Treason rhetoric roundup

In the last few days, there have been a slew of accusations or insinuations of treason in the debate over US foreign policy and the war in Iraq, continuing the pattern of attacks on dissent since 9/11.

Rush Limbaugh, who once accused former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of having "chosen to align himself with the axis of evil," is now referring to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as "Benedict Arnold."

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay suggested that Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very very close to treason":

I think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are getting very very close to treason...For the Majority Leader of the United States Senate in a time of war, with soldiers dying on the ground, announcing that we have lost the war, is very close to treasonous. I looked it up while we were driving over here, the definition of treason, it's the betrayal of trust. I have never in my adult life, nor in my understanding of history, seen something so blatantly outrageous...

The Center for Individual Freedom distributed a fundraising email that essentially accuses Pelosi of treason:

Question: Will Republicans chicken out and allow Nancy Pelosi to get away with prancing off to Syria and conspiring with Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad, a supporter of terrorism?

...For months, Pelosi has been strutting around the country... waving a white flag... savaging the President... demanding our UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ON THE WAR ON TERROR.

...But more than that... She basically gave every terrorist around the world a GREEN LIGHT!

She sent a clear and unmistakable message to terrorists and terrorist sponsors around the world that the United States is divided and weak... That we don't have the will to fight an enemy that has shown itself to be ruthless and not beyond killing innocent Americans at home and abroad.

And former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is campaigning for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, suggested Democrats "want" the US to be on the defensive in the war on terror:

"This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!" Giuliani said in his speech. "Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!"

In the one exception to the rule, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman reversed the direction of treason rhetoric, stating that President Bush's position on the war in Iraq is "a clear and present danger to national security":

The fact is that Mr. Bush's refusal to face up to the failure of his Iraq adventure, his apparent determination to spend the rest of his term in denial, has become a clear and present danger to national security.

More than five years after 9/11, this kind of demagoguery shows no signs of abating. If anything, it may increase as the 2008 presidential election gets closer.

Update 4/25 9:55 PM: Media Matters flags Sean Hannity calling Reid "a propaganda minister for our enemies":

On the April 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity attacked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) for his remark during an April 19 press conference that "the [Iraq] war is lost." Hannity said to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp: "I think [Reid is] a propaganda minister for our enemies. He's emboldening our enemies, and he's taking away the morale of our troops. They're out there fighting that war, and he said it's lost."

Comments

[Rob]

Surely you jest. Paul Krugman is "the one exception to the rule" in "revers[ing] the direction of the treason rhetoric"? Don't you remember the widespread accusations on the left that revelation of Valerie Plame's identity was an act of treason? You can Google it.

[Mark]

The first three examples all seem to support your argument, but I can't agree with you on the last two. Giuliani did make an outrageous comment recently that if a Dem were elected in 2008, another 9/11 would be likely, but this quote doesn't make the same treasonous accusations as Limbaugh and Delay. Since when is defense necessarily a bad strategy? I don't know if that's the best characterization of the Dems' plan...I don't even know if we can say the Dems have a plan regarding the GWOT...Anyhow, as for the last quote, I think Krugman is making a completely valid if not necessary point. Sometimes, a state's strategy for dealing with a threat might very well be more harmful to national interest than the threat itself. The failure to realize this possibility may indeed pose a "clear and present danger to national security." I don't think Bush's failures add up to treason, however, (nor does Krugman's rhetoric) since that would imply that every bad foreign policy decision a president makes would amount to treason.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Haven't accusations of treason been a pretty consistent tool of outland Republicans for forever? Or at least from prior to McCarthy onwards? This is a basic campaign staple for them, no? It's a bit ironic coming from a party that finds its strongest support in the CSA South, but it doesn't seem novel.

[Lettuce]

Dude, can you get a quote where a "Democrat" (in this case a former member of the Reagan Administration, Krugman, Council of Economic Advisers) actually accuses someone of "treason" and not, instead, being a "clear and present danger."

I realize you sometimes aren't too bright, we all have off days, but, like, Republican Krugman (the counterpoint) didn't actually accuse anyone of "treason".

And thus, phyrric balance is achieved.

[ZacC]

Actually, Lettuce,
Krugman is a registered Democrat.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagena
=article&node=&contentId=A25169-2003Jan21&notFound=true

Please don't make judgements about people's intelligence when you, yourself, can't even get all the facts straight.