Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

Source: Telegraph

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.

Addressing a gathering of atheists in his home state of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, a Democrat, compared the 9/11 atrocities to the destruction of the Reichstag, the German parliament, in 1933. This was probably burned down by the Nazis in order to justify Hitler's later seizure of emergency powers.

"It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," Mr Ellison said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

To applause from his audience of 300 members of Atheists for Human Rights, Mr Ellison said he would not accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11 because "you know, that's how they put you in the nut-ball box - dismiss you".

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/wbush114.xml

......After his speech was reported, Mr Ellison said he accepted that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. But his demagogic comments threaten to plunge him in controversy.

Mark Drake, of the Republican party in Minnesota, said: "To compare the democratically elected leader of the United States of America to Hitler is an absolute moral outrage which trivialises the horrors of Nazi Germany."

when we're looking right in the jaws of the same thing.

Since when? How can you be democratically elected when your party suppresses votes from the opposition and steals the election?

Last I heard it really was that lone Dutch(?) anarchist that did it.

from (was it Himmlers) office to the main parlement building and some other evidence that seems to support that the Nazi's did it and the Dutch anarchist was the patsy. Part of the problem is how he got the fire to spead so fast all alone, and even how he got in the building. Apparently the Dutch guy was mentally ill and had confessed previously to other crimes he couldn't have committed.

It's a facinating question and now we have or very own mystery to debate here as well.

edited to add- Now i remember. The researcher found an order that was sent the day before the fire that communists, anarchists and the usual suspects were to rounded up the following day because they had participated in a crime against the father land. It showed foreknowledge of the crime since it was sent hundreds of miles away to the south and coincided with the immediate takeover after the fire.

Too bad the Democratic Leadership Committee cannot see this. He's also right in thinking that you can't accuse Bushco, Inc. of planning 9/11, because you will be accused of being a nut. I know that I have been accused of it.

Sorry, but from day ZERO, when I first saw the hole in the Pentagon, I did not believe that it was hit by a plane. The hole is just way too small, and there is not enough debris.

In all truth, this was setup by the Project For A New American Century. They stated that this "new Pearl Harbor" was necessary, in order for the administration to have the public support, for us to secure the oil resources in the Middle East.

New Pearl Harbor, Reichstag burning, the same darn thing. You can call me a nut all you want, but I will not believe that it wasn't anything short of a setup.

I have no doubt that PNAC would be capable of fomenting a "New Pearl Harbor," having both the means and the motive, but I'm not prepared to just assume that they did so. Certainly they were ready and waiting to take advantage of 9/11 when it happened, but in the absence of evidence claims that it was an inside job are based more on our hatred of the neocons than anything else. I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate the possibility, I'm just saying that it should not be a foregone conclusion.

investigation of 9-11. (Cheney - the President and VP). They refused any kind of investigation and then settled ONLY for an anaylsis of our intelligence departments - a mostly useless investigation because the conclusion was the starting premise with some recommendations, plus the players and the way it was controlled. Therefore, when you say "in the absence of evidence claims" you and all of us are not going to get this from anyone in the Republican Party. They don't believe in justice or representation of justice other than the Federalist Society version which is being shoved down our throats. .It's up to the people to prove it and many people are working on it. From theory to what?

'What' may not be known for months, years, or decades. But, it can't be stopped. It's better to have an open mind, it would seem, given the proof coming in about stolen votes, torture, missiling billions, etc.

It makes no difference to these people - all crimes are equal. Stealing votes, stealing money, lying, and death, torture, torment, abuse of citizens on any country. Campaigns, agendas, goals, strategies, tactics for corporations and barons,

First, to the naked the eye, certainly the "demolition" is obvious.
Did the 19 hijackers wire the WTC towers???

What of reports throughout the building of activity which suggested this "wiring" having been going on for weeks before and especially the final weekend?

What of the WTC personnel/Rodriguez who spoke about the opening bombs in the basements BEFORE the plane struck the first tower -- and then that scenario was repeated as he ran to the second tower!

