Democrats & Liberals Archives

What If Cheney Had Been Hunting Deer?

Yes, the Vice President probably went through a lot, and we have reason to be sympathetic. But this story got the the attention that it did, because this was a life and death matter. This wasn’t the Vice President getting into a fender bender, this was the VP shooting somebody, which is not a minor action on any national leader’s part, whether it’s done accidentally or intentionally.

The question of the title pertains to the ammunition. As we are all quite aware, the Vice President was using birdshot. Had this been a deer hunting accident, though, this episode would have been near fatal at best, if not entirely so. As it is, even with the weak ammunition, a pellet managed to find its way to this guy's heart.

The Vice President's secrecy made this into a big story for the week. Had he immediately, personally, and fully informed the press of the accident, it would have made it a non-issue. It still would have been amusing to his opponents, but the politicians and pundits always find things to amuse themselves with about the other side.

By waiting, he made his response impersonal to an extent that it failed to convey his distress and pain about the incident. He also made it look as if he had something to hide. Now, I know that the Republicans out there would ask "What?", but then with any incident like this, where a public official's conduct can spell doom for a career or tenure in office, the question is entirely legitimate, though the answer is not always as sensational as the more partisan would hope.

The press has become accustomed to seeing the Vice President dodge questions, and claim his dealings as privileged information. Given much of what he has involved us with, there is legitimate worry as to whether allowing him his secrecy is doing us good as a country. Most Americans, by a margin of two to one, believe he's not doing a good job. Many people believe that Cheney cannot be trusted to remain so secretive. I'm one of them.

I'm sorry about the pain he went through, but he has put so many others through that pain and worse with this actions. Where is the Republicans sympathy and solidarity with those folks? The fact is, Cheney, among many other Bush administration officials has earned the distrust of the American people. The good regard of the American people is a privilege, not a right, and he should have known from the start that a life and death issue like a shooting would require full and forthright disclosure. By failing to do that, by leaving such an absence of information, he fed speculation, and made the incident all the more ripe as metaphorical and comedic fodder.

If they had been deer hunting, the Vice President would have likely killed or critically injured his friend. He wouldn't be standing around coming to his friends defense, if he was alive at all. Chance could have still dealt this man a bad card and had the ammunition pierce some vital artery or the like. As a matter of face, a pellet embedded in or near this man's heart, causing what seems to be a minor heart attack.

Even the accidental death of a friend by a Vice President's hands is a matter of concern for the public. Cheney should have informed the public immediately. It would have saved his administration and himself a great deal of trouble, and ensured to the American people that Cheney took his responsibilities as the Vice President and a public citizen seriously.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 9:53 AM
Comments
Comment #127389

Cheney did not tell anybody because he did not know if the Lawyer will live or not. A Rule for Gunshot Victims is that if they live for the first few hours, they will usually recover. Cheney HAD to wait because had the Lawyer died, it would have been manslaughter. Cheney had to wait so his Spin Machine could act properly. After 12 hours, they knew he would live and so let that woman BLAME the Lawyer!!!

Posted by: Aldous at February 19, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #127392

Dick Cheney has indirectly shot and killed thousands in the past few years, so this was not a suprise to me. Luckily for his buddy unlike countless Iraqi civilians, he survived.

This is really a non issue, to me. The people that have died by the hands of this admistration are the issue…

Posted by: tree hugger at February 19, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #127394

Stephen:

Its a tempest in a teapot—just the latest one that the left is harping on. As a conservative, I appreciate the left’s desire to fight every battle—even the insignificant ones. It makes the left look petty to the American people, which I think is one of the reasons that the Presidency has gone Republican.

I understand Cheney’s logic here: He alerted the police and got medical help for Whittington first, which was his duty. He then alerted the media, via the Corpus Christi paper, knowing that it would be too late for the Sunday talk shows, but still within a plausibly deniable time frame. Its obvious it was planned, but so what. In the process, he also tweaked the national news media and the Washington press corps, which enraged them—-an added bonus from Cheney’s viewpoint, probably.

