Update on Offutt Military Base-Ben Nelson Story
Here is the update: It’s not true.
On Wednesday, Sen. Mike Johanns and 19 other Republican senators Wednesday called for a hearing into reports that the Obama administration used the future of Offutt Air Force Base as bargaining chip in the health care debate.
Nelson has repeatedly said the rumors are completely false. The White House has called them “absurd.”
A defense analyst said Wednesday that base closures simply don’t work that way.
Even Johanns himself said he doesn’t believe the rumors.“When Senator Nelson says it didn’t happen, I trust Senator Nelson. I have no reason not to trust him,” Johanns said.
But he’s still calling for hearings, according to Rachel Maddow tonight.
The report originated from an article by Michael Goldfarb, based on one unnamed source. That was enough to get 20 Republican senators calling for a formal investigation.
Steve Benen points out that the story is absurdly illogical on its face — aside from the unequivocal denials from Nelson and the White House, it does not accord with any pattern of behavior from this administration:
Now, after watching this White House operate for 11 months, this certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of thing the Obama team would do. Have we seen any evidence of these kinds of strong-arm tactics this year? Goldfarb noted that Offutt “is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command,” and was placed in Nebraska for strategic, national security reasons. Obama would threaten to close it over a cloture vote? Without some credible evidence, it’s the kind of dubious story from an unreliable writer that few serious people would find credible.
Few serious people. That lets out Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox No-News crew. Here’s how it goes: Goldfarb writes story, citing a “staff aide” as his only source. Then Glenn Beck interviews Goldfarb, and along with Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh they use Goldfarb’s slimy reporting to advance the story. So now there are four sources for the fabrication — anonymous staff aide, and Goldfarb himself, plus Hannity and Limbaugh!
And it goes on from there (emphasis in original):
Matt Lewis: “Hearing Ben Nelson has been threatened with closing his air force base.” Posted on Matt Lewis’ Twitter page at 4:50 a.m. on December 15[.]
[...]
Noonan, Continetti advance allegation. In a December 15 Weekly Standard blog post, John Noonan linked to Goldfarb’s post and stated, “In what appears to be a very strange decision, the White House seems to feel that all the money, pain, and headaches that would result from BRAC’ing Offut is fair price in exchange for a single vote on health care reform. Nelson should recognize a bogus threat when he sees one, and dare Emanuel to try.” Additionally, in a December 15 Weekly Standard blog post, Matthew Continetti wrote that Nelson “has been threatened and cajoled into a Yes vote,” linking to Goldfarb’s post.
Malkin: Nelson “is reportedly being threatened with closure of an air force base.” Michelle Malkin wrote in an “update” to a December 15 blog post, “A Hill source says to pay attention to Sen. Ben Nelson. He is reportedly being threatened with closure of an air force base if he doesn’t fall in line and will be offered a ‘blank check’ bribe bigger than Sen. Landrieu’s.”
Ed Morrissey: Obama administration “willing to damage national security to extort his support.” In a December 15 Hot Air blog post, Ed Morrissey wrote, “How desperate has the White House become to get anything passed under the name of health-care reform? According to Michael Goldfarb’s source on Capitol Hill, the Obama administration has targeted the last remaining Democratic holdout, at least among moderates — and they’re willing to damage national security to extort his support. The White House has threatened Ben Nelson (D-NE) with the closure of Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska if he opposes Reid’s latest version, despite its status as the headquarters of US Strategic Command.”
Meanwhile, all this “reportedly” stuff is based on ONE anonymous, unconfirmed source quoted in ONE blog post by a far right blogger with a miles-long reputation for sloppy, biased reporting — AND after having been denied in the most emphatic terms possible by the very senator who supposedly is being threatened, and by the White House, and even after the senator who called for the investigation has said he doesn’t believe the story himself anymore!
But wait — it gets even worse. How does Goldfarb respond to all the denials and all the evidence that he went forward with a fake story without making the least effort to confirm it? He doubles down, and actually has the chutzpah to say that the official denials make the story more likely to be true:
Meanwhile, both Nelson and the White House strenuously deny the allegation. A statement from White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer asserts “This rumor is absolutely false, as the people spreading it well know. This is nothing but a cynical, crass political game that is designed to maintain the status quo. Let’s be clear: the people spreading these falsehoods think nothing is wrong with a system under which families and businesses continue to bear the brunt of skyrocketing costs, insurance companies are allowed to discriminate and drop at will, and thousands of Americans lose their coverage every single day.”
They protest a little too much. I do not know this story is “absolutely false.” To the contrary, I’m confident it’s true. Twenty senators are now calling for an investigation, and each is presumably pretty well sourced in the Senate. If the charges are “absolutely false,” maybe the White House will encourage Senate Democrats to call this Republican bluff. I won’t hold my breath.
So there you go. Make up a story based on outrageously skimpy evidence, and then say the denials are too outraged to be believed.
