We Know Where You Live

I am not sure I grasp the news value of this Times piece describing the summer homes of Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

But I'm sure terrorists and protesters already knew all this, so no harm was done.  Or at least, Times apologists will say so.

Of course, if some protester somewhere had not gotten the memo, they have now.

UPDATE:  Greg Sargent of TAPPED follows up on the security issues, and is pleased to conclude there are none:

EXCLUSIVE: SECRET SERVICE SAYS TIMES ARTICLE ON CHENEY, RUMSFELD HOMES IS NOT A SECURITY THREAT;
RUMSFELD'S OFFICE CONFIRMS GIVING PERMISSION FOR PHOTO OF HIS HOUSE.

...But I just got through talking with Hollen Wheeler, director of public affairs for Rumsfeld's office. She confirmed what Glenn Greenwald has reported -- that the photographer, Linda Spillers, had been granted permission to photograph Rumsfeld's house by Rumsfeld himself.

...I also checked in with Jonathan Cherry, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, which guards Cheney. His first response was not direct. It was this:

As you can imagine, we would prefer less information than more in that regard. However, we take necessary steps to provide security wherever one of our protectees lives, and do our best to be as unobtrusive as possible to neighbors and the general public.

Then, when I asked him directly whether the story posed a security threat, Cherry emailed:

No, it is not a threat.

So there you have it. That should settle this, right?

It's interesting to see Mr. Sargent's critical thinking skills go into suspension once he gets the answers he wants.

My evidently-too-banal follow-up questions:

1.  What would have happened if Rumsfeld had refused permission to the Times photographer?  Is there any special reason to think the Times would have honored his request?  Is it possible that Rumsfeld was simply being agreeable in order to make a virture of necessity.

Newsie Greg Sargent does not report on this.

2.  Aren't the two Secret Service messages contradictory?   "[W]e would prefer less information than more in that regard" is at odds with "No, it is not a threat".  Does any explanation for that seeming contradiction suggest itself?  For example, might the Secret Service calculate that asking the Times not to publish is a waste of time?  Or, might the Secret Service figure that a busload of protestors is an annoyance rather than a security threat?

Well, as I said in my post, I had no doubt a determined terrorist or protest group could have found this info without the help of the Times.  Coming as it does a week after President Bush called the conduct of the Times "disgraceful", I remain dubious of the timing.

Comments

[Go Metro]

The gloves are off

[windansea]

BDS in the slime travel section

OT Mexican barn burner

% reporting: 37.06
President
PAN (Calderon): 38.24
PRD (AMLO): 35.77
PRI (Madrazo's massacre): 19.27

[Specter]

I challenged TIC and pgl to defend this as something the people just had to know in the other thread. You will notice that neither of them has stepped up to the plate yet.

[Jackson]

I'm sure that Times is busily working on an article discussing in detail the many ways in which the Secret Service protects the President. And why not reveal the nuclear codes? Surely the Times can find someone in the government (or Congress) willing to leak that information with detailed information about how to override the security systems and launch a nuclear missile. Nothing is worthy of being classified, nothing is secret. Publish, publish, publish. Why stop at intelligence gathering operations or the private residences of government officials? Let's get it all out there. After all, we Americans like living dangerously and we're very sporting, we don't mind giving the nuts who want to kill Americans a little help here or there. Let's make it a fair fight, shall we? Level the playing field a little. Then we won't feel like such bullies the next time we drop a 500 lb. bomb on some Jackie Jihad's head because after all we gave him a fighting chance first.

[Allan]

Only thing is that since it's the Times, they probably got the wrong houses. But that's okay. The Times never publishes any serious corrections, so no one will know they made a mistake.

[BumperStickerist]

I'm just glad that the NYT didn't disclose the underground pathways and tunnels through which Karl Rove slithers to reach St. Michaels.

I mean, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Snow, all represent garden-variety evil -- what matters is where *Rove* spends his time.

