Democrats & Liberals Archives

Under the Gun

It seems that V.P. Dick Cheney is not the only one to turn his gun on a friend this week. President Bush is staring down the barrel and his Republican friends have their fingers on the trigger.

You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie!

On Wednesday, an 11-member House select committee, all Republicans, will release a 600-page report on Hurricane Katrina response failures. The report will lay out 90 failures at all levels of government. The report singles out Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff for delaying the flow of federal troops and materiel by up to three days. The failures of the Homeland Security Operations Center and the White House Homeland Security Council are also highlighted in the report.

Excerpts from The Washington Post:

Regarding Bush, the report found that "earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response" because he alone could have cut through all bureaucratic resistance.
"If 9/11 was a failure of imagination then Katrina was a failure of initiative. It was a failure of leadership," the report's preface states. "In this instance, blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina's horror."
"All the little pigs built houses of straw," it wrote. "Katrina was a national failure, an abdication of the most solemn obligation to provide for the common welfare."
About 56 hours before Katrina made landfall, the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center cited an "extremely high probability" that New Orleans would be flooded and tens of thousands of residents killed.

Given those warnings, the report notes Bush's televised statement on Sept. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees," and concludes: "Comments such as those . . . do not appear to be consistent with the advice and counsel one would expect to have been provided by a senior disaster professional."

The council's "failure to resolve conflicts in information and the 'fog of war,' not a lack of information, caused confusion," the House panel wrote. It added that the crisis showed the government remains "woefully incapable" of managing information, much as it was before the 2001 attacks.

Brownie, testifying before a Senate committee said The Bush administration, as a whole, did not seem to care enough about natural disasters and had relegated natural disasters to a "stepchild" of national security.

"It is my belief," Brownie told the senators, that if "we've confirmed that a terrorist has blown up the 17th Street Canal levee, then everybody would have jumped all over that and been trying to do everything they could."

He said he believed he had had a good relationship with Bush, but added: "Unfortunately he called me "Brownie" at the wrong time. Thanks a lot sir".

If the President calls, I'm not here

A growing number of Republicans are becoming vocal about the President's authorization of the NSA warrantless wiretapping on Americans. The New York Times reports "In interviews over several days, Congressional Republicans have expressed growing doubts about the National Security Agency program to intercept international communications inside the United States without court warrants. A growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created a court to oversee such surveillance, and are calling for revamping the FISA law."

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said. "There is considerable concern about the administration's just citing the president's inherent authority or the authorization to go to war with Iraq as grounds for conducting this program. It's a stretch."


The backlash started with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Monday. Sen. Arlen Specter, Sen. Susan Collins, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Sen. Lindsay Graham, Sen. Chuck Hagel, Sen. Olymia Snowe, Sen. Mike DeWine, and Rep. Heather Wilson have all publicly spoken out about the Presidents authority to authorize the wiretaps.

Support our troops, bring them home

In as sudden turn, Republicans in Congress are coming to their senses on the Iraq issue. In response to a question from Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition Sunday, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, stated "We must be very careful what we’re doing here, because in my opinion, three years in Iraq, things haven’t gone the way the administration said and others said it was going to go. In fact, I think we’re in more trouble today than we’ve ever been in Iraq…"

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had previously supported Bush's programs, was on NBC's "Meet the Press" Jan. 29, Frist said, "I would have probably put more troops in Iraq if the decision had been up to me." He said the White House is not cooperating with Hurricane Katrina investigations by Congress. As for the Bush budget, he said: "We are spending too much in Washington, D.C." He suggested his and the White House's position in the Terri Schiavo case was wrong. On NBC's "Today" program the next day, when asked about the administration's National Guard policy, Frist replied: "I am opposed to cutting the Guard myself."

The second highest ranking Republican in New York State government, Joseph Bruno, called on President Bush to "get the troops out of Iraq and bring them home". He also warned that the American military is incapable of putting an end to the violence wracking the country. The New York Senate majority leader joins Republicans Rep. Walter Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Mellon Scaife, and Colin Powel's former chief of staff, Larry Wilkerson in criticizing the Bush Administration's Iraq strategy.

A budget bigger than the Titanic, but just as doomed

Conservative Commentator Jonah Goldberg, speaking of how Bush has piled up record deficits and boosted the size of government, writes that Bush "is spending money like a pimp with a week to live." A former Reagan domestic-policy adviser, Bruce Bartlett, is releasing a book this month titled "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy."

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, labeled the proposed cuts to healthcare and education ''scandalous."


Who left the front door open?

Rick Perry, Bush’s successor as governor of Texas, questions Bush's national-security record: "How can we fight this war on foreign fronts while leaving the front door to our nation vulnerable?"

Rep. Tom Tancredo speaking at a Conservative Political Action event about immigration said, "It is the employer community which sees profits from cheap labor, and the hell with ... the American taxpayer. The conservative movement can either be the voice of principle ... or it can be the voice of the Chamber of Commerce, but it cannot be both."

I borrowed Jeff Gannon's key

After photos of President Bush with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff surfaced, the President claimed he did not know Abramoff. He has his picture taken with many people he does not know.

But, Abramoff, basically calling the President a liar, wrote in an e-mail "Mr. Bush had one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met...He saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids."

Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "no Republican shall ever speak ill of another."

The bashing at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference didn't center on Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, but focused on frustrations with Bush and the Republican Congress.

"The American people don't understand what Republicans stand for anymore,'' roared Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who proudly declared that he had voted against Bush's prescription drug plan, his Central American trade proposal and his "$100 billion Katrina slush fund.''

"American conservatives have watched dumbfounded as their Congress -- their Republican Congress -- and the Republican White House engineered the largest expansion of the federal government in modern history,'' Tancredo said.

Bob Barr, a former Republican House member from Georgia, warned fellow conservatives that those who defend the president's ability to spy on American citizens are "in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle.''

The president, Barr warned, has overstepped his bounds and "it should not matter the person, the man, occupying the position of the presidency.''

What does this mean for Democrats?

There is a simple principle that Bush has neglected to use to win the war on terror, 'unite your allies and divide your enemies'. Bush's policies have done the exact opposite, he has alienated our allies, divided the nation and has caused the uniting of innocent Arabs with our terrorist enemies in a common cause- hating America.

In politics it's called "divide and rule", a technique used by those in a minority group, with little real power, to break up and control those who collectively would have a lot of power if they were united. Conservatives used the technique successfully to break up a liberal majority into smaller groups with less power. It was even employed by Conservative Neo-Christians to break up the liberal United Church of Christ, taking millions in assets with them.

The Republicans are taking care of the divide part of the equation with little intervention on the part of the Democrats. The Democrats now need to work off that divide, and use their energy to unite liberals in taking back our country.

Posted by JayJay Snow at February 14, 2006 12:15 AM
Comments
Comment #124634

Great post. How true, yet I wonder if any of this gets to public. With the constant threat of “TERROR” and the “long war” all the time, I wonder if John Q. can filter out the BS. Afterall in a day from now this post will be filled with comments saying how great this Pres. is.

Will people see the forest for the trees or will the “spin zone” over at the Rove’s home keep the issue muddled?

With luck come November much of the voting public will hear that “giant sucking sound” as they finally realize that the truth has been stolen from them for the past six years.
Michael

Posted by: Michael at February 14, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #124640

I have to wonder though whether these republicans really mean what they’re saying, or if it’s just PR for upcoming elections. They want the public to think they’re not the party of corruption, and so must distance themselves from Bush since defending him is a lost cause.

Posted by: john at February 14, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #124641

Get ready for some major Terror Alerts whenever Democrats are leading.

Posted by: Aldous at February 14, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #124644

Just goes to show that the government is never the answer. Conservatives must be right after all!

Posted by: Gandhi at February 14, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #124645

I think people are naturally inclined to conflict with the governments doings regardless of neither the times nor the people in power. When Clinton was in, we wanted a heart with morals. Bush is in, we want a brain with intelligence. Next we’ll have a woman president, and we’ll want a dick with balls….lol

Posted by: Brian at February 14, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #124651

My natural inclanation is to doubt the sencerity of any republican if he is saying something I might agree with. I think the above posturing is just that, posturing. And I hope they are playing to the crowd because the only thing that has kept middle America from realizing the extent of the missteps that the bungler in charge and his toadies have made has been the united front the repubs have put forward. Claiming, now, that they think he’s an idiot just like the rest of us will only save the very stongest. Now we need someone to come out with evidence of some more illegalalities. We all know there is more to be found.

Posted by: Travis at February 14, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #124664

“I wonder if John Q. can filter out the BS. Afterall in a day from now this post will be filled with comments saying how great this Pres. is.”


Michael, if by “john q.” you mean those who, for whatever reason don’t stay abreast to the daily flood of corruption the white house emits, as you and I do, then IT’S OUR JOB to keep them informed. You, me, and every democrat that wishes to put our government back on the right course… we can’t simply post our vitriol on web sites where mostly fellow liberals see and read it. We must take our contempt to work, to school, to church, to wherever we might find an ear willing to listen to the truth.

The reason the administration operates in such dark secrecy is because their motives and deeds cannot stand the light of exposure. They feed on ignorance. They breed it, they nurture it, they harvest it, and they feast on it.

FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Posted by: Thom Houts at February 14, 2006 3:02 AM
Comment #124730
It seems that V.P. Dick Cheney is not the only one to turn his gun on a friend this week.

After all of those deferments, he has finally seen combat…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #124731

George’s approval rating is back under 40…

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2006 7:25 AM
Comment #124734

I suffer from Republican Bulemia. I arise every morning and read the latest attrocities of this Republican administration and congress and go heave my guts out. This mornings offerings from the NY Times (you know that traitorous liberal manipulating, Republican bashing rag) devulges US collusion with Israel to subvert the Hamas election victory and duly elected Palistinian government because the spread of democracy in the Middle East is America’s greatest gift to the free world except when they vote wrong. This was followed by an article disclosing that the major oil companies who just finished a year of record breaking corporate profits will benefit from a $7 billion dollar windfall over the next five years as a result of having royalties waived on gas and oil produced from US government territories in the Gulf Coast. Oops almost forgot, Kerr-McGee is suing through the same legislation to increase its windfall to over $22 billion dollars. “God Bless America” and pass the ammunition to “Deadeye Dick Cheney. Excuse me I’m feeling queasy again.

Posted by: Robinsong0 at February 14, 2006 7:47 AM
Comment #124737

I guess the Bush administration’s failure to respond to Katrina and all those helpless victims had nothing to do with racism … right cliff?

Posted by: Tom at February 14, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #124741

But really, the important thing is that DICK CHENEY SHOT A DUDE IN THE FACE. How can we not have a post about this? Some Bush-haters we are! ;)

A little amusement from Comedy Central:

Jon, tonight the vice president is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. According to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78-year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Whittington’s face.
Posted by: Woody Mena at February 14, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #124743

JayJay:

You propose the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy, which is certainly a good one. The Republican party over the last decade has been solidly in unison, and you’ve provided a few examples of cracks in the veneer. It’s been the divisions in the Democratic party that have led to their minority status, so it could happen to Republicans as well.

Let’s hope that the process doesn’t simply result in a changing of the guard, or by adding to the majority, but rather in a strengthening of our country.

It’s salient to note that in your post, you mentioned the standard complaints against Bush: Katrina, NSA wiretapping, high budget, immigration problems, and Abramoff, along with Iraq war issues. What you did NOT note was what Democrats want to do to improve any of these issues. That’s been the fatal flaw in the Democratic playbook: an inability to cohesively lay out their plans. Either they don’t have much in the way of plans, or they lack the ability to get their ideas across to the public. Part of it is that they do not have the cohesiveness to articulate single ideas—they tend to use a shotgun approach by offering up varying solutions for individual problems.

I hope for the best for our country—not for any individual party. It’s acceptable for any of us to believe in what one party offers over another party. But lets hope that the process does more than simply weaken one party. Lets hope it strengthens America.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #124758

“After all of those deferments, he has finally seen combat…”

Not until he’s been shot at.

Posted by: Scotty at February 14, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #124772

Scotty:

Don’t worry. Considering this Administration’s Track Record, the White House will probably claim Cheney was defending himself when he shot that geriatric in the face!!!

Posted by: Aldous at February 14, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #124779

Jayjay,

What I find particularly important about your post is that it quotes Republicans about Republicans. And not no-name Republicans: it’s largely nationally known elected officials. I haven’t seen (so far anyway) a post here where someone just blasts the Democrats using their favorite insulting phrases. Let this be a lesson: when you want to silence a Republican, quote a Republican.

Posted by: Steve K at February 14, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #124780

Ok JJ, liberals need to unite and take back our country and make it liberal again.
What are you guys going to do to make us see that liberalism is better for the country?
How is this “Utopia” going to be different?

Posted by: Tim Huff at February 14, 2006 9:50 AM
Comment #124815

Boy oh Boy you libs just dont get it do you? Libs=socialism=communism.Neither system works. Al Gore what a class guy ah. I think Al is ready for the yellow bus ride. By the way do you libs know Bush won —Kerry “The war hero”lost. get over it

Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #124816

Thomas:

“By the way do you libs know Bush won —Kerry “The war hero”lost. get over it.”

Do you know how many times I’ve seen you post this inane statement? Is this the only joy you can find right now? Have things become so desparate on the right that the only light in the tunnel is coming from behind you?

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #124819

From yesterday’s NY Times:

“WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years.

New projections, buried in the Interior Department’s just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.

Based on the administration figures, the government will give up more than $7 billion in payments between now and 2011. The companies are expected to get the largess, known as royalty relief, even though the administration assumes that oil prices will remain above $50 a barrel throughout that period.”

Wow - an early V-Day smooch from the Pres. I mean, in a year of record profits, to continue to give oil away at the expense of the American Taxpayer… wow. I mean, the American public isn’t even in the bedroom with these guys, but we’re still the ones getting it up the …. Ya know what I mean?

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #124821

Its amazing to me how little you libs have to offer. I wonder why the main stream media doenst call for an indictment of Dick Cheney. We all know that there has to be something wrong with the situation. Wow 24 hours before the news got out what a disgrace. How about our guy Teddy and Chapaquitic. Bill took nine months to fess up to his mistake. And you libs wonder why youi arent in power. No solutions to problems just complaints.

Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #124825

Thomas,

“And you libs wonder why youi arent in power. No solutions to problems just complaints.”

We can only assume that your solution would be to ignore the incident all together.

But that’s ok with you guys because the right is incapable of doing anything wrong anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at February 14, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #124827
I think Al is ready for the yellow bus ride.

