The Netscape/CNN link for this story says "Saddam's Alleged U.S. Spy Linked to White House." What is that headline supposed to mean? What does it imply to you? If, like most literate people, you think it means or implies that an Iraqi spy was in the Bush White House, read ther article, it says no such thing. (The guys at No Left Turns have pointed this out from another news source.) The alleged spy is a distant cousin of White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and may have sent him a letter trying to influence policy. That is the "link" to the White House. Meanwhile, Card has cooperated fully with the FBI on nailing this traitor.

Also, let's keep in mind that the alleged spy has been a staffer for no less than four House and Senate Democrats. So I'm not sure why the headline didn't read "Alleged U.S. Spy Linked to Congressional Democrats" which is actually the truth. But no, our faithful reporter hastens to point out that "The indictment makes no mention of Lindauer's congressional staff work." So she tried to contact the White House, which anyone can do, and that constitutes a link. But being a spy and working for congressmen and senators is no big deal because a narrowly written legal document didn't mention it?

I saw the alleged spy ranting on TV last night as they arrested her. The article reports what she said as if it was a calm declaration of her position: "I'm an anti-war activist and I'm innocent,'' she said after her arrest in her hometown of Takoma Park, Md. ``I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everyone else said it was impossible.'' The truth is that she was screaming and almost incoherent, but also clearly very vocal about her opinions.

Doesn't it bother anyone out there that a lunatic like this alleged spy can strive and prosper on the staffs of multiple members of our highest legislative body? Shouldn't her behavior have been clearly abnormal and over-the-top? What exactly is the enviroment in these offices that she could go unnoticed?

Look, not to sound like Ann Coulter, but partisanship has to stop at treason. The Republicans took their shots at Clinton in the 1990s, and many of them hated him, but the stakes seemed so small then that there was always a kind of levity to the whole thing. Too many Democrats have convinced themselves that they really, truly hate George W. Bush. I know that almost all Democrats would never really want to see him die (and not just because the evil lord of darkness would then become president). But in a war, their stated hate makes them rhetorical fellow travelers with those who do want to kill the president.

I am not calling Democrats traitors. I am saying that they need to stake out positions on the war on terror and their disagreements with President Bush that make it very clear to our enemies that though we Americans have our arguments, we are on the same side in all the ways that matter. I know that is the way Democrats feel, but it does not sound like it right now, and that is a very dangerous thing during a war.