... look, even Ultraman had to take some time off to recharge his batteries while fighting for his cause.

I'm sure Rove does, too.

[lyle]

There's nothing unintentional about it. Any reporter or editor would know that in a world of deranged stalkers, the publication of such information puts Rumsfeld and Cheney and their families in danger.

That's the intent. It's nothing less than a threat. Deniable, of course, but just barely. And don't question their patriotism.

[jerry]

It's been mentioned that the NYT has also written an article about the Clinton's house in Chappaqua.... I can't believe the stories about right wing blogs now looking for info on the Times' editors children etc....

[Jane]

You know I am constantly amazed at how "dirty" the NY Times, and the left in general is. They have their own brand of terrorism.

[Extraneus]

Yes, an obvious point, but it seems only fair, and it's certainly in the public interest, to know about Keller's home and its security system. Isn't it?

[Bob]

Jerry... put up or shut!

What RW blogs are looking for info on the Times editors children ?

Let's go bubba !

[Herbert M. Smith]

The Cheney/Rumsfeld connection with St. Michaels, Maryland, is in Wikipedia; was reported in the International Herald Tribune in December, 2005; was reported in the Washington Post in September, 2005, and so on.
I think you can give the NYT a break on this one.

[Richard mcenror]

Bumperstickerist — Peace lovers have already attacked Rove's home, in the dark of night, of course, trespassing onto the property to pound on the doors and windows...

[BumperStickerist]

Rove must have been traversing his underground network of tunnels at the time. The fact that the peaceniks survived with their hearts still in one piece indicates as much.

or maybe Rove is evil of the 'forgive but remember' stripe and, one dark day, Rove will mete out his brand of justice to all who crossed him.

-----------------------------

I think the Left has gone into a 'counting coup' mode where pointless displays are awarded points which determines status within the group, but nothing much actually happens from an objective perspective.

Semanticleo sort of illustrates the point nicely from a blog-comment perspective. The protestors who bang on Rove's windows do so as well.

----------------------------------

[lurker]

At least the NYT address is well-known. Flares had it up showing directions to the NYT building.

[pgl]

Specter - since you asked. I deplore it when certain bloggers decide to publish the addresses of famous people inviting people to go to their homes and harass them. But as I read what's in the TRAVEL section of the NYTimes, I don't get the sense that this is what they are doing. Now if some Al Qaeda wannabe wants to lurk around the cites published in the NYTimes Travel section, I trust our Secret Service will find other suitable location for the Vice President to spend on the 4th of July. And I also hope the Travel section decides to leave that one out of print.

[Semanticleo]

"I challenged TIC and pgl to defend this as something the people just had to know in the other thread."

flyspec;

Illustrative of how diligent you are at research before you make a fool of yourself is the following posted PRIOR to your 'challenge' (shiver).

My derision grows as you fulminate your inanities.

"But we DO know the NYT is giving AQ Cheney's and Rummys home address so they can be assassinated.

Is there any evil the Left will not conjure to stop the good guys from saving the world?

Get a rope. We'll show the world why we are the death penalty capital of Western Civilization."

[Specter]

TIC,

OK. Fine. But - same can be said for you and maybe more. In the other thread you "mentioned" that you thought I did not write the 25 rules. How right you are - if you had actually read the article you would have noticed that I gave the names of the authors of the rules and where they came from. Turn about is fair play....but then again - who says that I read all of your posts....LOL

[Rick Ballard]

"My derision grows as you fulminate your inanities."

Put down that thesaurus/dictionary, Miz Cleo. Someone is going to hurt themselves laughing at you if you don't.

[Specter]

OK...you did answer my challenge - by saying that it was OK for the NYT to print their information so that they could be assassinated? That's the way I read it, but ya know, you write in such a convoluted manner....

