarios is most likely? The majority of the americans don’t believe the first or the third. Some 63% of Americans polled believe the government is hiding important information. As far as Ellison comparing Bush to Hitler, that’s not as far fetched as it might seem. A recent signing statement, July 17th, says if Sec HD or Defence or Intelligence determines you are hindering the War on terror or War in Iraq, all your property can be seized. That coupled with the signing statement about the President being able to declare a state of emergency and suspending congress until such a time as the President thinks the emergency is over, what part if this is not a fascist dictatorship?
Chris-
Don’t cloud the issue. The point here is not that people on the left will go off on ‘Bush did it, and the Caryle Group/Bavarian Illuminati/etc. helped him.’ Y’all have some of your own crazies too.
The point is that your man, when faced with a national tragedy, ran wild over the Constitution instead of safeguarding the country. Its five years after 9/11, and many police and fire departments around the country do not have the gear they need to fight the terrorists that did this to us. But at the same time, seldom going a day without mentioning 9/11 and terrorists, has run rough-shod over the rights we started a revolution in 1776 to gain.
So you might win this one. You’ll have the bloggers on the left picking up Brodkerb’s talking points, you’ll see semantic parsing, you’ll see pious, pc, outrage. But at the end of the day, Bush’s place in history will be the man who used a tragedy to terrify and control his own country, and roll back some of the freedoms and rights they had gained over two centuries of constant struggle. That shows how on the basics, Keith’s comparison was right on.
Keith may have been clumsy - but he had the truth of the matter pretty much nailed. I just wish we could see that, instead of talking about conspiracy theories, or looking for any excuse of wording to look away from the ugly truth: that much of what he said was dead on.
Beware the fnords.
Thanks Richard! Now we are screwed! Nobody is supposed to mention those two particular signing statements. Now we are jinxed and might not have an election at all. Dammit!
Sorry, my bad.