Whose House? Cheney's House!

It's a long holiday weekend; millions of Americans are gathering to wave miniature flags and toast the founding fathers. What better way for the New York Times travel pages to celebrate than printing a feature on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's Maryland vacation homes? Some scenic photos, some trenchant commentary... some treason.

Liberal blogger and author Glenn Greenwald has amassed a trove of online comment from the right side of the web, scorching the Times for (says David Horowitz) "an apparent retaliation for criticism of its disclosure of classified intelligence to America's enemies."

As so often happens with these things, angry bloggers have struck back and posted the addresses and phone numbers of the Times' photogs. (No link.) Zero consideration is given to the fact that terrorists - like anyone else - can find detailed location info for anyone pretty easily. I spent a hearty 20 seconds finding the town and intersection on Google Maps. And if the terrorists really wanted to nail Cheney or Rumsfeld, they could buy them subscriptions to Reason.

Comments

Stranger | July 2, 2006, 4:20pm | #

Don't these guys have burgers to cook or something?

Akira MacKenzie | July 2, 2006, 4:26pm | #

Yet more proof of just how unhinged the post-Clinton Right has become and how 9-11 drove them into stark-raving lunacy.

Traitor McTreason | July 2, 2006, 4:42pm | #

Attention terrorists: I'll tell you where da president lives in DC . . . if the price is right.

Mona | July 2, 2006, 4:46pm | #

As so often happens with these things, angry bloggers have struck back and posted the addresses and phone numbers of the Times' photog

And if you read down through Greenwald's updates, one blogger has put out a call to "hunt" the reporters and photograpers, including info as to where their kids go to school, and has asked for his blog to be the collection point for such data which will be used to....?

(Said blogger after a few commenters reported him to law enforcement, including the FBI, changed the word "hunt" to "track," now he merely wants the offspring of NYT staff "tracked.)

BTW, I read Greenwald regularly, including his book. If he is a "liberal," he has a libertarian streak.

agentalbert | July 2, 2006, 4:47pm | #

Pointing out the location of a hidden security camera might have been a bit inconsiderate, but anyone reading that piece as some sort of attack on or attempt to expose Cheney/Rumsfeld to the local AQ underground cell is, as Akira said unhinged and stark raving.

Jesse Walker | July 2, 2006, 5:01pm | #

It's official: David Horowitz is now even more fucking crazy than he was when he was a Communist.

Either that, or he's so eager to get the bedwetting-hysterics wing of the right riled up at the Times that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks of him.

lenny | July 2, 2006, 5:03pm | #

Let's not forget the estimable John Young's "Eyeballing" series, at http://www.cryptome.org, that relentlessly publishes the names, addresses, GPS coordinates and satellite photos of Cheney and Rumsfeld residences, and other interesting sites.

Jennifer | July 2, 2006, 5:36pm | #

I wonder what really bugs these bloggers: the Times announcing addresses that any terrorist could find with ease anyway, or the Times pointing out that our "public servants" have second homes which are bigger and nicer than most Americans' first homes?

I cannot prove this, of course, but I suspect that if the Times reported that Cheney owned a rustic one-room cabin on cheap land in the sticks, we wouldn't be hearing all this criticism.

Deus ex Machina | July 2, 2006, 6:09pm | #

I noticed that none of these pundits seemed to care about the extensive publicity surrounding Bush's ranch.

PapayaSF | July 2, 2006, 6:41pm | #

Sorry, I think this is rather egregious. No, it's not the same as Bush's ranch: the press gets invited there. Has the Times ever published photos of security cameras around the Clinton's New York residences? Does anyone think Pinch or Bill Keller would appreciate this level of publicity for their homes?

And please, spare me the silly "the terrorists already know" argument. Yeah, maybe, but why take a chance? What about the random terrorist wannabe or nutty Maryland protestor who might now decide to take some "direct action"? What public purpose does this serve?

Finally, aren't libertarians supposed to be concerned about privacy? Or does that not apply to the private homes and security systems of government officials you don't like?

