Sunday, January 14, 2007

Everybody gets their time, Little David when he picked up his pebbles...


(Somewhat provocative image from InternetWeekly.org)


In the last post, I alluded to email from David Horowitz. Of course, any contact with this creep makes one want to take a decontamination shower. But some insight is still helpful.

I visited FrontPageMag, Horowitz's web site, back in July, after seeing him on TV whining about the NYTimes publishing a puff piece that might lead one to Donald Rumsfeld's vacation home.

Here is what David wrote at FrontPageMag:
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: http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/travel/escapes/30michaels.html

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.


Right. Of course the far Right Wing in this country had long called any media outlet who doesn't support their every utterance on any given day "traitors", and the NYTimes takes a lot of this heat.

David's commenting setup is blind, meaning that comments are seen only by moderators, but I left one anyway:
The Western White House, aka Casa Pacifica, and Reagan`s Ranch, were both well-known locations.

So I guess, by your logic, Cheney & Rumsfeld are more important than St.
Ronnie and Tricky Dick?

I was completely surprised a few days later to get the following email from David:
These houses are vacation "White Houses"; and we are in a war with terrorists which as the President said "changes everything." Thnk about it.

Misspelling aside, I did think about it, and felt he hadn't really responded to my point, except by invoking the cliched "...war with terrorists". So I wrote back politely:
Thanks for the reply.

The thing is, we've known about Presidential retreats for years. The use of Camp David, used by Roosevelt starting in '42, was a direct result of Secret Service concerns about the visibility of his yacht that had previously been his getaway. But the location of Camp David was known to all. And we certainly were at war, with a real declaration from Congress at that time. Security was tight at and around Camp David, but still, the location was known. And we were concerned with potential terrorist attacks, since we interned Japanese-Americans.

Are you suggesting we somehow un-ring that bell, or perhaps the POTUS, VPOTUS, et al be spirited away to some undisclosed location for the duration of the GWOT? Hardly seems an American thing to do.

Also, as has been mentioned in some media, the Washington Post previously published an article, with Rumsfeld's permission, that gave locations of Rumsfeld's home and the soon to be purchased Cheney home.

And NewsMax, hardly "liberal Media" had also already published the same information. I have yet to hear anyone on the right demand the WaPo and NewsMax be branded as treasonous.

Thanks for the opportunity to have this dialog.

Best,
Steve

Nice and polite, right? Well, I was even more surprised to get the following stupid response:
First, these are not presidential retreats. Second, this is the most divisive war America has fought since the Civil War, and it is a war with terrorists. Consequently, the potential for crank attacks on American leaders is much greater.

OK. So the fact that they are NOT Presidential retreats makes them more important? Huh? and "this is the most divisive war" is, in my opinion, exactly because tools like Horowitz keep dancing with fallacies and ideology, rather than facts.

Still, I wrote back again:
David:

First, these are not presidential retreats. Second, this is the most divisive war America has fought since the Civil War, and it is a war with terrorists. Consequently, the potential for crank attacks on American leaders is much greater.

I don't dispute that point. The problem is that Rumsfeld gave permission for the photos to be taken. And both his and Cheney's vacation homes in St. Michaels had already been discussed by NewsMax, who published the information, so it was in the public sphere long before the NYTimes article.

So again, I ask, why single out the NYTimes as the villain, when others were complicit, including Rumsfeld when he agreed to have pictures taken.

It seems to me that the real agenda is not the safety of leaders and cabinet members, but the smearing of the NYTimes.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you, I appreciate it.

Steve

And finally, David responded with the money quote:
I think I have answered these points already in my blog. The NY Times is singled out because it is a paper with great authority and has been abetting the enemies of this country since the Vietnam War.

Indeed. That is the full quote copied and pasted from the email from David. Let's read that one part again:
The NY Times is singled out because it is a paper with great authority and has been abetting the enemies of this country since the Vietnam War.

So. No real security damage was done. This was just an admitted opportunity to rail against the NYTimes. With critics like Horowitz, who needs a free press?


For some background on his conversion to Right Wing wanker, wikipedia:
Other events that Horowitz cites as being influential in his conversion from socialism were the impacts of the US loss in the Vietnam War on the peoples of Indochina,

Makes sense. Because a horribly wrong war was waged by both the Democrats and Republicans, he sides with the Republicans who, under Nixon, finally conceded the futility of the war and disengaged. Kinda like wanting to join the Tampa Bay Devil Rays after last season.

And this:
Horowitz believes that the far left turned a blind eye to such atrocities (Khmer Rouge killings) because the ideological vision of the Communists was one which they shared. To see it went wrong was to admit that there was something wrong in the ideal itself.

Yeah. Those of us on the left who opposed Viet Nam were all dancing in the streets supporting Pol Pot, 'cause he was so, you know, cool. Idiot!

Of course, David's beloved Right Wing saints have never, ever, supported a mass murderer or tyrant, have they?

Ah, forget it. This kind of insanity is incurable.

Bastard.