Friday, June 16, 2017

Did the NYT Supply Information Vital to the Assassination Attempt on House Republicans?



A poster on freerepublic.com had this to say about the information.
 I’ll bet he left his home and wife back in IL right after he read that article. The timeline fits. The problem for an assassin is finding a low-security high-probability venue to attack. Parking a white van in DC and living in it while waiting to shoot somebody in a motorcade was near zero odds. A baseball practice field in suburban Alexandria with a YMCA for showers and Wi-Fi was PERFECT.
This would explain why Hodgkinson had to ask whether the people practicing at the ball field were Democrats or Republicans.  The NYTs Article does not say.  It only says "members of Congress".

The military considers control of this sort of information to be part of operational security.  You do not give it out, because it could be critical information that your adversary could use against you.

The NYT had/has no legal obligation to keep this information from the public eye. In the Civil War/War between the States, both sides obtained critical information from newspapers. Both sides made good use of that information to gain success on the battlefield.

The particularly nasty relationship in this case is that the New York Times has been using extreme rhetoric to describe Republicans for months. Some would say for years.

Here are some examples from a short compilation at the Federalist:
2. "Trump has used a toxic mix of bullying and bluster, xenophobia and nationalism, misogyny and racism, to appeal to the darker nature of the Republican Party and secure his place as the unlikeliest presidential nominee in recent American history." — Blow, May 9.

3. "[Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's endorsement of Trump] puts political positions first and character and morality second. Sure Trump's a scoundrel, but he might agree with our tax proposal. Sure, he is a racist, but he might like our position on the defense budget." — Conservative columnist David Brooks, June 10.

4. "Yeah, frankly, I would say that." — Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof when asked by CNN's Don Lemon whether he thought Trump was "racist," June 8.

5. "As many have noted, it's remarkable how shocked — shocked! — that [the Republican] establishment has been at the success of Donald Trump's racist, xenophobic campaign." — Liberal economist and columnist Paul Krugman, Feb. 26

The NYT has attempted to blame Republicans and gun laws for the attack on Republican Congressmen playing baseball.

They should be looking a bit closer to home, and consider their own contribution.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch







1 comment:

Anonymous said...

What does not make sense is what the law actually says about leaked information. the law contains the phrase "Shall Not Publish". if publishing information in a news paper is not publishing I would like to know what is. reporters have a responsibility to not publish certain information. loose lips sink ships is an old saying. Irresponsible publishing of information appears to get people killed or seriously injured. I call it treason and a clear violation of the law so why is no one being arrested. A few arrests for this sort if thing just might tighten some lips. I think this kind of publishing is intended to create incidents to report on. with no concern for who it may hurt. everything has limits. we have the right to keep and bear arms. we do not have the right to shoot at people when we run out of paper targets. reporters have the right to write articles but not to write articles hoping those articles will create future issues to report on.