Syd | July 2, 2006, 7:25pm | #

Wouldn't the periodic presence of the unblinking eye on top of the Dark Tower give it away anyway?

peachy | July 2, 2006, 7:47pm | #

Why do people assume that the terrorists are fucking idiots who can't use google, or would never suspect their calls were being tapped unless the NYTimes told them so? These are the same terrorists, mind you, who are so horrifyingly dangerous that our civil liberties must be sacrificed on the altar of national security to defeat them... The only way to square the circle in this case is to assume that our leaders are even stupider, which... may in fact be true, but probably isn't the conclusion Horowitz was us to draw.

Mark Borok | July 2, 2006, 7:47pm | #

PapayaSF:

If the camera inside the birdhouse was so badly hidden that a reporter could spot it, I think calling it a "security" camera is a misnomer.

chewy | July 2, 2006, 7:49pm | #

PapayaSF,

libertarians don't give a shit anymore about their principles, they packed up and rolled it in around '02 and now are just playing pet issues and petty politics like the reps and dems.

Mona | July 2, 2006, 8:32pm | #

PapapyaSF writes: Sorry, I think this is rather egregious. No, it's not the same as Bush's ranch: the press gets invited there. Has the Times ever published photos of security cameras around the Clinton's New York residences?

Oh come on. This was a puff piece noting the widdle birdie feeder at the end of Rumsfeld's driveway that has a plain view lens poking out the birdie-house hole. (And who told the NYT staff, if either (a) you couldn't clearly see it (and I can make it out in the pic at Powerline), or (b) it wasn't the Secret Service, who in any event are surely aware when folks mill about to take fotos of Cheney and Rumsfeld's vacation homes.) I mean, it's not like the Travel page staff gave out security codes and all the plans implemented by the Secret Service when they ferry the men in and out of town.

Jay-zus.

And I agree with Jesse; Horowitz is now officially insane, more so than when he was a practicing Marxist. Sad, because some of his books, as opposed to his online screeds, have merit and are worth reading.

thoreau | July 2, 2006, 8:42pm | #

So, let's see if I understand this...

An article on a town where the rich and powerful mingle is obviously a plot to help the terrorists assassinate said rich and powerful people. Because, really, who ever heard of travel articles on posh resort towns for the rich and powerful? It's never been done before. Until I lived in Santa Barbara I had no idea how many rich and famous people live there, because once upon a time the media only ran travel articles on Disneyland.

Shit, I just told the terrorists everything they need to know to kill Oprah! OMG! I'm so sorry.

Now, some multiple choice questions for conservatives:

1) Terrorists are....

a) A deadly cabal of clever masterminds who will kill us all.
b) So stupid that they need the NYT to tell them where to find targets.


2) Our leaders and security apparatus are...

a) So smart and capable that they can be trusted to never, ever make mistakes when fighting terrorists, and can therefore be trusted to wield unchecked power.
b) So incompetent that the VP is a sitting duck in an undefended beach house.


3) The proper response to terrorism is to....

a) Intelligently track down the terrorists.
b) Declare that the real danger facing us comes from the opposition party and the free press.


4) George Bush's ranch is...

a) Proof that he's a real manly man, and the sort of thing that every American should constantly be reminded of.
b) A state secret, and anybody who talks about it should go to Gitmo.


Sorry, there is no choice for "all of the above". You guys are going to have to decide one way or the other here.

Jesse Walker | July 2, 2006, 8:45pm | #

It is widely known that Cheney and Rumsfeld (and Joe Trippi, for that matter) have homes in or near St. Michaels. It has been widely reported that they own property there, in at least one case by one of the outlets now feigning outrage over the Times' article. It is trivially easy to find their addresses. If it weren't for the current campaign to demonize the Times as treasonous, no one would regard this report as anything but an innocuous item that threatens no one -- something that can't be said of the shitbags publicizing the photographers' private information, who clearly intend to encourage harrassment.

This isn't a tough call at all. Either you immediately recognize that the Powerline/Horowitz/etc. complaints are completely fucking idiotic, or you're batshit insane. There is no third option.

thoreau | July 2, 2006, 9:07pm | #

Although I don't want to over-estimate the significance of Malkin and the rest of the far-right blogosphere, I do find it scary that a significant base-rallying element for the dominant party believes that the best way to do things is to make bullshit treason allegations against their enemies, and accuse them of helping terrorists.

Yes, yes, I'm sure that there are many, many scary things done by the far left. (Where do you think Horowitz learned the tricks of the trade?) I'm scared by them too. But right now I'm most scared by the lapdogs of the party in power. If the other party gets unchecked power I give you my solmen vow that I will fear their lapdogs most.

P Brooks | July 2, 2006, 9:14pm | #

It's a ruse; Cheney wants a bigger, nicer house, but he can't get his wife to let him tear the current one down. He has Scooter leak the address to the NYT. Then, he gets one of his pals at the Mossad to remotely fly a plane full of explosives into the joint while he's "presiding" over the Senate. The inevitable collateral damage, in conjunction with our old friend, E. Domain, should enable him to substatially increase the size of his lot. This will allow him to have (at taxpayer expense) Halliburton build something more appropriate for his exhalted status. Particularly as he will be compelled, strictly by the heavy hand of duty, to forsake his sincere wish for the peace and quiet of retirement, and run for the Presidency in '08.

The terror threat is never- ending, y'see, and you can't trust the job to any old body.

Mona | July 2, 2006, 9:28pm | #

This isn't a tough call at all. Either you immediately recognize that the Powerline/Horowitz/etc. complaints are completely fucking idiotic, or you're batshit insane. There is no third option.

Aha, a challenge. Option III: Some of the promoters are purely aware that it is fucking idiotic, but they realize a vacuous piece in the Travel Section of the NYT mentioning the lens sticking out of the birdie feeder will rile the base in a manner in which they wish to see that base perpetually riled.

But on the whole, I do opt for espousers as being batshit insane.

thoreau | July 2, 2006, 9:29pm | #

You know, as I think about it, one could argue that Clinton did a bit of the "call the opposition a bunch of terrorists" thing. Remember the 1990's? Remember when everybody thought that the modern terrorist threat against America came from "anti-government extremists"? Remember how the terrorist profile came dangerously close to fitting the description of many libertarians?

In that atmosphere, Bill Clinton said "You can't say you love your country and hate your government."

Face it, David Horowitz, you're engaging in the same sort of thing that Clinton did. Only you've gone much, much farther.

Ted | July 2, 2006, 9:36pm | #

Thoreau at 8:42 made me LOL. Kudos to you, sir (or ma'am).

P Brooks | July 2, 2006, 9:36pm | #

"You can't say you love your country and hate your government."

Is that true?

DAMMIT!

chewy | July 2, 2006, 9:43pm | #

"This isn't a tough call at all. Either you immediately recognize that the Powerline/Horowitz/etc. complaints are completely fucking idiotic, or you're batshit insane. There is no third option."

Next Jesse paraphrases Dubya, "You're either with me, or crazy." There's the zealotry that makes meetings of libertarians such entertaining events.

".01 in '08"

Mona | July 2, 2006, 10:06pm | #

Majikthise terrifyingly reports that, in addition to the NYT Travel section, The White House is trying to kill Dick Cheney!

Jesse Walker | July 2, 2006, 10:08pm | #

Next Jesse paraphrases Dubya, "You're either with me, or crazy."

I overstated for effect, of course. People who credit this theory might be crazy, might be deep-fried idiots, and might be such zealots (to borrow a term, and to use it properly this time) that they are willing to embrace any idiocy or insanity that confirms their worldview.

chewy | July 2, 2006, 11:05pm | #

Jesse,

I figured you might be overstating for effect, so I was just funnin'. But as for the libertarian zealotry (I suppose maybe I should have given it a capital L), I don't think I was using it improperly. It's why I went back to the I from the L on my voter ID after just one meeting.

zener | July 2, 2006, 11:05pm | #

Yet more proof of just how unhinged the post-Clinton Right has become and how 9-11 drove them into stark-raving lunacy.

It's only going to get worse as time passes.

PapayaSF | July 3, 2006, 1:21am | #

Jesse, I am truly surprised that you are distorting the particulars and dismissing this as "completely fucking idiotic." It's not.

Reporting that controversial officials who thousands of terrorists would like to kill own property "in or near" a place is not the same as publishing photos of their houses and pointing out security features. One need not think it's a plot by the Times to consider the publication of this piece to be evidence of astonishingly bad judgment. The fact that the featured homes are those of officials with whom the Times has strong disagreements might just be an odd coincidence, but I won't take that bet.