[Semanticleo]

"... always the dullness of the fool is the whetstone of the wits." William Shakespeare, As You Like It

[Specter]

pgl,

A somewhat dodged answer, but I think we can accept it for what it is. But, I cannot figure out why the NYT would include in the "travel" section any reference to security arrangements. Why would they find it necessary to do that? It doesn't make sense does it? Other than to let people know more than maybe they already did - if they knew anything at all.....

[Semanticleo]

Spec;

Do I have to explain?

[Specter]

That is what we have been saying about yout TIC - always the fool and the whetstone for our wit....and entertainment.

[Specter]

Want me to quote the place in my article - the first few paragraphs that you did not seem to read or understand oh Ticmaster....(master of parasite fuliminating inanities). Gawwwd...mebbe u thin we's uneducumated arown hea....

So what you a pgl are really saying is that you condem the NYT for publishing names and addresses....right?

[Jeff H]

"All along, Don Rumsfeld gave his express permission to the NYT for these photographs to be taken." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-is-left-of-malkin-hinderaker-and.html

[Specter]

Jeff H,

Letsee - Glenn Greenwald? Since when did he get anything right?

[Bob]

Woah is me... cleo's "derision" has grown some more. You must be delirious, since now you've resorted to quoting yourself. I guess looking up all those new words takes time away from your writing!

And I hear Bushco is asking Congress to give him the authority to start chopping of heads and video taping it for the AQ families. Then we'll be behaving just like your buddies AQ!

[Semanticleo]

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool" As you like it.

[Specter]

I wonder what he would think if someone published his address, pictures of his house, names of his children, etc. either in the news or on a blog. I bet his tune would change. Remember that is what the anti-war college kiddies did to Michele Malkin. I suppose you think that is ok?

[Specter]

This is the funny part though. The left is raising a ruckus about invasion of privacy. You remember the alleged millions of phone calls that have been listened to here in the US, the alleged data mining, the alleged invasion of their financial records, etc. Yet they see to think that publishing the names, addresses, and security arrangements of a private family is all right. How does that figure? Isn't that a real invasion of privacy as compared to an alleged one? But I guess since it was the NYT that did it, it doesn't matter because it wasn't the evil administration.

As far as Wiki quote goes - well, hey I know that the Kennedy's compound is in Hyannisport, MA. Does that mean I have the right to publish pictures of it and to point out some of the security precautions they have in place? Why didn't the NYT do that?

[Specter]

"only the foolish, fulminating parasitic one thinks that she is wise and witty. Every one else laugh at her" - Specter, today

[Semanticleo]

Spec;

Give it a rest. It is not OK to publish
personal information. Public figures have a little less room, but this was a TRAVEL section piece, not intended to harm. It was stupid to do so, even if some public sectors aware. It just feeds the Beast.

[Semanticleo]

You're getting hysterical. Calm down.

[PeterUK]

Mr Ballard,
Give Septicleo a break,it wasn't easy finding a Farsi into Gibberish Dictionary,and it must be very difficult reading it through the mesh.

[PeterUK]

Whence came the imbecilic idea that, because the information was published in the Travel Section, no harm was done,where do you expect a Jihadi on the go to look,in the Sports pages?

[lurker]

"Ironically, photos were taken with Secretary Rumsfeld's permission."

Greemwald got an email saying this?

Doesn't matter where it was printed.

We know about Hyannisport and Kennebunkport (sp?) but not the details!

[Semanticleo]

Whence came the imbecilic idea that, because the information was published in the Travel Section, no harm was done,where do you expect a Jihadi on the go to look,in the Sports pages?

Posted by: PeterUK | July 03, 2006

more mindless hysteria.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Btw, pgl is having a grand ol' time at Angry Bear entertaining his audience with the claim that Al Qaeda is a 'High Contracting Party' to the Geneva Convention.

[Bob]

PeterUK

Notice the attempt to blame us for being hysterical... she doesn't even understand your play'n her.

hey cleo I think you've invented a perpetual motion machine.

[Extraneus]

I thought the lens in the bird-feeder caption was pretty tourist-worthy. I know that's what I look for when visiting around famous people's homes.

But hey, let's just say we assume just for argument's sake that there's a jihadi out there applying for a job as your kids' school-bus driver. And ol' Bill Keller and his minions publish the next great public-interest story that provides just the right tip to allow him to escape detection, or maybe simply inspires him to be just diligent enough to avoid the mistake he was about to make. Who's kids would be more deserving? Keller's or yours?

These things are all well and good when it's just politics, which appears to be all that's at stake to the left, but it's not just politics. We'd be better to assume that this will go a long time, and that our own kids will be dealing with Islamist fanatics even after we're all dead and gone, and that there are those among us who are helping them, witlessly or not. What to do about them?

I don't think it's extreme to think about that.

[Semanticleo]

nabob;

"she doesn't even understand your play'n her."

What other excuse could you give for idiocy?

[maxx]

"Pinch - Your Name is Quisling"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/burtis070306.htm

"Mr. Pinch Sulzberger is just another Vidkun Quisling in pin stripes, free of any meaningful hindrances, operating for al-Qaeda rather than for the Nazis"

[Wilson's a liar]

I think they just wanted to alert their rich liberal readers that they should keep their $25 million estates in the Hamptons and not look at property in St. Michael's. I'm sure they would hate finding out they live down the lane from someone so declasse as Don Rumsfeld.

[PeterUK]

Bob,
She dropped her phrase book and read the nearest thing,her prescription.I guess her Ritalin is wearing off.

[PeterUK]

"she doesn't even understand your play'n her."

"What other excuse could you give for idiocy?"

I guess you just have a natural talent for it Septicleo.

[Bob]

PeterUK

"phrase book"... your too kind!

I'm never sure if it's better to be called a "nabob" or just an "idiot"... either way I'm flattered.

[Pisistratus]

Congrats TM, just when I thought you had the good sense to avoid the latest rightwing blog idiocy, you FPP it. You know your audience better than I.

Psst...President Bush has a ranch in Crawford, Texas, but like Libby says "keep it on the QT."

[Pisistratus]

oops I fell for the propaganda. Since the "ranch" has no crops or livestock on it, and Bush only bought in in 1999, it's more like President Bush has "a house with a big yard" in Crawford, TX that he calls a "ranch" for a faux Reagan cowboy image. And unlike Reagan, who actually rode a horse, Bush wears those ridiculous bike shorts and enages in a sport loved by the French. Need I say more?

[Bob]

"Need I say more"

Nope that's enough... now move along!

[PeterUK]

Pisi,you are getting to sound like Septicleo.Get a grip!

[Craig]

Sorry, but this argument is smells bogus.

Regardless of Greenwald's usual derangement, if he is right about prior permission being given to publish the picture, and the fact the the location has been publicized several times previously, including on Fox News, then this is a non-issue.

Big difference between showing a picture of a fairly obvious camera and the end of a driveway that anyone can see, and, let's say, publishing a detailed document from a security company showing the precise layout of all the security measures on the grounds.

[lurker]

I dunno about the security camera story.

Pissy sure doesn't know much about the Texax ranches. There are many ranches in Texas with no animals. There are many ranches in Texas used for wildlife hunting. There are many cattle ranches in Texas. There are many horse ranches in Texas. There are many rances for goats, llamas, sheep, etc., in Texas. There are "farming" ranches.

Many owners of these Texas ranches do not necessarily ride horses. Many of them do many other things, such as fishing, hunting, boating, climbing, etc.

In fact, the King ranch near Corpus Christi do mose of their cattle herding via helicopters.

Just because Bush's ranch has no animals doesn't mean he's a drugstore cowboy.

Give it a break. It just becomes clearer over time of your BDS and hatred to the point that you will not listen to anything that doesn't jive with your position.

[pgl]

Patrick Sullivan - thanks for lying again. I did not say Al Qaeda was a High Contracting party. But you obviously can't read what the 3rd Geneva Convention says.

[lurker]

But didn't SCOTUS use "High Contracting Party" to help justify its 5-3 ruling?

Which makes absolutely no sense!!

[Barney Frank]

"Need I say more?"

No.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Here' pgl's answer to my question of what it is that makes him think Gitmo detainees like Hamdan are POWs according to the GC:

'(1) we are at war with Al Qaeda; and (2) Hamdan is a member of Al Qaeda. If the White House is being honest, then the 1st provision of Article IV of the 3rd GC applies.'

And here is that first provision:

'A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

'1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. '

It wasn't until I pointed out to him that the capital "P" meant the soldiers have to be from signatory countries that he realized what a fool he'd made of himself. AND DELETED MY COMMENT EXPLAINING IT.

[SPQR]

Evidently, Semanticleo does not know a hawk from a handsaw.

[Barney Frank]

pgl,

For at least two consecutive posts you have neglected to mention that all of us are welcome to join the conversaton at Angry Bear and to not forget to drop in on your helpful and friendly sponsors while we're there.

Have you forgotten why you are here?

[pgl]

Barney - I came here to address Spencer's claim. Now if you wish to take Patrick Sullivan's bait, fine. But when he says I deleted something, I did not. I can't as only Angrybear has that power and to my knowledge, he does not exercise it that way. Now if you wish to tell Patrick to take his lies (which have nothing to do with this thread anyway) over to my blog - BE MY GUEST!

But let's get back to what Tom said. He was wondering why this story was news. It wasn't - it was in the TRAVEL section. DUH!

[pgl]

Barney had me worried with that comment about Angrybear's sponsors. After all, I've never received a penny from blogging (nor do I expect to). So I checked AB's blog - NO SPONSORS. Barney - why did you lie?

[4jkb4ia]

Thank you for a restrained post.
Nothing in the travel section ever has any news value!

[rob]

You guys sure have your panties in a bunch over a story that reported by Fox and NewsMax last year.

[PeterUK]

"He was wondering why this story was news. It wasn't - it was in the TRAVEL section. DUH!"

DUH! indeed,before WWII, the Wehrmacht used to send troops out on cycling trips with travel guides to familiarise them with ground they would later cover in tanks.(Yes I know AQ don't have tanks,they don't have aircraft either)
Your argument is not remotely logical.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Whoops. Greenwald's too much of an ass to pretend to be a gentleman just this once.

He could have owned this story by shutting up, waiting for the email, and posting the photographer's notes that Rumsfeld approved the photos for publishing.

One line take downs are better than 944 words. Save bandwidth, gain credibility you putz.

[PeterUK]

Well,time to invoke the Inverse Troll Law the more of them that turn up denying any subject the more likely it is to be damaging to their side.

[richard mcenroe]

PeterUK -- The Soviets did a lot of that in West Germany, too. Lot of those 'Eastern European' truckers were Spetznaz route-recon types.

[Specter]

Dodged again pgl...quit trying to type so fast.

Let's address two issues:

First - who cares if it was in the travel section? Was it in print? Was it AVAILABLE to millions of readers? Did it give details not known to the general public? Why? Have they done the same thing with the Crawford Ranch, or the Hyannisport Complex? Which one do you think they will do next? I would guess not Hyannisport.

Second - If Al Quaeda is a member of the GC - why don't they follow the rules too? I guess beheading captives is OK? Not! Why should we grant them protected status? Because you and the left say so? What - are we invading their privacy or something? This SCOTUS thing is going to come back to haunt all of us in one way or another. Remember that SCOTUS is not an imperial branch - and that their ability to rule on this case was taken away by Congress who had the right, and the power, to do so. GC my behind....I thought it only applied to signatories - who signed for Al Queada?

