OK, let’s talk about ‘treason’

Tom DeLay thinks Democrats’ criticism of the war borders, literally, on treason.

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board yesterday, former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) of “getting very, very close to treason” by opposing the war in Iraq. When a member of the editorial board noted that treason is a “pretty serious charge,” DeLay shot back, “And I’m serious about it.” He added that he had looked up the definition on his way to the interview (probably a good idea), and it meant “the betrayal of trust.”

DeLay specifically attacks Reid, saying that “in the time of war, with soldiers dying on the ground, announcing that we had lost the war, is very close to treasonous.”

TP noted that “none of this should come as a surprise. DeLay, who is currently under criminal indictment for money laundering and criminal conspiracy, has a long history of attacking the patriotism of progressives.”

That’s true, but let’s take a moment to delve into what, exactly, amounts to treason.

Borrowing liberally from Slate’s William Saletan, let’s provide some context for DeLay’s concerns.

If you’re sympathetic to a far-right worldview, you can probably muster some understanding for the former Majority Leader throwing around words like “treason.” After all, Harry Reid called the war in Iraq a “quagmire” and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would “drag on” indefinitely, costing billions. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw. When “the body bags start coming home,” Reid said, it’s time to cut our losses.

Reid kept going, talking about the need for peace. “The White House has bombed its way around the globe,” he sneered. “International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.” As for the current war plan, Reid complained that “no one wants us to be there” and that the president’s crusade “has harmed [our] standing in the world.”

And given the climate, I suppose Reid was pushing his luck when he urged Congress to de-fund the war and “pull out the forces we now have in the region.” What’s worse, Reid basically made the United States look like the bad guy. Once a U.S.-led coalition “starts meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, where does it stop?” Reid asked. He charged that we were “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army” and portrayed our mission as an “occupation by foreigners.”

Are all of these comments harsh? Do they undermine the troops while they’re in harm’s way? Do they amount, literally, to “treason”?

Before our friends on the right answer these questions, they should keep one minor detail in mind: all of these quotes I attributed to Harry Reid weren’t said by Reid at all — they came from Tom DeLay, on the House floor, about President Clinton’s war in Kosovo. It never occurred to him then, as it does now, that criticizing a war and questioning a military campaign is an unpatriotic attack on the country and its military.

I guess when those treason indictments start coming down, there will be plenty of people facing charges, right Tom?

“…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….”

Now Duck Felay was talking about Reid and Pelosi, not Abu, Bush and Cheneygirl. But according to the Delay Standard, Abu, Bush and Cheneypuss have all betrayed the trust of the American people, and are guilty of treason. That is an Impeachable offense.

Impeach.

  • There are two definitions for the word treason, the one that Delay used, which is grasping at straws to make a specious argument.

    Or, there is this one which seems more in line with what was intended in the constitution:
    the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family

  • OT, if you haven’t seen it yet, check out a new post on my blog related to a CB post from a yew days ago.

  • Or one can use the definition of treason that the Constitution itself provides:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

  • I also wonder why the media is still listening and printing the nasty and baseless comments of Tom Delay. Perhaps Delay should be working on his own criminal issues rather than trying to find treason in someone else who is speaking the truth according to his own conscience.

  • Tom Delay needs to do the patriotic thing and disappear from everywhere. His voice is the voice of dishonesty, delusional granduer, and general nonsense to the sentient among us. He needs to do something worthwhile like, you know, spray a few bugs around the neighborhood. As for politics and policy, Tom Delay has added nothing positive to our heritage. -Kevo

  • “all of these quotes I attributed to Harry Reid weren’t said by Reid at all — they came from Tom DeLay, on the House floor, about President Clinton’s war in Kosovo.”

    I’ve been waiting for someone to point this out, ’cause I was too lazy to go find the quotes for myself. The main difference, as I recall it, is that the right started making these ‘treasonous’ comments the very instant Clinton entered the Kosovo conflict. Harry Reid, on the other hand, is speaking out after essentially 4 years of Democratic silence. I would ask how long someone is allowed to fail at a war before people are permitted to criticize its execution, but apparently the answer depends on political affiliation.

  • “starting to resemble a power-hungry imperialist army”

    Nope. No “starting” involved. We ARE “a power-hungry imperialist power.” The Army isn’t, cetainly not consciously, but the powers it serves most definitely are.

    As to accusations of treason, consider what David Halberstam had to say about how JFK and “the best and the brightest” treated him 44 years ago:

    The patriotism debate now going on has unusual resonance for me, because I was one of the first to have his patriotism challenged for raising questions about Vietnam. Very early on I became a target of the war’s supporters in the White House, in the Pentagon (which had lots of powerful publicity machinery to use against wayward reporters), and among hawkish journalists, because of my pessimistic reporting. . . .

    Finding out the truth from other Americans engaged in a bitter war was never that hard; hiding the truth is always a great deal harder than telling it. The sources we journalists used were the senior American advisers in the field, and they were far more eager to tell their truths to the M.A.C.V. (Military Assistance Command, Vietnam) and Washington than to a bunch of young reporters. But from the beginning the administration, for domestic political reasons, wanted only to suppress the truth; it wanted to find out who was talking to reporters and then threaten them with court-martial.

    The irony was that our sources were motivated by the deepest kind of patriotism. Mine included three senior division advisers, two corps advisers, one assistant corps adviser, and one senior two-star American general, whose specialty was counter-insurgency. There was also one close friend, Major Ivan Slavich, the commander of the first armed helicopter company in Vietnam, who took me and Neil Sheehan on any operation we wanted to join.

    In Vietnam, the journalists were accused of minimizing the success that the Americans were grinding out, of downplaying the effectiveness of the overall American operation, and of seizing on small defeats to undermine the war effort. The irony of this, in retrospect, I believe, is that our reporting overestimated the strength of the Americans-which was military-and underestimated the long-range military importance of the political superiority of the other side.

    This was especially true of television journalism, because its cameras instinctively reflected what the Americans did best-gunships roaring into combat areas, unleashing awesome firepower, for instance-but they had no capacity at all to report on what the other side did best, which was to keep recruiting after the Americans had left a village on a given day, to keep coming down the trails at night, and to build their remarkable underground network of tunnels.

    The enemy’s strength, its resilience, its political superiority, and the fact that it controlled the rate of the war simply did not photograph well. The best of the military men there knew what was happening, knew that it was not going well, that we had not dented the other side’s dynamic, and that we were fighting the birthrate of the country.

    What we reporters wrote then and what the senior military men would later write in their memoirs were strikingly similar.

  • DeLay is just a little more tragic than the guy who used to stand on the corner outside my office every day shouting obscenities at drivers while they were stopped at the light. Wonder why the Tribune-Review never thought to interview that guy…

  • “Tom Delay still has a megaphone?

    Why? ”

    Explanation from Wikipedia and other sources.

    The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Greensburg Tribune-Review and affiliated dailies claim a Sunday circulation of 221,000 readers. They are published by the Tribune Review Publishing Company, which was purchased by Richard Mellon Scaife in 1970. The newspaper is generally considered to have a conservative and libertarian opinion page.
    End of Wikipedia exert

    The same Richard Mellon Scaife that blew millions on the Clinton Project. The same one who also bankrolled a lot of the talking heads we see today.

    Why should it surprise anyone?

  • You know what “almost late” means? It means on time.

    You know what “boarders on treason” means? It means you are a mealy-mouthed shithead who can’t say what he means.

    Is it treason? Or isn’t it? DeLay wants to brandish the word like weapon without the responsiblity involved in making a real accusation.

    Reid is entitled to say whatever the hell he wants, just like every American. It is those who seek to censor speech, like that pig Tom Delay who are the real traitors.

    Hey Delay! You’re a pig!

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO wrote: Tom Delay still has a megaphone? Why?

    Damn. Former Dan beat me to the punch with one word: Scaife.

  • The only way Tom DeLay should be heard is through the tiny mouthpiece in the 3 inch plexiglass of the visitor’s room in the Federal Penitentiary.

  • What is it about Boy George II that his “Friends” have to defend him with slock like this?

    Or right, the fact that he is a alcohol and cocaine addled Frat Boy ignoramus.

  • A reminder of how close we came to a permanent Republican one party government entrenched by K-street pay to play, rubber stamp judges, Bushie prosecutors, vote suppression and redistricting .. to a police state where simply not being Republican is treason. … Thank God for the 06 elections, but we still need to finish sweeping the bastards out in 08.

  • Thank you Tom Cleaver for posting the David Halberstam quotes in #11.

    Those were some excellent thoughts from a true patriot.

  • It seems it is impossible for somebody who once held massive power, and still has a following of right wing believers, to ever really give up and shut up. The sad thing is that there are still “news” organizations who are willing to give him a platform to froth from. But then Ann Coulter still gets coverage, too. Go figure.

  • Former Dan @#13

    The same Richard Mellon Scaife that blew millions on the Clinton Project. The same one who also bankrolled a lot of the talking heads we see today.

    Very true indeed. The Pittsburgh/Greensburg Tribune-Review is the flagship of Scaife’s media conglomerate. If they’re bringing Delay in to smear Reid on the pages of the Trib, you can rest assured it’s a calculated and organized attack. Scaife’s good friend Cheney took on Reid’s other flank on the same day. Coincidence? I expect the repub noise machine to get increasingly hissy and shrill as the war spending bill makes it’s way to Bush’s desk.

    I’m not sure what good it will do them. When the criminally insane go around accusing rational people of treason, they tend to reinforce how insane they appear.

  • “Treason” was a label bandied about by a particularly-mad George some 230 years ago, to identify a group of gentlement who thought the idea of Democracy—the rule of the people by those same people—was a worthy cause.

    “Treason” was a label placed upon the citizens of Virginia’s northwest counties, when they “seceded from a Confederacy that had dragged them, unwillingly, into what they conceived to be an illegal war.”

    “Treason” was the trademark stamp of a certain Joe McCarthy, and he applied it with an extremely broad brush against anyone who dared question his self-declared omnipotence over the American people—and saw himself as even more powerful than the President of the United States.

    “Treason” today includes all three of these things: We have (1) a “mad George,” (2) an “illegal war,” and (3) a penis who thinks it’s more important than just the Bu$h it’s been fornicating the Republic with….

  • You were doing fine Steve, even sort of interesting, until the wheels came off in the last paragraph.

  • Why are you even bothering with this? No one but nutcakes reads this rag, it’s a Scaife publication.

  • Gingrich/DeLay ‘08
    Truth be damned!

    Comment by MNProgressive — 4/24/2007 @ 4:04 pm

    that is so awesome!
    Witty, and Hillarious, and Apocryphal all at the same time!

    as for comment 29, I must insist once again as I wish to do on every blog I find anti dick-and-bush sentiment, that you search the internet for petitions to articles of impeachment. you do not necessarily need a senator/house rep to do this for you, or a state’s sovereign petition, you can send a mandate from the people. considering there is one state’s sovereign petition, and direct imposition by a congressman, sending as many people’s petitions as possible makes the case a unified 3-fold imposition that is hard to ignore.

    plus, the more people who actually state it to congress, rather than just support impeachment, the more senators will jump on the bandwagon. call your congressmen, (AND) send them a letter, and sign a petition. PLEASE.

  • Comments are closed.