Thomas,

We already know what Rush Limbaugh thinks of the liberal party an Al Gore, do you have an opinion of your own?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 14, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #124840

Its amazing to me how little you conservatives have to offer. I wonder why the main stream media doenst call for an indictment of Dick Cheney. We all know that there has to be something wrong with the situation. Wow 24 hours before the news got out what a disgrace. How about our guy Teddy and Chapaquitic. Bush has yet to fess up to any mistake. I wonder why you republicans are in power. No solutions to problems just corruption and hate.

-Look I can play the game too!

Posted by: chantico at February 14, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #124846

The only difference between your statement and mine is that yours is spin. Im telling you guys truth ti you is like garlic to a vampire. Lets give a big hand to air america—Al Frankin and the guys. You want spin thats where you need to go. Let us not forget it was your man Clinton who lied under oath.

Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #124852

Thomas,

“Let us not forget it was your man Clinton who lied under oath.”

Wow, something fresh and new.

If this is the extent of the right’s creative thinking, it’s a wonder that any of them got elected.

Posted by: Rocky at February 14, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #124856

The only difference between your statement and mine is that yours is spin. Im telling you guys truth to you is like garlic to a vampire. Lets give a big hand to Fox News—Sean Hannity and the guys. You want spin thats where you need to go. Let us not forget it was your man Libby and possibly Rove and Cheney who lied under oath.

P.S.: I didn’t vote for Clinton. But thanks for playing vitrolic hate statements. This is fun!

Posted by: chantico at February 14, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #124857

All I can say is:

If you see Cheney standing at a urinal… give him a wide berth and walking quitely. (…and the big punch line???) And just because you hear something flush, it doesn’t mean it’s safe to go say hi.

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #124863

Thomas:

So is this where we are heading with this discussion: You mom’s ugly and she got a deferment from wearing Army boots?

Wouldn’t it be better if we actually discussed the topic at hand?

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #124864

Thomas seems to be the conservative version of Aldous… A lot of overly-partisan statements with very little meaning.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 14, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #124865

Thomas,

I do give Air America and Al Franken a hand, they at least focus on the issues, unlike conservative talk radio and Rush Limbaugh whose only mission is to spread liberal hate propaganda. Since you keep quoting Rush Limbaugh I assume you are a big fan which explains why you have nothing original to say.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 14, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #124875

If Richard Mellon Scaife, head of the VRWConspiracy, is joining those who are criticizing Bush, it must be because Bush is not far enough to the right for him. For those unaware of his background, here is a quote from Clinton’s My Life about Scaife:

page 711:

The Arkansas Project was funded by the ultra-conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife from Pittsburgh, who had also pumped money into the American Spectator to fund its negative stories on Hillary and me. For example, the project had paid one former state trooper $10,000 for the ridiculous yarn accusing me of drug smuggling. Scaife’s people also worked closely with allies of Newt Gingrich. When David Brock was working on the Spectator featuring the two Arkansas state troopers who claimed they procured women for me, Brock had received not only his salary from the magazine but secret payments from Chicago businessman Peter Smith, the finance chairman of Newt’s political action committee.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 14, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #124886

joebagodonuts,

I’m not running for office but I have some solutions.
Eliminate “pork.” Government should not be allowed to attach anything to bills before them.
Eliminatelobbying by gutting and reforming campaign finance and gifts allowed to our officials.
Simplify tax’s.
Disregard party lines in favor of choosing committee and party leaders based on knowledge and integrity.
Dems should not seek revenge, but mend fences.
Begin a diplomatic mission to end terrorism, not just fight it(We have to fight it too, but the goal should be to end it).
Apologize for all that this administration has done to our image.
Focus our enegy on environment, homeland security,education, welfare reform, changing child predator laws to combat this epidemic, get the Iraqi’s to stand up for themselves by really rebuilding infrastructure.
I’m sure that both sides can get the job done together. We must not vote in a bunch of useless Democrats either. We need to investigate our candidates and vote based on knowledge not ads and rumors and smear. Ignore party lines and vote for the good of our nation, not to strengthen one party over the other. We see what a destructive thing it can bewhen one party becomes swollen with power. Let’s start more party’s.Let’s take our nation back.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 14, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #124891

Snowman, good post.
I think the GOP is now running scared and will say anything to try to quickly rebuild their image. They’re hoping that everyone will suddenly forget how they’ve been marching in lockstep with the administration, giving them whatever they’ve wanted, and ignoring the many serious transgressions made by so many in their party. Will the people fall for that tactic? Well, judging by some posters in WB (Thomas for instance) some might actually do that, even though there really is no logical explanation.

jbod:
“you did NOT note was what Democrats want to do to improve any of these issues. That’s been the fatal flaw in the Democratic playbook: an inability to cohesively lay out their plans.”

