Ghastly New York Times Article on Rumsfeld’s Personal Security

SCO’s Legal Wrangles Take an Odd, Personal Turn,” by Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek, 10 March 2005,,1895,1814683,00.asp.

Is it any surprise…,” by Dan tdaxp, ZenPundit, 24 June 2006,

,” by Peter Kilborn, New York Times, 30 June 2006, (from Drudge Report).

A year ago, a hack writer endangered the life of a popular blogger by publishing details of her home security. Maureen O’Gara, a publishing world thug, not only

published photographs of Jones’ home and published the addresses, phone numbers and e-mail contacts not only for Jones, but for her mother and her son as well.

but also the make of the lock to O’Gara apartment.

The New York Times, in a stunning display of vindictiveness for White House criticism over a possibly illegal news story, has now published identifying descriptions of the homes of administration officials, including the location of a hidden camera.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is not some middling public celebrity who we might wish to write a letter to, and do not otherwise know the address. The publishing of this information is beyond pointless — it is hostile.

I am sickened by the New York Times‘ invitation to assassination. At a time when we are at war with al Qaeda, the Times is choosing the wrong side.

3 thoughts on “Ghastly New York Times Article on Rumsfeld’s Personal Security”

  1. Jing,

    I read a very similar article over at Kos or MyDD a bit ago. That article, like the one you link to, was primarily a list of claims without support.

    I'll just give two examples of the deceptions of the response blog post — just two “debunking the debunkings,” if you will.

    The article says “For so many obvious reasons, based on easily obtainable information — including the fact that multiple right-wing news outlets such as NewsMax and Fox and others ” Ignoring its dubious distinction of the Washingpost Post as a “ring wing” news outlet, note that none of the articles described the location of hidden security cameras. (My comparison to the Jones / O'Gara scandal centered on such a description.)

    The next paragraph is, of course, laughable

    “I strongly suspected that the Times would not have published those photographs unless they had made certain in advance that doing so would not conflict with Rumsfeld and Cheney's security concerns”

    As the release of the bank surveillance program was exactly a case where Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the chairmen of the 9/11 commission, and others made it clear that publication would harm security.

    Last, the fourth-hand account of “permission” is from an interested party, is without documentation, and without any reference to security devices.

    I agree with you that two-minute hates and feigned indignations are tiring aspects of domestic politics, in any country. So are shoddy “debunkings” by partisan hacks.

    Hence no correction from me. Nor a retraction. Nor anything but scorn on the New York Times.

  2. Dear Dan,

    None of this however changes the basic premise. One, the information that the NYT provided was already public knowledge and had been disclosed before. Two, the theory that the NYT provided this information in a deliberate conspiracy to aid Al-Qaeda operatives to assassinate Cheney seems somewhat farfetched. I'm sorry Dan, but in my opinion you have taken one too many hits from the communal Kool-Aidâ„¢ and have veered into tinfoil territory.

  3. Jing,

    “the theory that the NYT provided this information in a deliberate conspiracy to aid Al-Qaeda operatives to assassinate Cheney seems somewhat farfetched.”

    Of course. Alarmist headlines aside, it's doubtful that the Times is actually calling for the assassination of American politicians.

    But that journalists practice intimidation? That's not far fetched at all.

    Again my comparison to the Jones / O'Gara scandal. It's not rational to think that O'Gara was calling for someone to kill Jones. But was O'Gara looking to make a name for herself among her colleagues by intimidating a well known figure? That's not 'tin foil hot' at all.

    Thank you for this discussion. I am enjoying it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *