I learned today from Michelle Malkin, Powerline's John Hinderaker, Red State, and David Horowitz, among others, that The New York Times not only wants to help Al Qaeda launch terrorist attacks on the United States, but that newspaper also want to do everything possible to enable The Terrorists to assassinate Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. That is the conclusion which these sober leaders of "conservative" punditry drew after reading this article in the Times' Travel section, which features the tiny, charming village of St. Michaels on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where both Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes.
Darkly lurking beneath the rustic, playful tone of the NYT Travel article is a homicidal plot on the part of the reporters and editors of the Times to provide a roadmap to their Al Qaeda allies so that they find Cheney and Rumsfeld (and maybe even Mrs. Rumsfeld) and murder them. As Malkin astutely inquires:
Why publish maps and specific street names and photographs of the private (not anymore) homes where the Vice President and Defense Secretary and their families spend their vacations?
Why?
Because blabbermouth Bill Keller feels like it, right? (Interesting timing, no?) . . . .
And because al Qaeda already must have an inkling that Rumsfeld and Cheney live somewhere in the greater Washington, D.C. area, right? So what's the harm in handing them all the details, right?
This is not the first manifestation of this plot either. Rather, Malkin's investigation reveals that this is merely the latest prong in the liberal/Al Qaeda plot of intimidation to expose the location of conservatives' residences:
There is a concerted, organized effort to dig up and publicize the private home information of prominent conservatives in the media and blogosphere to intimidate them.
Michelle says she learned of this murderous plot from Front Page Magazine, to which she courteously provided a "hat tip." That Front Page article is authored by David Horowitz, and is headlined:
"The NY Times points cranks, radicals, al-Qaeda operatives and would be assassins to the summer homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld"
Supporting that announcement, Horowitz proclaims:
In an apparent retaliation for criticism of its disclosure of classified intelligence to America's enemies, the New York Times June 30th edition has printed huge color photos of the vacation residences of Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, identifying the small Maryland town where they live, showing the front driveway and in Rumsfeld's case actually pointing out the hidden security camera in case any hostile intruders should get careless . . .
Make no mistake about it, there is a war going on in this country. The aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists who began a scorched earth campaign against President Bush before the initiation of hostilities in Iraq.
The initiators of this war were Al Gore and Jimmy Carter who attacked the president's attempt to rally the world against Saddam's defiance of international law in September 2002 just after his appeal to the UN General Assembly.
Michelle also provided a "hat tip" to NewsMax for its coverage of the Times' Travel Section assassination plot. The NewsMax article is headlined "New York Times retaliates against Cheney, Rumsfeld," and in its very first sentence warned, with no irony at all:
Beware of travel feature stories posing as invitations to terror. . . .
Times Travel section writer Peter Kilborn even makes sure enemies of the two men will know such details as where Mrs. Rumsfeld shops in the eastern shore town of St. Michaels, Md. where the two administration officials have weekend retreats.
He even lets the curious know what street the Cheneys and Rumsfelds have to use to get to their own road.
It's all part of the war against President Bush, Horowitz charges.
Hinderaker's post is entitled "A GPS for Assassins?," and begins by admitting, apparently with no shame, that he received "many emails from readers who were incensed" by the Times article, because it "obligingly tells terrorists and cranks how to find the weekend homes of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in St. Michaels, Maryland." Although Hinderaker tells us that it "strikes [him] as over-the-top to believe that even the Times wants Rumsfeld and Cheney assassinated," he nonetheless links to and recommends Malkin's post on what he labels "the controversy," and then further fuels the insinuations of murderous intent which he claims to reject:
[T]here is one thing I just can't explain: why in the world does the article feature, prominently, this photograph of Rumsfeld's driveway, with the gratuitous explanation that "There is a lens in the birdhouse..."? That one baffles me.
Maybe the Times would say that the jihadis already knew about the lens in the birdhouse, since it's well known that high-ranking government officials take security precautions.
So, to recap - America is currently at war and its enemies are domestic liberals and The New York Times. This war was started by Al Gore and Jimmy Carter when they opposed the invasion of Iraq. The New York Times is allied with Al Qaeda and their latest plot against America is to provide their terrorist friends with a roadmap to the vacation homes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld so that they can be assassinated. That is what is being reported today by three of the largest "conservative" blogs on the Internet, along with Horowitz, the leader of the conservative effort to wipe out anti-conservative bias on college campuses.
Being an ardent admirer of such investigative journalism, I wanted to add to this scoop. On June 8, 2003, the same New York Times published a lengthy article entitled "The Ex-President Next Door," which provided every possible detail one would ever want to know, and then many more beyond that, about Bill and Hillary Clinton's new home in Chappaqua, New York and the lives they lead there. The article contained numerous photographs of their home, and all sorts of information about where they eat, recreate and jog. The article is, I believe, behind Times Select, so here is the list of the photographs which accompanied the article:
Photos: Bill Clinton signs autographs for students after a speech at Horace Greeley High School. At Memorial Day ceremonies in Chappaqua, Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted Vietnam veterans. The Clintons' home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua. (Photographs by James Estrin/The New York Times); (Richard L. Harbus for the New York Times)(pg. 1); Bill Clinton is showing up all over Westchester, including at the Trump National Golf Club in Briarcliff Manor, left, where he is a member. Some of his favorite places to eat include Crabtree Kittle House, below left, and Lange's Deli, below right, both in Chappaqua. Mr. Clinton says he likes to run in Rockefeller State Park Preserve.
The article also reported:
When Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton moved here in January 2000, news media coverage was so extensive that a national newspaper ran an article on how large a tip Mr. Clinton left at a local coffee shop (it was big: 32 percent) and photographers stood on chairs to capture the couple eating omelets.
The article essentially provided a daily roadmap of Bill Clinton's day. But that was completely different, because everyone knows that the Clintons are good friends of Al Qaeda's and have nothing to worry about. When The Times publishes extensive photographs of the Clintons' private home and reports on their daily activities, that's done with the purpose of glorifying them. But when The Times publishes an article on the town where Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes, and includes a photograph of the mailbox of Rumsfeld's house, it's all part of a nefarious plot to tyrannize prominent conservatives and send Al Qaeda hit squads to get them.
This would be amusing in the most perverse way possible if it weren't for the fact that these are the people who are shaping our national political discourse. We have spent the last week hearing people on every major news station accuse The New York Times of treason, and some have called for the execution of Bill Keller and Jim Risen. More people read Malkin's blog than most newspapers in this country, and that does not count those who are exposed to her when she appears on Fox or from her new venture, Hot Air. Powerline, of course, was crowned Blog of the Year by Time Magazine and has a readership not much smaller than Malkin's. Top Bush officials such as John Bolton submit to interviews with them. These are among the leaders of conservative opinion-making in this country.
And they really believe -- or at least they are telling their readers -- that the article in the weekend NYT Travel Section is in retaliation for criticisms of the Times, is designed to tell Al Qaeda where they can find Cheney and Rumsfeld so that they can kill them, and is yet another plot in the war on America being waged by "liberals" and The New York Times. Shouldn't there be some level of irrationality which, once displayed, disqualifies someone from being taken seriously in our mainstream political dialogue? The most minimal standards in that regard would immediately rid the pro-Bush contingent of their best-selling author along with many, if not most, of their most widely-read bloggers and talk radio hosts.
UPDATE: Red State also believes that the Travel Section article is designed to help assassins of Cheney and Rumsfeld (h/t Phillybits). This led several of their commenters to draw conclusions such as: "they know precisely what they are doing and are doing it 'malice aforethought.' . . . Sulzberger and Company have long since decided that this is an illegitimate administration and that have the right, no the responsibility, to destroy it" and:
Disclosing national secrets is a criminal offense. The AG and the US Attorneys should not only consider charges, but file charges against the individuals who participated in the publication of stories - the government employees that told the reporters, the reporters, the editors, and even Pinch himself.
And:
since we've so civilized ourselves that it's highly unlikely that an angry mob with torches will show up on the NYT's doorstep.
Pity, that.
One of the commenters there pointed out (as did Phillybits) that the location of their vacation homes was about as secret as the SWIFT tracking program -- which is to say, not secret at all - but that hasn't stopped the Red State lynch mob from demanding the criminal prosecution of the Times for their involvement in this transparent murder plot of high U.S. officials.
UPDATE II: The outright derangement generated by this madness has now led one of the imbeciles who likely read Malkin and Powerline's blog to post the home address and telephone number of the Times photographers on his website. NOTE: After leaving the photographer's home address up for roughly 24 hours, he has deleted the page (a screen shot before its deletion is here) and now warns:
The post has served its purpose--we got your attention over the NY Times' lack of consideration for everyday Americans, (who its principals have utter contempt for), our soldiers (who they despise) and our President (who they have a seething hatred of). Subsequent posts will concentrate on the Times's reporters, editors and executives.
He then -- with more unintended irony than I thought possible -- pouted that the comments he received were "getting pretty nasty" and decried the "common ploy of the Left: destroy the messenger when he or she hits home with a good point, instead of discussing or arguing the merits of that point."
UPDATE III: Another upstanding, patriotic blogger -- after linking to the blog which posted the address of the Times photographer -- has now posted this:
So, in the school of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.
Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?
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.
He's urging people to find the names and addresses of New York Times editors and reporters in order to "hunt them down and do America a favor." And he said that right after he posted the link to the address of the Times photographer. And this is just the beginning of this syndrome, not the end. (NOTE: This brave blogger, after being told in his Comments section that his post had been reported to law enforcement officials for soliciting violence against the NYT, announced that he had replaced the word "hunt" in his post with the word "track"- so that he is now merely urging that NYT editors and reporters be tracked down, rather than hunted down).
UPDATE IV: As Gary Farber documents, that Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes in St. Michaels has long been publicly known. Gary himself wrote a post about this fact back in September, 2005 in response to a puff piece on St. Michaels in The Washington Post which identified the precise house which Cheney was about to purchase, identified the precise house Rumsfeld already purchased, and is almost identical in every respect to the treasonous Travel Section article published by the Times this weekend.
To recap, the Times clearly published this weekend's article disguised as a feature about vacation homes but with the intent to "retaliate" against and endanger Bush officials, even though: (a) the Times published a far more revealing article about the Clintons' private home in Chappaqua two years ago, completely with all sorts of identifying pictures, and (b) the secret, dangerous information which the Times revealed about Cheney and Rumsfeld's homes in order to encourage assassins was already disclosed in full months ago in an almost identical article published by that small, obscure newspaper called The Washington Post.
There has been substantial media coverage recently about the crazed, fringe radicals who fuel the "liberal blogosphere" (apparently, some use curse words in their posts and like Russ Feingold!). Just for a change of pace, if for no other reason, the Times might want to consider examining the dynamic in the right-wing blogosphere that causes the home addresses of their photographers to be published on the Internet along with calls that their reporters and editors and their children be "hunted down." None of this is aberrational; quite the contrary.
UPDATE V: NewsMax, one of the sources on which Malkin relied in accusing the Times of evil-doing for having published the whereabouts of Cheney and Rumsfeld's vacation homes, itself published this article more than 9 months ago, entitled "Cheneys Head to Maryland Shore" (h/t Agitprop):
Vice President Cheney is buying a house in posh St. Michaels, Maryland - he is, that is, if you believe the rumors swirling around this Eastern Shore community on the shoreline of the Chesapeake Bay. Then again he and his wife may not be in the process of buying a luxurious $2.9 million mansion thought to have been built by one of Thomas Edison's daughters back in 1930.
According to the Washington Post, it's set amidst nine lush bayfront acres and includes extensive gardens, ornamental pools and spectacular views of the bay behind it - and it boasts among its neighbors Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
In September, 2005, NewsMax published details about the location and identity of Rumsfeld and Cheney's vacation homes. Yesterday, it said that the Times 'publication of the same information, 9 months later, is "all part of the war against President Bush."
UPDATE VI: Most unbelievably of all, it turns out that the treasonous photographs of Rumsfeld's home were taken with his full permission.
Lol. I caught this earlier on RedState. Easily debunked.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, utterly ridiculous. How is it that this kind of thinking passes for anything in the States?
ReplyDeleteHere's something to make you laught, that I just linked in Hume's Quick Note.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a piece a while backed that showed some hypocrisy on behalf of conservatives with regards to FISA, and I re-hashed it today with some more information from the original source.
I started following their links and found a post about Fox News reporting that that US jets were believed to had flown over Bin Laden's compound. Mind you, this is still in Clinton days.
Why don't we just shout it out!!!
"HEY, OSAMA, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOW HOVERING ABOVE YA, AND GONNA BLAST YOUR BUTT INTO OUTER SPACE!!! AS SOON AS WE KNOW THE EXACT TIME, WE WILL LET YOU KNOW A COUPLE A HOURS IN ADVANCE! DO YOU SEE US???? HUH? DO YA? LOVE, THE LAMESTREAM PRESS!"
sheesh.
And now, Fox News is their beloved mouthpiece of propaganda that can do them no harm, even when Geraldo, on live tv, draws troops lcoations in the sand for all to see.
Hey Glenn -- I linked to an article from the International Herald Tribune in the thread for HG's post. The FAA has had a no-flight zone over the area since last December at least.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like FrontPage et al are reaching a bit here.
It would be laughable if it weren't so seriously sad.
Okay, so publishing publicly available information is wrong... unless it isn't.
ReplyDeleteNice write-up! I just started laughing reading it. What concerns me is that, even if the folks writing and disseminating this utter crap don't truly believe it, many of their readers will.
ReplyDeleteI read in the WaPo that the neighbors and I believe it's the FAA aren't very happy with Cheney, either. He'll have the street cordoned off when he's there and the no-fly zone over his house is enforced even when he isn't there, which is not standard. I think they've appealed but no dice. So I'm wondering how exactly Cheney's life is in peril...
As humorous as this is on the the surface, I believe it is indicative that the War on Terror has always been a war against the left. It just becomes more openly so as time goes on.
ReplyDeleteI hope it's just my imagination; we seem to be inching toward another civil war.
ReplyDeleteDamn liberal-traitor-jihadi media. It's true, they've been trying to disclose sensitive information to al Qaeda in an effort to get administration members killed for some time now.
ReplyDeleteJust look at this, for example. Another blatant attempt of the luny leftist axis of evil moonbat blabbermouth Bush Deranged Syndrome America-hating media trying to get the President killed by announcing his future location to al Qaeda. These media members should be prosecuted for treason ASAP.
Good thing the secret service is so lazy, too!
ReplyDeleteAs humorous as this is on the the surface, I believe it is indicative that the War on Terror has always been a war against the left.
ReplyDeleteI actually found the whole thing really funny at first, too - the sheer stupidity and/or malice required for this is so extreme that it's really hard to believe - and that's what accounts for the initial tone of my post. But then I started reading the amazingly hateful comments around the blogosphere on this, followed by that moron publishing the photographer's home address and telephone number, and realized there really is nothing funny about it. It's the same mindest that has been calling all week for the NYT to be prosecuted for treason.
I remember the NYTimes article, if it was the one a while back. It was also about how inconvenienced the neighbors were be the elaborate security and how angry it made them. There were also questions about how sustainable the "no fly zones" would be during the busy summer season. Basically, Cheney's fancy house is right on a very busy river with loads of recreational boating, all of which falls within what the Secret Service considers its security/no outside people zone.
ReplyDeleteSo the article had a legitimate purpose in questioning why, in this age of heightened security, elected officials don't buy vacation homes that can be easily secured.
That's al-Gore
ReplyDeleteWhat then would the purpose be to publish this info about the Cheney and Rumsfeld vacation homes other than to provide opportunity to the terrorist assassins.
ReplyDeleteMotive and intent have already been established.
Don't start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported.
He's not on Al-Qaeda's hit list. In fact, he's pretty much on their side.
Yeah, the intent by the NYT was to help the sleeper cell assasins.
Surely, you've heard that the Missasaagua 17 planned on assasinating Harper. You can bet Fat Little Pinchie and Keller hadn't forgotten.
Well, Ms. Malkin should know all about this already, since she has given out personal information about lefties on her blog in the recent past. Such a lot of huffing and puffing.
ReplyDeleteWeird. I would have thought the right whingers would be more upset with all the media coverage that discloses the location of the Crawford Ranch.
ReplyDeleteWe can only thank God that the Times didn't stoop to publishing the home address of President and Mrs. Bush.
ReplyDeleteWashington Post, 2nd. January 2006.
ReplyDeleteA two minute search on Google gave me detailed maps and a whole series of interior and exterior pictures of Cheney's property.
There must have been literally dozens of profiles of one or both of these residences published before this NY Times article. But source #666 must be part of a conspiracy to tell Osama where to find those two guys.
It's so laughably ridiculous: the "outrage," the paranoia.
Well, Ms. Malkin should know all about this already, since she has given out personal information about lefties on her blog in the recent past. Such a lot of huffing and puffing.
ReplyDelete8:19 PM
The very lovely Michelle hadn't published anything about the morons that they hadn't put out themselves first.
Hel, all she did was give them the publicity they wanted.
Yes, and after they started recieving death threats and indicated they wanted her to remove the contact info she proceeded to repost it.
ReplyDeleteYes, and after they started recieving death threats and indicated they wanted her to remove the contact info she proceeded to repost it.
ReplyDeleteLiar.She never received any request to remove it.
"A two minute search on Google gave me detailed maps and a whole series of interior and exterior pictures of Cheney's property."
ReplyDeleteHow long does it take to Google the personal info of Times employees? Why is it "outright derangement" only when it's done to people you agree with?
How does one respond to this obscenity? Let's think: "You guys are fucking nuts!"
ReplyDeleteThis stuff is so far beyond rational debate that it's a waste of time to respond to it directly. How to solve the problem, that's the real question.
...there is one thing I just can't explain: why in the world does the article feature, prominently, this photograph of Rumsfeld's driveway, with the gratuitous explanation that "There is a lens in the birdhouse..."? That one baffles me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Times would say that the jihadis already knew about the lens in the birdhouse, since it's well known that high-ranking government officials take security precautions.
Stumper, ain't it?
How long does it take to Google the personal info of Times employees? Why is it "outright derangement" only when it's done to people you agree with?
ReplyDeleteBecause the Times did it honestly, as a matter of journalism and publicity, and these deranged idiots are doing it with the intent to sick their most violent and sociopathic members on the poor photographer and shower her with death threats and the like.
"What then would the purpose be to publish this info about the Cheney and Rumsfeld vacation homes other than to provide opportunity to the terrorist assassins.
ReplyDelete"
Um...engage travel and housing afficiandos in the lifestyles of those in power?
It is nice to know, however, that conservatives are looking not just on the front page of the NYT's for old news.
If anything, the NYT's should be reprimanded for not disclosing that the information was already publicly available.
But then again, maybe that was the point.
Heh. Hook, line, and sinker.
A two minute search on Google gave me detailed maps and a whole series of interior and exterior pictures of Cheney's property."
ReplyDeleteHow long does it take to Google the personal info of Times employees? Why is it "outright derangement" only when it's done to people you agree with?
Why don't Fat Little Pinchie and Keller give dtails on their vacation homes.
I'll bet they're pretty darned nice, too.
I'm well aware of Malkin's assertion that she was never contacted, which is why I worded my response carefully. As such, whether or not they contacted her is irrelevant to the point I made. Malkin knew that they had complained about her site posting their info and that they began receiving death threats after her doing it so that here readers could make sure they be "held accountable" when she resposted the info.
ReplyDeleteBut feel free to run wild with this one. I'm not going to waste any further time talking basic ethics to you. When they indicated that they were receiving death threats as a consequence of Michelle putting up their info, she should have removed it, period.
Um...engage travel and housing afficiandos in the lifestyles of those in power?
ReplyDeleteGee...when did Travel and Leisure start publishing details about security systems?
Looks like your fishing line broke.
So exhausted, too tired to laugh...the faux outrage and plain ignoring of the facts. The wingnuts, not you Glenn Greenwald.
ReplyDeleteIs it going to be like this until November?
So these guys are evil, and the Times is just stupid.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty obvious that anyone with a beef with VP Cheny can find all the information he or she wants online. Ditto with the Photographer. It's not a matter of stupidity to publish any of that information.
It is, however, a matter of sheer malice to publish it with the explicit, stated intent to incite others to harass the subject. Cheney has the Secret Service and the best security the States can offer. The photographer has no one.
Malkin knew that they had complained about her site posting their info
ReplyDeleteLooks like your wording wasn't too careful here. You have no evidence whatsoever that she a) ever received a request to remove the info, or b)that she even knew that they had complained. To whom do you claim they complained?
"What then would the purpose be to publish this info about the Cheney and Rumsfeld vacation homes other than to provide opportunity to the terrorist assassins."
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming this is an actual comment (although the name suggests otherwise). So - try to ignore the angry hornet-like buzzing in your head and think for a bit. Why would they do this? Because they're famous.
"Don't start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported."
This "crap," as you label it, pretty well establishes the general principle. They treated the Clintons to the exact same sort of coverage - because they're famous.
I cannot bring myself to respond to the rest of this comment - instead, I will choose to believe that it is a parody aimed at making Glenn's point.
-Dan S.
"When they indicated that they were receiving death threats as a consequence of Michelle putting up their info, she should have removed it, period."
ReplyDeleteAnd if some nut tries something at Cheney or Rumsfeld's house because of this story, I'm sure the NYT will take it down.
Holy crap. I've never seen such a collection of outright nutcases in Glenn's comment section before.
ReplyDeleteIt is, however, a matter of sheer malice to publish it with the explicit, stated intent to incite others to harass the subject.
ReplyDeleteUmm...just where is the "stated intent" to harass the photographer?
From athenas owl at 8:39pm:
ReplyDelete"Is it going to be like this until November?"
No.
It's going to be worse.
Details about the security system?
ReplyDeleteI just re-read the article and saw no mention of security systems, did a find for both "security" and "system" and got nothing back, on either page.
No mention of Brinks or Slomin's Shield so either I'm clearly blind, or you're clearly lying.
"And if some nut tries something at Cheney or Rumsfeld's house because of this story, I'm sure the NYT will take it down."
ReplyDeleteDon't you think that if "they" were going to "try" something, they would have done so before now since this is public info?
PS the location of the Naval Observatory, Camp David, Bush's ranch in Texas and the White House have all appeared at some point in the Washington Times. Why does Rev. Moon hate America and Freedom?
They treated the Clintons to the exact same sort of coverage - because they're famous.
ReplyDeleteAhhh...famous yes, but not individuals whom international terrorists have vowed to murder.
Has the NYT published any info on Salman Rushdie's homes yet?
"It is, however, a matter of sheer malice to publish it with the explicit, stated intent to incite others to harass the subject."
ReplyDeleteRight. They're evil, whereas the Times is just a bunch of stupid bumblers. Although it doesn't matter because you could Google it anyway.
"Umm...just where is the "stated intent" to harass the photographer?"
ReplyDeleteThe list of questions is sufficiently leading and goading to constitute harassment, in my opinion. After all, no security was comprised is the slightest way by the article, and nothing new that couldn't have been Googled or read in the WaPo archives was published.
The encouraged "questions" are simply meaningless drivel which as sum will be harassment, because they are devoid of investigative or interrogative value.
I just re-read the article and saw no mention of security systems, did a find for both "security" and "system" and got nothing back, on either page.
ReplyDeleteNo mention of Brinks or Slomin's Shield so either I'm clearly blind, or you're clearly lying.
8:45 PM
...there is one thing I just can't explain: why in the world does the article feature, prominently, this photograph of Rumsfeld's driveway, with the gratuitous explanation that "There is a lens in the birdhouse..."? That one baffles me.
Maybe the Times would say that the jihadis already knew about the lens in the birdhouse, since it's well known that high-ranking government officials take security precautions.
Read the previous posts, dummy.
"Yeah, the intent by the NYT was to help the sleeper cell assasins. "
ReplyDeleteProve it.
Prove the intent or forever be known as a liar.
"Is it going to be like this until November?"
ReplyDelete"No.
It's going to be worse."
And if the Democrats do gain any significant number of seats . . . I can't imagine what the reaction will be.
Ok, I probably can.