That is the way of demolition. You cannot collapse something like WTC towers into the streets --
it had to be dropped into its "footprint" -- i.e., its basement and sub-basements.
And, the top had to be "cracked. We also see that happening in the footage.

There are a small number of families internationally who do this work and their observation of 9/11 is that it was a very sophisticated operation with many innovations and that it was probably carried out by those with military experience/connections.

The tell-tale evidence of Thermite/Thermate and molten steel which burned for months afterward are important to understanding that explosives brought down the WTC towers.

Keep in mind -- the jet fuel would have burned off in the first ten minutes.
This is a totally accepted fact.

In other words, the floors below the impact were COOL.

Now -- anyone who truly wants to understand what is happening in their nation and to their democracy is not going to let "hatred" dictate their beliefs; not if they are intelligent.

The very beginning of this farce . . . the idea that no one informed the White House . . . or provided "specifics" . . . is nonsense. For more than 6 months, almost every nation on the planet was warning the White House and our intelligence agencies of an attack on us.

Russia/Putin had lists of hijackers, names, plans -- attacking skyscrapers.
Putin was so concerned about Bush's "Operation Ignore" that he went to the United Nations Security Council to report to them. In turn, the United Nations Security Council -- in August 2001 just before the attack -- sent their own representatives to visit the White House and our intelligence agencies to deliver the intelligence information. "Operation Ignore" continued on.

In other words . . . there is no possible way that this administration did not know what was about to happen -- either from CIA intelligence <"Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US"> or from external sources which were hammering at our doors.

To the contrary, Cheney was very much involved with the CIA in trying to bend our intelligence;
to deny what they were actually finding and reporting and to make it more to his liking.
We see this again in the "Downing Street Documents . . . that it is made clear to the British by Bush/Cheney that the "intelligence will be fixed to fit the agenda."

A number of officials in the Bush administration have come forward to point the finger at Cheney as having been in control of 9/11, the "exercises" and the NORAD "stand down."

And there are many, many, many other pieces of evidence which show the 9/11 official story to be myth.

As for the flight which supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania -- Flight #93 -- and I'm doing this from memory . . . there are factual reports that it landed in Cleveland.

Additionally, if you simply look at the round hole in the Pentagon, you would have to try to explain where the wings impacted? There are no signs of wings having broken thru these "reinforced Pentagon walls" -- yet there is NO wing debris or other debris found outside the Pentagon.

And if so, where are they? I know a lot of the hijackers are allegedly alive in Arabic countries, but the Americans?

I would believe that 9/11 was MIHOP if I didn't have other evidence (like the way they run everything) that they aren't capable of actually accomplishing anything. How would they be able to pull off the biggest conspiracy of history is beyond my comprehension.

from people in power here.

The flight school Hani Hanjour trained at called the FAA on him 5 times becuase he didn't have the skills or the knowledge to hold a commercial license. The FAA sent people out a few times but just basically refused to follow the law and pull Hani's licence. Without a commercial license he couldn't train on 757 simulators at the school.

2 others were roomates with an FBI informant in San Diego. Say what?

The FBI investgating Massowi (sp) the so called 20th hijacker tried repeatedly to get his office to allow him to seek a search warrent for Massowi's computer which the agent had. Nope. Wouldn't want to do that, said his superiors.

There are many more examples of high level strings being pulled to aid these people. So the "inside aspect" is pretty certain. What's not certain is if they were being aided to pull off the attacks or if that was an "oops."

And of course the 9/11 commision was rigged and fixed not to do a through investigation. That was an inside operation, because Bin Ladin couldn't have done that.

So I'd say there's a lot of evidence that it was an inside job. The 9/11 commisions "lone cadre theory is totally bogus.

Now that's not to say that 9-11 wasn't LIHOP or MIHOP, but spreading nonsense like this only serves to provide ammunition for Rightists to say "See! Look at the *crazy* 9-11 conspiracy theorists! They don't even believe that a plane hit the Pentagon!"

Why shoot a missile into the building when a plane works just as well?

