Innocence does not utter outraged shrieks, guilt does.

- Whittaker Chambers

Conservative author Ann Coulter asks in Treason whether this question is legitimate. She points out that liberals claim they are the ideology of the environment, minorities, women's rights, and a host of other special interests. She then posits the notion that if they can claim the "moral high ground" on these social issues, then is it out of bounds for conservatives to claim that they are more patriotic? Patriotism is a subjective word. If one reads Webster's or most mainstream dictionaries, and applies the meanings they give for "patriot" and "patriotism," it is not a big leap to arrive at the conclusion that the word fits the traditional concept of conservative more so than liberals.

However, many people would disagree with the Webster's meaning, and argue that it is based on old-fashioned, jingoistic concepts that, they might say, have been changed by new social notions based on modern perceptions of race, war and other events. It might be argued that to embrace old traditions is to give acceptance to notions that are unsympathetic or intolerant towards minorities. Or it fails to take into account new notions of appropriate military combat, and how these notions differentiate between old identifications of "enemies," "enemy combatants,” civilians, and new versions of these groups.

            To "protest" American policies is viewed as "patriotic" by many. In and of itself it very well may be. Americans take pride in the fact that they do not march in "lockstep" with the President (differentiating us most obviously from totalitarians like the Nazis and the Soviets). We have a "loyal opposition" that operates with a two- or multi-party system. Dissent breeds compromise and moderation. That this is exactly how the Founding Fathers wanted it to be.

            Certainly, Republicans "dissented" against President Clinton. Much of the "unpatriotic" label is attached to liberals who protest wars that Republicans lead us into. In 2003, many found fault with President Bush's premise that war in Iraq was the right thing to do. Conservatives pointed to many in the entertainment industry who howled about Iraq, and pointed out that they had not raised a ruckus when Bill Clinton bombed Bosnia, among other smaller engagements. This is not entirely true. Some (not all) of the liberals did protest Clinton's "war," but the notion of liberals dissenting with a Democrat is not big news in the media. A lot of the protest found little coverage. The press does like to publicize liberal complaints about conservatives, not vice versa. It is part of the news cycle.

             Coulter's notions are strident and confrontational, although she does not consider all "liberals" to be traitors. If we lived in a country in which all the people were conservative, it would be one heck of a boring place. Unrestrained by the Left, the Right would tend to get heavy-handed socially and too militaristic. While conservatism is the winning ideology of history, conservatism is best served blended with a diversity of thought, religion, race, military ethos, and a host of other temperances.

Dwight Eisenhower may have been the greatest man of all time, with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ. Ike tended towards the Republican Party, but was not a true conservative. He defeated one, Bob Taft, in order to get the party's 1952 nomination. Ike voiced skepticism about "extreme" notions of the political spectrum, in the military, the Military Industrial Complex, and in the Republican Party, until the day he passed away. Ike lived in more moderate times and responded to those times. His philosophies will always ring true. It is a difficult dividing line sometimes, separating conservatism from moderation. Often, it is only defined by particular circumstances that can change.

What Coulter did do successfully was identify historical facts that can be disputed, but not successfully (for the most part). She did not expose every little old lady or man who considers him or herself to be "liberal," and state that this automatically means they are "traitors." Just as "patriot" has its dictionary meaning, so too does "traitor." It is not an easy definition to attach to people. Actions must occur in relation to events, by and large, usually with certain results or near-results.

Opinion is not treachery. Private and public discussions do not represent treachery. What Coulter set out to do was demonstrate events that had an effect, or a possible effect, on national security, during a time of war, crisis or even "preparation" for war, and show that certain actions (or inactions) had the "whiff" of treachery. This is dangerous territory. It comes close to moralizing, finger pointing, and has the enormous potential of biting conservatives in the back in the future. We have always been judgmental, because we feel some issues are important and require judgment in order to frame them properly.

Perhaps her version of "treason" might be called the "political" one, which could be equated with the "civil" requirements needed to "prove" a case, as opposed to the higher "criminal" requirements of "proof beyond reasonable doubt." Coulter is a partisan political animal. She views these issues as part of a "political war." She is out to win it, and she has taken no prisoners in this endeavor. She is divisive, has accepted this and all that goes with it, in the context of being a national media figure.

But Coulter, by being honest in her assessments (whether one agrees or disagrees with her), separates herself from, say, Hillary Clinton, who liked to take her shots but couched them in a political vein meant to get her points made without the kind of backlash that Coulter's books engender. True, Hillary was an elected official, and Coulter is not, but "truth in advertising" among the political classes is a worthy trait indeed.

Al Franken said that what he hates the most are conservative accusations that liberals love America less. In this, he has a point . . . to a point. Franken loves America but to use an Al Campanis phrase, lacks the "necessities" to offer expert opinion. But he has all the right in the world to offer opinion, then take his chances. Franken compares liberal "love" and conservative "love" with children and adults. Conservatives, he says, love America "like a child loves his Mommy." It is the child's whole world and can do no wrong. Liberals, he says, love America like adults love their parents. They know the mistakes they made and want to learn from them.

Franken is off the mark. He claims that one can turn to any page and find a lie in Coulter's books, then pointed one out. Upon read it several times one could not see where the lie was. Besides, it was a very obtuse and off-hand reference. Coulter's book puts the lie to Franken's "child" vs. "adult" argument, because her books are carefully researched and very, very little is ever shown to be untrue. Liberals think that if they call something a lie it is a lie, which does not make it a lie. Unfortunately for them, it too often reflects accurate portrayals of things they would rather have people not be aware of.

Liberals fail to realize that conservatives have been listening to these portrayals of them, and of history, and spent decades slowly, painstakingly, building a brick-by-brick case for their positions. Conservatives knew the only weapon they really had was true facts. Accusing them of lying at this point is like accusing an athlete who was not very good in high school, but through really hard work and desire became a professional star, of not having natural talent.

Franken's "child" analogy does not hold up to scrutiny. Conservatives do not hide from the most devastating facts about America's darkest adventures: the Phoenix program; CIA-orchestrated coups in Guatemala, Chile and Iran; 100 years of brutal Jim Crow laws; and many other facts about us that are subject to public scrutiny. It is certainly not analogous to a little kid who loves his flawed parents without seeing their flaws. We are a flawed people, a flawed nation, and a flawed ideology that has been guided as the world's last, best hope by a loving God, and is the worst country on the face of the Earth with the exception of all other countries on the face of the Earth.

Furthermore, all subjects throughout history could be hung on a giant dartboard. Wherever the dart hits, Franken can discuss whatever that subject is. We can do that 100 times. 99 percent of those subjects are ones he possesses little knowledge of. Then we can talk about who the children are, and who the parents are.

"Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason," says Coulter. "Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don't." Liberals are more likely to side with treason, but not always. Her blanket statement that liberals do not love America cannot be justified, either. But a small group of conservative writers and historians are striking back. They have grown up reading the textbooks, seen the movies, listened and viewed the news broadcasts, the specials, the documentaries, listened to their college professors and read the books, all too often slandering and lying about the land they love. Liberals have written history since World War II. Not anymore.

Coulter may be a bit "ripe," but conservatives have decided that they the academic credentials, the smarts, the common sense and the wherewithal to tackle a domain that liberals have for too long tried to say only they are qualified to occupy. For decades, conservatives have operated on a certain amount of instinct. The average American has spent a lifetime hearing the liberal point of view. It has long ago ceased to pass the "smell test." The "little voice" that told us thousands of times, "I don't think so" or "that sure doesn't sound right" has resounded enough. Now we are armed with the facts.

History wars

The past 55-60 years have brought us to a point of division. The old enemy, Nazi Germany, was easy for everybody to hate. So was Japan. Communism seemed to be that way at first, but we never fought a war with the Soviets. We fought small wars with the Chinese and Soviet client states, but these wars did not materialize into the Armageddons the militarists warned us the Communists were itching for. Because they lacked the kind of clarity of WWII, a fair number of Americans began to question the premise of who we were, what we stood for, and most importantly, why we fight. A large number of people in other countries began to ask the same questions, but they were not "burdened" by the patriotic loyalties that are in-grained into most of us in this country. When the U.S. won the Cold War, a funny thing happened. Psychologists, and just plain folks, could identify with the mindset.