"How to solve the problem, that's the real question."
Confident, assertive ridicule?
No, not ridicule - shaming.
I mean, that's my guess.
-Dan S.
"And if the Democrats do gain any significant number of seats . . . I can't imagine what the reaction will be."
ReplyDeleteAccusations that they stole the election. That's the precedent.
One of the things I dislike most about these people is that they make satire impossible In my post, I said:
ReplyDeleteThe article essentially provided a daily roadmap of Bill Clinton's day. But that was completely different, because everyone knows that the Clintons are good friends of Al Qaeda's and have nothing to worry about.
But then "Dipshit" came here and said:
Don'tt start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported.
He's not on Al-Qaeda's hit list. In fact, he's pretty much on their side.
He also said:
They treated the Clintons to the exact same sort of coverage - because they're famous.
Ahhh...famous yes, but not individuals whom international terrorists have vowed to murder.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have nothing to worry about at all because nobody hates them enough to want to kill them.
This line jumped out at me from the article humes ghost linked to.
ReplyDeleteIn early 2004, the Koizumi government sent 600 troops to Iraq in non-combat roles, which required securing special legislation to reverse Japan's post-war pacifist policies.
Imagine that a president who actually obeys the law.
The lens in the birdhouse. Maybe the birds have poor eyesight.
ReplyDeleteBut honestly, I wouldn't treat that as disclosing the high-tech security system. If that's high tech, someone is awfully lazy in doign their job to really conceal it.
Disclosing details about a security system is discusing where the sensors are, what makes and model equipment is used, which windows have alarm panels on them, perhaps how to bypass it....
You know, details about the security system...
What difference does it make; you'll just spin this article to fit your reality anyways. You could probably turn an episode of Boondocks into a national security threat.
So to summarize thus far:
ReplyDelete-today's Travel Section of the NY Times published information that was apparently publically available concerning the weekend homes of both the VP and Secretary of Defense.
-the right-side of the aisle has since gone beserk, going so far as to post the contact information of the story's photographer.
-there may (or may not) have been death threats against the Times staffers as a result of this.
-there is no indication of malicous intent towards either the VP or the Secretary on the part of the NYTs (whatever some of our resident contrarians may claim).
Fair summary?
Dipshit @ 8:50, re: security systems (can't help thinking of Lost, now . . .)
ReplyDeleteThe article mentions that there is a significant security presence, including even a no-fly zone. Of course, terrorists will assume that the residences of the VP and SecDef are not secured in any way; upon finding out that they are, they will no doubt immediately attack!
Uh-huh.
If so, the only concrete help they will get from the article is that "There is a lens in the birdhouse," a detail that was clearly included as a weird little scene-establishing factoid after it was noticed - it looks just like an ordinary birdhouse, but there's a lens in it!! - ah, the travel section.
I suppose terrorists could carefully sneak around it and terrorize with impunity, since no doubt it is the only security measure being taken to protect Rumseld."
Have in fact terrorists vowed to kill Cheney and Rumsfled? I mean, I'm sure they would like to, but have they actually made statements to that effect? I just haven't heard any.
-Dan S.
Isn't it interesting that Malkin doesn't allow comments?
ReplyDeleteHow come no one is saying to them "Conspiracy Theorist! You're just a Conspiracy Theorist!" like they do to us?
But then "Dipshit" came here and said:
ReplyDeleteDon'tt start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported.
He's not on Al-Qaeda's hit list. In fact, he's pretty much on their side.
He also said:
They treated the Clintons to the exact same sort of coverage - because they're famous.
Ahhh...famous yes, but not individuals whom international terrorists have vowed to murder.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have nothing to worry about at all because nobody hates them enough to want to kill them.
Damn skippy I said that. With all Clinton's blabbering about how bad the USA is anytime he goes overseas, do you think Al-Qaeda has him in their sights?
No? Didn't think so.
Welcome to the dipster's world. It is always thus and it was just this sort of thing that managed to make me stop reading the comments section of The Left Coaster. I still read Steve Soto's posts, as they are well reasoned and informative. Now, I just don't click through to the comments.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you have handled the dipster (it got its name at The Left Coaster) quite well -- per usual.
Thanks for the post and thanks to all the contributors. I still run over to this place several times a day. The work all of you do is quite admirable. I am in all of your debt.
Thanks, sincerely.
Damn skippy I said that. With all Clinton's blabbering about how bad the USA is anytime he goes overseas, do you think Al-Qaeda has him in their sights?
ReplyDeleteAre there other people who might want to kill a former President besides Al Qaeda?
Are there any bad people in the world besides Al Qaeda? It's amazing how many people have been inculcated with the fantasy that the world begins and ends with Al Qaeda. Check your history book - presidents were assissanted before Al Qaeda existed.
Finally, we're always being told that Iraq is the Central Front In The War On Terror. Hillary Clinton supported that war and still does. Wouldn't that mean, as this "reasoning" goes, that The Terrorists would hate Hillary?
Welcome to the dipster's world. It is always thus and it was just this sort of thing that managed to make me stop reading the comments section of The Left Coaster.
ReplyDeleteI've only seen him in a couple threads. I would never, as anyone here can attest, prevent someone from posting due to their political views. But incessent, hyper-posting in every thread of this sort would destroy the comments section and it's not something I'd likely allow.
I suppose if you pick a handle like "dipshit" its important to try and live up to it.
ReplyDeleteI mean, I keep howling outloud at the fevered minds who think the NYT Travel Section is a primo source of info for Al Qaeda, and that the Travel Section staff note a piquant little detail about a lens in a birdhouse because they want Cheney and Rumsfeld dead.(And didn't the Secret Service kinda know they were there taking photos and stuff?) This is the funniest effing thing ever, it just is. At first.
ReplyDeleteBut then I realize these people are serious, and I sort of sober up...then I start howling again.
And Malkin says liberals are unhinged?
Oh mercy, mercy, this cannot be true. They can't be serious, they really can't be. Really.
That's enough, I must stop laughing because this REALLY IS NOT FUNNY, and especially not when they then post the poor photographer's address and telephone number.
This reminds me of a time I got the giggles in church; I couldn't help it, but it was so wrong.
"Are there any bad people in the world besides Al Qaeda?"
ReplyDeleteWell, yeah: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove...
Finally, we're always being told that Iraq is the Central Front In The War On Terror. Hillary Clinton supported that war and still does. Wouldn't that mean, as this "reasoning" goes, that The Terrorists would hate Hillary?
ReplyDeleteAw, heck no. They realize it's only temporary political posturing on her part. it's part of the concerted triangulation plan with her husband.
All discussions of Malkin should begin and end with this clip:
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/items/200408200005
Wherein she accuses John Kerry of self-inflicting the wounds for which he was granted the Purple Heart, and is promptly laughed off of Hardball for being a complete wingnut.
Of course, people still ask her to appear on their shows so obviously sex sells. Well, by "sex sells" I mean "not Kate O'Beirne sells".
This is the funniest effing thing ever, it just is. At first.
ReplyDeleteBut then I realize these people are serious, and I sort of sober up...then I start howling again.
That's exactly the process I went through. I laughed really hard when I first read all this and wrote the post that way. Then I started reading more, and thinking more, and realized just how un-funny this actually is because this isn't some fringe website but leading conservative ones who are doing this. This is the mindset driving our political discussions.
One of the favorite tactics of White Supremacist groups is to find out the home address of their enemies and put them on websites in the hope that one of their deranged followers will be inspried by their hate-mongering rhetoric to find that person. Particularly after a week of widespread accusations that the New York Times is treasonous, publishing the home address of a NYT reporter in the midst of claims that the article is sending Al Qaeda assassins to kill Cheney and Rumsfeld is beyond putrid.
Glenn, if you want you can surely contact Soto about this commenter. My point was that dipster's shelf life will be shorter here than it (I only use that pronoun because I don't know the gender of dipster) is/was there, especially if you respond to it. I mean no disrespect to The Left Coaster. It's just that that commenter derailed many threads just the same way it tried with HG's. The one caveat here is that you then posted about the very point that it tried to derail with. That is simply due to a difference in focus between this blog and The Left Coaster.
ReplyDeleteAl Gore. Al Quaida. Coincidence? I don't THINK so. Especially when you consider that that "Q" is just a transliteration of a glottal stop that could just as easily be rendered as a "G" in English. And the fact that "r" becomes "d" in phonetic changes over time is well established. Connect the dots, people!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm only reporting these facts. As a patriotic American, YOU have to decide for YOURSELF!!!!
An interesting read is Richard Hofstadter's little book of essays, The Paranoid Style in American Politics - my edition is '67. For example:
ReplyDelete"Why do some Americans try to face this threat [he's speaking here of international communism] for what it is , a problem that exists in a world-wide theater of action, while others try to reduce it largely to a matter of domestic conformity? Why do some of us prefer to look for allies in the democratic world, while others seem to prefer authoritarian allies, or none at all? Why do the pseudo-conservatives express such a persistent fear and suspicion of their own government, whether its leadership rests in the hands of Roosevelt, Truman, or Einsenhower? [italics in original; here not so much] Why is the pseudo-conservative impelled to go beyond the more or less routine partisan argument . . . to the disquieting accusation that we have actually been the victims of persistent conspiracy and betrayal . . . Is it not true, moreover, that political types very similar to the pseudo-conservative have had a long history in the United States . . . back to a time when the Soviet power [replace, of course] did not loom nearly so large on our mental horizons?"
"The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt - 1954"
One might venture that our current versions do not "express such a persistent fear and suspicion of their own government" right now because they finally have their Goldwater?
-Dan S.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI agree. The dipshit has basically ruined this comments section and hasn't contributed anything of value. This is well past Bart territory. I think it's bad enough to warrant some kind of action.
I see Anonymous at 8:17 has tipped to the code as well. This could be IT, people, the insight that finally reveals the liberal plot Once And For All (for "Al"!!!). We must post this EVERYWHERE!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times has basically declared war on the United States by its acts of treason.
ReplyDeleteThe Times feels it can endanger our soldiers' lives by printing anything it wants.
So don't be surprised if the Times gets a taste of its own medicine.
I wouldn't be surprised if any secret the Times has will come out of the closet now.
Look what Huffpost did to the Swiftvets by posting phone numbers and encouraging harassment. You can expect the Times will see similar treatment.
We are at war. Military families are receiving harassing calls from insurgents. The US is doing everything it can to protect its citizens.
After the firestorm unleashed by the NY Times this week, it is mindboggling that it would follow-up by publicizing Cheney and Rumsfeld's vacation homes.
"Military families are receiving harassing calls from insurgents."
ReplyDeleteAre they breathing heavy with middle-eastern accents? What?
This is the best thing I've read on the web all day.
"We will mildly annoy the Great Satan! "
Visit Rocco's blog and click the flag button to alert blogger. If they receive enough flags the blog is hidden (and may not receive any further indexing?)
ReplyDeleteGlenn writes: One of the favorite tactics of White Supremacist groups is to find out the home address of their enemies and put them on websites in the hope that one of their deranged followers will be inspried by their hate-mongering rhetoric to find that person.
ReplyDeleteThe far fringes of the RTL movement also did that, posting "Most Wanted" pictures with location info about abortionists. They knew exactly what they were doing, and even put Xs over the photos as the targets met their demise.
All that unhinged, hysterical BS about Michael Schiavo and Judge George Greer induced numerous death threats-- telephonic and by email -- and required both men to have round-the-clock security. In these times, the domestically grown violence and threat of violence are overwhelmingly coming from the extreme right.
"Military families are receiving harassing calls from insurgents."
ReplyDeleteThis is a true story. However, I believe it involved British troops, not American troops.
As someone else already mentioned, this story is not unique to the NYT nor was it written in 2 or 3 days.
ReplyDeleteWhat is with the "payback" meme these people have come up with?
One of the problems with wingnut conspiracy theories is that they assume normal people think like them. So every action and every word is seen as an affront to the wingnut political brigade. In reality everyone is just looking at them like they've lost their minds.
I guess the militia movement fringe was always there, but now they have jobs and think the government is their best friend. So now they are looking for new enemies. Well, they have already created a mythical enemy located right in the United States.