This is the mantra of the Republicans. Dems lay out their ideas all the time in this column and are immediately attacked for them. Then, when the failings of this administration and the Republican majority in the House and Senate are brought up, they bring out the above mantra, hoping that if they repeat it enough times, they’ll convince others that this is somehow true.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 14, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #124897

FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN!

Posted by: Thom Houts at February 14, 2006 03:02 AM

How right you are. They also don’t let them vote Democrat.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 14, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #124898

Was Dick Cheney drunk when he shot his friend in the face?
Incomplete reports I’ve read concerning the hunting accident lead me to conclude the vice president could not have been in complete control of his facilites when he shot a fellow hunter in the face and chest from a distance of 30 yards.
If he had had his shotgun at his shoulder and been aiming at birds flying at above shoulder height, his shot pattern would not have hit someone standing 30 yards away in the face, let alone in the chest, which is where some more of Cheney’s birdshot landed.
The only logical explanation is that Cheney’s gun barrel was either pointed slightly down or at the very least parallel to the ground — not elevated as it would be when shooting at birds on the wing — when the VP pulled the trigger.
What’s more, anyone not under the influence of alcohol or some other reflex-imparing substance would not have pulled the trigger while his gun barrel was aimed anywhere near a person standing only 30 yards away.
If Cheney had had his gun crooked in his elbow with the barrel pointing down — the proscribed stance for hunters not in the act of actually killing something — he would have had ample time to see his friend standing nearby before he raised his shotgun to his shoulder.
My suspicion is that the VP — his mind befogged by whatever he was drinking or smoking — reacted to the sudden flight of game birds and let off a blast of birdshot while his gun was somewhere between the crook of his arm and his shoulder.
Of course, we cannot expect the VP to ever tell the truth about what happened that fateful day any more than we can expect him to ever tell the truth about his Iraqi WMD allegations or “Scooter” Libby.

Posted by: Dan Ruck at February 14, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #124900

Dan:

From what little I’ve read, Cheney was following some quail in his sights and the guy sort of blundered into the firing line. It was an accident and there are no charges being brought. Your post is a great example of not knowing much about the facts, which you admit, and then reaching for conclusions based on what little you know. The odds are highly—-highly—-in favor of you getting very little of your conclusions correct.

That being said, Cheney should have his hunting license revoked. Anyone who shoots someone while hunting should never hunt again.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #124903

Dan Dan Dan come on now where did you get your information from Al Frankin??. You Libs really like to speculate kinda like Blame with her national guard documents. Doesnt have to be the truth for you people. So long as it seems like a likely story then you guys go with it. Dan please let me know where you got you information about the accident.

Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #124905

under the influence of alcohol or some other reflex-imparing substance

Cheney must be taking blood thinners, after his heart surgery, and was probably a little dizzy.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 14, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #124907

Hey Thomas…learn to spell, please. It’s bad enough that we can all see how stupid you are in your support of the Repiglican Party, but you compound your lack of wit with illiteracy.

Posted by: capnmike at February 14, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #124919

Say capnmike did you want answer the question I aske dan. Where did dan get his information from. Im not worried about the spelling capnmike. You got my point.

Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #124922

Wow JayJay, you went out on a limb. Let’s see, you quoted the Washington Post, the NY Times, and CNN … Hell, was the San Fran Chronicle on vacation or something?

Here’s another shocker: Same party candidates are distancing themselves from a 6 year President. Wow! I can’t remember the last time that was done. Well I’ll be! We’d have to go back all the way to 1998 to find evidence of such an amazing revelation.

Why does the phenomena above happen? It’s easy. Every decision a President makes, even if it’s the right decision, pisses off somebody. After 6 years you can usually throw around a few hot topics and get everyone to go “Grrrrr! That darn President!”

The bottom line is you only complain, much like a 5 year old who lives across the street from me. And, much like that young lad, you offer no solutions whatsoever. I suggest you seek out Teddy Roosevelt’s “A Man In The Arena” speech.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 14, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #124926

Dan Ruck . . ah yes. Another liberal with “They lied about WMD in Iraq.”

Please see the following video with ALL PROMINENT DEMOCRATS discussing that “big lie” about WMD in Iraq:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Or, continue living in Oz. It’s your choice.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 14, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #124927

JBOD,

“From what little I’ve read, Cheney was following some quail in his sights and the guy sort of blundered into the firing line.”

From the San Jose Mercury News: “Whittington shot a bird and went to get it, breaking from Cheney and Willeford. Armstrong said Whittington then came up from behind without signaling, and as a covey flushed Cheney wheeled and fired his .28-gauge shotgun, hitting Whittington.”

So the VP wheeled 180 degrees and then fired before checking his backdrop - he broke the 2 cardinal rules of hunter safety. He spun 180 degrees and he fired without ascertaining who or what was behind him.

Now, I personally do not think this is or should be a big _political_ or legal deal. But I would like to see more conservatives and hunters just be honest and say the VP really messed up, and we are all lucky that Worthington was not killed.

I think that’s the honest thing to do.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 14, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #124930

Erm, Worthington = Whittington.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 14, 2006 2:09 PM
Comment #124938

Ken -
“http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Or, continue living in Oz. It’s your choice.”

Wow. I’m starting to think you don’t have anything else to share - and maybe you’re just spamming us with this RNC BS. Come on! This was completely debunked 3 threads ago (or do you avoid reading the comments that follow your posts?) This has gone past boring and is on the verge of being sad. Surely, if we were living in Oz, like you say, you could easily find a different link for each new post… or are you getting paid per each hit on that site?

“The bottom line is you only complain…”

Again, you need to actually read what others post. It helps keep your comments from sounding so jaded.

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #124945

Arr-squared:

But I would like to see more conservatives and hunters just be honest and say the VP really messed up

I think that’s precisely what I did in my post, and I’d welcome others to say the same thing. Of course Cheney screwed up, and it sounds like Whittington did too.

The problem is that some will try to make a huge political deal out of this, which will then cause others to defend the VP. If we all just call it what it was, we’ll be okay.

It was an accident. A dumb stupid accident, but an accident nonetheless. Anyone who shoots someone else while hunting should not be allowed to hunt again.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #124950

we are all lucky that Worthington was not killed./Erm, Worthington = Whittington.

I don’t think anyone is going to be killed with bird shot, but it could have injured his eye. I am surprised that the Perazzi Italian manufactured rifle has not become an issue with US riflemakers. Whittington might be a descendant of Dick Whittington, Lord Mayor of London in 1397. There must be a Puss N Boots connection or joke to be had somewhere in all this.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 14, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #124957

The only political issue being raised is the lag time between the accident and reporting it to the police. I could care less… as long as they responded quickly to help Whittington, that’s the bottom line. However, by being slow to report this, they again opened themselves up to interpretation. The bottom line - these guys suck at managing crises, even the smaller ones.

Mostly, what I’ve seen are the talk shows and comedians going nuts over this - and how can you blame them? All you have to do is read the headlines slowly, and the comedy of errors just sort of jumps up and hits you in the …(smirk) face.

Politically, I think this whole event should be mostly ignored. I don’t think it shows much about his leadership abilities (although I don’t hold those in very high esteem…) I think it basically gets to the point that he’s dangerous with a loaded weapon… I don’t think Whittington did much of anything except forget to duck. (yea… Quack quack…)

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #124961

“I don’t think anyone is going to be killed with bird shot, but it could have injured his eye.”

this just reported:

“The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had “a minor heart attack” Tuesday morning, hospital officials said.

The victim, Harry Whittington, was immediately moved back to the intensive care unit for further treatment, said Peter Banko, the administrator at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial in Texas. “

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #124964

Fair enough, Joe. You’re a good guy.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 14, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #124985

Tony:

I’d agree with you that the admin should have put it right out there immediately. Its an embarrassing issue, but has little legs beyond the embarrassment factor.

I’m sure they (the VP’s office, the White House staff etc) withheld the information to prevent it from becoming fodder for the Sunday morning political shows. I just don’t think it would have been that bad—-hey, if everyone’s focused on Cheney’s dumb accident, then they are UNfocused on other stuff, like the Katrina report.

Some of the lefties here in WB keep maintaining that the Bush admin is always trying to keep people’s eyes off the real stuff. They claim lots of things are “distractions” intended as subterfuge. Well, this particular issue could have been used as such, but wasn’t. As I see it, pooooof…there goes yet another theory up in a puff of smoke (potentially only a slightly smaller puff of smoke than the one generated by Cheney’s gun).

But tony, I’d agree they didn’t handle this right.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Comment #124991

tony , I just saw that article on Whittingtons heart attack. That rifle must be pretty powerful. There is something we are not being told about the incident. I think Cheney was actually aiming for the guy.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 14, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #124993

Jay Jay, well lookie here, it did not even take a day for the BS to start. It would be nice if the “wingnuts” actually read your post before going off on Teddie’s car crash (while drunk) but then that is an issue for the people of Mass. to decide. Anyway, your post shows the debate is finally starting to sink in with those Republicans who actually think, not those who let rush, and bill o’bs and others think for them.

Even reasonable Republicans are now questioning some of the Bush policies but what do dan and thomas and their ‘ilk” do, they again try to obscure the issue, must have went to the Rove school of truth.

Remember folks, it is not us Libbers who are making these statements (in the post) but bonafide Red State Republicans. so spin away and ignore the truth, you folks are so easy to read, look at my first comment and see, Nay-Nay just like I said…
Michael

Posted by: Michael at February 14, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #124998

… yea. I mean, Cheney can get pretty rough on the Senate Floor - and that’s without being armed. Damn…

“Yo Dick… that makes 3 for me? Have ya figured out how to make that gun work yet?!”

“F*&K You.” BAM. “Oh crap, I shot my friend… but he WAS a lawyer. What’s the Law in Texas about shooting lawyers? Do you need a license?” (Maybe that was what the $7 was for.)

Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #125022
Dan Dan Dan come on now where did you get your information from Al Frankin??. You Libs really like to speculate kinda like Blame with her national guard documents. Doesnt have to be the truth for you people. So long as it seems like a likely story then you guys go with it. Dan please let me know where you got you information about the accident.

Thomas;

Sort of like Kenneth Lay investigating Clinton for Whitewater, Smuggling Drugs, gluing the Oval Office desk draws closed and a host of other nonsense that the Republicans dreamed up that turned out not to be true.

BTW its 4 PM, time for another tax cut for Bush’s rich friends.

Posted by: Pat at February 14, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #125030

If Cheney wasn’t drunk, why were the sheriff’s deputies not allowed to interview him that night?
The secret Service barred them from doing so and
they had to wait until the next morning. Why was
the accident not made public until the next day?
Guess they all had to get their stories straight.
They’re definitely hiding something.

Posted by: John PS at February 14, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #125038

Didnt we all know RATS desert a sinking ship.

How ever Iam upset that so many comments
are about Cheneys hunting skills.

The more important issue and one that
few have mentioned is the fact that.

SAUDI ARABIAN COMPANY WILL SOON BE
IN CHARGE OF OUR PORTS.
How can there be Homeland Security
if the very country that gave us 13
of our 19. 9/11 hijackers is soon
to be in charge of all incomeing
and outgoing cargo. This has to be
a joke right? No a Bush appointed
commitey gave this Saudi Arabian
company the contract to run American
Ports.
WHERE THE HELL IS THE STORIES ABOUT THIS?

Americas Republican Party could care less
about our security as long as they get
there deep pockets full.

Posted by: Honey P at February 14, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #125041

Cheney accidently shot him in the heart when he was shooting at a bird. I do not believe it. When I first read the story, I was willing to believe it was a hunting accident. Now, I do not. The pictures they are showing of Whittington look familiar to me, but I can not figure out why unless it is something to do with the death penalty. I thought he had something to do with the big tobacco lawsuit. The Wikipedia article on him is being updated very rapidly.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 14, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #125047

“Politically, I think this whole event should be mostly ignored. I don’t think it shows much about his leadership abilities (although I don’t hold those in very high esteem…)
Posted by: tony at February 14, 2006 02:35 PM”

Tony,
I agree 100%. I spouted a few “hunting with Cheney” jokes early on, but learning the injured man’s injuries are much worse than I’d imagined, I’ll take the high road and just wish the victim well. Many factors could contribute to the serious nature of the wounds, age being one of them. And factors like skin elasticity and muscle mass that we all tend to lose with age.

As much as I dislike Cheney politically I certainly wish no one any ill will.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 14, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #125058

Jay Jay,

Excellent post.

Now for the bad news. I’ve been absolutely incensed since I learned of our own parties failings resulting in Paul Hackett’s withdrawal from the Ohio Senate race.

His own words regarding this are much better than any I could come up with:

“Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

But there was no quid pro quo. I will not be running in the Second Congressional District nor for any other elective office. This decision is final, and not subject to reconsideration.

I told the voters from the beginning that I am not a career politician and never aspired to be – that I was about leadership, service and commitment.

Similarly, I told party officials that I had given my word to other good Democrats, who will take the fight to the Second District, that I would not run. In reliance on my word they entered the race. I said it. I meant it. I stand by it. At the end of the day, my word is my bond and I will take it to my grave.

Thus ends my 11 month political career. Although it is an overused political cliche, I really will be spending more time with my family, something I wasn’t able to do because my service to country in the political realm continued after my return from Iraq. Perhaps my wonderful wife Suzi said it best after we made this decision when she said “Honey, welcome home.” I really did marry up.

To my friends and supporters, I pledge that I will continue to fight and to speak out on the issues I believe in. As long as I have the microphone, I will serve as your voice.

It is with my deepest respect and humility that I thank each and every one of you for the support you extended to our campaign to take back America, and personally to me and my family. Together we made a difference. We changed the debate on the Iraq War, we inspired countless veterans to continue their service by running for office as Democrats and we made people believe again. We must continue to believe.

Remember, we must retool our party. We must do more than simply aspire to deliver greatness; we must have the commitment and will to fight for what is great about our party and our country; Peace, prosperity and the freedoms that define our democracy.

Rock on.

Paul Hackett”

I want to see some “Democrat’s heads on sticks” over this nonsense. So far I’m just monitoring the news to get more details but each and every one of us Democrats should be mad as hell.