Sure, some terrorists might easily figure this out, but that's totally beside the point. I could easily use publicly-available information and put up a website about all sorts of spots in San Francisco where terrorists could do maximum damage. But of course I realize that there are lots of people in the world who might misuse this information, so I refrain. Unlike some at the Times, I have some common sense. And unlike some around here, I'm not so ideologically rigid that I can't recognize irresponsible journalism when I see it.

dhex | July 3, 2006, 1:51am | #

the times has its own problems, but this is not one of them. such whining is unbecoming.

isn't it odd how politicians are never the ones who have to sacrifice any liberties? i swear it's a damn coincidence. surely.

PapayaSF | July 3, 2006, 2:10am | #

One more thing, Jesse. I think it's also odd of you to say that a major newspaper publishing photos of homes and security features of widely reviled public officials during an armed conflict is "an innocuous item that threatens no one," yet bloggers who publish similar information about the photographers "clearly intend to encourage harrassment." Setting aside your assumptions that the motives of the Times are pure and those of the bloggers are not, it sounds like you're saying that the danger of wacko rightists harrassing Times' employees is very real, while the danger of wacko leftists or wacko Muslims trying to harrass or kill Cheney and Rumsfeld is not. Is that really what you believe?

Mo | July 3, 2006, 2:24am | #

Papaya,
I didn't see anywhere in the puff piece where it said "Go hunt them down and do America a favor." What about the photographers and people crawling all over the Clinton's house in NY? Is that not a threat to the president? Or only if it happens to Republicans it's a threat to America?

M. Simon | July 3, 2006, 3:52am | #

I have heard that Castro likes to use this technique on the disfavored.

I can understand the NYTs falling into line, but when did reason join the left? (shortly after 9/11 for those who need a date)

Herrick and His Balls | July 3, 2006, 5:07am | #

I went to a University with a pretty proud conservative intellectual history and I was damn pissed when the College Republicans invited that douche hack David Horowitz to our campus. My advice for any College Republican out there who wants their organization to have any semblence of respectability is to not invite speakers whose livelihood depends on money they make from talking to College Republicans (e.g. Horowitz, that professional virgin guy, etc.)

That being said, the people who protested him on my campus pissed me off as much if not more than Horowitz himself. You gotta ignore ingnorami.

Andrew Sullivan appears to be the only true prominent blogger conservative from my estimation. And he likes to milk loads with his power glutes, which I'm all about.

thoreau | July 3, 2006, 8:55am | #

PapayaSF-

I read the Times story. It's a typical article on high society: "Look at this lovely town where the rich and powerful live. It's so nice, check out this really cool house that the VP lives in. And Rumsfeld's wife loves to buy crabs from quaint local vendors. There are lovely beaches and property values are soaring."

It's clearly supposed to be a nice little ass-kissy article on the rich and powerful. Like when they report on the type of gown that Laura Bush wore at a state dinner. Like when they let citizens tour the White House and ogle the First Lady's silverware collection.

That's very different from: "Go hunt down this person and bug the living shit out of him."

FWIW, if somebody ran an article in the society pages on what a lovely little apartment some senior person at the NYT has, and how quaint the furnishings are and how lovely the neighborhood is, I doubt anybody would care. Sure, a bad person could perhaps make use of that info (e.g. somebody with a personal grudge against the reporter), but we accept that in a free society people can make good or bad use of info. What we don't accept is people who go out of their way to encourage bad uses of that info.

The bloggers who are encouraging people to harass the reporter are a bunch of assholes. The reporters who fawned over the lovely village of rich and powerful people are perhaps repulsive in their own way, but it's a very, very different kind of repulsive.

Anyway, what do you think about all of the photographers who have taken pictures of Bush's ranch and published those photos? Is it OK to publish such photos as long as somebody is shown clearing brush in them?

thoreau | July 3, 2006, 9:01am | #

Personally, I think the paper should run an article on which shooting ranges Cheney practices at, so that responsible gun owners can stay the hell away from that idiot. I sure as hell wouldn't want to be anywhere near him when he's practicing.