Oy, this approaches self parody. Or something.
ReplyDelete" You could probably turn an episode of Boondocks into a national security threat."
ReplyDelete"Al Gore. Al Quaida. Coincidence? I don't THINK so"
You know we laugh now - but probably will read it somewhere tomorrow.
Whatever else dip's done -as so often happens in the comments - he's completely made Glenn's point.
It's fascinating - whatever one might think of the various criticisms of the administration, speaking in generaltities they're not implausible because they've mostly happened before - often well within living memory. The kind of accusations we're hearing from the right - paraded around in mainstream discourse - have no precedent in reality.
Of course, there are folks that would differ. I wonder how great the overlap is between adherents of the Vietnam stab-in-the-back legend and of the current version? Certainly one hears them linked frequently . . .
And of course, Kevin Baker's article on the history of that general myth, in last month's Harper's, is another very useful read.
-Dan S.
This paranoid farce is creating an atmosphere similar to that which led to WFB, Jr. to leave the John Birch society and taking the saner conservatives with him. I know of one former adherent of one of the more virulent spittle-flecked right-wing blogs, (an active duty military officer), who has just flipped sides, realizing who the black hats are and is now calling himself a liberal. Rove will get fired after the November bloodbath. You heard it here first. Mark my words.
ReplyDeleteGG said: It's amazing how many people have been inculcated with the fantasy that the world begins and ends with Al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how many people have been inculcated with the fantasy that Al Qaeda ("the database") was anything more than the CIA mail list of mujahideen recruited to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Dipster said....
ReplyDelete"Don'tt start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported.
He's not on Al-Qaeda's hit list. In fact, he's pretty much on their side.
Damn skippy I said that. With all Clinton's blabbering about how bad the USA is anytime he goes overseas, do you think Al-Qaeda has him in their sights?"
President Clinton targetted Usama Bin Laden with missiles after the embassy bombings in Kenya & Tanzania. It was reported at the time that the missile(s) hit one of Al Quaida's Afghan training camps less than half an hour after Bin Laden had cleared out. Clinton was closer to ending Bin Laden's Caliphate fantasies than Bush has been since Tora Bora.
It is likely that Bin Laden or Al Quaida wannabees would be happy to see Clinton dead. The latter are probably more of threat, but may be less of a threat than our indigenous Clinton-haters.
I strongly suspect that the Secret Service vets these puff pieces before they are printed, and that they see to it that critical security information is not discussed. The rightwing bloggers & their peanut-galleries display a contempt for these professionals that dwarfs their more obvious contempt for what they define as "lefties".
Used to be you couldn't write this stuff, now it's simply that you can't write fast enough. Have started researching the Salem witch trials to see how sanity was returned after that episode because God knows they're stoking the fires for the mobs today. Hope the photographer doesn't end up the recipient of physical harm from this madness.
ReplyDeleteI have good friends who live about a mile from the Clintons. They see Bill and Hillary in the community all the time -- at the Deli, coffee shoppe, etc. Their son even had Bill sitting in his school's classroom after being invited to a program there.
ReplyDeleteThe house is not huge, by any means, and is easily accessible. I asked my friend Dave to drive into the cul-de-sac so that I could get a closer look. Well, we didn't get too far before the fellows in the black sedan got out of their car to check us out.
Dave told me that he suspects that many surrounding streets are rigged with special cameras and that his car is probably already known as one from the community. However, he said he's sure they now have a photo of me as well lol.
I don't believe for a moment that anyone can get too close to any one of our presidents or other officials in the government.
These people are nuts. Even Nicole Kidman had her security guard travel to Australia for her recent wedding and accompany her to Figi for her honeymoom.
I am sure Cheney and Rumsfield are not too worried.
All discussions of Malkin should begin and end with this clip
ReplyDeleteThat clip is a nightmare, not only for Malkin's ridiculous assertion, but because of Chris Mathews interupting Malkin over and over again to demand an answer before she has a chance to answer in the first place.
This is a great parody of that and other such interviews.
Russert: Mr. Christ, what do you say to accusations that you’re opposed to fighting a battle to bring about the end of all life on Earth because you’re an Anti-Semite?
Jesus: Well, first of all, I’d like to point out that I myself am Jewish—
Ann Coulter: Yeah! Just like George Soros. Another Jew who somehow figured out a way to avoid crucifixion.
Jesus: I WAS crucified! (DISPLAYS WOUNDS IN HANDS)
Michelle Malkin: Why don’t people ask him more specific questions about the nails in his hands and feet? There are legitimate questions about whether or not they were self-inflicted wounds.
Russert: What do you mean self-inflicted? Are you suggesting Mr. Christ crucified himself on purpose?
Michelle Malkin: Did you read the book by Barabbas and the Golgotha Veterans for Truth? Some of the thieves who were actually crucified have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.
Jesus: I did not NAIL MYSELF to the cross!
Given that this general mindset has been with us for quite some time, emerging every now and them like some kind of screechy and particularly annoying cicada - what's worked before? Do these eruptions tend to crazy themself out, as anon at 10:11 suggests?
ReplyDelete-Dan S.
Andy said...
ReplyDeleteAnd another news cycle goes by where the topic is deflected from the disaster in Iraq and the Hamdan decision. It's so transparent - but why do we let these people set the terms of the discussion?
As I said, Andy... these paranoid ravings are driving hard core righties straight into the center left. Let them have at it.
It was reported at the time that the missile(s) hit one of Al Quaida's Afghan training camps less than half an hour after Bin Laden had cleared out.
ReplyDeleteUsama probably called Clinton a soon as he left the camp to say it's OK to launch your fake wag-the-dog attack to make the American people think you're actually trying to do something.
At the start I thought this was fucking parody.
ReplyDeleteO M F G.
"Have started researching the Salem witch trials to see how sanity was returned after that episode"
ReplyDeleteiirc, the accusations spread too widely - it became increasingly difficult to believe that all those people, which now included some respected figures, might in fact be witches.
Ok -
" By early autumn of 1692, Salem's lust for blood was ebbing. Doubts were developing as to how so many respectable people could be guilty. Reverend John Hale said, " It cannot be imagined that in a place of so much knowledge, so many in so small compass of land should abominably leap into the Devil's lap at once." The educated elite of the colony began efforts to end the witch-hunting hysteria that had enveloped Salem. Increase Mather, the father of Cotton, published what has been called "America's first tract on evidence," a work entitledCases of Conscience, which argued that it "were better that ten suspected witches should escape than one innocent person should be condemned." Increase Mather urged the court to exclude spectral evidence. Samuel Willard, a highly regarded Boston minister, circulated Some Miscellany Observations, which suggested that the Devil might create the specter of an innocent person. Mather's and Willard's works were given to Governor Phips. The writings most likely influenced the decision of Phips to order the court to exclude spectral evidence and touching tests and to require proof of guilt by clear and convincing evidence. With spectral evidence not admitted, twenty-eight of the last thirty-three witchcraft trials ended in acquittals. The three convicted witches were later pardoned. In May of 1693, Phips released from prison all remaining accused or convicted witches.
By the time the witchhunt ended, nineteen convicted witches were executed (LINK TO LIST OF DEAD), at least four accused witches had died in prison, and one man, Giles Corey, had been pressed to death. About one to two hundred other persons were arrested and imprisoned on witchcraft charges. Two dogs were executed as suspected accomplices of witches.
A period of atonement began in the colony. Samuel Sewall, one of the judges, issued a public confession of guilt and an apology. Several jurors came forward to say that they were "sadly deluded and mistaken" in their judgments. Reverend Samuel Parris conceded errors of judgment, but mostly shifted blame to others. Parris was replaced as minister of Salem village by Thomas Green, who devoted his career to putting his torn congregation back together. Governor Phips blamed the entire affair on William Stoughton. Stoughton, clearly more to blame than anyone for the tragic episode, refused to apologize or explain himself. He criticized Phips for interfering just when he was about to "clear the land" of witches. Stoughton became the next governor of Massachusetts."
Hmm:
"In her interesting book, In the Devil's Snare, historian Mary Beth Norton argues that the large number of accusations against Burroughs, and his linkage to the frontier war, is the key to understanding the Salem trials. Norton contends that the enthusiasm of the Salem court in prosecuting the witchcraft cases owed in no small measure to the judges' desire to shift the "blame for their own inadequate defense of the frontier." Many of the judges, Norton points out, played lead roles in a war effort that had been markedly unsuccessful. "
-Dan S.
It is long past the point of being funny. Barring a turn of events I'm not optimistic will happen, we are probably less that 5 years from the reeducation camps. Maybe 10 if the Democrats take office for a while, less if Al Qaeda hits us hard again. These things may start slow, but they go fast at the end.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if the majority don't believe the reactionary crap at all. As long as they are intimidated into minding their own business and staying out of the way. The more power the fascists have and the weaker and fewer their opponents are, the more shrill and hysterical the rhetoric will be to portray any slight resistance as a dire threat. That's the whole point of the outrage and the hatred. As long as even the slightest hint of dissent brings severe consequences, the majority will be frightened into looking the other way and repeating that it can't happen to them as long as they don't act disloyal. It's a tried and true method. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any historical precedent for peacefully stopping a fascist movement which has progressed this far. Is there one?
This is not "madness" or "derangement." It is cold-hearted political calculation. If they thought that the mob with torches could be succeed, they would produce it; if they believed that the murder of Times reporters or photographers would help their cause, they would arrange it.
ReplyDeleteThis is straight from the Nazi playbook, nothing remotely like foolishness or stupidity.
Dred Scott. The only one that comes to mind is Spain when King Juan Carlos suprised the living hell out of the Fascisst by not backing them when they tried to take over the Spanish Legislature. Anyone know what I am talking about? Is it even relevant?
ReplyDeleteNow I know why the associated Wingnut blogs have been losing hits in the 15% - 40% range . These wankers decided that instead of spanking their little monkeys to war porn on Powerline, they come here and prove their powerlessness and, for all to see, define why their ideas and beliefs are utter bullshit.
ReplyDelete"That's the whole point of the outrage and the hatred. As long as even the slightest hint of dissent brings severe consequences .. . "
ReplyDeletePerhaps these wild accusations against the NY Times Escapes section - said section being a blot upon existence, granted, but that's no crime, sadly - are mostly a case of projection? After all, these are folks who support an administration that exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to punish her husband. Even though they don't understand that's what happened, presumably the similarities in personal and political temperment - inherent, or imposed by a steady stream of media - lead down the same path?
In other words, what Steve_e said at 9:59 -
"One of the problems with wingnut conspiracy theories is that they assume normal people think like them . . ."
Hence a dumb little piece becomes a vicious act of political retribution, either threatening harm or in essence putting out a hit on Rumsfeld and Cheney, via terrorists.
Just writing that - oh my . . .
-Dan S.
And after we suppress The New York Times, we need to crack down on all those magazines and newspapers and travel guides that publish maps of Washington DC and pictures of the White House and the Vice President's residence.
ReplyDeleteIt's no coincidence that the writers for West Wing are liberal Democrats, which means they are charter members of al Qaida.
But they are doomed to fail. We are at last restoring the planetary atmosphere to methane and carbon dioxide, so that we, the Denizens of the Crab Nebula, can thrive.
(Editor: Can anyone come up with a better explanation than that these people are space aliens? I thought not.)
Seixon said...
ReplyDeleteAlright, so was it just an amazing coincidence that the NY Times wrote about Cheney and Rumsfeld's homes right when the NY Times is getting its ass beat by, not only the public, but the government on this?
Greenwald failed to mention why in the world it was any worth to include the details about Cheney and Rumsfeld in the paper.
I'd also like to know why Think Progress dug up information on me and had it spread in their comments section, and even called my family.
Does Greenwald have an excuse for this?
You are a paranoid drama queen and concern troll trying to drum up traffic for you shitcanned blog.
" We are at last restoring the planetary atmosphere to methane and carbon dioxide, so that we, the Denizens of the Crab Nebula, can thrive."
ReplyDeleteOh, is that it? I've been assuming it was, via sea level rise, a pre-emptive strike against the evil bicoastal elites and rootless cosmopolitans who have been corrupting the sacred values of our country's heartland . . .