So the bottom line is that he snubbed the press corps. He didn’t hide anything—-his disclosure to the police ensured that. He didn’t keep it from the media—he just presented it on his time schedule and to whom he wanted to. His actions still don’t rise to any kind of crime or even an issue. I wonder about how the press corp lapped up the “Even President’s have private lives” line from the past administration, but don’t see this in the same vein. True, there were no shots fired the last time around (well, at least not bullets), but it still involved private time.

I’m not arguing that this isn’t a news story. I’m not even arguing that Cheney didn’t plan his responses and time them accordingly. I’m saying that despite all that, the news story is that the VP shot Whittington in a hunting accident. The rest is just media fluff.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 19, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #127399

Stephen, I’ve been reading these posts for quite some time, but have just recently ventured into comments or responses. It’s fairly aparrant that we’re here because of our liberal beliefs and to torment those on the “other” side. But…what I can’t seem to get past, is that this administration in its’ arrogance and determination have many of us buffaloed. For whatever their titles may be, they are still PUBLIC SERVANTS and we, being the public, are their bosses.
Why are we so collectively afraid to admonish them ??? Why are our representatives reluctant to push an issue and stay the course on these incidents that continue to surface??? We have had countless opportunities to take advantage of and to make headway on so many things recently, but nothing was pursued. It seems that what is an administration ruling by fear also encompasses the Congressional representatives as well…… I still maintain that GW’s combination of ignorance and arrogance is lethal and if he isn’t controlled in some way, the next 3 years are going to be terribly painful for us !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 19, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #127413

>> He alerted the police and got medical help for Whittington first, which was his duty.

joe,

Did it not take some fourteen hours for the law to be informed? If I had shot someone and waited fourteen hours to summon the police, what kind of treatment would I have received? Did electing this man to office remove his responsibility as a citizen?

Accidents happen. No one is saying it was anything but accidental, but an accident can happen beacuse we are drunk, i.e., homicide by automobile, in which we may jail the culprit. Cheney did not give us that opportunity. He waited long enough to dilute any drugs or alcohol in his system. Suspect? You Bet!

If Billy had spilled blood rather than seman what kind of reaction would there have been? It took almost one hundred million dollars to find a stain that meant nothing. Repugs would have broke the bank to show Clinton as a monster in the same circumstance as Cheney.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #127414

my word people , how far should anybody carry the cheney and whittington accident , I do not like cheney as a leader at all or any of the administration I think they are all messed up from head to toe . But cheney is not a criminal in this respect with the hunting accident . my god we have gone crazy to make this a political thing and point the finger for such a terrible accident. lets try for peace and true justice and remember to use common sence please.

Posted by: jimhohbllejdkljf at February 19, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #127415

Give it a rest boys.

If Cheney had been hunting deer, his friend would not have been hit at all. The guy was peppered. He was not shot dead on (pun intended). Bird shot has lots of little pieces. Some of the little pieces hit the guy. In deer hunting the bullet would have passed.

We have two manipulations at work here. First we have the WHAT IF. Then we have the mountain out of a molehill.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #127418

>> First we have the WHAT IF. Then we have the mountain out of a molehill.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2006 12:33 PM

Jack,

Whose mountain and whose molehill?

Every accident warrants an investigation. Cheney denied any reasonable investigation by manipulating time…that’s a mountain. He’s the one who created the mountain, not those who question his motives. This was not a fender-bender. A man was hit in a hunting accident. Where’s the molehill?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #127419

By the way, and belatedly…good post Stephen.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #127422

>>I appreciate the left’s desire to fight every battle—even the insignificant ones. It makes the left look petty to the American people, which I think is one of the reasons that the Presidency has gone Republican.

joe,

The right won the Presidency and the Congress and the SC, because they were smart enough to pluck the strings of religious people. The right convinced those folks that the Repugs were somehow more moral than left leaners. What a bunch of saps. The left doesn’t even know how to nit-pick. Compared to Repugs, we are merely novices at that game.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #127428

I am a liberal and this thing of accusing cheney is so far out . people get real. the libs look like a bunch of victims and act like it too ., . the best thing we could do is recognise that we all will have accidents cheney is not a criminal here at all in any way . I would probably rather like most of the admin . but politically they are terrible leaders and should be booted out of office and replaced by leaders . but they are not to be treated like criminal for an accident , you can run this in the ground to your own hurt.