I live 3 blocks from the courthouse, changing my voter registration status to “Independent” would be real damn easy right now. Such actions as these are not representative of “my” Democratic Party.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 14, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #125169

KansasDem,

I am mad as hell. Just when some real prospects for changing the Democrat party for the better and taking the country back from the fringes, they go and pull this bullshit. I think I may just be going and changing my registration to Libertarian. I will now vote against every incumbant I can, none of them deserve to be in office after pulling all this bullshit.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 14, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #125249

JayJay,

I’ll think about it for a few days. I want to see what kind of fallout comes from this, but after reading:
“The political novice withdrew under intense pressure from party leaders in Washington, clearing the field for Rep. Sherrod Brown………….”, from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_co/senate_hackett_8

I just really feel like the “party leaders” can lead the party straight to hell at the moment. I’ll wait and see what www.bandofbrothers2006.org has to say, but to me this was the equivalent of being sucker punched.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 14, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #125263

JayJay,

Just doing a search for independent political parties (just doing the ‘lookie-loo’ thing) & I stumbled across this:
“Greens blast bill from Democrats that would bar third parties in races for Congress.”
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1801640.php

It’s about HR 4694.

It sure slipped by the MSM I guess.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 15, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #125384

If you vote Green or Libertarian, you’re just voting to keep the Republicans in power. Unfortunately, our voting system (single member districts with plurality elections) only supports 2 major paties. Unintended, but true. Unfortunate, but true. Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is a virtual necessity of our electoral system.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 15, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #125417

Arr-squared,

I know, but I’m really disgusted and POed. I will at the very least follow d.a.n.’s advice and vote against all irresponsible incumbents.

I emailed the DNC, other than that all I can do is complain.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 15, 2006 11:24 AM
Comment #125442

KD,

I’m glad you replied. I, too, am pissed off and disappointed. Have been for quite a while, as I’m sure you have been as well. I think there’s a little more than complaining that ordinary folks like us can do, or at least maybe we can complain more effectively. I like to tell the DNC exactly why I’m not contributing money to them, and why I think the Dems can’t win s**t.

I don’t know how you feel about Dean as chairman, but for better or worse that came out of a big wave of grassroots support. I’m conflicted about the Hackett thing - I’ve seen polls that show Brown leading DeWine, and I think that’s a good thing. I hope Hackett gets a political start somewhere and continues helping us beat Republicans.

But given our system, I can’t help but feel that we’ve got to work from within this malfunctioning party.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 15, 2006 12:30 PM
Comment #125568

KansasDem, r^2,

I, for one, have real mixed feelings about that one.
1 - Buchanan helped put Clinton in the White House (Good)
2 - Nader helped put Bush in the White House (Bad)
3 - We need a someone to save us from this “disfunctional” mess.

The theocrats took their solidarity lesson from (1). So; Double edged sword, I vote 3.

As for Hackett, this battle is for the long term. It took the religious right 20 years to get to this point. But, it shouldn’t take long to pull them off the pulpit if done right. The best choice I see short term today is that the Dems have to win, whether we like the party or not. Patience, the revolution in nigh.

Posted by: Dave at February 15, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #125575

that should have been “someone else”

Posted by: Dave at February 15, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #125664

Arr-squared and Dave,

You are both, of course, right. (Maybe I should say correct, “right” somehow sounds wrong).

Not only do the various independent parties not stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning, after doing a brief read of three “other” parties platforms last night I’m more Democrat today than I was yesterday. There are extremist views that would make the far left and far right both break out in a sweat.

Also, I found the same Paul Hackett story today told in a slightly different light:

“Fund raising was key to Hackett departure”
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/113999629868420.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

I hope JayJay reads this!
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 15, 2006 10:00 PM
Comment #125937

The Veep screwed up should be the end of it, now if fox news fans want to blame the victim that’s, really sick, but up to them done the less. If haie beained liberals want to shoot themselves in the foot, pun intended, and over play this that’s up to them.

3. Be sure of your target and what is in front of and beyond your target. Before you pull the trigger you must properly identify game animals. Until your target is fully visible and in good light, do not even raise your scope to see it. Use binoculars! Know what is in front of and behind your target. Determine that you have a safe backstop or background. Since you do not know what is on the other side, never take a shot at any animals on top of ridges or hillsides.
Know how far bullets, arrows and pellets can travel. Never shoot at flat, hard surfaces, such as water, rocks or steel because of ricochets.

6. Know your safe zone-of-fire and stick to it. Your safe zone-of-fire is that area or direction in which you can safely fire a shot. It is “down range” at a shooting facility. In the field it is that mental image you draw in your mind with every step you take. Be sure you know where your companions are at all times. Never swing your gun or bow out of your safe zone-of-fire. Know the safe carries when there are persons to your sides, in front of, or behind you. If in doubt, never take a shot. When hunting, wear daylight fluorescent orange so you can be seen from a distance or in heavy cover.

Posted by: think4myself at February 16, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #127099

The above typos were on purpose, figured some nut would comment allowing me to comment further about the usual tact of screaming about some minor detail and agnoring the bigger question.

Posted by: think4myself at February 18, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #396807

1 - Buchanan helped put Clinton in the White House (Good)
2 - Nader helped put Bush in the White House (Bad)
3 - We need a someone to save us from this “disfunctional” mess.

Posted by: silk comforter at July 26, 2015 5:41 AM
Post a comment