I hate to say this. It gets even worse. Today, Goldfarb ridiculed Time‘s Joe Klein, for…. What? Going with a story despite official denials. Really and truly. I kid you not:
Despite the increasing headwind against the credibility of his reporting, Goldfarb had the audacity to mock another journalist, Time’s Joe Klein, today for getting “caught making things up.” Goldfarb’s proof that Klein got his story wrong? Official denials in the same vein that Nelson and the White House have denied his story.
Goldfarb responded on Twitter to questions about the consistency of his respect for official denials by saying, “Like everybody else, I believe official denials except when I have a good reason not to.”
I’ve saved the best for last, though. Here is the first paragraph of that follow-up post by Goldfarb in which he claims that the official denials make the story more likely to be true:
Twenty Republican senators have requested that the Senate Armed Services Committee launch an investigation into reports that the Obama White House threatened to close Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force base unless Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson fell into line on health care. Those reports first appeared on this blog. In the letter to Senators Levin and McCain, the committee chairman and ranking member, the 20 ask that “a hearing be held as to whether the BRAC process has been compromised.”
Reports? Reports? What reports? There was only one report — the one Goldfarb wrote the day before! Of course, he stuck in (or his editor made him stick in) “Those reports first appeared on this blog,” as if that helps. It’s still only one report. And that bit about “first appeared”? What does that mean? These multiple reportS “first” appeared on Goldfarb’s blog, written by Goldberg, but then they moved en masse to appear somewhere else? There was only one report on Goldberg’s blog. Goldberg wrote it. There were no other “reportS” on his blog or anywhere else — except for the sycophant wingers who quoted Goldberg’s report as if it were true. So now Beck, Hannity, Malkin, and Limbaugh all quoting Goldberg’s one report based on one unnamed source are reportS?
And tell me again why anyone outside of the make-up-the-news crowd would cite Michael Goldfarb or The Weekly Standard as if he, and it, were reliable sources?
20 Responses to “Update on Offutt Military Base-Ben Nelson Story”
Maybe they can get a Special Prosecutor appointed and question a whole slew of witnesses and find one who might say something that contradicts another's testimony. Then they can charge him with perjury, even though the initial investigation is bogus and results in no charges related to the formal accusations. It worked really well in the Scooter Libby case. They claimed that a CIA agent's cover was blown but nobody was ever charged with that crime. They even knew who released the information — Richard Armitage — but he was never charged.
Washington loves fishing expeditions. You never know what you might catch.
Any Administration that orders its Justice Department to drop voter intimidation charges against its allies (NBPP) or fires an Inspector General (Gerald Walpin) who catches its contributors misspending Federal funds raises a reasonable index of suspicion that the fish may indeed be biting.
This is an extremely interesting comment, DaMav. I'm flattered that you shared the depth of your political thinking on my post.
I only have one question. What does any of it have to do with my post?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and Organic Loudoun, Dish Network. Dish Network said: Update on Offutt Military Base-Ben Nelson Story http://bit.ly/81f5rA [...]
The people who push this kind of story don't care if it's true–they only care about getting the smear out there.
Example number one.
Example number two.
Wake up.
Obama should sue Goldfarb for defamation. The element of defamation are a defamatory statement, made at a person, that causes injury. Since Obama is a public figure the 1st amendment requires that he must also show that the statement was false and made with malice. I think it would be easy to show the statement was defamatory, made at Obama and false. Injury would be a little more tricky but Obama may argue that injury should be presumed because the statement is about his profession and is therefore a slander per se. Malicious defamatory statements are those made with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for whether they are true or false. Here everyone knows that Goldfarb knew it was false, he probably made it up himself, but I think that is claimed source is dubious enough that Obama could show that relying on that source was relying with reckless disregard for whether that source was telling the truth.
Many will scream freedom of the press. I agree, a free press is essential to a functioning democracy. But the freedom of the press is not a freedom of the press to lie to the detriment of others and to the detriment of the American people. Members of the press who disseminate nonsense like this should be publicly flogged (figuratively of course), from time to time, if not merely to keep the press honest. Based on this instance Goldfard seems to be as good a candidate as any.
The Weekly Standard and Michelle Malkin wrong? Unpossible!
Wake up.
I am fully awake, and I could not agree more. That's why I wrote this update. Thank you for underscoring the point, though. I'm glad you did.
[...] Air Command-because Dem. Senator Ben Nelson would not go along with "Obamacare" !!! http://themoderatevoice.com/56255/up…-nelson-story/ Crap like this -and the Birther nonsense- is why some of us speak heatedly of [...]
I agree with your basic assessment of the accusations, Kathy.
Flimsy “evidence” is hardly a means to take someone down.
But given the political corruption in Congress over the past 15 years, it's no stretch to assume that this is indeed what is happening. Just about every stop has been pulled over this useless healthcare bill. Every trick up both parties sleaves has been used.
There are plenty of precedences for holding the BRAC over legislators' heads to get them to vote a certain way. The GOP and the Democrats are both guilty of that in the past. Does that mean it's happening in this case? No. But it is somewhat likely.
[...] Air Command-because Dem. Senator Ben Nelson would not go along with "Obamacare" !!! http://themoderatevoice.com/56255/up…-nelson-story/ Crap like this -and the Birther nonsense- is why some of us speak heatedly of [...]
It has everything to do with your post. It demonstrates that using ostensibly 'false' charges in pursuit of a political end is hardly unprecedented.
Kathy, you are technically 100% correct – the whole base closure story is complete bupkes. A complete fabrication, a total lie, a terrible rumor.
But, that being said — you're missing the point. It really doesn't matter whether it is true or not. Instead, people who *want* to believe it, *will* believe it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We've seen the same thing with birth certificates, Obama's sooper-seekrit Muslim religion, ACORN, death panels, climate change deniers, you name it. Plain and simple: Facts Don't Matter.
I refer you back to an interesting TED Talk by Jonathan Haidt earlier this year, that touches on this whole idea. Read it in full here: http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/the_healthcare.php
The most relevant paragraph: “We engage in moral thinking not to find the truth, but to find arguments that support our intuitive judgments, so that we can defend ourselves if challenged. The crucial insight here comes from psychologist Tom Gilovich at Cornell, who says that when we want to believe a proposition, we ask, “Can I believe it?” — and we look only for evidence that the proposition might be true. If we find a single piece of evidence then we're done. We stop. We have a reason we can trot out to support our belief. But if we don't want to believe a proposition, we ask, “Must I believe it?” — and we look for an escape hatch, a single reason why maybe, just maybe, the proposition is false. So people who have a negative intuitive reaction to Obama, or who are fearful about the enormous changes going on, are already inclined to believe rumors against him and his plans. They hear about death panels and forged birth certificates and ask “can I believe it?” The answer is usually yes, particularly if Fox News raises these questions and brings on experts who claim that the propositions are true. Even if Fox News presents both sides, the fact that somebody on TV endorsed a proposition gives viewers permission to believe it, if they want to. Conversely, Democrats can give rebuttals till they're blue in the face, but if people are asking themselves “must I believe it” about the Democrats' claims then the answer they will usually reach is “no.” Logic and consistency just aren't very important when it comes to morality. Reasoning is “the servant of the passions,” as the philosopher David Hume said long ago.”
My conclusion: There is no reasoning with these types of people. So I don't even try.
I think they need more evidence before making strong assertions, might not be a bad idea to investigate quietly however,. They don't need to make a Bill Sparkman (that sick puppy census worker who killed himself) style jump to a conclusion without any real evidence.
JD as long as there is no credible source, I don't see a reason to think this is “somewhat likely”. An unnamed source is only as credible as the reporter. In this case the reporter is Michael Goldfarb, who I am not familiar with.
Frankly I hate anonymous sources and they are way too common. All White House, Pentagon, and CIA leaks are from anonymous sources. Some reporters largely base their careers on them, Sy Hersh and Bob Woodward come to mind. The Drudge Report thrives on them.
In this case the problem is also that Goldfarb is telling the partisan right what they want to hear, so they are pre-disposed to believe it. An analogous situation on the left was the Jason Leopold/truthout announcement in 2006 that Rove had been indicted based on anonymous sources. The left was dancing in the streets for a few days but of course Rove had not been indicted. The problem then is not just anonymous sources, but the hyper-partisan environment that encourages them.
http://www.truthout.org/article/rove-informs-wh…
OMG! You mean the right wingers have resorted to fabrications, distortions and outright lies to further their agenda??? The good news is, in the battle for public opinion………most folks now believe this stuff. Hey, you fight distortion with distortion…….they ARE learning fast…..to the obvious detriment of the democrats.
Before the internet so much of the corruption was hidden from the public and it was easy to believe the tooth fairy really existed in America. Now that these things are being revealed we are waking up to find we live in a post-American age. The corruption is so vast that it is easy to believe any corruption rumors. Evidence Governer Blogo, Sen Burris, Climategate, communists in the white house (Van Jone's words not mine), banking scandals. These aren't just smears. Now tell me again why it is so difficult for you to believe it.
The Obama crowd seems to be working awfully hard to avoid any investigation of hardball tactics on the ObamaCare bill. Now why would anyone be suspicious? They have already denied the story, right? Must be time to MoveOn. We are dealing with people of high moral character in the White House. Why make an ACORN into an oak?
The integrity and consistency of your moral analysis is impressive. Who is your model? Aquinas? Socrates?
The fact that The Governor of Nebraska said that this bill is bad for the State of Nebraska and will drive up Blue Cross and Blue Sheild premiums 90% is reason enough tot kill this bill. It's obvious to me some kind of deal was struck or threatened otherwise why would you support this bill that is going to harm the actual taxpayers of your State. Then you wonder why people are up in arms. When is enough enough!
“They have already denied the story, right? Must be time to MoveOn. We are dealing with people of high moral character in the White House. Why make an ACORN into an oak?”
We're all supposed to fit their lefty model, of stupid as well as subservient people who will simply listen to them and while obeying, just nod their heads up and down and agree with everything they are being told.
ACORN has already made itself into a massive oak (with apologies to that species and its examples that are of far better value to this planet and universe than anything and anybody related to ACORN).
How many people are going to be so stupid, or insist others be so, not to suspect ACORN and others like that organization and its members might be up to mischief during the upcoming Census, ripe for corruption?