Posted by: kfljfklasfklsjf at February 19, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #127430

It is quite a stretch to call what Cheney was doing hunting. Weren’t they driven to the location to shoot at birds that they already knew were there? It would be more accurate to call it a shoot, than a hunt.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 19, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #127433

Enough already. This is a loser issue for us. If one already dislikes?trust Cheny it just confirms it. If one likes/trust cheny it does not matter. Lets not give him a chance to gain sympathy.

Posted by: BillS at February 19, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #127436

As much as I approve of shooting Texas millionaires it is just bad tactic.

Posted by: BillS at February 19, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #127440

Marysdude:

Did it not take some fourteen hours for the law to be informed?

The answer is plainly: NO.

Below is a USA Today timeline for the shooting and aftermath. You’ll note that the local police were contacted 80 minutes after the shooting—not the 14 hours you claim. The police arranged a meeting the next day to interview Cheney. I’ve yet to see anything—-anything at all—that indicates that Cheney manipulated the interview time, that the police were coerced into setting the interview the next day, or anything of the like.

You’ve provided your speculation that Cheney might have had something to hide, but your rationale—that he withheld telling police for 14 hours—is totally incorrect. If you have anything beyond idle speculation, I’d be interested in seeing it. I’ll be waiting…

USA Today timeline:
6:30 p.m.: Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter Harry Whittington while aiming for a bird. Secret Service agents and medical personnel with Cheney tend to wounds on Whittington’s face, neck and chest.

7:20 p.m.: An ambulance takes Whittington to a Christus Spohn Hospital Kleburg.

7:30 p.m.: White House chief of staff Andy Card tells President Bush there was an accident, but Card is unaware Cheney was involved.

7:50 p.m.: The head of the Secret Service office in McAllen, Texas, calls the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. The sheriff asks to speak to Cheney, and they schedule an interview for 9 a.m. Sunday. At the White House, presidential aide Karl Rove tells Bush that Cheney was the shooter, after talking to ranch owner Katharine Armstrong.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 19, 2006 1:30 PM
Comment #127441

You guys know that we just outsmarted you again. Karl Rove asked Cheney to shoot this guy to draw your attention from whatever else you were thinking.

Now liberals will jump on hunting and lose the small gains Kerry made by his duck hunting photo op.

But yes, if the situation had been different we can suppose terrible consequences.

You guys just keep on thinking up those things. That is what you’re good at.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #127447

Marysdude said, “If Billy had spilled blood rather than seman what kind of reaction would there have been? It took almost one hundred million dollars to find a stain that meant nothing. Repugs would have broke the bank to show Clinton as a monster in the same circumstance as Cheney.”

According to the corruption debates that have been going on for weeks here, I thought “they do it too” was considered slimey and immoral by the left. Why the change?

Posted by: rob at February 19, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #127451

Stephen,

Cheney has already made himself the butt of many jokes. There is nothing to gain politically by flogging this dead horse. We on the left get accused a lot of making mountains out of molehills when it comes to the Bush administration. Usually, I fervently disagree. In this case, I think we have reached the point of overkill.

