REFUTES BOOK 'TREASON'

TheTimesRecordOpinion ^ | 06/27/2003 Weekly | Eliot J. Chandler

[fight_truth_decay]

To the editor:

"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy," writes Ann Coulter in her new book, "Treason," subtitled "Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorists."

Wrong. Our nation is presently "under attack from within" by the group known as PNAC, the "Project for the New American Century,"[1] which now inhabits the Bush White House. Liberals are certainly not siding with this enemy. The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace. Desperate because the White House and both houses of Congress have sided with PNAC and its goal of empire.

Coulter accuses Democrats of "hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America." How does she explain Ronald Reagan supporting Saddam Hussein, and George H.W. Bush supporting the Saudi royal family and friends from which the 9/11 terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden, emerged? And then there were the despots and dictators of Central and South America.

"Liberals want to be able to attack America," she writes. Ann Coulter cannot distinguish between attacking America and criticizing President Bush. The two certainly are not synonymous. Criticism of a president has never been considered treason, or else the entire Republican party, plus the press corps, would have been guilty of treason in criticizing Clinton. Certainly, criticism of this president can be considered synonymous with defending America.

"Fifty years of treason," she writes. What happened in 1953 to originate her distorted theory of "liberal hatred of America"? Eisenhower, as president, ended the Korean War in July of that year. He was providing France three-fourths of its cost for conducting the Indochina War. SEATO was formed. The Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in 1954. Eisenhower's administration was charged with Communist subversion by Joseph McCarthy. And that same year the French lost the battle of Dienbienphu in Vietnam. In December, McCarthy was condemned by the U.S. Senate for contempt. So what was the event that, according to Ann, first poisoned the liberals' thought processes?

Or was it, as a friend said, like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'"

Eliot J. Chandler, Bowdoinham

letters@TimesRecord.Com

[fight_truth_decay]

{friend says}.."like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'

..and finishes the round with a 'Low Blow' hitting the midsection.

[Lysandru]

I have gotten about 100 pages into Treason, and I can feel my blood pressure rising. 95% of what "everyone knows" about Sen. Joe McCarthy is a lie. Liberals have been selling us out for decades because they are willfully blind and stupid-- and then they are too petty and venal to admit it when they are proven wrong.

Moderates and liberals may not like Coulter's tone, but they can't refute her research.

Maybe I need to pick up Mona Charen's book on liberal sell outs during the Cold War as well.

[clintonh8r]

Eliot Chandler must be a DUmbass...

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

"Liberals want to be able to attack America," she writes. Ann Coulter cannot distinguish between attacking America and criticizing President Bush. The two certainly are not synonymous. Criticism of a president has never been considered treason

Ever notice how they always like to frame the debate that way? Then attack the strawman arguement THEY created? Watch out for that, they think they really got a "zinger" in on you when they try that "they calling unpatriotic" canard.

[Moonman62]

I think he really hates America, too.

[x1stcav]

The creeps on the left certainly have their panties in a bunch lately.

Smell the fear and panic. They're being exposed for the rats they are.

[Billthedrill]

Well, if you don't like what you see in the mirror you can do one of two things: change it, or stop looking in mirrors. This poor sap has chosen the latter course.

But, of course, I could be wrong - perhaps Chandler and the "progressive movement" are in favor of individual rights and the Consitution...let's hear 'em cheer for the Second Amendment! Ready? Hip hip -

[Sound of crickets chirping in the silent evening air...]

[Reagan is King]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

Ha! The progressive movement (aka liberal/socialist movement) cares nothing about the Constitution except to destroy it. They are more dangerous than any outside foe. Thank you for printing the truth Ann.

[jigsaw]

As per http://www.liberalslant.com/ejc033003.htm , Eliot J. Chandler is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.

[tbpiper]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason

Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

[fight_truth_decay]

Thanks detective 'jigsaw'. I like that discovery.

[sarasmom]

They "progressive" faction of the Democat party is a socialist platform.
Socialism is obviously anti-constitutional, hense anti-USA.
It is impossible to love freedom and espouse socialism.
It is impossible to love socialism/communism and love freedom.
What I have a hard time understanding, is why socialists and communists pretend to understand democracy and freedom, and/or claim they have any relationship with the concepts.
History and Logic are not difficult subjects to grasp, unless one espouses socialism and communism.
To prefer socialism or communism over freedom and democracy, only requires suspension of logic, and ignorance of history.
Stupid people should not breed.

[BenLurkin]

Typical that the "Masters of Deceipt" claim to support the Constitution, when in fact it has long been targeted for destruction by the so-called "Progressive Movement".

[DannyTN]

"Does that include doing it from enemy territory? "

Not treason, but about as tactless and wrong as you can get.

[xm177e2]

Or was it, as a friend said, like a "typical Fox News tactic — 'We distort, you decide.'"

What an idiot. It's "we distory, you comply"

[CyberAnt]

Ya think ...??

[Spiff]

The progressive movement desperately is attempting to defend the U.S. constitution from this menace.

Sure...the progressive movement is "defending" the U.S. Constitution to make it safe for every unconstitutional socialist scheme they can defecate upon it and every distorted, tortured Supreme Court decision that can pervert our foundational principles. What a crock of sh**!!

[dagnabbit]

George H.W. Bush supporting the Saudi royal family and friends from which the 9/11 terrorists and their leader, Osama bin Laden, emerged?

He's got a point there.

[Teacher317]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason.
Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

Probably.
It also would include obstructing ports to hamper the flow of military goods.
It would also include going to enemy territory to act as a "human shield".
It would also include supporting literally hundreds of programs that work to destroy the Constitution.
It might even include zealously promoting lifestyles and immigration that work to destroy American culture.

[Teacher317]

Criticism of a president has never been considered treason.
Does that include doing it from enemy territory?

Probably.
It also would include obstructing ports to hamper the flow of military goods.
It would also include going to enemy territory to act as a "human shield".
It would also include supporting literally hundreds of programs that work to destroy the Constitution.
It might even include zealously promoting lifestyles and immigration that work to destroy American culture.

But they conveniently forget to include those parts when they weigh their "patriotism".