It is the feeling one gets at the end of the school year when a rival or a bully has been beaten, or they are suddenly shown to be something other than what you "feared" them to be all along. They become humanized.

"He wasn't so bad," you say to yourself, although that feeling you had is still there. This kind of thing worked on our psyches all through the 1990s. Now terrorism has replaced Communism, but Osama bin Laden looked a lot different running scared than he did right after 9/11. Slowly but surely, our fears about terrorists waned a bit. It is a natural tendency. Eventually he met the same fate as Hitler and Che Guevara.

None of this changes the historical fact about Communism, and terrorism, too. More than 20 years after the Berlin Wall crashed down, it is time to take an honest assessment of who the Communists were. If we can arrive at the conclusion that they were evil and they were a threat, then it is fair to ask who helped them, who failed to stand up to them. Because that side has been writing the history, and they do not want to credit McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. They want you to think George Kennan, Adlai Stevenson, Dean Acheson, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy won the Cold War. With all due respect, that dog don't hunt.

History is important. The winners usually write it. The first drafts are influential but over time they are replaced. We must learn from history. From the standpoint of politics, Democracy, military strategy, and national security, history ranges from the really important to a matter of life and death.

Whittaker Chambers said in the 1950s, "In this century, within the next decades, <it> will be decided for generations whether all Mankind is to become Communist, whether the whole world is to become free, or whether, in the struggle, civilization as we know it is to be completely destroyed."

Chambers was a witness to the two great faiths of our time, God and Communism.

"Communism," he said, "is the vision of man without God." Coulter writes, "Liberals chose Man. Conservatives chose God." What is prescient in Chambers's statement is that Communism, despite its evil, and despite the hatred so many heaped upon it, is and always will be enticing. It was unavailable as a practical political outlet for Americans, but many in this country were drawn to it. They could not resist it. In so doing they did its bidding in secret, on the quiet. But Chambers posits that somewhere in the middle, between freedom and Communism, is a third choice that threatens to destroy us. What he was getting at, perhaps without really knowing it, is that there is this third way called ambivalence, and that this ambivalence is the slipshod, the fissure, the crack in society. This is where the "enemies" of freedom, who cannot call themselves Nazis, or Communists, or even nationalists, are able to operate. The devil works that way. Today, this is readily identifiable as terrorism, in the name of Fundamentalist Islam, which is a particularly devilish ploy. It uses a mainstream religion to further the works of Satan. Someday it will be something else, something that foments in Africa most likely; disease, anarchy, starvation, famine, hopelessness, racism. It will have another name some day.

The battle for the American soul since World War II (and there were battles prior to that) has turned on pivotal moments of triumph, failure and revenge. Hiss, McCarthyism, Kennedy over Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate, the Berlin Wall, and the Clinton Impeachment are the various watersheds. In 2004, conservatism was riding high. Conservatives were out to exact a certain amount of revenge for the lies of history. The Left counter a string of Right-wing books. It will go on until society has either inexorably surged to a higher place, or a "big event" moves us there.

What irks the Left most is that Vietnam and Watergate failed to score them the winning touchdowns. A political scientist like Alexis de Tocqueville might have surveyed the American landscape of the 1960s and '70s - literature, music, politics, culture - and said, "The Left has won." Musicians like Jim Morrison were singing about triumphal revolution, how "their side" had won. Then Nixon won 49 states in 1972. Everybody was shocked. But Watergate seemed to be the final nail in the coffin. What the Reagan Revolution said were two things: conservatism was the wave of the future, nothing could hold it back, and the Left never had enough gravitas to hold onto to the top slot in the corporation in the first place. Liberals differ on this because they think it was a freak occurrence, a setback, a sidebar.

Since 9/11, liberals have slyly went from capitalizing War on Terror to "war on terror." Before the 2003 Iraq War, the "usual suspects" formed another wonderful organization called Not In Our Name, calling Bush's proposed fight "unjust, immoral, and illegitimate." They said 9/11 compared to "similar scenes in Baghdad." Their members included Jane Fonda, Ed Asner, Susan Sarandon, Casey Kasem, Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Edward Said, Ben Cohen, Kurt Vonnegut, and a guy who killed a cop, named Mumia Abu-Jamal.