Just be sure we all keep quiet about who can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and 10 Downing St. Imagine the shitstorm if that gets pinned on us!!!
ReplyDeleteI truncated that Malkin quote in the treason post. The part I excised is in bold
ReplyDelete"conservatives zealously police their own ranks to exclude extremists and conspiracy theories"
Right. So much for that.
UPDATE II: The outright derangement generated by this madness has now led one of the imbeciles who likely read Malkin and Powerline's blog to post the home address and telephone number of the Times photographers on his website.
ReplyDeleteJust for curiosity's sake, why did you post a link to the website where the photographer's info is? Huh?
Another blogger is linking to the photographer's name and also putting names of NYT's staff on their website.
ReplyDeleteThe Political Insight
"So, in the school of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.
Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen.
Do you have an idea where they live? 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."
What's with the fucking annihilation talk, though?
Got Hitler?
Why are people up in arms over a journalist, or photographer, having their info revealed, but seem pretty cool with the fact that Cheney's and Rumsfeld's shit is posted all over the net?
ReplyDeleteI think Glenn has this right. If this was not so-called mainstream pundits publishing this stuff, it'd be laughed off much the same way that people finding Noah's Ark are.
ReplyDeleteI might even consider this type of talk just plain old demagoguery. Then, like others, I realize that although the writers are surely (?) being hyperbolical, there are many of their readers who do not know what that means.
I am very serious here. This has been going on for over a week now. These statements about treason were in the news when Congress passed a resolution in support of the sentiment behind this kind of talk. Do you believe that a responsible politician passes on the floor of the Congress something that represents inflammatory rhetoric of this kind?
Are these politicians seriously aware of what flames they are fanning? Passing that resolution was like throwing gasoline on the fire.
As I mentioned before, someone's goingt to get killed here. Then we'll have some lame-assed excuse by these same politicans that they're not responsible. The bodies should be dropped off in the Capitol Rotunda.
These irresponsible acts--by politcian and pundit alike--indicate a fascist mentality that will tear this country to pieces. People need to tone down the rhetoric now.
I see that you are part of this insideous plot to, else why would you have an advertisement in your blogads for a "Portable Death Star Laser"? Don't you know those can be used by terrorists, flying in their attack cessnas, high over the undisclosed compounds of Darth Cheney and Donald Rumsfeled and then when they're leasts suspecting, beamed into their living room in order to cause death by popcorn?
ReplyDeleteOops... Did I just date myself?
No, it's true! I lived in Maryland for 27 years (from birth until my move to the southern hemisphere) and I never knew that St. Michael's existed until now. Sure, when I was thirteen my summer camp took me (and about 150 other kids) to spend the afternoon in "St. Michael's", but we knew better. And then the Washington Post was all about how the Baltimore Orioles' designated hitter (or not so designated -- he was dedicated is what he was...) Harold Baines was BORN there, but we all knew better. Then my parents bought property there, and I used to kid my father about running into Harold Baines (among other celebrities, right?) in "St. Michael's".
ReplyDeleteNOW, thanks to the treasonous New York Times, I know that St. Micheal's stands for "Secret Town in Maryland In which Celebrities Have a great time Enjoying All the Low-key Space." Or something like that.
Mr. Greenwald, years ago (if I'm not mistaken), your profile said that you spend significant time each year in Brazil. So let the Northeast express its heartfelt condolences regarding today's unfortunate incident.
Great post at that blog phillybits. As glenn stated so clearly above this is pathetic and irresponsible. And you're right phillybits about these nutty types like Malkin calling people unhinged? This is really reminiscent of the website from the antiabortion wackos that aided in the murders of physicians, this is sick stuff.
ReplyDeleteWow, these people are more paranoid than the meth freaks in Red State trailer parks. (Just kidding, they live in Blue states, too.)
ReplyDeleteI guess Ms. Malkkkontent has forgotten that the White House has to disclose financial records of its staff on a yearly basis.
Guess what? Karl Rove owns a home in Ingram, TX. Josh Bolten owns a vacation home in Key West, FL. Dan Bartlett owns a chunk of land in Kerr, TX.
More secrets? Dick Cheney owns a ranch outside of Jackson Hole, WY. In 2002 he received a $385 custom "Freedom Fly Rod" from James Castberg from Sheridan Wyoming. Don Rumsfeld is a member of the Christ Church in Georgetown, Washington.
I'd list even more secrets, but I only have five minutes to spend Googling...
I guess privacy is only meant for some people - the ones who scream the loudest and shrillest about it.
ReplyDeleteFor whatever it's worth, I think that if someone dug up your personal information and called your parents, that is wrong and I wouldn't allow my blog to be used for that.
Why are people up in arms over a journalist, or photographer, having their info revealed, but seem pretty cool with the fact that Cheney's and Rumsfeld's shit is posted all over the net?
ReplyDeleteFor the SAME REASON that nobody objected when the Clintons' home was featured in the NY Times - Cheney and Rumfseld's vacation homes are public record. They have been featured in numerous articles in the past, including the WashPost. And they have extraordinary security and protection.
We always know where our government leaders are. The president lives in the White House. He weekends at Camp David. He has a ranch in Crawford, Texas.
By obvious contrast, the NY Times reporter is a private person whose home is, I am certain, entirely unsecured. She doesn't have secret service guarding her. And her address hasn't been published in any newspapers because, as a private citizen, it's nobody's business.
Are those distinctions really that hard to see on your own?
Mr. Greenwald, years ago (if I'm not mistaken), your profile said that you spend significant time each year in Brazil. So let the Northeast express its heartfelt condolences regarding today's unfortunate incident.
ReplyDeleteI happen to be there at the moment and the entire country is in a state of national mourning so intense, so severe, that you would think that everyone's best friend just died. It's really almost alarming.
"The outright derangement generated by this madness has now led one of the imbeciles who likely read Malkin and Powerline's blog to post the home address and telephone number of the Times photographers on his website"
ReplyDeleteWhy is that blogger (?) deranged for putting up info about a photographer, but everyone at the NYT comes out squeeky clean for putting info about politicians and government officials?
Help me find my way in this sea of hypocrisy.
Another blogger is linking to the photographer's name and also putting names of NYT's staff on their website.
ReplyDeleteI just added that as an update. He is VERY close to expressly urging people to hunt down NYT reporters and editors and kill them. I am a First Amendment absolute but that blogger is very close to the line of criminality, and I tend to place that line much further out than most other people, including most people in law enforcement.
I happen to be there at the moment and the entire country is in a state of national mourning so intense, so severe, that you would think that everyone's best friend just died. It's really almost alarming.
ReplyDeleteI live in Recife. Believe me, I know...
Personally, I love the froth at the mouth right wingers, cause the more froth, the more unhinged it shows they are becoming.
ReplyDeleteCompare this to the non-reaction of Bush I vacationing in Kennebunkport. And how many news outlets reported that Kerry was at his vacation home in Kechum, Idaho during the campaign. (Or dipshit, was that just so bin laden would know where to send his home warming gifts?)
Aside from their false attacks on the NYTimes, do you think they are a bit pissed they reported on their vacation homes in some old money, east coast town, rather than a ranch in Texas or Wyoming or some other Brokeback vacation fantasy spot? Angry that these guys are sitting around in their blue blazers with gold buttons rather than moving shrub and shooting birds with clipped wings?
Ben C,
ReplyDeleteThe right wing bloggers are calling for the NYtimes reporters, editor and publisher to be gassed, killed in their homes, killed by gangs of soldiers---did I leave something out?
When one of them posts the address of a photographer in this context, what's the message? It's a pretty clear "Die, motherfucker".
The NYTimes did a puff piece on Cheney and Rumsfeld, the same as do on hundreds of celebrities.
The message? "Eat your heart out, middle America. This is how the rich live"
Anything about wanting Rumsfeld and Cheney dead?
No. Any actual risk to Cheney and Rumsfeld from the article? No.
Any risk to the NYT photographer. Definitely, yes.
The brownshirts are coalescing. Or more optimistically, maybe they're in their last throes. It's only gonna get worse until November, and then after that, who knows how bad it will get.
ReplyDelete"For the SAME REASON that nobody objected when the Clintons' home was featured in the NY Times - Cheney and Rumfseld's vacation homes are public record."
ReplyDeleteYou might be confusing me for someone else, mainly someone who cares that their info is in a magazine; I could care less, and would also happen to agree taht Malkin and others have taken it to far.
But why on earth do you get all cry-babyish when a NYT reporter's info, which alse happens to be public record, check the "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT," is posted on the internet?
This is a glaring double-standard if you ask me.
What amazes me is that the wingnuts fail to appreciate the extent to which the media has been their friend since the day Dubya took office. The press has been on their knees groveling for Bush for six years, and the Right doesn't have a clue that it's happened....
ReplyDelete"The right wing bloggers are calling for the NYtimes reporters, editor and publisher to be gassed, killed in their homes, killed by gangs of soldiers---did I leave something out?"
ReplyDeleteIf murder is their ultimate intention, then there as hypocritical as you; Why try to break up a supposed "conspiracy," if your goal is to kill as well?
"When one of them posts the address of a photographer in this context, what's the message? It's a pretty clear "Die, motherfucker"
So when they put out government employees info, it's not a "die, mother, die" if someone who may wish ill will towards them uses it to their advantage? See where I'm getting at?
"Any risk to the NYT photographer."
They're nto anymore at risk then Cheney or Rumsfeld. Stop complaining about Malkin trumping up this BS, and then do it yoruself.
Ben Cartwright - No difference between posting a fawning story about vacation homes and calling someone treasonous and posting their personal information? How do YOU feel about those who commit treason?
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm wasting my time, aren't I?
Ben C:
ReplyDelete"check the "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT," is posted on the internet?"
What the hell? The FOIA applies to the government.
ben cartwright...did the piece in the travel section on Cheney and Rumsfeld suggest that it's fair readers descend upon them and harass them? If you can't see the difference, or think that it the same then you are very wrong. Just as the NYT published the information on the Clinton's house with specific details, did you see that as an invitation to harass or kill? Why no outrage then?
ReplyDeleteBut why on earth do you get all cry-babyish when a NYT reporter's info, which alse happens to be public record, check the "FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT," is posted on the internet?
ReplyDeleteOK, Ben - I just read a couple of posts on your blog. You have some pretty controversial opinions on a pretty provacative topic - the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I'm sure your blog would make a lot of people extremely angry.
But you don't care about that. You're a tough guy. No being "cry-babyish" from you.
So what's your home address and telephone number? Why not go ahead and post it here and on your blog? It's no big deal.
Sadly, what these people fail to realize is that high government officials have their own security details. So if some nut or terrorist tried to take them out, they wouldn't get very far.
ReplyDeleteHowever, NYT reporters, photographers, editors, etc. generally don't have their own security. They may want to consider getting some now.
We all know that sooner or later some crazed nut will shoot one of these NYT people while shouting "PRAISE JESUS!".
Would that stop the attacks from the arch nuts like Malkin et al? Probably not. They'd likely see it as a rallying cry to go out and kill more irreligious Jews and Liberals, all in the name of Jesus.
Anything to shred the Constitution just a little more...
Seixon - unless if you get all your news from
ReplyDeleteUnless if? I spend so much time trying to teach my students how to use prepositions correctly, and then a native speaker comes along...
"ben cartwright...did the piece in the travel section on Cheney and Rumsfeld suggest that it's fair readers descend upon them and harass them?"
ReplyDeleteNo, but they could if they wanted to. Most people don't need to be told to do things in order for them to do it.
"If you can't see the difference, or think that it the same then you are very wrong."
I do see a major difference, maybe you should learn to read, and then check out my comment about 6 post up. I've already said that calling for their death's is wrong, but their info is fair game.
"Just as the NYT published the information on the Clinton's house with specific details, did you see that as an invitation to harass or kill?"
Whenever you can, please do get around and find where I said that NYT gave anyoen a lisence to kill....Thanks.
Why no outrage then?
Don't know.....I'm not really the one to ask, since I'm not that entirely outraged now.
Its getting so bad for some on the right, that they now are calling for the deaths of Americans, just like Al Queada.
ReplyDelete"They're nto anymore at risk then Cheney or Rumsfeld. Stop complaining about Malkin trumping up this BS, and then do it yoruself."