This story will always stick the Cheney. Peggy Noonan and I had the same idea: it is a lot like the Jimmy Carter and the rabbit. A little story that resonates with people because it seems to reveal something about the person’s character. Beyond that, there is nothing left to say…

Posted by: Woody Mena at February 19, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #127455

Cheney should go out hunting troublesome rats, raccoons, possums or armadillos, unless he is going to eat what he shoots. We have many feral cats and dogs, as well. Maybe he could have a trophy case in the VP mansion with little heads of kittens and puppies, for his friends to admire.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 19, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #127457

>> A little story that resonates with people because it seems to reveal something about the person’s character. Beyond that, there is nothing left to say…

Woody,

Okay, you’ve got my vote for dropping it, but please remember it was CHARACTER that put this bunch in power. It may be lack of CHARACTER that finally removes them.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #127460

If there was alcohol, it would explain a lot, because: (1) swinging 90 to 180 degrees into the no-fire-zone, (2)neglecting to observe what is in beyond the target, (3)and not knowing the location of your hunting partner(s) is three important things all much easier to forget when one has been drinking. Alcohol definitely affects one’s judgement.

But, we may never know.

Fortunately, Whittington survived.

Very fortunate for Cheney too.

Yes, had they been deer hunting, the outcome may have been worse. But, they were quail hunting. It’s also a good thing Cheney was using a 28 gauge, and not a 12 gauge.

But, there is something else strange about all of this. There is something inconsistent with what was reported if this is really a 5 mm shot lodged near Whittington’s heart (as reported on CNN), and there are really 150 shot in Whittington.

For one thing, I don’t think a 28 guage holds that many pellets. Very odd. If is wasn’t really 28 gauge, perhaps they were not really hunting only quail?

And, the shot pattern at 30 yards doesn’t make sense. Whittington had to be much closer. More like only 30 feet, which would also help explain the deep penetration (near the heart), and high concentration of shot, and high number of pellets.

In one case, the media reported 150 pellets in Whittington. On another station, they reported a few dozen pellets. At one time they said Whittington got peppered. Then, we find out one or more pellets were near the heart.

The only thing I can figure out is that the media is doing a bad job of getting it right.

And, not taking the blame immediately, saying Whittington did not warn of his location, and waiting to see what witnesses and victims decide does not look good, to say the least. They also must have known the longer they waited, the worse it would appear. Not bright at the least.

This issue is probably wasting too much of our time, but the important thing to bring away from it is what Marysdude pointed out … Cheney was not subject to a breathalyzer test (despite admitting to having a beer earlier), which seems like a wise step since there was an admission to having one beer (at lunch; supposedly 4 hours earlier). For all we know, Cheney may have been nipping from a flask of Crown Royal? Now, we may never know. Due to that one thing, it indeed appears as an example of a double-standard.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #127463

If the bird would have flown the other direction it would not have happened.
If the grass was shorter maybe he would have seen him.
If the shell would not have fired it would not have happened.
If they would have been fishing it would have just been one hook.
If the press just turned their watches back they would have know about it before it happened and been able to prevent it.
If, If, If, If, If, If.

Posted by: Nunya at February 19, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #127471

I couldn’t care less about this. However, it really says something about Cheney that he felt so reckless (drinking a beer at lunch and then hunting without a license) and then felt so little responsibility to report his actions to the press.

Posted by: Max at February 19, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #127472

I think it’s about time to drop this. I can’t see anything changing about what happened - it’s not like thay might arrest Cheney. However - this is just one more tick on the ‘they have absolutely no ability to handle an emergency/disaster - no matter the scope” column. I think there’s also a tick mark in the “blind obediance’ column as well.

…I think we’d be hard pressed to find anyone posting here surprised at all by this incident and how it was handled.

Posted by: tony at February 19, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #127473

I couldn’t care less about this. However, it really says something about Cheney that he was so reckless (drinking a beer at lunch and then hunting without a license), and then to act so irresponsibly in not reporting his actions to the press.

Posted by: Max at February 19, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #127478

Marysdude:

Okay, you’ve got my vote for dropping it,

Excellent timing. You were just asked to provide the facts behind your speculation, and voila!! It’s time to drop it. Priceless.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 19, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #127480

Your whole article has a “WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF? logic. So, “what if” Gore had won, “what if” Kerry had won?

You write, [“but he has put so many others through that pain and worse with this actions”]—

You mean Cindy Sheehan et al???