This group is easily dismissed as "unpatriotic," and Coulter thinks close to treasonous when considering the War on Terror, but were they? They offered the opinion that invading Iraq was immoral and illegitimate. They had little standing to call it illegitimate. The U.N. provided guidelines for Iraq to meet for weapons inspectors, and they failed to meet the guidelines. The U.N. did not spell out a "use of force" justification, but it was well assumed that the underlying power of the resolution was to justify such force if worse came to worse. Congress absolutely authorized force, and many Democrats signed on to it.

The "moral" question is key to this argument, and should not be dismissed lightly. Real military men like Douglas MacArthur said they could not even describe war. George Patton "loved" it, reveling in its "g(l)ory," but he was something close to crazy, to the point of worrying for his mortal soul because of the way he felt about it. Movies like Saving Private Ryan are considered realistic, but can never really capture what it is.

War is about people burning to death, having their limbs and extremities blown to bits, experiencing agonizing pain. Innocent women and children die in wars, sometimes caught in burning buildings that they cannot escape from. Soldiers returning from Afghanistan, which was by no means a major conflict comparable to Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf War, were glazed over from the experience.

Bush framed the issue around Saddam's WMD. A great deal of the pre-war hype and "justification" for it centered on Saddam's human rights abuses, which should have been elevated to the level of the WMD danger. Not In Our Name made the compelling argument that killing so many people (and their predictions were of horrible civilian death tolls, certainly far more than what happened) could not be justified. It is not fair to simply call them unpatriotic for not backing Bush.

But where these people were off the mark was in their blatantly political agenda. They were against the war on a number of levels. They (a) did not trust American power and (b) hated the idea that a Republican President would gain political clout by prosecuting a successful war. There was a lack of honesty in their protest. It was not about innocent lives. It was about a Republican President. Ed Asner may have "protested" Clinton killing 2,000 civilians in Bosnia, but his protests and those of others lacked the vociferousness of the one directed at Bush.

The Iraq War was in American interests. This gets to the heart of what Coulter argues is either unpatriotic, treasonous, or somewhere close. Liberals seem to have a big problem with winning American military campaigns that advance our agenda. They think we are too powerful, and our agenda should not be advanced any more than it already is. Coulter defines this as treason.

On the other hand, when America is at war, many factors come into play that are forgotten by history. The morale of the country, the safety of the troops and the support for their cause, are all things of worthy consideration. It may be unfair to heap the "unpatriotic traitor" label on people who protest, just because they discourage fighting men, and perhaps the enemy is comforted by them, but these factors are extremely important at the height of the conflict.

When President Bush exposed and identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the "axis of evil," liberals went ballistic. These people cannot call something evil because they do not think America is righteous. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a very telling article that came closer to backing Coulter's assertions than perhaps Coulter could make. She wrote that Democrats would have to fake enthusiasm for the War on Terror out of fear of being labeled McGovernites, a losing political reality, and lie. What a novel concept for Democrats!

On the other hand, some things were really simple. Saddam was a bad, bad man leading a murderous regime. The U.S. was in prime position to take him out. All the machinations, which might go into taking out some other maniac in the world, were already hurdled. Bush was the checkers player, not the chess master. He took him out. Democrat failure to see the simplicity and goodness of this act, then or now, is worthy of some hard questioning.

Ann Coulter devotes a fair amount of time and research to the controversial character Alger Hiss. Whittaker Chambers's accusations may well have been unheeded except for the Venona Project. After the Hitler-Stalin pact, Chambers had a revelation. He realized what he believed in, Communism, was evil. He decided to inform, and spoke with Adolf Berle, President Roosevelt's Assistant Secretary of State. He provided the names of two dozen spies in the administration. This included Alger Hiss and his brother, Donald. When told, FDR told Berle to go "f--k himself." Hiss was promoted, given more responsibility, more trust and more power. The espionage accusations began to float about Washington. Dean Acheson took up the cause of defending Hiss. But through Venona, Hiss's work on behalf of the Communists was confirmed.