[Pisistratus]

If I was Osama-been-forgotten I certainly wouldn't want to kill Cheney or Rumsfeld as there's always a chance their successors might actually be competent enough to locate and kill me.

[Specter]

Ummm...piss...who was the first president to let him get away? Need a history lesson?

[Gary Maxwell]

OT

Anyone catch the article by the MIT prof of Atmospheric Science yesterday in the WSJ Opinion Journal? He puts the lumber to the Al Gore rant about a consensus. Read it and see what you think about this liberal mantra:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597>Dont Believe the HYPE

[richard mcenroe]

Bob -- I guess those evil rightwing blogs caught Jerry snooping on them. We'll never see the poor bastard again...

[Bob]

Jerry who...

I'm sure he's off searching the Internet looking for those RW web sites disclosing information about Clinton's Chappaquiddick home. Oops did I say Chappaquiddick, I meant the other womanizers house.

[PeterUK]

Richard,
Having a picture,is certainly better than having to take the risk of taking one.But anyway looking at pictures in the Travel Section is against the rules.

During the Falklands a picture of HMS Sheffield was used on the news,she was on picket duty,although no location was given,many of us wondered WTF the BBC was doing waving this red flag for. HMS Sheffield was the first ship to be sunk by an Exocet missile launched from Super-Etedarde,both the Argentines and the French bust a gut to make this possible.
No doubt or visting dickheads with their consequence free lives will fail to understand the role of psychological objectives in warfare.

[pgl]

Specter - McConnell may claim that the GC applies only to the nations that signed the treaty, but that's not what the treaty says. No doubt we should have no sympathy for the butchers in Al Qaeda, but I thought we were one of the "High Parties" which might be a neat way of saying we rise to high standards even if Al Qaeda butchers do not. Hey, I'm not asking for special privileges for the real butchers. I'm just saying we should have fair trials to make sure we have a butcher and not some goofball vacation traveler in the wrong place at the wrong trial. We had a fair trial for that self-style 20th highjacker and it worked quite well IMHO.

Now to the thread - I'm not defending this article, but this does strike me as an overblown outrage designed to give that one rightwing blogger an excuse to send thugs to the home of the NYTimes editor. I have not seen your comments as to whether this was appropriate or its own outrage. Care to do so?

[Pisistratus]

Hey Maxwell-Noam Chomsky is an MIT professor too!

Read some Chomsky and tell me what you think about the conservative mantra. Don't believe the hype!

[lurker]

pql,

The thought of us setting and adhering to high standards in spite of AQ's non-adherence to the GC came across my mind. This wasn't even the first war that we adhered to the GC standards or better so we have a choice: 1) Treat AQ and other terrorists as "war criminals" in the criminal court system or we don't while none of our soldiers get the same treatment.

The GC actually goes out the window with AQ and terrorists when they do not have 1) an army. 2) do not belong to a country (not even that "High Contracting Party" (hogwash). Nope, the GC does and should not apply to AQ, Taliban, and other terrorists.

I did not appreciate SCOTUS usurping both the powers of Congress and Executive office.

Noam Shit-omky, your ass, to meet and endorse Palestine / Hamas. If he doesn, then Pissy is all for Hamas to go after Israel.

[lurker]

How many Nazi's were given "fair trials" at Nuremburg?

[Bob]

Piss for brains. You are a freak'n moron... How in God's name can you compare Chomsky to Lindzen. And Chomsky is a conservative... he's a socialist you idiot!

This is such a typical liberal argument.

[PeterUK]

"but this does strike me as an overblown outrage designed to give that one rightwing blogger an excuse to send thugs to the home of the NYTimes editor. I have not seen your comments as to whether this was appropriate or its own outrage. Care to do so?"

Considering all the homicidal thugs of the 20th century were left,including Hitler and Mussolini,wash your mouth out with soap kid.

It was the left who published the details,how dare you invert this to make your side the injured party.

