First Muslim Congressman to Atheists: 'I'm No Nut-Ball'

I thought the following report at Little Green Footballs was interesting:

Telegraph Covers Ellison's Bush=Hitler Statement

US media have completely given a pass to Congressman Keith Ellison for his outrageous comparison of the 9/11 attacks to the Reichstag fire. You have to read British papers to find out anything more about the incident; here in the US the nanny media have decided we don’t need to know, and shouldn’t be interested anyway.

Here’s the Telegraph’s account:

Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress.

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 [Hitler] 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”.

Vice-President Dick Cheney’s stance of refusing to answer some questions from Congress was “the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship”, he added.

Yes, that's totalitatarianism exactly: refusing to answer some questions.

Still, it isn't clear to me if Ellison is or isn't accusing Bush of planning 9/11. Refusing to make the accusation just because doing so will get him thrown into the "nut-ball box" isn't exactly a denial--nor an act of courage.

But once again, the real story here isn't that a Democratic hack playing to a liberal audience says something completely reckless and irrational on what should be a serious topic. The story is how the press has given it a complete go-by.

And when the press stops doing its job to protect the one-sided ravings of a single political party, isn't that closer to something that helps define "totalitarianism" then some simple-minded charge about the Vice President refusing to answer some questions?