ReplyDeleteReally - reporters have secret service details? Interesting.
You're not very bright, are you ben cartwright? Feel free to take the short bus back to Jeff Goldstein.
And Seixon, your comment that the "left is mounting a defense for the times," is so off-base. Instead, there is an attempt to defend journalists right to publish the news. And if you think a government program that collects even more information on Americans without any significant oversite is not news, you're blinded by hate.
seixon,
ReplyDeletewhy does there have to be two sides that are always at war with each other. And why is it always the "left" and the "right." You say the only people defending the NYT are "lefties." Tell me, what is a leftie? What is a liberal? Do the words you use have any meaning?
There are plenty of regular people out there whose natural instinct is not to injure someone who disagrees with them. I am not part of the "left," but I don't want to harm others for no reason.
To feel like you are at war at all times is not healthy. The world cannot be split into two perfect categories so easily. Basically, not wanting to harm another human being is not a position of "the left." That's just human decency.
I fail to see how these Cheney/Rumsfeld bootlickers cannot grasp the concept between elected Public Servants and employees hired within a private company.
ReplyDeleteIf DICK and DONNY don't want to be splashed across the papers, then stay hell out of the Public Service.
"OK, Ben - I just read a couple of posts on your blog. You have some pretty controversial opinions on a pretty provacative topic - the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I'm sure your blog would make a lot of people extremely angry."
ReplyDeleteI'm not the only one who post at my blog; I'm a big tent guy, and my 2 friends who happen to post there as well are definately more conservative than I. You could have easily found this out by reading the newest post, and then reading the by-lines.
"So what's your home address and telephone number? Why not go ahead and post it here and on your blog? It's no big deal."
My home adress is 1029 Goucher St., Johnstown, PA 15905; Home phone is (814)-255-1450; Cell phone is (814)-242-6832.
Feel free to call and chat.
It's not funny at all. It's a collective madness that threatens our country.
ReplyDeleteI read the article and it is about the town and mentions that the VP and Rummy live there. Big deal. We knew this for some time. Remember when the VP was searching for a house to buy. It was all over the news.
ReplyDeleteWe knew where Clinton and Bush Sr. vacationed. What is the big deal? I have been Kennebunkport and it really is no big deal.
"Really - reporters have secret service details? Interesting."
ReplyDeleteThey have the second amendment. That's what I have.
"You're not very bright, are you ben cartwright? Feel free to take the short bus back to Jeff Goldstein."
So since I can clearly point out your hypocrisy, I must not be that bright? I'll remember that.
My home adress is 1029 Goucher St., Johnstown, PA 15905; Home phone is (814)-255-1450; Cell phone is (814)-242-6832.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that's accurate, I give you credit for at least being consistent in your actions.
Having said that, one wonders whether you'd be quite as cavalier about your home address being posted if -- like the NYT photographer -- you were the target of widespread accusations by widely read hate-mongering blogs that you were a traitor to your country deserving punishment.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Assuming that's accurate, I give you credit for at least being consistent in your actions."
ReplyDeleteNo need to just assume, you can rest assured that it's accurate.
"Having said that, one wonders whether you'd be quite as cavalier about your home address being posted if -- like the NYT photographer -- you were the target of widespread accusations by widely read hate-mongering blogs that you were a traitor to your country deserving punishment."
I coudl care less; I'm in the Army and like I stated above, I definately take advantage of the second amendment.
"To the rest of you that think this is amusing... you don't get it. These "sober leaders of conservative punditry", as Glenn calls them, are just attempting to re-engineer a scenario like this. Change the dates, replace the word Jew with liberal. Goebbels would be so proud.
ReplyDeleteYou think that is a stretch? Go ahead and yuk it up. All I have to say is - if you are liberal and you don't own a gun by now you have no one to blame but yourselves."
Paranoid?
And of course so many people forget that there is nothing to this "controversy." The entire outrage is manufactured by some very violent individuals.
ReplyDeleteThere was no hit piece by the NYT. It was a completely boring and uninteresting story about the vacation homes of two rich and famous politicians.
The most radical posters have already defined the issue as "the NYT is in cahoots with al-Queda," but they don't even realize that they CREATED this narrative for their own consumption!
They have already forgotten that they fell for their own made up story.
Ben Cartwright..considering the topic of dicussion...and the rightie webola freaking out about it...you calling anyone paranoid is hysterically ironic.
ReplyDeleteDisshit, what other intent would there be to publish reporters personal info than to harass them? Its only a matter of time before these fascists start throwing rocks through liberals windows. Maybe all on the same night.
ReplyDelete"Ben Cartwright..considering the topic of dicussion...and the rightie webola freaking out about it...you calling anyone paranoid is hysterically ironic."
ReplyDeleteHow so? I have family members who are survivors of the holocaust, so I think I would be in a position to say that he went a little over-board in his thinking.
Add to that, I have been told by many a liberal at the democratic underground that my kind should be shot on site, and hell, I'm a moderate conservative; It really didn't scare me at all.
Just be sure we all keep quiet about who can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and 10 Downing St. Imagine the shitstorm if that gets pinned on us!!!
ReplyDeleteYou mean Jeff Gannon Guckert?
This sort of stuff really isn't funny at all. These people are in fact dangerous. There are at least enough of them who are deranged with this stuff that they could really take some sort of action. At a minimum, the police should be notified about this moron posting addresses and telephone numbers.
ReplyDeleteLet us recall the "pro-life" website that posted doctor's names and addresses, which led to the assassination of at least one doctor.
This sort of insanity can and will sweep through a community and result in terrible things happening. Back in 1918, with the whipped-up (by the government) anti-German propaganda, my grandfather had his house burned down for the crime of having the last name "Weist." Of course, what made it really ironic was that his great grandfather had come here in 1849 with a Prussian price on his head for having been a member of the Congress of Frankfurt in the 1848 Revolution. The family was as anti-Kaiser as could be. This was also true for the majority of German-Americans who had come over to get away from Bismarck's Germany. Yet homes were burned down (my grandfather lost several animals killed in the fire) and people were injured and a few were even killed, in the name of this brain-dead "patriotism."
Given that most far right wingers are far right wingers because they are failures and losers in life, who look at us as the reason why they have failed, their hatred is real. That photographer's life is in danger from any Freeper drooler with a gun and a boring weekend staring them in the face after having been fired from their most recent job for their stupidity. Here's a chance for them to feel good about themselves, killing a "traitor."
These lunatics are as serious as a heart attack. I've been on their lists after 2003, and got death threats that the police and FBI told me were deadly serious. I ended up taking "Ben Cartwright's" advice about arming myself.
You know Glenn, looking at this story since I first came across it's absurdity earlier this morning, and seeing you post about it, and seeing it pick up steam and now threats against photographers and journalists, once again, I have come to one simple realization.
ReplyDeleteThe fear with which this administration used to scare Americans into subversion after 9/11, which thye have repeatedly attempted to do time and time again, yet has recently waned due to Americans growing tired of the same old rhetoric, has had a very real, yet very scary effect on scaring the living beejezus out of conservatives.
So much, that a Travel/Leisure article highlighting prominent, famous people in our country, regardless of our politics, is taken deep into the heart as a direct attempt to bring forth violence, murder, and terrorism against our leaders, by those who sought to use 9/11 to scare us initially.
Ironic, as I don't want Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush killed. Tried with crimes, perhaps, yes, but not killed.
Yet the right wants us dead. We are equated with the very terrorists who we are to fear. The right would sooner kill us to squash some imagined internal threat, than kill the real enemies, the ones who attacked our country.
Ironic. I almost want to say the shoe is on the other foot.
And not sure if it was on your post, or another post elsewhere, but somebody made mention about perhaps this environment is marking the beginning of the next American Civil War. If tempers are flaring this bad already, I'm becoming more fearful of actions taken by those on the right than I am of the actual terrorists.
You know. The ones who flew aircraft into buildings and the Pentagon and killed 3000 of our own.
Sexion and Ben Cartwright...you both claim to be moderates. News flash, I am a moderate, I cross party lines, my disgust is equal opportunity...and you, sirs are no moderates.
ReplyDeleteReally, I'm not kidding.
"Given that most far right wingers are far right wingers because they are failures and losers in life, who look at us as the reason why they have failed, their hatred is real."
ReplyDeleteCan you show me where you came to this conlusion?
And, no need to quote my name as it is my real name.
Oh my God! What in the hell is wrong with these people? The hot weather getting to them? I am starting to think that these wingnut fruitcakes are actually going to start killing "liberals."
ReplyDeleteRobert said this was pathetic.
ReplyDeleteIt is until one of the deranged thugs that listens to these fascists actually injures or kills one of these innocent people.
Isn't it obvious that the spite and vitriol that just gushes from the right is intended to do just that--stir up a lunatic somewhere to actually do harm to someone, so that the left will be scared into hiding?
These so-called "pundits" are some of the most despicable human vermin that infest the earth: they want to kill people who disagree with their ignorant, selfish, brutish, greedy, and evil ideology, but they're too afraid of prison or death to do it themselves.
But that's the conservative way, isn't it. Always get some other poor sap to do your dirty work for you.
I can't wait for the realignment. America desperately need to put all these wackos back where there belong--on the fringes of society where there used to be until Ronald Reagan started the nightmare we have been living for the past 25 years.
Please let it be this fall.
Somebody just posted a
ReplyDeletesatellite photo of Limbaugh's house
"Somebody just posted a
ReplyDeletesatellite photo of Limbaugh's house"
If liberals are such fun loving people, who cares?
Ben Cartwright writes:
ReplyDeleteI coudl care less; I'm in the Army and like I stated above, I definately take advantage of the second amendment.
Swell for you; you are some testosterone-poisoned manly man who sort of gets off on the idea that people who hate your views might call you or show up in a deranged state at your home. You know just how to deal with that.
Well tell ya what, Rambo, that's not how civilized people approach politics. Posting the home addresses and telephone numbers of NYT reporters or photographers in the context of the recent shrieking that they are treasonous Al Qaeda lovers who are now, in the "Escapes" section (!!) of the paper, inviting terrorists to assassinate the Vice Prescient and Defense Secretary, constitutes an explicit call to have these NYT staff live in terror and even come to harm. I objected when a left-winger here posted contact info for some academic whose views he did not like, and it is even worse in this context.
As has been observed upthread, one of these cretinous right-wing blogs is posting this:
Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen.
Do you have an idea where they live? 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.
Putting people in fear for their children is the lowest, most disgusting and putrid behavior imaginable. I swear to Christ, I've never been a left-winger, but the right these days could push me close to it, just so as not to inhabit space with barbarians.
ben cartwright sez: "Add to that, I have been told by many a liberal at the democratic underground that my kind should be shot on site"
ReplyDeleteYou, sir, are a liar. And a fool.
As a mental health professional, I have to say that it's striking how stunningly delusional the beliefs expressed by these folks are. If clients at the facility I work at started blathering about conspiracies like this, we'd schedule an appointment with the pyschiatrist immediately to get their meds adjusted.
ReplyDeleteHere is a notice published by the US GOVERNMENT that gives the exact location of the Cheney/Rumsfeld "secret" Berchtesgarten. Of course, we know a "fact" is not a fact and a "secret" is not a secret until it is published in the NY Times, so the following really doesn't count:
ReplyDeleteFLIGHT RESTRICTION ST. MICHAELS, MARYLAND, NOVEMBER 23, 2005 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14, SECTION 91.141 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 1 NMR OF 384547N/0761418W OR THE OTT092024.0 UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING 1500 FT AGL EFFECTIVE 0511231500 UTC (1000 LOCAL 11/23/05) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.
St. Michaels, Maryland has an elevation of 7 ft. After the polar ice cap melts, the Cheney residence will be under 15 ft of water. Bwahahahah.
ReplyDelete"Its only a matter of time before these fascists start throwing rocks through liberals windows. Maybe all on the same night."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure they'll have a cold sweat of fear the whole time. Then they'll laugh like giddy school girls when they are safe at home.
"If tempers are flaring this bad already, I'm becoming more fearful of actions taken by those on the right than I am of the actual terrorists.