[lurker]

How many Nazi's were given "fair trials" at Nuremburg?

[lurker]

And how come the Nazis were not tried here in our friendly USA criminal court system????

[SunnyDay]

Pisi and Cleo must like us a lot, huh?

[SunnyDay]

Free Republic fun

http://cgi.ebay.com/Osama-thank-you-card-sent-to-treasonous-NEW-YORK-TIMES_W0QQitemZ220002307068QQihZ012QQcategoryZ367QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[SunnyDay]

Oops here's the end of it.

NameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[Bob]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Osama-thank-you-card-sent-to-treasonous-NEW-YORK-TIMES_W0QQitemZ220002307068QQihZ012QQcategoryZ367QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem> Free Republic Fun

Sunnyday's link

[Dwilkers]

My my. Its an interesting contradiction.

On the one hand the clown wants folks to believe it doesn't know the difference between a posting difficulty and being banned from a blog.

On the other it wants them to stand in awe of it's razor sharp intellect.

And today it even managed to find a quotes website.

[Pisistratus]

Bob-usually I don't stop to explain, but for some reason your obtuseness invites my compassion rather than my scorn. So pay attention, and you'll see how large portions of the right wing operates:

See Maxwell came with what's called the "appeal to authority". A guy from MIT (i.e. smart guy) doesn't agree with lots of other scientists-so Gore's "scientific consensus" is bogus.

Of course, there's "scientists" aka "crackpots" who believe man and dinnosaurs were contemporaneous. And we know this guy is not just a crackpot flat-earther nutcase because...well, he's from MIT.

So I pointed out Chomsky is also from MIT. Now I'm quite sure Maxwell regards Chomsky as a crackpot nutcase, and won't take Chomsky's word for anything.

Unless, of course, Chomsky was saying something Maxwell already agrees with and wants to hear, as is Professor Lindzer. Then Maxwell would fully endorse him and trumpet his MIT credentials.

Thus is actual thought and reasoned argument avoided.

[pdq332]

Where does Bill Keller live?

[Pisistratus]

2917 Uranus
Blow Me, Missouri

[SunnyDay]

Pisi, you are confused, This is not DU.

[maryrose]

Personally I think the treatment they get at Gitmo is fine. 3 squares and no one beheading them and a good climate to boot. If they want a trial to then be deported-fine. Let's see how their countrymen treat them. I read in the WSJ today that this ruling applies to about 10 people. But does it jive with the Geneva convention no way Jose. THese prisoners are TERRORISTS! Pissy and pql-take note-they want to kill us. Just thought after all your blather some fact renewal was in order.

[PeterUK]

Dwilkers,
Which one of them? The Institution had a day trip out today.

[Pisistratus]

Sorry Day, but since you just linked to that cesspool Free Republic, I view you as "human debris" to quote the Freeper's idol, Limbaugh.

[Old Dad]

Pisistratus:

The appeal to authority depends on, well, authority.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. He's commenting on climate change.

Chomsky is a highly respected linguistics expert. I don't question his authority on linguistics. Why should I care about what he thinks about geopolitics? He's got no creds there.

[PeterUK]

Of course Chomsky is a linguist,outside being an expert on the theory he concocted himself,is no more knowledgeable than anyone else.

[SunnyDay]

Sorry Day, but since you just linked to that cesspool Free Republic, I view you as "human debris" to quote the Freeper's idol, Limbaugh.
*************************

I care. Really.

[lurker]

The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky

Note that Greenwald went out of his way to discredit Horowitz.

The Coercive Anarchism of Noam Chomsky

At least Greenwald isn't yet after Loberfeld

Chomsky on Pearl Harbor

Noam Chomsky

[Pisistratus]

Old Dad, be careful, you just presented a rational argument, one that requires a reasoned response on my part rather than a snippy retort or lunatic raving.

I think you're violating the JOM posting rules.

[SunnyDay]

/ignore