Jesse Walker | July 3, 2006, 10:08am | #

it sounds like you're saying that the danger of wacko rightists harrassing Times' employees is very real, while the danger of wacko leftists or wacko Muslims trying to harrass or kill Cheney and Rumsfeld is not. Is that really what you believe?

I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld are already prepared for the possibility of wacko attacks, and that these photographers are not. I believe it extremely unlikely that the Times article will increase the possibility that someone will attack Cheney or Rumsfeld, whereas circulating the photographers' private information among an online community of hotheads does increase the possibility that they'll be harrassed. And I think it's crazy to think the Times ran its article intending to encourage terrorism or lesser harrassment, while the people who put out the photogs' info knew perfectly well that it would produce, at the very least, some nasty phone calls. (It wasn't the Times article, you'll note, that urged its readers to "hunt them down and do America a favor.")

And I can't believe that you would write this:

The fact that the featured homes are those of officials with whom the Times has strong disagreements might just be an odd coincidence, but I won't take that bet.

Do you really think the travel and editorial pages coordinate their coverage? Newspapers don't work like that.

James Kabala | July 3, 2006, 10:08am | #

PapayaSF: If you read Mr. Greenwald's post, you would see that a similarly detailed post about the Clintons ran in the Times 2003. There was no specific mention of security cameras, but that was probably just because they couldn't find them.

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 10:10am | #

Greenwald's article points out that NewsMax ran a feature on the St. Michael's vacation homes a few months back. So, Papaya, do you think we should list the NewsMax guys names, addresses and phone numbers here, along with an exhortation to Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous -grab for the golden ring?

That bit about becoming famous sounds to me like an encouragement to murder.

"They can gas me but I am famous."--Sirhan Sirhan after killing Robert Kennedy.

"I am now a household word."--John Hinckley after shooting Reagan.

Is your life pointless? Do you suspect you're going to die an unknown loser? And do you possess a rabid hatred of the left? Well, you don't have to stay obscure. This is your chance to be famous! Grab for the golden ring!

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 10:16am | #

it sounds like you're saying that the danger of wacko rightists harrassing Times' employees is very real, while the danger of wacko leftists or wacko Muslims trying to harrass or kill Cheney and Rumsfeld is not.

Does anybody know offhand the number of Secret Service bodyguards assignbed to Cheney and Rumsfeld, versus the number of bodyguards enjoyed by the average reporter for the New York Times?

One of the commenters on that Greenwald post made a good point--when the Times did the piece on the Clinton home in Chappaqua, apparently they also talked to neighbors who discussed what a huge pain in the butt it was to deal with all the Secret Service security issues. And Cheney's summer home is right on a river that is used for recreational boating, and all that space now comes under the purview of the SS.

If there really is a dangerous war on terror going on, shouldn't our elected officials get vacation homes in places that can be more easily secured?

Jim Henley | July 3, 2006, 12:16pm | #

How obvious is it that the birdhouse isn't HIDING a security camera but BEAUTIFYING it - that it's decorative, not disguising?

a. Really obvious.
b. Stupendously obvious.
c. Completely obvious.
d. Really stupendously completely FUCKING obvious.
e. All of the above.

Mona | July 3, 2006, 12:56pm | #

Mr. Henley: I go with (e).

Greenwald has received email from Phtographer Spillers who says that Rumsfeld gave permission for the pictures.

Only completely deranged loons think a coupla folks pile out of a car, one with a camera, and start snapping fotos of the Vice President and Defense Scretary's vacation homes sans authorization so that, you know, they aren't collared by nice, inquisitive Secret Service men.

PapayaSF | July 3, 2006, 1:50pm | #

Jesse, I know (in general) how newspapers work, having worked on a few tiny ones ages ago. However, you must admit that all articles in the paper are approved by top editors of some sort, and we can only guess at their thinking when they OKed this story. Maybe the idea that it might be a bad idea to publish detailed features on the private homes of top officials during an armed conflict never occurred to them, which seems rather clueless to me.

Maybe they understood this information might be used in the wrong way, but thought "Oh what the hell, the terrorists probably know this already." Maybe, but why take a chance and help? Terrorists can easily get guns and bombs, too, but that doesn't make it OK to give them some.

