Just to put a period on yesterday’s item about the right’s apoplectic reaction to an NYT puff-piece about Cheney and Rumsfeld owning weekend homes in [tag]St. Michaels[/tag], Md., Greg Sargent dug a little deeper and debunked the right’s complaints completely.
A spokesperson for the [tag]Secret Service[/tag] has told me that the New York Times article providing details about the homes of Dick [tag]Cheney[/tag] and Donald [tag]Rumsfeld[/tag] is not a [tag]security threat[/tag], as many conservative commentators have been trying to argue.
Relatedly, Rumsfeld’s spokesperson also confirmed to me that his office gave a Times photographer permission to photograph his home.
Oops.
So, the right’s firm contention that the article and accompanying pictures was not only a tip for terrorists, but also revenge for the administration’s criticism of the Times is, not surprisingly, demonstrably false. The paper wasn’t endangering anyone, but that didn’t stop some far-right activists from publishing personal information about NYT journalists in retaliation, and in at least one instance, threatening violence.
As it turns out, even Rumsfeld’s office is bewildered by the right-wing fuss.
“She got approval to take a picture,” [Hollen Wheeler, director of public affairs for Rumsfeld’s office] told me. “She called, we said fine, go take the picture. And that’s it.”
Wheeler also added of the picture: “It’s already out in the public domain. I’m a little confused about why this has caused such an uproar.” Wheeler declined to directly discuss the question of his security, saying that it was something they don’t discuss as a rule. But she said: “Did it affect the Secretary’s schedule in any way? No. Does it affect in any way how he does his business? No.”
A Secret Service spokesperson told Sargent the same thing about Cheney.
I’m sure the conservatives who turned this harmless Travel-section piece into a rallying cry will promptly apologize for their profound misjudgment. We’re waiting.