What happened over the next years  s actually quite simple. Republicans knew Hiss was a Communist and wanted him. Democrats either (a) knew he was a Communist and liked him because of it, (b) knew he was a Communist but did not care, or (c) refused to believe the prima facie evidence of Venona. Naturally, it became political. When Chambers was called before HUAC he named Hiss as a Soviet agent. There is little use arguing the point of Hiss's Communist work. It has been detailed, he was convicted, honest historians knew he was a Communist, and after the Soviets imploded their archives proved it, just as they proved most everything conservatives had persuasively argued for throughout the Cold War.

The question then comes down not to whether Hiss was a traitor - he was - but whether his defenders were traitors. The Democrats went after Chambers with all their strength. The American public believed him. Throughout the 1950s, the U.S. agreed with the Republicans, Nixon and McCarthy. Truman was virtually thrown out of office, with three out of four believing Truman's administration was infiltrated by Communists, four out of five supporting HUAC, and even 71 percent of Democrats refuting the Truman charge that Communist espionage was "playing politics" on the part of Republicans.

Hiss did not want to sue Chambers for libel for the reasons that are now obvious, which was that he knew he would lose. But the Democrats shamed him into it and paid for his Harvard defense team. They slandered Chambers (who was married) as a homosexual who had been the gay lover of his brother, which was false. Even if it had been true it had nothing to do with Hiss. Hiss's defense apparently was to keep calling Chambers a "queer." Chambers simply provided loads of documentation, State Department summaries, letters he had secreted away for years, and various other irrefutable proofs. Hiss's libel case was down the tubes. A reluctant Department of Justice was forced to step in. Had Hiss just backed off the libel claim (which the Democrats forced him into) he may have been home scot-free.

Truman's lawyers at Justice tried to spin the case as an investigation of Chambers. Republicans at HUAC, realizing Democrat lies were in danger of winning the day, wanted more proof from Chambers. Chambers had feared for his life from the Communists and hidden the most damning evidence in a pumpkin patch in Maryland. Over time, he had come to realize that the Democrats were almost as dangerous to him as the Communists. For that reason he had not played his entire hand at the libel trial. He had anticipated being hailed in to criminal court by the Democrats. He wanted a final "weapon" to prevent this. Thus were the "pumpkin papers." They were "definitive proof of one of the most extensive espionage rings in the history of the United State," wrote Perjury author Allen Weinstein. Hiss's guilt was no longer in doubt.

Hiss evaded and lied, claiming that Chambers had gotten into his house to use his typewriter to type up his letters and spy directions. To this day, the New York Times and The Nation "believe" Chambers broke into Hiss's house to write the voluminous documents, all on Hiss's typewriter and in his inimitable communication style. Of course they know the truth, but lie about it.

The Hiss case raises serious questions about the Roosevelt/Truman Administrations, and the Democrat Party in the succeeding years. The troubling sell-out of Eastern Europe, the "loss" of China, and the U.N. charter favoring the Russians cannot be ignored. The attempts by Hiss and his defenders for 60 years to uncover "new evidence" that never went anywhere begs the question not whether Hiss was a traitor, but whether Democrats had a problem with him being a traitor. The heart of the matter is that, apparently, certain acts of treason against the United States of America, if committed by the right person with the right pedigree at least, are considered good policy by Democrats.

Certainly Truman kept Hiss on at the State Department. FDR-appointed Supreme Court Justices Felix Frankfurter and Stanley Reed were Hiss's character witnesses. 1952 and 1956 Democrat Presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson vouched for him. All of this happened after it was proven that Hiss was a Communist agent.

After McCarthyism, the dominant media culture in the U.S. became, more and more, overwhelmingly liberal. This was in response to the Hiss/McCarthy era. The twin towers of media paganism were that McCarthy was evil because there were no Communists, and Hiss was innocent because there were no Communists. It became the overriding theme of schoolbooks to this very day. It dominates the thinking of a majority of the press, in all its forms. When the Soviet cables further proving Hiss's guilt were made available in the 1990s, the Washington Post ran it on page three and still said there was "no evidence." The New York Times, who championed Hiss and trotted him out whenever Nixon met political defeat (California in 1962, Watergate in 1974), now just said the "distressing episode" was "over," and wanted it to go away. In the past 15 years, the "grey lady" failed to write the final truthful chapter on Hiss; defended Clinton in the same manner Democrats had defended Hiss in the 1950s; were identified as a "big-time" a-----e by a Presidential candidate who gained points from a public that agreed with the assessment; hired an unqualified affirmative action writer who exposed the paper's lack of credibility; and continued to see its reputation besmirched by various other acts of journalistic irresponsibility. Now they wonder why the New York Post, the Washington Times, Newsmax and Human Events have so many subscribers.

Chambers wrote his autobiography, Witness. Like so many books by conservatives who tell the truth, it was a huge bestseller. He needed the money. None of the liberal newspapers or magazines would hire him.

Dean Acheson, the man as responsible as any (with the exception of Communist spies working in the Truman Administration) for letting China go Red, evoked scripture in his defense of Hiss. The liberal Left seemed to be breeding a new kind of radical. England's version of Hiss was the dashing secret agent Kim Philby. Only the conservatives (and the American public) seemed to care. As Ann Coulter wrote, "Some of their young men would grow up to be poets and some would grow up to be Bolsheviks . . . Salon liberals foolishly indulged their infatuation with Communism to the peril of the country."

Modern liberals would call that hogwash and cite Walter Cronkite's statement that a Soviet world takeover was virtually impossible. They do not give any credence to the notion that the Communists were prevented from taking over by the likes of Chambers and McCarthy, by the brave boys who fought at Choisin Reservoir and Hue, and by Reagan's hard line on SDI. To say that a system that killed 1010 million human beings in a relatively short number of years was no "threat," that they had no desire to dominate the world, and that they would not do anything they could to attain those goals, is a basic failure to recognize the facts.

Worse than that, it is recognition of the facts and, in more than just a handful of cases, a desire to aid in the enemy cause. That is treason. Liberals could not live in comfort in this great nation if they actively supported Communism. One could be a member of the party, but the public would not buy their books, their newspapers, listen to their broadcasts or go to their films. So they had to hide themselves, and attempt to convince a gullible country that Communism was not a domestic threat. Millions of others were not so gullible as to believe them. Book after book announced, "there were no spies," "accusations of Communism were baseless," and "charges had no grounding in fact." Meanwhile, Chambers and other ex-Communists like Elizabeth Bentley and Louis Budenz, Soviet defectors and their documentation, the “pumpkin papers,” confessions in the Rosenberg case, numerous arrests, and decades of CIA intelligence and counter-intelligence, puts the lie to this proposition.

One of the greatest heroes in U.S. history was Colonel Carter Clarke, chief of the Army's Special Branch, who heard rumors that Stalin was cutting a separate peace with Hitler. He informed Roosevelt, who said "Uncle Joe" would not betray him and left the matter uninvestigated. Clarke understood something. He understood that someday FDR would not be President. He understood that the Democrats had a different . . . attitude about national security. Or, as Coulter writes, "The Democrats could not be trusted." So, cloaked in secrecy, he set up a special unit to listen in on Soviet cables. By war's end, the cables showed numerous Soviet agents in the Roosevelt/Truman government.

Hoover knew about it. Very few others did. McCarthy probably did not know about it. Certain friends in the intelligence community may have given him hints. It is amazing, but the Republicans, and surely most of the people handling Venona were Republican, yet never used what they had against the Democrats. Is there any chance that the Democrats ever would have sat tight on such a thing if they held this over Republican heads? JFK, on the other hand, let the cat out of the bag with the Bay of Pigs and Democrat Watergate politics derailed arms control agreements, leading to genocide in Southeast Asia.

As John Earl Harvey and Harvey Klehr point out in Venona, there was "a fifth column working inside and against the United States in the Cold War." It was entirely associated with the Communist wing of the official Democrat party. Not every American Communist was a spy, but hundreds were. Deciphering who the fellow travelers were from the dangerous plants, handlers and saboteurs was imperative. It required asking questions, and one of those questions was, "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Hiss and Harry Dexter White may just have been two of the highest-ranking Communists, but this did not mean there were not others above them, or that those below them were not a major security threat.

The Communist witness Elizabeth Bentley was called the "Blonde Spy Queen." Both then and now, liberals discredited her as a "neurotic spinster . . . hardly a reliable informant," and in 1994 The Nation thought her naming of almost 150 people could not be counted on because she drank and made a few mistakes spelling names and remembering dates. They never said a peep over Hillary's numerous "I can't recalls" in relation to the various crimes she committed. Venona, however, confirmed Bentley's testimony while Whitewater eventually led to Bill Clinton’s Impeachment.

Ann Coulter makes a phenomenal comparison in Treason (written in 2003) that demonstrates just how deep the Communists were into the Democrat-led government.

"To understand how deep were the Soviet tentacles in the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, try to imagine a parallel universe today.

"Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense, would be a member of Al Qaeda taking orders from Osama bin Laden.

"Alger Hiss, Assistant Secretary of State under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Identified as a Soviet spy in Venona."

Coulter goes on to compare Harry Dexter White, FDR's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who conspired with Soviet spy Frank Coe and Solomon Adler to kill "critical" loans to Nationalist China when they were desperately fighting Mao Tse-Tung, to a Treasury Department employee who might block a key loan to Israel that allowed them to fall to Al Qaeda terrorism or Arab invasion. Hoover knew all about White but was restrained from going after him by the Democrats.

Lauchlin Currie, FDR's administrative assistant, would be compared to Bush aide Andrew Card. Duncan Lee, head of the Office of Strategic Services, and like the others a Venona spy, would be compared to an assistant to CIA Director George Tenet. Harry Hopkins, identified by former agent Oleg Gordievsky in K.G.B.: The Inside Story, by Anatoly Akhmerov as a spy of "major significance," held chief of staff Karl Rove's position.

FDR's Vice-President Henry Wallace said, "America's main enemy was Churchill and the British Empire." Peace would come about "if the United States guaranteed Stalin control of Eastern Europe." Wallace backed Stalin's seizure of Czechoslovakia, the blockade of Berlin, and described the gulags as "a combination TVA and Hudson Bay Company." Wallace was actually a Communist who, had Roosevelt died just a year and a half earlier would have been President, running for four more years as a war time leader in 1944. The Wallace story is about all we really need to know about Communist espionage and the Democrats. It answers the fundamental question. They were tolerated because they represented a political viewpoint that the party endorsed. Coulter compares Wallace to Vice-President Cheney being "star struck" by Saddam Hussein.

Owen Lattimore was a roving strategist during the Roosevelt years, surrounded by Communist spies. His position would be comparable to Richard Perle surrounding himself with Al Qaeda operatives. Joseph Davis, FDR's Ambassador to the Soviet Union, told the AP in 1946 that, "Russia <note that liberals always called it 'Russia,' as in `Mother Russia,' never the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' or other totalitarian monikers> in self-defense has every moral right to seek atomic bomb information through military espionage if excluded from such information by her former fighting allies." This was Robert Oppenheimer's view. It was carried out by the Rosenbergs with the help of their brother. It can be compared to defense of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and frankly might explain why the Democrats seemed to be doing all they could to discredit and make sure we did not find Saddam's nuclear program.

Harold Ickes, FDR's Interior Secretary (his son was Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff), was a member of the Stalinist League for Peace and Democracy. Coulter compares him to Gale Norton being a member of the Al Qaeda front, Benevolence International Foundation. Roosevelt calling Stalin "Uncle Joe" would be like Bush referencing "Uncle Osama" or "good ol' Saddam." Truman called Stalinist Russia "our friends," which is like calling Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot a fine man. Stalin had killed 20 million when Truman said what he said, and Truman knew about it. Stalin's reasoning was that, "One death is a tragedy but a million is only a statistic." Hollywood loved that, letting Jon Lithgow say in Cliffhanger, "Kill 10 people you're a murderer. Kill a million and you're a conqueror."

The Communists, you see, thought they could not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. One can only read this stuff and thank a benevolent God that a nation called the United States became extant and powerful enough, despite the traitors in her midst, to end such horrors.