AFTER 47 GOP SENATORS sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran, Democrats and the media went into high dudgeon with a level of outrage rarely seen. “TRAITORS!” blasted the front page the New York Daily News. Over at the Washington Post, Dana Milbank was only slightly more reserved, saying it was “true that 47 Republican senators did their level best to bring us closer to war …”

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders chimed in unison with their umbrage:

Vice President Biden: “This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president …”

Hillary Clinton took time out from deleting embarrassing emails to declare: “Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief …”

President Obama: “Their basic argument to (the Iranians) is, ‘Don’t deal with our president because you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement.’ That’s close to unprecedented.”

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign committee launched a mocking broadside against signatory Sen. John McCain that began with, “(If) ‘Weather Vane’ McCain … is going to do something as dangerous and reckless as cozying up to Iran …”

As I see it there are at least two issues with all this. The first is an overlooked technicality, while the second is a very big problem for the Democrats and all others helping to draw up plans for the gallows.

First, the letter was in fact an “open letter,” meaning it was never delivered or specifically meant to be delivered to the Iranians. It was, instead, posted on a website and published in various newspapers. The “technicality” here is that to be convicted or charged with treason one must take some action beyond exercising one’s First Amendment rights.

The second issue is a bit thornier: It has been reported that presidential candidate Barack Obama, in March 2008, took action, via an emissary, to specifically discuss U.S.-Iranian policies with Iran in an attempt to undermine the policies of President George W. Bush.

All of those mentioned above are, in all likelihood, fully aware of the actions taken by then-Sen. Obama. Quoting George Santayana on repeating history would be superfluous, as his quote assumes history is not remembered by those named. They are in fact relying on the public either not knowing (or not believing) the facts even when presented.

The story of Obama and the mad mullahs of Tehran was presented by controversial Iranian expert Michael Ledeen last year.

The report now getting its well-deserved due originally appeared in PJ Media in August 2014. Dr. Ledeen wrote: “The actual strategy (of Obama in Iran) … has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies.”

A sidebar on Mr. Ledeen is in order, as his name will be disparaged by those seeking to distract and avoid the discussion of the charges he has leveled.

Columnist Jonah Goldberg, a colleague of Ledeen’s at the National Review, once described in tongue-in-cheek fashion what he called “Ledeen’s Doctrine,” paraphrasing a statement once made by Ledeen in the early 1990s: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

But Ledeen’s anti-Iranian belligerence does not take away from the facts regarding the actions taken in 2008 by the future president. The story, also carried late last year by former Reagan staff member and now radio talk show host Mark Levin, has recently resurfaced in response to the venomous attacks directed at the 47 signatories of the letter.

That 2008 mission, which took a great deal of hubris on the part of Obama, was intended to circumvent President Bush by sending the desired message: “Just wait until I am president, things will be different between our nations.”

The channel chosen was a former ambassador to Ukraine who was fluent in Farsi, having served in Tehran for the State Department during the reign of the Shah. That man was one William Miller.

Those who are students of history may recognize the name, as it surfaced previously pertaining to Iran.

In November 1979, Attorney General Ramsey Clark and then-Senate Intelligence Committee staff director William Miller were sent by President Carter to Tehran to negotiate the release of the hostages. Though that negotiation failed, two weeks later all female and black hostages were released. The roll of Mr. Miller in this is unconfirmed, but his experience in Iran is both extensive and undeniable.

President Obama may be a lot of things to a lot of people, but one thing he is not is ignorant of those people who may be of use to him to “fundamentally change America.” One of those he chose to accomplish this goal was William Miller.

Since what Barrack Obama did back in 2008 exceeded the actions of any “open letter,” does anyone want to reconsider the charges against the GOP gang of 47?

There really are two choices for those who view the 47 as traitors. They can be intellectually honest by demanding the blueprints be redrawn, adding a 48th position; or they can stop the bellicosity, act like adults and try to conduct the nation’s business together.

That is something that has not been tried for some time. However, for that to occur a lot of people will need to learn to speak out of only one side of their mouth.

Dennis Lund is a mechanical engineer who lived in Benicia for more than 20 years.