And how did the thought not cross their minds that this would simply look bad, given the recent conflicts between the Times and the administration? Whether or not this actually increases any danger to Cheney and Rumsfeld, wouldn't you think the editors would know that some people might think that, and think that the Times is being at least careless and perhaps even vindictive? The Times certainly behaves with sensitivity when they want to: e.g., not publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

I'm not going to defend the publication of information about the writer and photographer, but I confess the idea of publishing information about Pinch's homes is amusing in a "turnabout is fair play" sense. And since rightwing hotheads could easily get this information without help from bloggers, you'd have no problem with that, right? (Kidding!)

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 1:57pm | #

Maybe they understood this information might be used in the wrong way, but thought "Oh what the hell, the terrorists probably know this already." Maybe, but why take a chance and help? Terrorists can easily get guns and bombs, too, but that doesn't make it OK to give them some.

Shouldn't the same thought have gone through the heads of the NewsMax editors, when they published the same goddamned story last year? Let's face it--the NewsMax guys are much more shit-your-pants paranoid about terrorism than the New York Times. Paranoid people are more likely than normal people to spin out worst-case scenarios.

D.A. Ridgely | July 3, 2006, 1:59pm | #

Lost in the shouting is the fact that if the story was published in the New York Times, it probably isn't reliable, anyway.

Steven | July 3, 2006, 3:04pm | #

Haven't you got me blocked yet? What's happened to you clowns?

Steven | July 3, 2006, 3:06pm | #

I thought you would've blocked me by now. I didn't expect that previous message to go through. Since you haven't, I agree with Papaya and publishing Putz Sulzberger's house is fair play for what the Treason times did to Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 3:08pm | #

Dammit, who the hell does Steven have to blow to be deemed important enough for IP blockage, anyway?

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 3:13pm | #

Cavanaugh? Gillespie? I'll bet it's one of you.

thoreau | July 3, 2006, 5:29pm | #

Mona, it's nice to have you back.

Mona | July 3, 2006, 7:07pm | #

If one follows Greenwald's updates, one learns that Holleen Wheeler, Director of Public Affairs for Rumsfeld's office says of the photographer and the right-wing outrage:

She got approval to take a picture," Wheeler told me. "She called, we said fine, go take the picture. And that's it."
Wheeler also added of the picture: "It's already out in the public domain. I'm a little confused about why this has caused such an uproar."

And the Secret Service is fine with it, according to The American Prospect, declaring the foto and story are no security risk (my emphasis):

I also checked in with Jonathan Cherry, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, which guards Cheney. His first response was not direct. It was this:"As you can imagine, we would prefer less information than more in that regard. However, we take necessary steps to provide security wherever one of our protectees lives, and do our best to be as unobtrusive as possible to neighbors and the general public."Then, when I asked him directly whether the story posed a security threat, Cherry emailed:No, it is not a threat.

And the apologies, corrections etc. will start pouring forth from Powerline, Malkin, Horowitz, Goldstein et al. when exactly? The denunciations of those in their ranks who published the photographer's home fone and address, and the other who called to "hunt down" NYT reporters and photographers home addresses, home telephone numbers, and to find and post where their children go?

[crickets chirping]

And of, course, we who are not (in Jesse's lingo) batshit insane, knew all of this all along.

(And thanks thoreau; I prefer life among the [ahem] "crazy" libertarians.)

Mona | July 3, 2006, 7:39pm | #

In the morsel of credit where it is due dept, Jeff Goldstein issued a petulant update acknowledging that Rumsfeld consented to the foto. But he still goes on and on about why the suspicion was justified, and takes a gratuitous shot at Greenwald who, of course, was entirely correct about the matter when others were issuing calls to post the locations of NYT reporters' children.

Jennifer | July 3, 2006, 11:12pm | #

and takes a gratuitous shot at Greenwald who, of course, was entirely correct about the matter when others were issuing calls to post the locations of NYT reporters' children.

Which is asinine. If you want to be famous and grab the golden ring you have to take out celebrities, not journalists' kids.

Jim Henley | July 4, 2006, 9:51am | #

Shorter PapayaSF: The New York Times should have honored my overreaction in advance!

Th practical problem here is that normal brains can never tell what's going to set you people off.

thoreau | July 4, 2006, 10:14am | #

Jim-

Basically, they want the NYT to stop publishing, or to replace everybody on the staff with folks from World Net Daily. Then there would be no problems.

