On Tuesday, the Weekly Standard's Michael Goldbarb claimed that the Obama administration had threatened Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) with closing Offutt Air Force Base, home of the US Strategic Command, if Nelson didn't support the health care reform bill in the Senate (Michelle Malkin made a similar claim).
Even though this questionable report was based on a single anonymous source ("a Senate aide") and has been denied by both Nelson's staff and the White House, Glenn Beck has repeatedly promoted it on his TV and radio shows and suggested that it would constitute treason -- the latest in a long series of smears against Obama's loyalty since 2006.
During his radio show Wednesday, Beck suggested that the allegation would constitute "high crimes" -- a reference to the Constitution's definition of impeachable offenses as "high crimes and misdemeanors":
Beck read from Goldfarb's post and called it "one of the worst things you've heard yet this year." Despite later saying that "[w]e have called Senator Nelson's office; Senator Nelson says, 'No, no, no. That's not true,' " Beck interviewed Goldfarb, who said, "I have 100 percent confidence in my source on this, and, of course, the Nelson people have every reason to deny it." After Goldfarb later said, "As I understand it, Rahm Emanuel delivered a message to the Senate leadership that if Nelson did not get behind this, Offutt Air Force base would find itself on the next round of BRAC closures," Beck responded, "I don't even know what category that fits in -- high crimes?"
Later that day, Beck invoked treason three separate times on his TV show (transcript via Nexis):
-"I have to tell you, there's a story at the bottom of the hour that if it is true -- and we have three sources on it now -- if it is true -- I mean, how much closer do you get to treason? ..."
-"It's crazy. Give that one a whirl. I've said it all along, principles over party. Principles. Well, one senator apparently agrees with me. I say kind of, maybe, but his party reportedly very angry, and allegedly making threats. This one borders treason, I believe..."
-"The rabid progressives don't care how they accomplish their goals. The ends justify the means. This book - this guy just last week said about me, 'We've got to shut Glenn Beck up by any means necessary.' That's how they do their work. But this - using the military and our strategic command as a pawn, threatening to weaken our national security defenses to fulfill your utopian social justice agenda? To me, that borders on treason! No one - no one - no one wants to believe that the president of the United States or any of his advisors would stoop to these kinds of tactics.
Even though Goldfarb's story is collapsing, the rumor has spread rapidly through the conservative media and prompted twenty Republican senators to call for an investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee (via David Weigel). What a nightmare.
[I've added Beck's statements to my timeline of loyalty smears against Obama since 2006.]
I have no desire to defend Glenn Beck (I've never watched the guy, other than in the sixty minutes before "Red Eye" comes on at 3 AM), but simply in the interest of precision, it ought to be noted that Beck did not say Obama had, in Brendan's words, "committed treason," he said that what Rahm Emanuel is accused of doing "borders on treason" or is close to treason. Bordering on a place or being close to a place is, as a matter of simple logic, different from being in that place. (Contra, John Kerry, who claimed to have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 when he later was obliged to acknowledge he'd merely been close to Cambodia that night.)
Similarly, while treason may be a high crime worthy of impeachment, a high crime is not treason. We've had impeachments of two presidents (and a third averted only by resignation), one senator, one cabinet officer, one Supreme Court justice and thirteen other federal judges, and none of them, to the best of my knowledge, was charged with treason in the articles of impeachment. Beck's statement about a high crime does not, therefore, support Brendan's allegation concerning treason.
Finally, the action Beck was protesting was purportedly done by Rahm Emanuel, not President Obama. Before we can impute Emanuel's actions to Obama, we'd need to prove advance knowledge and direction by Obama. Beck doesn't make that charge.
Accordingly, Brendan's headline about Beck suggesting "Obama committed treason" is not an accurate description of what Beck said, nor does it logically follow from what Beck said. A more precise description would be that Beck said what Rahm Emanuel is accused of doing borders on treason. Beck may be a rodeo clown and polemicist, operating in a spoken rather than a more deliberative written medium, but he appears to have chosen his words more carefully than our esteemed host did.
Posted by: Rob | December 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Rob, as Beck's other statements suggest, the "high crime" in question appears to be treason. In any case, you're parsing pretty strenuously -- I think three separate mentions of treason on one show, including "how much closer do you get to treason?", constitutes a suggestion that Obama may have committed the crime. If someone said (for example) "what Rob did borders on murder," I suspect you'd feel differently about the relevance of weasel words like "borders on" and "closer... to."
Posted by: bnyhan | December 18, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Beck's weasel words are "borders on" or "closer . . . to." Brendan's weasel word is "suggests."
BTW, a correction: my only first-hand knowledge of Beck is the sixty seconds before "Red Eye" comes on.
Posted by: Rob | December 18, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Even if the allegations are true, nothing like treason occurred. An essential aspect of "treason" is that one supports the enemy. At worst, the Dems are giving insufficient concern to maintaining the strength of our military. And, even that is hard to justify, since duties could be moved from Nebraska to some other state without weakening the country's military strength.
OTOH the story is not implausible. Senator Landrieu publicly boasted that Louisiana was given $300 million in exchange for her support for the health bill. A new analysis shows that Democratic districts received nearly twice the amount of stimulus funds as GOP districts. An Administration so steeped in power politics might conceivably threaten to take pork away to get a vote.
Posted by: David | December 18, 2009 at 12:01 PM
"OTOH the story is not implausible...An Administration so steeped in power politics might conceivably threaten to take pork away to get a vote."
So believe an air force base is "pork," David?
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 20, 2009 at 02:56 AM
Correction to my last post: So you believe an air force base is "pork," David?
Rob:"Before we can impute Emanuel's actions, we'd need to prove advance knowledge and direction by Obama. Beck doesn't make that charge."
Uh, Rob, from the TV excerpt from Beck (emphasis is mine with the all caps. My "bold" key isn't working): "...no one wants to believe that the THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES or any of his advisors would stoop to these kinds of tactics." If Beck had said "...no one wants to believe that the any of the advisors of the president of the united states would stoop to these kinds of tactics," then your above defense would be reasonable, but that's NOT what he said.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 20, 2009 at 03:34 AM
daniel, the more apt question is: Do I believe that our elected officials treat military bases like "pork"? I do believe that. That's why the number of bases grew to be so large. When it was time to cut the number of bases a few years ago, Congress was unable to do the job. Each member opposed closing any base in his/her state or district. They finally managed to agree on which bases to close by means of an independent commission and some restrictive parlimentary.
Posted by: David | December 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM