Supporters of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed some trepidation regarding the possibility of his home becoming the target of future terror attacks. The Defense Secretary's weekend retreat in Maryland entered the spotlight after the New York Times revealed its whereabouts in a travel-oriented article featuring the village of St Michael's where it is located. The publishing of this article is now causing concern among his fans in the blogosphere who are skeptical about the Defense Secretary's ability to defend his own home from a terror attack.
"By writing an article based upon publicly available facts about Secretary Rumsfeld's home, the Times has committed treason", said a prominent right-wing blogger. "How is a defense secretary who has failed to prevent a terrorist attack against the country supposed to prevent terrorists from attacking his private residence?"
Conservative critics of the Times article are saying that information contained in the article could be used by terrorists to plot mischief against Secretary Rumsfeld whose credibility in the field of defense has been severely undermined after the failed Iraqi occupation.
"Look, we like and respect the guy because he is a Bush appointee but let's face it, he is not very good at his job", said a Rumsfeld fan. "He is the one who invaded Iraq in order to capture weapons of mass destruction and then sat back and allowed the Iraqis to raid unguarded weapons dumps. The New York Times should, therefore, have taken into consideration his relative incompetence in matters of defense before describing his home for terrorists to target."
Most of the Defense Secretary's supporters were also unswayed by the argument that Rumsfeld himself had given Times reporters permission to photograph his home. "Everything the Defense Secretary says has to be taken with a grain of salt", said a blogger who was worried about the safety of his idol. "He once justified the looting in Iraq by claiming that free people are free to commit crimes. It would be irresponsible on our part to lay on him the onerous task of securing his own safety from terrorists. Who knows, he might even invite them into his house for a tour of his gun collection. He needs to be protected, the poor baby."