ReplyDeleteYou know. The ones who flew aircraft into buildings and the Pentagon and killed 3000 of our own."
Last I checked they were one and the same.
"Swell for you; you are some testosterone-poisoned manly man who sort of gets off on the idea that people who hate your views might call you or show up in a deranged state at your home. You know just how to deal with that.
ReplyDeleteWell tell ya what, Rambo, that's not how civilized people approach politics."
Considering that the constitution is what lays out the level and type of "civility" within our nation, I am completely civilized if I follow my second amendment right.
These people who are now trying to locate the home-addresses of any NYT employee are ofcourse leaking vital information to terrorist sleeping-cells: Google can help you locate the home-address of famous people.
ReplyDeleteApparently terrorists didn't know that before because they were busy spelling the travel-sections of the NYT and probably every local paper in the US. They are being tipped of by these irresponsible rightwingers.
I posted here about my post from September of 2005.
ReplyDeleteAbout the Washington Post piece from 2005 with the same info. Imagine: government officials in the U.S. not having sekrit dachas! Who knew?
"Well tell ya what, Rambo, that's not how civilized people approach politics."
ReplyDeleteJust to add:
I have done nothing but say that I support the second amendment, and that if people use my online info and make threats against me that I will use the guns I have to protect myself. This is a notion that others, non-conservatives, share on this blog; So why am I an "uncivilized Rambo?"
Seixon: However, they don't have a right to break the law, and leaking classified information is against the law.
ReplyDeleteTwo points.
First, reactions are very different depending on who allegedly leaks classified information.
Administration officials, including the president himself, have on many occcasions made statements that could be considered leaking of classified information that could be helpful to the enemy. For a recent instance, look at John Snow's response to Keller.
If you want to beat up on the Times for its 'disclosures', do the same with those in the administration who act in the same way.
Second, nothing I have seen or read shows that the NY Times article provided information that was not either publicly available, or so close to information that was publicly available that it didn't add anything of significance. In other words: I have very serious doubts that the NY Times article changed anyone's behavior.
The omission that exposes the right's over-reaction as fabricated, insincere and opportunistic, is that the publicized information was already easily available to those with at least five minutes of Google time.
" Gary Farber said...
ReplyDeleteI posted here about my post from September of 2005.
About the Washington Post piece from 2005 with the same info. Imagine: government officials in the U.S. not having sekrit dachas! Who knew?
1:28 AM"
As my computor geek son would say...PWNED!
Thank you Gary Farber. That's a thing of beauty.
Glenn wrote:
ReplyDeleteI actually found the whole thing really funny at first, too...But then I started reading the amazingly hateful comments around the blogosphere on this, followed by that moron publishing the photographer's home address and telephone number, and realized there really is nothing funny about it.
A very familiar and dangerous pattern. Karl Rove must be proud.
" I swear to Christ, I've never been a left-winger, but the right these days could push me close to it, just so as not to inhabit space with barbarians."
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the Coalition of the Decent!
Nice to have you here. Would you like some coffee cake? . . .
______________
"7) I'm 50/50 on gloabl warming"
It is extremely bizarre, the degree to which recognizing or denying one or another scientific consensus has become connected to political ideology.
50/50 on global warming? Well, it's not quite as bad as (hypothethically) being 50/50 on HIV as the cause of AIDS, I guess . . . and the global warming denialists have been much more effective than the HIV-denialists . . .
__________________
"However, they don't have a right to break the law, and leaking classified information is against the law. You can't even pretend that the Left doesn't do this, they defend the NY Times for their numerous exposures of classified programs. The "right to publish news" is apparently synonymous with "breaking the law" to you, and you don't mind - in fact, you defend it."
. . . the Pentagon Papers
__________________
Glenn writes:
" I am a First Amendment absolute . . ."
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to read Glenn Greenwald?
Hey, ok . . .
: )
-Dan S.
Ben Cartwright quoted hypatia and said...
ReplyDelete"Swell for you; you are some [...] manly man who sort of gets off on the idea that people who hate your views might call you or show up in a deranged state at your home. You know just how to deal with that.
Well tell ya what, Rambo, that's not how civilized people approach politics."
Considering that the constitution is what lays out the level and type of "civility" within our nation, I am completely civilized if I follow my second amendment right.
She wasn't referring to your right, ability or willingness to own and use a gun, so can the "persecuted defender of the 2nd amendment" pity ploy. She was dissing you for your expectation that some woman photographer whose physical status you know nothing about should be held to your standard of self-defense. And that you believe, somehow, that any minor children she may have should be likewise capable of defending themselves against a violent adult.
Cartwright, your kids can't be old enough to stray out of the playpen yet, can they? No one feels this blythe sense of invunerability after his kids are moving freely in the world.
"50/50 on global warming? Well, it's not quite as bad as (hypothethically) being 50/50 on HIV as the cause of AIDS, I guess . . . and the global warming denialists have been much more effective than the HIV-denialists ."
ReplyDeleteIt means taht I feel that neither side has given me enough hard evidence to sway towards them; Also, I'm not much a fan of Al Gore, and I personally feel that his "consensus" charge is BS.
Hey Glen this is the first time I've posted here.I really want to compliment you on your blog.As a Canadian I find the rightwing position
ReplyDeletein America completely untenable.It seems almost self defeating for people
to support a president who has done so much harm to the American "brand" around the world.I can say that Bush is almost universally reviled in Canada,although he does have a small "cult" here as well.The idea that American Liberals hate their country apparently by default for disagreeing with Bush policy strikes me as absurd.I know how much Americans love their country and I'm sure that these constant insinuations by Bush's supporters(I won't call them Conservatives because plainly they are NOT)must
be very hurtful to your progressives.The idea that neo con pundits are now calling for the NY Times folks to be actually gassed and beaten and shot is not only surreal but down right scary.From an outsider's perspective I think what would be helpful for everyone involved is for you folks to engage some actual "conservatives"in meaningful debate and stay clear of these Bush cultists.These people are obviously only interested in coddling and nursing a kind of cancerous hatred that seems to be quickly tearing your country apart.
There is much I truely admire about the US and I honestly hate to see this happening to your country.I say this as a fellow Liberal but also appeal to those true conservatives that frequent your blog(if there are any)to step back and take a deep breath.Things are getting out of hand down there I think!
With respect-Scott
Vancouver Canada
"She wasn't referring to your right, ability or willingness to own and use a gun, so can the "persecuted defender of the 2nd amendment" pity ploy."
ReplyDeleteThen why refer to me as uncivilized, by stating "this is how civilized people do it?" Don't let the cat get your tongue.
"She was dissing you for your expectation that some woman photographer whose physical status you know nothing about should be held to your standard of self-defense."
A gun is just as deadly if fired from the hands of a woman; Do you deny this fact? She doesn't need to tackle someone.
"And that you believe, somehow, that any minor children she may have should be likewise capable of defending themselves against a violent adult."
Where did I say I think her kids should be little rambos? Obviously I meant that she should take care of her kids, after all, that is one of the many responsibilities of being a parent.
"Cartwright, your kids can't be old enough to stray out of the playpen yet, can they? No one feels this blythe sense of invunerability after his kids are moving freely in the world."
Read above.....Also, do you knwo how old her kids are, or that she even has any?
what was the oversight Seixon? Perhaps spending too much time in Norway has caused you to forget more than just grammar. Oversight, in the federal government, is not one department looking at its own actions, nor is it one department of the government hiring a "consultant" to review what they are doing. Oversight comes from OTHER BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT. You're so eager to make this right you're putting aside all logic.
ReplyDeleteI hope you realize that most people who read the newspaper do not go around Googling and would never even have known the information had they not read it in the newspaper. This may very well include our enemies.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time getting all worked up about the danger posed by enemies who can't figure out how to Google.
Whst's the difference between publishing Dick Chanay's address and the Times photographer's?
ReplyDeleteThree words: The Secret Service.
The thing that absolutely amazes me is that these people insist that we cower before these terrorists.
"Qh, don't publish their addresses, because then Al-Qaeda will come in in their super-secret stealth helicopters and rappel out in their form-fitting ninja costumes and their amazing computer genius will neutralize all security systems with a a couple of Palm Pilots with cool Matrix-like readouts and then they'll quickly slit the throats of all the Secret Service guys with their desert ninja skills and then the really hot woman in the form fitting ninja costume will wrap Rumsfeld in a restraint device that goes thwip thwip thwip and she'll say something darkly funny while running one red fingernail up Rumsfeld's sweating face and then drill him between the eyes while whispering 'Allahu Akbar!' in a really sexy voice!"
"Speaking as a scientist, you really are an idiot. American conservatives are the only people in the world who refuse to "believe" in anthropogenic global warming."
ReplyDeleteYou're a scientist? What kind of science? Where did you get your degree? What is your name so I can look up to see if you are credited?
Thanks.
P.S. If you want, you can call me on my ceel and persoanlly call me an idiot. I would get a kick out of it.
Seixon,
ReplyDeleteIt's bad enough that you are willfully and woefully ignorant.
But boring and ignorant is a bad combination.
Peddle it elsewhere.
"briefed on this program"
ReplyDeleteBriefing is oversight? Briefing in meetings in which they are prevented from doing anything with the information is oversight?
And what if one of the members of Congress who was briefed (who was briefed apparently only after the executive branch knew the article was to be published) did something with that information? Ohhh, we know that answer, you and your ilk would be yelling, "TREASON!!!!!!!!"
So, where's the oversight?
Don't say brief, please don't say brief, I'd like to have some faith I'm not trying to discuss this with a complete idiot. Possibly, in Norway, "brief" and "oversight" are the same, so I'll give you a break. So, try again, you might get lucky on your third attempt.
"Maybe you should read the NY Times reporting, where you will find out that"
ReplyDeleteA few select members of Congress were briefed on the program. My impression is that they were all Republicans, but I haven't confirmed that, since accessing that kind of information is simply beyond me! Google? What's a google?
The others (who seem to be largely Democrats) were briefed after it became clear that the story was going to run.
_______
Global warming: my understanding (having yet to see the movie or, say, have a Ph.D. in a relevent field) is that there are a few genuine - though minor - quibbles with Gore's presentation. The general response seems to be pretty much as that AP article presented it.
Certainly, when dealing with such a complex and still pretty incompletely understood (relatively speaking) issue, very specific predictions may turn out to be incorrect. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on this problem say that the climate is changing because of what people are doing, and while it's difficult to say what exactly will happen, it doesn't look good, and there is a possibility that it will turn out rather bad very quickly.
-Dan S.
"Because you are full of shit. You have been defending these folks that are putting up the addresses and phone numbers of those NYT's columnists."
ReplyDeleteI support them in their effort to kill reporters? Tell me where I said this.
"They are your people so you defend them."
People who e-thug others on the net aren't my people.
"No sincere, thoughtful person defends those actions unless they have a partisan agenda. Who do you think you are kidding?"
The only thing I ever said was that I don't care if they put up her info alone, the threats are definately going to far; Is that clear enough for your NCLB riddled mind?
"Back to your defending of the wingnuts and their elimanationist rhetoric."
Like I asked above, show me where I said that I support their death
threats.
"Most of the folks here simply don't understand you but I do."
Did you know that I enjoy Arab cuisine?
"They fundamentally believe the political argument should not be determined by who has the biggest gun. While I agree with them in principle I also understand folks like you."
Ok....let see what conclusion you came to.
"These "civil discourse" obsessed folks don't understand that they need to be prepared but I want you to know, that if it comes to that, you should rest assured in the knowledge that you won't only be meeting people like them. You will also be meeting people like me. See you then."
Are you threatening me? I'm laughing so hard right now. I would really like you to show me where I said that I think they are doing the right thing by calling for the head of a fucking low-level reporter.
hi,
ReplyDeleteyou really ought be more respectful of madame michelle. I heard she went to the movies - superman - and got a headache after just 30 minutes. coming out to the fresh air she uttered unto the night "djdjmd fjfjfm fjkfdkjf!!" which wasno surprise whatsoever to all those on the right.
seriously tho you may find an inter-resting connect twixt those who claim to feed the swine and their headache bound set. google the german for 'no' and with any luck the first entry will take to the pearl-droppers..
with regards
The reich wing "stab in the back" rhetoric is nothing new. This same vitriol was the standard accusation against Jews after the Germans lost WWI.