It is axiomatic to some people that the NYT is treasonous, so everything the NYT publishes will be regarded as treason. Kind of a convenient way of viewing the world.

Karen | July 5, 2006, 7:25pm | #

What a bunch of nitwits! I think I read that someone here considers Andrew Sullivan a conservative blogger??? How many conservative are for gay marriage, voted for John Kerry, has a crush on Wesley Clark, is a for terrorists' right to privacy? Please, be realistic. Andy is not a conservative. He is the most liberal of bloggers he is incoherent.

The NY Times is out of control and acting as an unelected branch of government. I still don't get their rationalization for being outraged that Valerie Plame, a part-time CIA employee, barely back from her 2 year post partum depression leave, sending her unemployed husband on a make work journey to Africa, was exposed but you can give mapquest directions to Rummy's house, give a heads up to Al Queda and a local radical group about to get a search warrant, and then lie continuously about made up stories by drug addict "journalists". Come on, anyone who hasn't done crack in the last 48 hours has to question these numb nuts.

Sigivald | July 5, 2006, 7:31pm | #

Mona: Why do Powerline, Goldstein, Malkin, and Horowitz need to apologise for "thepoliticalinsight"'s stupid "hunt" remark?

They're all first-rank, either pundits or bloggers, and nobody's ever fucking heard of thepoliticalinsight.

If some random loser calling himself a Libertarian calls for the assassination of a political figure, does Reason need to apologise or disown him? How about the LP?

If so, well, I don't recall Reason having a "disowning column" every month with lists of obscure self-described Libertarians who are blackballed.

If not, why the double standard?

(The blog in question appears to be ranked

Mike | July 5, 2006, 8:12pm | #

Here's the thing I don't get. It's wrong to publish publically available information like address of the photogs, but just fine when it's a gov't offical you don't like.

Here's my take. Neither one particularly bothers me. It's not illegal and guess what? Journalists are no more immune than gov't officials.

Sorry, but I won't be moved to outrage because folks get the tables turned on them.

James Jones | July 5, 2006, 10:44pm | #

Do you really think the travel and editorial pages coordinate their coverage? Newspapers don't work like that.

Who said they do? I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the staff of the Times, whatever page they work on, have highly similar political opinions.

ajacksonian | July 6, 2006, 6:37am | #

So, let me see if I get this straight:

1) Invasion of privacy by Government: BAD

2) Invasion of privacy by News Organizations: GOOD

3) Invasion of privacy by Citizens: BAD

Why, I would have thought a coherent argument would be to be against all 3 and to vituperate on those that *did* make public such private information on the 'net.

And Gary Hart *asked* to be followed and, in doing, made his private life open for public scrutiny. Sorry, no easy out there.

moptop | July 6, 2006, 8:55am | #

"Yet more proof of just how unhinged the post-Clinton Right has become and how 9-11 drove them into stark-raving lunacy"

Yeah, sure... That's what happened. It's all about Clinton's weiner with us, you know. Keep repeating it. Pretty soon this meme will show up on Kos and you will have really made it then.

The Watcher | July 6, 2006, 10:52am | #

Comment by: Karen at July 5, 2006 07:25 PM

Karen,
Based on the content of your thinking, you truly deserve to live under a dictatorship.
I guess if you keep your current political loyalties you will be justly rewarded.

LIBERal.
LIBERtarian.
conservative.
Tell me which are truly closer?
The cousins of liberty or the ideology of the rulers?
Guys guys guys, beleive me, if you are leaning on Austrian economics as "the fact" that divides us, you've embraced mysticism at the price of individual freedom. We are much closer than we are apart. L.H Rockwell Jr has touched on this but it is such a shock to established libertarian thinking, I don't think it has really sunk in yet. Keep thinking brothers, keep thinking.

Kman | July 6, 2006, 2:31pm | #

"So, let me see if I get this straight:

1) Invasion of privacy by Government: BAD

2) Invasion of privacy by News Organizations: GOOD

3) Invasion of privacy by Citizens: BAD"

So the argument is that Cheney has a right to privacy on the same scale as any other citizen?

Uh, I paid for those security cameras around his house, pal. And his Secret Service detail.

So did you.