Because if you use a missile you have to find a way to hide the plane and all the people on it, that makes the cover up far more complicated. My best theory as to what happened is that a plane did hit the Pentagon but not in the way that the official story describes it happening. I believe the plane was shot down on it's approach to the Pentagon and pieces of debris from the plane hit the Pentagon rather than the entire thing. That would explain the lack of damage to the Pentagon, and given the fact I am sure that the Pentagon has plenty of defenses surrounding it would make that theory seem pretty probable.

Honestly there are enough other problems with the 9/11 investigation, focus on those but don't say that no plane hit the Pentagon because that just makes everyone who is trying to get to the real truth look bad.

The same goes for the plane that was heading for the capitol. I might be missing something, but I never understood the reason behind a coverup of that. If anything, it would have at least shown that they didn't drop the ball on that...

If you're afraid of being called a "tin hattie" then I don't think you're going to succeed at truly looking at facts you fear.

There is a network/journalist video which I will link you to which is called . . .
"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" . . .
the reporter was there on the scene . . . and is clearly telling you that no plane hit the Pentagon.


Additionally, there is a simple round hole in the Pentagon which looks like a missile hit it.
There are no wing marks -- there are no wings left on the exterior of the building.
There is no debris which would suggest that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon.

"Why shoot a missile into the building when a plane works just as well?"

Because a plane would NOT have worked. They had just completed REINFORCING the Pentagon walls.
Three feet thick with reinforced steel!!! Planes are aluminum -- so are the wings and tail.

The slight bits of debris which were left on the field after the "event" could all be hand-carried and suggest that they were placed there. They were obviously intended to "suggest" a commercial airliner but provided nothing that would match the outer covering of the commercial airliner -- noR was there any other debris -- bodies, suitcases, seats, etal.

Later, we were told that the "engine" was found inside. Really . . . ?


LINK -- 'NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON'


VIDEO: CNN reported no plane hit Pentagon
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf o
Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html
JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/07/asb.00.html
quarter wasy down . . .
MIKE WALTER, EYEWITNESS: I looked off, I was, you know I looked out my window. I saw this plane, a jet, American Airlines jet coming, and I thought this doesn't add up. It's really low. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon, a huge explosion, a great ball of fire. Smoke started billowing out and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards.
This witness has made many statements suggesting it was a JET and an AA jet --
Had contact with the FBI on 9/11 --

I can't believe the Bush Admin set up the attacks. There's too much proof of the hijackings, and of the hijackers' identities.

OTOH, if it came out that somebody in the Admin (not W himself, we all saw his deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the news in "Fahrenheit 9-11" and I don't believe he's that good an actor, but somebody in the Admin) knew the attack was coming and did nothing to stop it . . . that wouldn't surprise me one little bit.

It was Cheney.

Wolfowitz shopped this doctrine to poppy Bush, he said NO. He then shopped it to Clinton and he said NO. The dumb ass in office, of course, embraced it with Cheney's urging, no doubt. Read about the "Bush Doctrine" and see how similar it is to The Wolfowitz Doctrine.:(


Doctrine Articles

Superpower Status

The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."

U.S. Primacy

The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result." <snip>


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


Bush Doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe a policy outlined in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002<1>

In the events following September 11, 2001 attacks two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the critical policy question of how to handle potentially dangerous countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ("Axis of Evil" states). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as US Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing US foreign policy. These policies, developed during the long years of the Cold War, sought to establish a multilateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that America should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower. President Bush ultimately sided with the Department of Defense camp, and their recommendations form the basis for the Bush Doctrine.

The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the U.S. or its allies are threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states. According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.


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

Which is fine, because Repukes don't read "books."

But Hitler... Repukes understand THAT.

And they don't like us getting so close to the truth.

no matter how apt that comparison may be. I've always said that, other similarities notwithstanding, we can't really call this regime fascist until they implement widespread police violence against civilians as a means of political control.