ReplyDeleteI take their words seriously.
They sound very much like Matt Hale's World Church of the Creator followers. One of his followers murdered a student and coach 7 years ago this weekend.
Hale is in jail for trying to arrange the murder of a judge who ruled against him. But it was apparently okay for him to advocate that murder in speech -- just not arrange it personally.
Legally, where is the line? At what point are Ann Coulter's calls to attack people in attendance at a speech grounds for legal action?
Or the person in the last update who is now calling for the murder of journalists?
It's hard to support freedom of speech when it's hate speech. However, I do support their right, even if they would rather deny mine. But when does free speech cross the line to yelling "fire" in the crowded theatre?
If someone were to attempt to murder a reporter or blogger, etc. after yet another fascist call to violence, what are the legal liabilities for someone like Coulter or Malkin or Limbaugh?
Is Free Republic down tonight? Seems like the whole bugfuck insane posse has arrived like a plague of locusts to chew on the greenwald foliage
ReplyDeleteAnybody start a poll yet on when the civil war starts? I figure right after the November elections, when the reality of the reverse Big Bang of the mindfuck neo-theo-con-universive starts to sink in. If these "people" are this deranged already, they are going to be seriously unhinged then
"Is Free Republic down tonight? Seems like the whole bugfuck insane posse has arrived like a plague of locusts to chew on the greenwald foliage"
ReplyDeleteYes, because we all know that every conservative goes to the FreeRepublic.....Get a clue.
Seixon: Sorry, but the administration's disclosures about the program were of a general nature
ReplyDeleteYes, like "we don't require new warrants if they change phone numbers." Is that revelation of a general nature too? Or that, "unlike what the NYT printed, the program is still producing results"?
My point was that you (and others) are using a double standard: one for the administration and its sympathizers, and one for everyone else.
plus the administration is actually the one who is legally allowed to disclose such information.
The issue is whether the information is damaging, not whether someone is allowed to release it.
By the way, which law specifically states that you cannot repeat information that you know is classified if you have not contractually obligated yourself to do so?
most people ... would never even have known the information had they not read it in the newspaper. This may very well include our enemies.
Yeah, right. We keep hearing that one, too. There's one rather large problem with this argument, however: our enemies have a personal interest in finding out certain information, and so they are among those that would go googling around for it.
So your assertion that "this may very well include our enemies" is just not credible.
On the oversight vs. briefing question: oversight implies some ability to influence the course of action. So, regardless of what the law says, calling briefings oversight, as the president routinely does, is not entirely honest.
Seixon:
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 2:14am is right. Simply knowing that the program exists is not oversight.
Your assertion that "Congress" has been briefed is laughable. Congress is not made up of 8 members; it's understood they didn't tell the other 527 members of this program over dinner and drinks.
Here's how the Christian Science Monitor puts it:
This select group was brought to the White House, sworn to secrecy even with respect to their peers on Capitol Hill, and told - not asked - about what the administration was doing. We still don't know if they were told everything.
As I understand it, the 8 members couldn't even tell their staff about it. It's also apparent, even after being sworn to secrecy, that none of them ever got to witness from time to time the information the NSA was collecting and from whom.
To me, oversight means the 8 members actually checking in on the NSA from time to time to make sure Bush is doing what he claimed he was going to do. I don't recall any of the members, especially the Republicans, stepping forward and saying they were able to confirm that ordinary Americans' communications were not tapped.
You know...oversight.
Hmmm, we're seeing a lot of third-rate, ill-equipped and under-armed keyboardists here this evening. Apparently the stock of ammunition and personnel in the ranks of the administration cultists is running low.
ReplyDeleteAs poster Dell says, there's no way in hell the NYT article is any kind of "retribution" for the rump Bush government's attack on the press. Nope, it's a real estate tout, complete with dishy new neighbors for crass arrivistes to cozy up with.
However, as Mr. Greenwald says, the reaction to this unfortunately timed shill for prestige property represents a quantum shift in the cultists' frenzy. Now they're going to personally attack journalists who are not even vaguely related to the editorial decisions with which they've taken offense. Not to sound hyperbolic, but "brownshirt" seems just a step away.
They're ex-Americans, to the last doughy dumpling, all fled from the Constitution.
dipshit:
ReplyDeleteWhat then would the purpose be to publish this info about the Cheney and Rumsfeld vacation homes other than to provide opportunity to the terrorist assassins.
Motive and intent have already been established.
Don't start up again with the crap about Clintons whereabouts being reported.
He's not on Al-Qaeda's hit list. In fact, he's pretty much on their side.
Yeah, the intent by the NYT was to help the sleeper cell assasins.
Surely, you've heard that the Missasaagua 17 planned on assasinating Harper. You can bet Fat Little Pinchie and Keller hadn't forgotten.
dip---t, do you have any idea, any clue just how crazy you sound, spouting all of that psychotic claptrap? If you've got any intention of helping your cause, whatever it may be, you'd best just pipe down.
Either that, or you're some kind of leftwing troll double-agent, commissioned to make the right look loony. If that's the case, you're doing great and you should demand a raise or a medal or both.
"Here's how the Christian Science Monitor puts it:"
ReplyDeleteThe article's just talking about the warrantless wiretapping, but I guess it would have been the same group - in that case, not all R's, let me retract that . . .
"The law requires the administration to brief at minimum the top members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees."
Which law?
Sadly, it's a serious question . . .
-Dan S.
Major:
ReplyDeleteYou may not have known where Cheney and Rummy vacation, but it likely wouldn't have been too hard to locate this info if you tried.
You need to go back and read Leslie's post at 9:50pm where she lists 8 links to publicly available information about stories regarding Cheney's and Rumsfeld's weekend homes.
As for your suggestion that it was no big deal for Clinton's NY home location to be published because it was before bin Laden attacked us, apparently you've already forgotten about his first attack on U.S. soil.
"If you've got any intention of helping your cause, whatever it may be, you'd best just pipe down. "
ReplyDeleteShhhh!! This is great stuff in terms of getting sane, balanced Americans to realize how bizarre this sideshow is becoming, and getting them to help put the grown-ups (of whatever political stripe) back in power
-Dan S.
aj said: I have a hard time getting all worked up about the danger posed by enemies who can't figure out how to Google.
ReplyDeleteBut remember, just 'cause they can't tie their own shoes doesn't mean they aren't devious enough to pull off a daring and sophisticated killing of a US official. They're that frickin' evil, man.
Bush's Assault on Freedom: What's to Stop Him?
ReplyDeletePaul Craig Roberts
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision ruled that President Bush's effort to railroad tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees in kangaroo courts "violates both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions."
Better late than never, but it sure took a long time for the checks and balances to call a halt to the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the executive. ....
Perhaps the Court's ruling has more far-reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.
Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The U.S. itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief U.S. prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.
The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
There are many reasons to impeach Bush. His flagrant disregard for international law, U.S. civil liberties, the separation of powers, public opinion, and human rights associate Bush with the worst tyrants of the 20th century. It is true that Bush has not yet been able to subvert all the institutions that constrain his executive power, but he and his band of Federalist Society lawyers have been working around the clock to eliminate the constraints that the U.S. Constitution and international law place on executive power.....
--
Congress has collapsed in the face of Bush's refusal to abide by statutory law and his "signing statements," by which Bush asserts his independence of U.S. law. Bush has done what he can to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp of his unaccountable power by placing John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the bench. Though much diminished by these appointments, the Court found the strength to rise up in opposition to Bush's budding tyranny.
Amazingly, on the very same day in England, where our individual rights originated, the High Court struck down Tony Blair's "anti-terrorism" laws as illegal breaches of the human rights of suspects. As with the Bush regime, the Blair regime tried to justify its illegality on the grounds of "protecting the public," but a far larger percentage of the British population than the American understands that the erosion of civil liberty is a greater threat to their safety than terrorists.
Thus, in the two lands most associated with civil liberties, courts have struck down the tyrannical acts of the corrupt executive. Perhaps the fact that courts have reaffirmed the rule of law will give hope and renewed strength to the friends of liberty to withstand the assaults on freedom that are the hallmarks of the Bush and Blair regimes. On the other hand, the two tyrants might ignore the courts as they have statutory law.
What's to stop them?
Anon @ 3:33:
ReplyDeleteYes, I was using the CSM article about warrantless wiretapping to back up my argument that "briefing" and "oversight" are not the same thing.
Here's a crazy insane thought - Cheney and Rumsfield new about the story on their homes and didn't mind.
ReplyDeleteBut let's not let consideration of that point get in the way of acribing murderous treasonous motives to the Times travel section.
seixion-
ReplyDeleteI have no idea who you are, or who "mr scientist" is. My question about Coulter stems from her appearance at Loyola when she asked students in the audience why they didn't go after other students in the balcony.
The adults in the room restrained her hitler jungen and her speech was cancelled.
My question is a real one, directed to people on this blog who have knowledge of the legal aspects of this issue.
You don't seem to be one of them.
charles bird:
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that simply because they are the Vice President and Sec. of Defense, their houses and all details about them are off limits? Then let Cheney and Rumsfeld file a lawsuit against the NYT charging invasion of privacy and threats to national security.
And while you are at it, you need to write the editors of the other 8 publications that Leslie posted at 9:50pm that have written about the same information and file a complaint.
Witches spotted at the NYT, burn them!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in the real world, insane religious fanatics are toying dangerously with a full-scale regional Mideast war. Will anyone notice?
Charles Bird:
ReplyDeleteImagine how the Secretary of Defense and the VP would feel, even with Secret Service protection.
As the administration might say, if Cheney and Rumsfeld have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. Otherwise, they can probably expect to occasionally have their peace disturbed by angry citizens. They volunteered to become public figures, so tough dice. I doubt either of them are so lily-livered they could give a crap, unlike the nervous nellie wingnuts on display here tonight.
Meanwhile, attacks by terrorists? Hardly more likely than last week, still in the low thousandths and in any case as has been pointed out in numerous ways and means in this thread, the information in the Times article was broadly available long ago. You need to come up with a consistent approach: either the international criminals are evil omniscient masterminds of transcendant dangerousness, or they're a rabble of moronic retards unable to Google their way out of a paper bag. Which is it?
Get a grip, stop hyperventilating, contain your hysterics, put a nice, cool cloth on your forehead. Alternatively, please spare the world your feigned outrage.
Major:
ReplyDeleteWTF are you talking about?
Fake a link that says it was public information? Or that it is a link to a fake web site?
If you believe that, then Google "Vice President Dick Cheney's vacation home" and check the first link. Then report it to Google and declare it a fake and that you demand they remove it at once.
Well, it's 3:26 in the AM here...I'm off to bed. Good night/morning, all.
ReplyDeleteAnybody start a poll yet on when the civil war starts? I figure right after the November elections, when the reality of the reverse Big Bang of the mindfuck neo-theo-con-universive starts to sink in.
ReplyDeleteYou really think there are going to be real elections? Aww, that's so cute!
The US is a one party state, and has been for the last 6 years. The republicans own the people who make voting machines, and those voting machines are going to continue to churn out paper-trailess republican victories no matter what the voters try to do. You don't have a democracy any more, you're just in denial.
I'd recommend buying a gun for protection, but quite frankly getting the hell out of the country is probably the better option. Let the lunatics go down in their own flames and mourn from a safe distance.
Here's my $.02: Remember Casa Pacifica, and Reagon's Ranch?
ReplyDeleteYeah, I thought so.
"Second, you seem to have forgotten that Coulter has actually been attacked by liberals."
ReplyDeleteShe deserves it.
In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such Presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some "Panama" or other - then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of President. The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect Presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible President, a puppet in our hands. Naturally, the authority of the President will then become a target for every possible form of attack, but we shall provide him with a means of self-defense in the right of an appeal to the people, for the decision of the people over the heads of their representatives, that is to say, an appeal to that same blind slave of ours - the majority of the mob. Independently of this we shall invest the President with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the President as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal, in case of need for the defense of the republican Constitution, the right to defend which will belong to him as the responsible representative of this Constitution.
ReplyDelete