Posted on 07/01/2006 12:26:02 AM PDT by AmericaUnite
1. The locations of these homes were already well known. For example, this Newsmax article tells of Cheney's potential purchase of the home.
2. The photographer obtained permission from Rumsfeld to photograph the home - including the birdhouse. Says his director of public affairs, "I'm a little confused about why this has caused such an uproar."
3. In 2003 the NYT published a full article on the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York, with photographs and describing where they like to jog, eat, etc.
4. It's fruit bat crazy to believe that the NYT published photos of Dick Cheney's and Don Rumsfeld's vacation homes in order to tell Al Qaeda where to go to assassinate them in retaliation for their criticism of the paper. Good lord, how far off the deep end do you have to go to believe this?
That says a lot.
But, the link you gave to this lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, and his book is just that.
I see. And perhaps you could detail the errors of fact in that post?
Good lord, how far off the deep end do you have to go to believe this?
At this point I would believe just about anything about the NYT, you reap what you sow, and this is the character that they have sown.
JTN said: "Good lord, how far off the deep end do you have to go to believe this?"
Not far. The article is disguised as a benign look at vacation homes, yet they slip it in that the bird house hole has a camera that suggests another "function." The article has a different function... to sow suspicion and intimidation. Only a liberal would pretend to miss the point.
If a terrorist attack were to occur and the vice president is flown to a secure location, I wouldn't be surprised if the Times is already there snapping photos for their next issue.
It's not just a war in some far away land. It's a global war which we have to fight here at home too. How "far off the deep end" will liberals go before you accept we're at war?
The liberals war against this country started the day after George Bush was elected in November and goes on.
There was never any attempt made by the democrats to unite the country ynder the President.
President Bush bent over backwards the majority leader at the time decided to share the committee assignments,(baaaaad mistake) everything to bring them into the fold. They chose treason.
"In 2003 the NYT published a full article on the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York, with photographs and describing where they like to jog, eat, etc."
The Clintons were no longer in the White House in 2003.
No, it is a benign look at vacation homes, probably planned weeks ago.
yet they slip it in that the bird house hole has a camera that suggests another "function." The article has a different function... to sow suspicion and intimidation.
I see. You believe then that there is only one camera on the property? Or that the NYT photographer believes this? Maybe you think that no one knows there are cameras on the property without the NYT telling them so?
Perhaps, as a small intelligence test, you could take Jim Henley's quiz on this.
If a terrorist attack were to occur and the vice president is flown to a secure location, I wouldn't be surprised if the Times is already there snapping photos for their next issue.
I'm sure you wouldn't.
How "far off the deep end" will liberals go before you accept we're at war?
I was afraid anyone who believed garbage like this was too far gone to be amenable to reason. It looks like I was right.
Unless I am very much mistaken, Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator, not to mention the probable next Democratic nominee for President.
"Hillary Clinton is a U.S. Senator, not to mention the probable next Democratic nominee for President."
Only over a lot of dead bodies.
Not only that, but the Clintons aren't radical Islam's enemy #1. As a matter of fact, it would be to the terrorists' benefit if they were to regain power.
Man, that intelligence test you suggested really turned my life around. Its clever use of 4 letter words made its points even stronger.
Liberals rallied behind the president for a few days after 9/11 because they were scared. For a brief, shining moment, the whole country became 'one'. A liberal friend of mine told me at the time "I'm going to give Bush a break right now, because I think he's in a helluva position, and he's doing a really good job." A few months later, his mantra "Haliburton, Haliburton" started up again.
If the U.S. is attacked again, even the NYT might resist throwing darts out of a renewed sense of patriotism. If we aren't attacked, it's because stricter anti-terror efforts have sufficiently defanged Al Qaida, with no help from the left. Meanwhile, happy 4th of July. Care for a stick of Juicy Fruit?
From David Horowitz:
"Security - Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:14 PM
I've received a lot of emails from leftists who are concerned to prove that photographing Cheney and Rumsfeld's homes did not actually jeoparidze their security (an impossible claim to prove I may say). I'm glad my blog has served to get people on the leftside of the spectrum to think about actual security issues. Now apply that to the betrayal of the NSA surveillance program and the monitoring of bank transactions and you will begin to comprehend the enormity of what the Times and its supporters have done.
It will be especialy rewarding to think about these matters on the Fourth of July when you can focus on the real question, which is whether you want to keep this country and its freedoms or not."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/printable.asp?ID=680
And to your link inparticular JTN:
"Replies to criticis of my Cheney-Rumsfeld vacation home blog - Monday, July 03, 2006 9:40 AM
A fellow named Greenwald is having some fun with my post about the NY Times photos of Cheney's and Rumsfeld's vacation homes, which included Rumsfeld's security camera. I pointed out that this exposure came shortly after the flap over the Times second divulging of a classified security project designed to protect Americans from terrorists and seemed like a retaliation for the Administration's expression of concern. Lots of lefties, including Tom Tomorrow have joined in Greenwald's fun which discounts any possible adverse consequences of the Times' actionsin this matter and in matters of national security generally.
