Congressmen Ellison Tapdances Woo

Totovader

Game Warden
Totovader
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
3,321
In what is known in rhetorical terms as an apophasis, the only Muslim Congressman- Keith Ellison from Minnesota- hints at his conspiracism:

Star Tribune said:
On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: "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. 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."
Click to expand...

Part of the reason I hate politicians- they tell you what you want to hear depending on who you're talking to. Ron Paul won't be specific on his beliefs, and now Ellison has joined him in that club.

Also some interesting comments on Muslims welcoming Atheism with open arms... That's something I certainly wasn't aware of... :mglook

Star Tribune article
 
Well what he is saying, if you read under the line of bullshaite, is he is a woo, but wants to maintain his political career, so will not officially admit it. I hope some MSM picks up on it and crushes the woos political career.

TAM:)
 
Hmm, I read it as he does not believe in the Inside Job CT but points out that politicians will take advantage of national tragedies like the Reichstag fire and 911 to implement their plans.

I am not sure how you can read into it that he may be woo.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Hmm, I read it as he does not believe in the Inside Job CT but points out that politicians will take advantage of national tragedies like the Reichstag fire and 911 to implement their plans.

I am not sure how you can read into it that he may be woo.

Lurker
Click to expand...

The key is the apophasis- the statement that follows after the "because" gives him away. He's probably actually not a conspiracist- at least I hope not, but he refuses to say that outright because he'll lose the audience (apparently). On the other hand, his opponents will latch on to this- and he'll just be forced to clarify to save his image, anyway.

It's actually a good example of rhetoric.

Had he not been a politician, and he was honest- the statement that followed after the "because" would have been something like "because... that's just plain nuts." or- god forbid- "because... there's absolutely no evidence supporting that claim whatsoever- and a mountain of evidence to the contrary."
 
Hmm, Ok, I see how you are reading it. I doubt he is a CT or if he is necessarily playing to that crowd. If he was very deliberately wording it the way he did I would agree with you but off the cuff remarks should not be analyzed in such depth IMO.

Lurker
 
This is hitting the conservative blogs big-time:

Captain's Quarters:

Ellison knows that the 9/11 attacks were carried about by al-Qaeda and 19 radical Muslims. He just can't bring himself to admit it, and instead likes to flirt with paranoid conspiracy theorists who believe that the entire attack was a BushCo plot to grab power in the US. Well, if so, where is the power grab? We've held elections on schedule ever since 9/11; the only one to be delayed was the New York City municipal elections, for obvious reasons, and then only for a few weeks. Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and might have won the Presidency in 2004 had they not nominated a total stiff to run against George Bush.
Click to expand...

Little Green Footballs:

And Ellison hinted broadly that he agrees with Truther conspiracy theories. He says he just can’t admit it for political reasons.
Click to expand...

Hot Air:

He’s not saying it was an inside job, he’s merely saying that maybe the people responsible for it were scapegoated by a regime eager to arrogate Nazi powers to itself.
Click to expand...

The Libertarian-oriented Reason Magazine:

So wait, Keith Ellison blanches at being called a "9-11 truther" not because the conspiracy theories are nutty, but because he doesn't want to be called nutty? And while I'm willing to give Ellison the benefit of the doubt and assume that the Reichstag comparison was clumsily phrased, one wonders why he extends the analogy from the Nazi Enabling Laws ("he could basically have authority to do whatever he wants") to the "blaming" of the innocent Communists?
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry but I disagree.

The way I read it he is accusing the Bush administration of using Iraq as the "communists" and irrationally blaming.. and/or perpetuating the myth, in order to get a mandate for war and gain executive power.

To me it's the standard criticism of Iraq not being the same as Al Qaeda the executive branch's misuse of fear and the perpetuation of said myth for their personal gain.

Contentious politics, for sure. But not woo.
 
I just wish more politicians told me what they're going to do to help this country and everybody in it and how they're going to do it as opposed to saying things to make me feel better 'cause it's the "in-thing" now to bash Bush.

But I guess I'm an idealist.
 
Well, it depends what he thinks of the Reichstag fire. If he thinks that it wasn't burned by the Nazis and/or is referring to the actions of the Nazis afterwards he's got a good point.
 
It appears my reading of Ellison's comments were correct. He is not a woo.

"Obviously, Usama bin Laden and the hijackers who carried out the murderous events are responsible for 9/11. The question is, however, how do we respond to this tragedy? With fear and rage? Or with courage and reason? I'm for courage and reason. This means that in the aftermath of 9/11, instead of invading Iraq, President Bush should have responded militarily where necessary, but even more so, diplomatically, and with all of our intelligence resources."
Click to expand...

http://www.newshounds.us/2007/07/17...ressman_ellison_better_watch_what_he_says.php

Lurker
 
I am at clinic, and playing the woo in my office might offend, so any chance we can get a synopsis...thanks

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I am at clinic, and playing the woo in my office might offend, so any chance we can get a synopsis...thanks

TAM:)
Click to expand...

It's just the same as the OP- the only thing you get from the video is that you can clearly see he's just responding to the audience. The last media report I saw (wish I would have bookmarked it) said that he didn't know he was being recorded.

[ot] Interesting side note: Ellison is responding to his audience, telling them what they want to hear in order to win their approval- to do so, he picks up on the lead from the conspiracist in the audience who says "who benefited [from 9/11]", but tries to ride the line to get the majority of the audience with him, using what's called commonplace. It works- but a larger audience caught wind of the statements and now he's had to fix it. [/ot]

Since this he has actually come out in full reverse- admitting that there are no similarities between 9/11 and Nazi Germany, and also stating quite clearly that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.
 
Totovader said:
Different audience.
Click to expand...

To summarize, in the first quote, one must read into what he is saying in order to make him a CT sympathizer.

In the second quote, he is clear in denying the CT line.

If you want to rely on innuendo to cast him as a CTer that is your business.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
To summarize, in the first quote, one must read into what he is saying in order to make him a CT sympathizer.

In the second quote, he is clear in denying the CT line.

If you want to rely on innuendo to cast him as a CTer that is your business.

Lurker
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that what you're saying is accurate considering he had to issue a retraction. It's pretty clear that his statement was- at the very least- "a CT sympathizer" (your words).
 
As someone with no clue who this bloke is, reading the quote at face value, I agree with Lurker's assessment; he's quite clearly implying that Bush took advantage of 9/11 to pursue his political aims (hardly controversial this side of the pond). It's a real stretch to say that he's a Truther, or even playing to that specific crowd. He's playing to all those who suspect that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse. Not the same thing at all.
 
Lurker said:
To summarize, in the first quote, one must read into what he is saying in order to make him a CT sympathizer.

In the second quote, he is clear in denying the CT line.

If you want to rely on innuendo to cast him as a CTer that is your business.

Lurker
Click to expand...
I don't believe he is a CT'er.
Just a poor politician--one who doesn't have a place of his own to stand, but who will say anything to buy a couple of votes.
Sad, no?
Now the question is, is he "Bush-league" or Clintonesque"?
(hint-both are equally
"dith---pic----able" (Daffy Duck)
 
Ellison seems to have one foot in the woo while the other is not. More like a fencesitter on the subject. It is irresponsible to make such comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom