Violent Rhetoric Watch: Pundits Imply Obama Supports Terrorism

This week on broadcast TV viewed by millions of Americans, two high-profile right-wing pundits made repeated statements implying that an elected member of the United States Senate and a leading Democratic candidate for President may be a terrorist.  To date, not a single major news outlet has sought to discredit these statements which were tantamount to implying that a sitting member of the United States government holds treasonous political views and may well be a threat to the future safety of the American people.

The statements were made by former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich and by former White House Press Secretary to George W. Bush Ari Fleisher, both of whom are now frequent pundits for FOX News.

During separate appearances on FOX News April 17 and April 18, Gingrich and Fleischer implied that Obama had close ties with anti-American terrorists, that Obama may have supported past bombings of U.S. government buildings, and that Obama's allegiances may lie with terrorists seeking to harm Americans.  The statements came during FOX News discussions of the most recent Democratic presidential candidate debate in Philadelphia hosted by ABC News.

Gingrich:  'Terrorist' and 'Bombed People'
During his April 17 interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, Gingrich repeatedly mentioned that Obama held meetings with a terrorist who had bombed people:

"Senator Obama had meetings with an American terrorist who had bombed people and who said as late as 2001 he'd wished he'd had more bombs. Senator Obama went to San Francisco and said something which I thought was more revealing about him than it was about Pennsylvania."

"And I think the fact is that Senator Obama was comfortable with somebody who had been a terrorist and who had bombed American government buildings."

"Now here's a guy who participates in Farrakhan's march, hangs out with a known, explicit terrorist who has bombed American government buildings."

(Newt Gingrich on Hannity and Colmes,  Apr 17, 2008)

In his New York Times bestselling book Winning the Future, Gingrich stated that "Terrorism is an act of war" (p. 6).  The logical conclusion that FOX listeners might draw, therefore, from hearing Gingrich repeatedly accuse Senator of Obama of having close times with 'a terrorist...who had bombed American government buildings,' is that Senate Obama supports individuals who have committed acts of war against the United States.  

Fleischer: 'A Friend Who's A Terrorist'
During his April 18 interview with FOX News' Sean Hannity and Alan

Colmes, Fleischer stated explicitly that Senator Obama had a terrorist 'friend':

Sean, I think that he's going to be very troublesome candidate for the Democrats. He's going to be the nominee the Democrats can't derail this at this point. But here's why this is an important presidential character test. When Yasser Arafat came to the United Nations in 2001 or 2002 and George Bush was president, George Bush deliberately avoided him, wouldn't shake his hand, wanted to have nothing to do with him. When Yasser Arafat approached George Bush, George Bush left him alone, so he did not get that approval from the United States government. When you have a friend who's a terrorist it's the same thing. You have to draw lines. And I don't know where Barack Obama draws  his line. That's what's troubling.

(Ari Fleischer on Hannity and Co.,  Apr 18, 2008)

In his 2005 book Taking Heat, Fleischer quote his own past statements that anyone who supports terrorism is regarded by the United States as a 'hostile regime,' or an enemy (p. 178). ). The logical conclusion that FOX listeners might draw, therefore, from hearing Fleischer state that Senator Obama was 'friends with a terrorist,' is that Senator Obama holds political views and policy positions hostile to the security and well being of the United States--that he is by virtue of his politics, 'hostile' to the United States.

Two Witnesses Accuse Obama
The statements repeated by Fleischer and Gingrich do not constitute formal accusations of treason against Senator Obama.  Nonetheless, it is interesting to note how close Fleischer and Gingrich's actions are to a Constitutionally defined accusation of treason.

On the question of treason, Article III Section 3of the U.S. Constitution states as follows:

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.

What we see, in other words, is a political smear against Senator Obama that has taken a form remarkably similar to a formal accusation of treason.  At the very least,  such a political tactic raises questions about the ethics of Gingrich and Fleischer.  When read in the context of these pundits' prior published statements about terrorism, their recent comments about Senator Obama clearly imply that they believe he may be an enemy of the United States.  

These statements push public debate beyond the realm of productive political debate and into a dynamic where the civil discourse itself collapses.

-----------------
**I NEED YOUR HELP**
With an eye towards the general election, I am beginning a new project focused on the problem of violent rhetoric from the Right and the problems it poses--not just to Democratic Party prospects at winning the White House, but to American democracy itself.

About a year ago, I began tracking the problem of violent rhetoric and violent framing as it was being used by a host of very high-profile right-wing pundits (e.g., Buchanan, Coulter, Hannity, Dobson, Lapierre, Gibson, O'Reilly) as well as a few right-wing politicians (e.g., Giuliani, Bush, Cheney, Gingrich, McCain).  Growing out of this work, I posted a few blog pieces on DailyKos, Frameshop, and HuffingtonPost.  Finally, I write a book titled Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy in which I put down on paper a basic description of 'violent rhetoric,' who was responsible for  using it, and how it undermined American democracy.  

Interested in helping with this DailyKos series?  To join the  invite-only Google Group, send an email to:

VRW (at) frameshopisopen (dot) com

Be sure to include:

1. Your DailyKos user ID

2. An email address

3. Your actual name (optional)

4. Some way for me to verify that you are not a right-wing troublemaker