CNN's Blitzer Asks Rep. Ellison About Bush/Hitler Comment


On Wednesday's The Situation Room, CNN host Wolf Blitzer, while interviewing Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison about his recent trip to Iraq, asked the Congressman about his recent controversial remarks comparing President Bush to Hitler, words that could be interpreted as a suggestion that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and comments that have received little media coverage. Blitzer gave Ellison the chance to "explain exactly what you did mean," and asked if the Congressman agreed that the "comparison of Bush and Hitler" was "inappropriate." (Transcript follows)

Ellison said that he "chalks it up to rookie error" and, regarding whether the 9/11 attacks were a "Bush-led conspiracy," the Congressman contended that "I never said it at the time, and I absolutely deny that now."

Below is a transcript of Blitzer's question and Ellison's response from the Wednesday August 1 The Situation Room on CNN:

WOLF BLITZER: Let me give you a chance to clarify some controversial remarks you made not that long ago, early in July, involving the Reichstag. You said this at one event for which you later clarified and apologized and said you meant no comparison, but I want to read it to you because it's still raising some concerns: "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," Hitler, "of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

BLITZER: The impression from that quote was that Bush, in effect, was responsible for 9/11 to create this opportunity to go in this war on terror and do whatever he wanted, and you were pretty much blasted for that. You later said you didn't mean that. But explain exactly what you did mean.

Rep. KEITH ELLISON (D-MN): Well, let me say, at the time, I specifically denied any plan, Wolf. But here's the thing, you know, I chalk it up to rookie error. And I'm trying to move on from it. Nobody always says the right thing. I didn't say the right thing at that time, and I'm trying to move on from it, Wolf. So I appreciate you asking the question. But I'm just trying to leave that, I've said what I had to say about it, and I'm trying to move forward.

BLITZER: But I just want to be clear. You never suggested that there was a Bush-led conspiracy-

ELLISON: Oh, no, I never said that.

BLITZER: -that resulted in 9/11.

ELLISON: I never said it at the time, and I absolutely deny that now.

BLITZER: And even the comparison of Bush and Hitler. That's inappropriate. I just want to make sure you agree with that.

ELLISON: I agree. Yeah, I do agree with it. And that's not an error I'll be making again, and, you know, look, you know, we're all doing the best we can, and we're trying to learn from the mistakes that we make.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rookie Error

Yes just a "rookie error". It is not like a Republican commenting about Strom Thurmond, or Don Imus trying to make a joke. All is forgiven. No problem. 

All he did was compare a man whose madness plunged the world into a devasting war that cost 50 million lives to a man trying to defend his country from attack. No problem.

Why Jesse Jackson's remarks about "hymie town" were just clean fun. 

Senator Allen's Macaca remarks

And don't forget about Senator Allen's "Macaca" comments, which definitely were not intended to insult -- unlike Ellison's, which clearly were intended to insult. What was it, 50 straight front-page stories in the Washington Post, all designed to defame Allen and force his defeat in the elections?

Right, Ellison -- let's just "move on". You hypocritic bast**d.

Oh Really?? Not Intended to Insult?

Senator Allen sees someone from the opposite camp who's been following him around.  He points that person out to the crowd.  Are you telling us that Allen was just doing so to better inform everyone of the guy's presence, to raise awareness, to stimulate constructive dialogue?  I hope not.  Allen took a verbal swing at the guy.  He was either baited into it or made a concious decision to do so.  My sense is that the enemy was there to stir up trouble and that Allen helped them by stepping right in it.   

What ensued after, the disgusting coverage of WAPO and all it's friends, was totally out of proportion, totally out of line, and may well have cost the Republicans their majority in the Senate; but Allen's intentions were hardly noble. 

 

Here's the conversations

So, what did Allen say? "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere.", according to the Post. Asked what macaca means, Allen said: "I don't know what it means." He said the word sounds similar to "mohawk," a term that his campaign staff had nicknamed Sidarth because of his haircut. Sidarth said his hairstyle is a mullet -- tight on top, long in the back.

So, I believe Allen. I don't believe the Post or Webb. You have his statements printed in black and white. Point out to me any instance of Allen making a statement that can be interpreted as vile or racist.

Allen was trying to

Allen was trying to belittle the guy. It wasn't much of a shot--certainly not to cause the ruckus it did--but it was still a shot.

That's the point

It was a very, very minor incident, and that's the whole point. When compared to an obvious comment from Ellison, and the media's reaction to it, and the impact on Ellison's political future -- the Allen episode deserves the same "dismissal" that Ellison is getting. It didn't happen, and the two incidents are as different as night and day.

Even in this thread, though, you can see what is happening. Two different standards are being applied -- one to Allen, who DID NOT, and I repeat DID NOT mean what everyone has twisted to mean -- and the other to Ellison, WHO DID mean what he said. In Allen's case, people had to go look up the word, and then try to attach some meaning to it. In Ellison's case, no interpretation is necessary.

So I stand by my comments -- there is no comparison. The difference is the bias applied by the media and the Dims.

Yes just a "rookie


Yes just a "rookie error"

Or a "botched joke."

And Ellison says "we're all doing the best we can,"

He should have added: it's hell out there, and if you want to compete for air time, you've got to be more vicious...ooops...did I say that out loud????

Sure, sure, Wolfie. You've

Sure, sure, Wolfie. You've been fooled again, by your guest. At that time when he uttered those words, it was what he meant. So NBs, if we all fall for it, who is crazier then, us or ellison? These leftoids will not say what is in their hearts or minds if they are not 100% convinced.  

Why then there was not much coverage? Because, in the hearts of hearts of our so called "journalists" and other lefty media, those words were true. Heck, they started it and promoted it!

Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire

Since this is most assuredly not the first time Ellison has either heard of or spoken on the events of 9/11, I must assume he is not making a "rookie" mistake of confusing nor conflating events.

I believe he is apologizing for being recorded and publicized in his rascist, bigoted, hatemongering and muslim-agendizing opinions.  He is apologizing for being caught and pledges to not be understood so clearly in the future.

How apropos that Ellison was elected by the people's republic of Minnesota where even the infrastructure is in dangerous ruins.  I am only surprised that Ellison, or his supporters, did not somehow flip it around that his faux pas was all Bush's fault.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

Some great

Some great representation--Ellison.  I suppose the pointed heads thought it cool to meet their diversity needs with a Muslim--and a bigoted one at that.  The same crowd must keep voting for Jesse Jackson Jr.--now the resident thug in congress.  Democrats must be proud.   

 

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

It's almost like Democrats

It's almost like Democrats got together and decided to get this "gentleman" elected so he could make Nancy "Assad" Pelosi and Dick "Turban" Durbin look like premier statesmen.

With friends like the Liberals who needs enemas, er, enemies.

Killing them with kindness isn't working.  Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.

And understanding exactly

And understanding exactly (?) what Ellison meant, Wolf Blitzer can now offer absolution and allow Ellison to "move on"... 

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

Let me give you a chance to

Let me give you a chance to clarify some controversial remarks you made ...

Gee, never quite heard that asked so delicately of a republican.

Didn't respond, did he?

"But explain exactly what you did mean."

Responsible journalists would keep asking that question of Mr. Ellison at every opportunity--until he actually answers it.

Of course, responsible journalists would be more curious regarding how a terrorist sympathizer such as Mr. Ellison, someone who has been closely tied to the Nation of Islam and is still closely tied to the terrorist front group CAIR, was seated in Congress in the first place.

--Mike

www.thebrattonreport.com