If it turns out that "9/11 was an inside job" (and I think the conspiracy people make a disturbingly good case here), then I think we have good grounds to make the Reichstag comparison. As things stand, all Ellison is doing is bringing negative press attention to himself, his fellow Muslims, and atheists. His statement is courageous but probably counter-productive.

and too often, done shrilly, not rationally.

It seems Ellison was being rational, but enough Nazi comparisons are done in a rant. People hear Hitler or Nazi and think death camps.

A couple of relevant comparisons between the Third Reich and our situation are

* Promoting fear of an "enemy" who is "different"
* Using the idea that we are in danger as an excuse for limiting basic human and civil rights (long list could be inserted here)

But, if Bush were really like Hitler, we wouldn't even know about all the things he did wrong, because we wouldn't have any kind of free press. And if Bush were really like Hitler, Nancy Pelosi would have been in jail long ago for no other reason than that she's a Democrat.

George Bush = Charles Manson X 100,000.

I can't think of a single thing that would ever get Muslims and atheists 'positive' press attention in the US.

Maybe your right -- the similarities might ONLY be the fact Hitler and Bush are Christians from militarist nations hellbent on global domination based on racial and cultural superiority. That might be the only similarity between these two men...but that should also be enough of a comparison for most people to judge them anyway.

Just watched a documentary that clear deminstrates this uncanny cowinky-dink. BushCo, is using Hitler tactics and cunning to get the Imperialism they want.

..and they all write it off as a 'conspiracy theory' to discredit the facts and those who present the evidence.

I will agree that from what I can tell, 2 planes did crash into the WTC. But what of WTC7? It looked like a controlled demolition from everything I have seen. As for the Pentagon, that was not a plane. How ironic that of all the times for those jets to not act like they are supposed to do, they choose not to Scrabble them on 9/11...

We all know that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but Shrub-Co used those Hitler Tactics to do so. Just like Hitlers Reichstag burning which he blamed on Poland, so he could invade. WTC = Reichstag and Poland = Iraq/Afghanistan.

When a President declares himself above the law, your living in a Dictatorship.

so much for that "moderate image" you've been cultivating, and thanks for putting your seat in play next year.

Have I left anything out?

Ellison's seat is secure. There's no danger of CD5 going red any time soon. That leaves him free to speak out much more plainly than some other politicians can.

It's important to read the whole Telegraph article. They're sensationalizing a bit. All Ellison realy said is that the Bush administration has exploited 9/11 the way the Nazi party exploited the Reichstag fire. Which is plainly true.

You don't know Ellison's district; I do -- I live there. It's about the bluest district in the freakin' universe. We LOVE Keith.

over and over again. They must not get away with it.

Way to go, dumbass, destroy all of your credibility all at once. What a stupid asshole.

...he's a man of remarkably keen intellect, and his credibility with his constituents in Minnesota CD 5 will remain intact.

I think you may be shooting from the hip here, and that your post may be a gut reaction to a sensationalist headline. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Ellison merely said that the Bush administration has exploited 9/11 the way the Nazi party exploited the Reichstag fire. Then he went on to say he wouldn't go so far as to accuse the Bush administration of planning 9/11. Pretty sensible statements, really.

governments story on 9/11.

They think everyone bought it.

1. There can only be one Hitler with some parallels after him but no one can be in the same league.

2. Bush is in a class by himself, establishing a new standard for future demagogues and incompetents.

maybe Stalin? Nah, Hitler is the better comparison. Bush is a fascist, all the way.

And, to Mr. Drake, learn a lesson about hyperbole. Yet, in this case, the comparison isn't much of a stretch. And, it's not comparing Bush to Hitler which is outrageous. It's Bush's Hitler-like style of governing that is outrageous.

Note how the headline goes from "he said" to "he hinted."

Mr Ellison also raised eyebrows by telling his audience: "You'll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want."
And what's the problem with that? Americans have a Constitutional right to worship--or NOT worship--as they want. And as a Congressional rep who swore to defend and uphold the U.S. constitution, "standing up for your right to be atheists all you want" is PART OF ELLISON'S JOB.

:headbang:
rocknation

Gee Dubya Bush a Hitler? Not really. To give the devil his due, Hitler served in the front lines in Kaiser Wilhelm's army during the First World War and didn't fade into the woodwork like What's-his-name did during his tenure in the Air National Guard. What we have here in Amurrica is an authoritarian-minded imperial presi-dunce showing Mussolini-style incompetence on the battlefield.

this is where we are at this moment: obl actor turns up on video; chertoff has a premonition of an impending attack; third fleet en route to persian gulf; impeachment cries are gaining in volume and numbers. this is what I believe is about to happen: cheney is going to stage an attack, blame Iran, nuke Iran, declare martial law, cancel the election. and we are screwed. please take this threat seriously. contact your reps, write your newspapers. only the press can stop them. congress will not.

The Nazis seized their opportunity with both hands and made the absolute most of the incident (not unlike a certain administration following September 11th) but the actual fire was set by Marinus van der Lubbe and Marinus van der Lubbe alone.

Most historians believe van der Lubbe didn't do it. Some historian believe he did.

On the internet, perhaps a majority do believe the Nazis did it, but I would respectfully suggest that it is generally accepted amongst historians that the Nazis took great advantage of a fortuitous situation, but did not actually conspire to burn the Reichstag.


_edit spelling_

You mean of course the guy who was out of the country at the time and had a long string of confessing to crimes he had no way of committing?

He certainly wasn't a mentally healthy young man, which probably goes a long ways to explaining why he thought setting fire to the Reichstag was a good idea.

The Nazis were brilliant in their use of the the incident, but it took them as a surprise, and even briefly frightened them into wondering if their own propaganda about the Communists was true. In the end, it turns out that a sad, unwell little man did something ridiculous and a group of evil geniuses took full advantage of the situation to scare the populace and increase their powers. Thank goodness that's never happened again, huh?

For the sake of discussion, however, I would invite you to offer your own theory about who set/orchestrated the fire.

the terror talk. The next attack will give *ush what he truly wants.

ABSOLUTE FUCKING POWER

September 11, 2001 I believe it was.

Keith Ellison's scare tacics and anti-war talk are much like the things Osama Bin Laden says. I will not go as far as calling him a terrorist though.

Imagine the uproar you guys would create? Think about it, This guy Ellison is saying highly controversial things and you celebrate it, even if it is innacurate and truly not supportable by the known facts. Bush could just as easily make "terrorist" assumptions against this guy based on things he has said. This guy is obviously an asshole. Makes no difference what he says...He is an ass. Comparing Bush to Hitler is like comparing This guy to Bin Laden...Just about as accurate.
We need to act rationally and talk FACTS in order to impeach or sanction the Bush Cheney gang,,,,,The wild accusations buried under disclaimers and tricky wording are HURTING THAT EFFORT! This guy Ellison is screwing up and should be replaced next election..with a Democrat!

How is anti-war talk anything like the things that Osama bin Laden says? I have never heard of Osama preaching world peace.

What Ellison said on the other hand bears much more resemblance to reality. Bush DID use September 11th to increase his hold on power just like Hitler used the Reichstag fire to increase his power. There is an analogy there, there is no analogy with Osama bin Laden and those of us who oppose war because Osama has never spoken out against violence, quite the opposite in fact.

Ellison is one of the best we have in Congress, we would be insane to replace him just because he is not afraid to speak the truth no matter how much that truth hurts.

....n/t

:rofl:

in the way both 'leaders' used these incidents.

Seems to be a tad bit incorrect in stating Ellison compared the Chimp to Hitler. The Republican party is also using many of the political tactics developed by the Soviets. Doesn't mean they are Soviets, just acting like them.

Also, the 'hinting' at the Chimp being responsible for 9/11 seems to be a bit of a stretch. Then again, since the Chimp lead GOP administration displayed gross incompetence in counter-terrorism prior to 9/11, seems they are a bit responsible, aren't they?

It was their job, after all.

or Roosevelt or Truman or Lincoln!

bush to Hitler- history does it for me.........