The critics of my blog make several points. The location of presidential retreats is generally known from Kennebunkport to Crawford. Bill and Hillary’s home in New York has been frequently photographed and identified. The Cheney and Rumsfeld. homes have been identified in the press before. Both homes are protected by the Secret Service. Besides Rumsfeld gave permission to the photographer to take the picture. Finally, al-Qaeda found the World Trade Center; it can find Cheney and Rumsfeld.
My answer to these critics is as follows. These are not presidential retreats which are indeed frequently featured in the news. We are in the midst of two wars – a war with fanatical religious terrorists (I know it’s hard for lefties to relate to this) and a domestic political war more savage than in any comparable context since the American Civil War – worse by far than Vietnam because the paranoia and hate directed at this Administration comes from leaders of the Democratic Party and the “establishment” media not just crackpots. It is in the context of this hatred directed among others at Rumsfeld and Cheney that the Times action has to be assessed.
I included al-Qaeda not because I thought the organized terrorists would have a hard time locating these homes, but to link this particular act by the Times with its ongoing willingness to provide al-Qaeda with America’s national security secrets, specifically classified information that is immensely helpful to the religious fanatics who want to kill us. The casual (and unnecessary) publication of the pictures of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s homes seemed to me of a piece with this ongoing recklessness and lack of care for the safety of Americans . This lack of care for Americans' safety and for the well-being of America’s leaders by an institution like the Times is unprecedented in the history of this country.
Finally, the fact that Rumsfeld responded to the Times request to take the pictures means what? What else could he say? He lives under conditions of danger that go with waging a war in behalf of this country, intensified by what magnitude one can only guess th the divisive and hate-filled propaganda of the left and antiwar liberals. Yes he is protected by the Secret Service so for him it’s just a marginally greater risk of the job. My point, however, wasn’t the magnitude of the increased risk, but the magnitude of the Times disregard for common decencies, and what should be common concerns. If Rumsfeld had said "no" to the Times' request, that would merely have confirmed their view of this administration as secretive and repressive (though by any objective standard the Clinton Administration, in peacetime was both far more secretive in regard to information and more aggressive in attacking its domestic enemies). Does this mean that when the Rumsfeld family goes to town now its risks are not heightened? Hardly."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/printable.asp?ID=679
David knows his stuff. Try reading his books when your not promoting drug legalization.
The main security concern in my mind in writing the piece was not al-Qaeda but deranged cranks whipped into a frenzy by the reckless hatred directed at the Bush Administration by the left from Michael Moore and Huffington Post to Ted Kennedy and Al Gore. Anyone remember John Muhammad, the DC sniper? So far as we know, he a lone individual ginned up on the passions of the times. For those who don’t catch my meaning, consider this email I received today – one among many that I receive virtually every day:
bttt
A spokesman for the Secret Service disagrees, saying of the article, "No, it is not a threat." That's in addition to Rumsfeld's director of public affairs saying, "I'm a little confused about why this has caused such an uproar."
This is leaving aside the bogus "Can't prove a negative" justification for his reckless accusation. Horowitz seems to be trying an experiment to see just how weak his rationalizations can be and still have people believe them.
My answer to these critics is as follows. These are not presidential retreats which are indeed frequently featured in the news.
True they are not presidential retreats, but as has already been pointed out, the locations of these homes were already well known.
I included al-Qaeda not because I thought the organized terrorists would have a hard time locating these homes, but to link this particular act by the Times with its ongoing willingness to provide al-Qaeda with America’s national security secrets, specifically classified information that is immensely helpful to the religious fanatics who want to kill us.
The locations of these homes are not "national security secrets", or "specifically classified information". Their locations are not "immensely helpful to the religious fanatics".
The casual (and unnecessary) publication of the pictures of Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s homes seemed to me of a piece with this ongoing recklessness and lack of care for the safety of Americans . This lack of care for Americans' safety and for the well-being of America’s leaders by an institution like the Times is unprecedented in the history of this country.
"The casual (and unnecessary) publication of the pictures" does not affect the safety of Americans one bit.
Finally, the fact that Rumsfeld responded to the Times request to take the pictures means what? What else could he say?
No?
My point, however, wasn’t the magnitude of the increased risk, but the magnitude of the Times disregard for common decencies, and what should be common concerns.
They asked permission and received it. Common decency.
If Rumsfeld had said "no" to the Times' request, that would merely have confirmed their view of this administration as secretive and repressive
So what?
David knows his stuff.
Well, at least he knows how to convince those who desperately wish to be convinced.
Try reading his books
Thanks, but no.
The main security concern in my mind in writing the piece was not al-Qaeda but deranged cranks
Speaking of "deranged cranks", I hope you had a chance to click the link posted in #32 before that thread got pulled. There were plenty of calls for violence based on Horowitz' nonsense in that post - against the photographer and against the NYT.
Are you sure the title isn't "Radical Son"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.