You also write, [“Bush administration officials has earned the distrust of the American people”]—

Broad sweeping generalizations get you no where. And, by the way, the majority of American people voted TWICE for Bush (and his administration).

Posted by: goprkewl at February 19, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #127482

>>If Cheney had been hunting deer, his friend would not have been hit at all. The guy was peppered. He was not shot dead on (pun intended). Bird shot has lots of little pieces. Some of the little pieces hit the guy. In deer hunting the bullet would have passed.


Woody, I’m sorry, I said I’d drop it, but I re-read some postings and found this jewel, and I can’t help myself.

Jack,

As to your posting…modern hunters mostly use slugs, however, before that number nine shot was used almost exclusively. When it was in vogue it was called Buck Shot. While it is not used as often nowadays, it is still a favorite of many hunters. Buck Shot would have done considerable damage. and would likely have killed. Those pellets are just smaller than twenty two rounds.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #127491

I’ve got a better question—several better questions, acutally.

What if Cheney wasn’t hunting deer? What if his friend wasn’t killed? What if people, including public officials, were held to account for things that actually happened instead of things made up by liberal journalists and bloggers?

The answer: Not just in this thread, but most in most of those in the left column, there would be very little to talk about.

Look at how Stephen’s make-believe scenario quickly morphs into a comment about the actual situation.

Even the accidental death of a friend by a Vice President’s hands is a matter of concern for the public. Cheney should have informed the public immediately.

Reality, here, is replaced by a liberal fantasy and the liberal fantasy becomes the basis for discussion.

Pretty typical.

Posted by: sanger at February 19, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #127495

Cheney took his responsibilities as the Vice President and a public citizen seriously *****The vice president and Mr.Whittington showed more class and diginty and for-site than any thing I have ever seen come out of the left before or after this unfortunate accident.To myself and my family that rings louder than any cry baby shot heard a-round the world. what if? what if? what if? what if only?. That is just more no agdenda ,no vision, defeistest mentality from the left. and yes Kerry lied, but the goose still died.

Posted by: angry white man at February 19, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #127507

d.a.n
Whittington was closer than 30 yards. 28 gauge most likely wouldn’t penetrate that deep at 30 yards. Still is he was hit right it could be fatal at 30 yards out.
Cheney sure didn’t know where his partners were. If he did and still fired then there would mean that negligents. And with a weapon involved, that could be a felony offence.
What I find interesting is they say that Whittington had just shot a bird and was retriving it and Cheney was firing at another one. I don’t know about Texas Quail, But in Georgia every bird in hearing of the shot would have taken off out of there. In order to hit one you’d have to fire up. Not level.
The whole thing just doesn’t add up to me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 19, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #127524

Ron…..that’s because these were planted birds and have probably never been off the ground !
Mary…..I’d hate to try and even find a quail hit with BUCKSHOT….! Nobody who has ever hunted birds would use anything larger than a number 6 shot and call theirselves sportsmen, regardless of the gun being used. I’ve hunted with a 12 ga., 16 ga., and a 20ga.,….number 8 shot for pheasant and 6 for dove and quail.
This happened at nearly sundown, was cool, and Whittington was wearing the canvas vest over his clothing….no way was the big C 30 yards away to have all those pellets penetrate that clothing and embed itself that deeply.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 19, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #127531

I hate it when I agree with sanger but please give it a rest. There is about a million more important issues.

gaprkewl
The majority of Americans did NOT vote twice for Bush or his administration. Were you asleep in 2000?

Posted by: BillS at February 19, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #127533

The premise of this article is stupid. The hunting techniques for quail are entirely different for quail and deer. Deer are hunted from concealment. You don’t form a line and flush deer.

With quail, hunters from a line and move forward as a unit. Because quail are fast birds that stay low to the ground upon flight, hunters must lead the birds and fire quickly. Hunters are assigned zones in which it is safe for them to fire.

The lawyer was not in his zone; he had broken the hunting line and did not follow protocal regarding announcing movement from the line. It is customary to annouce when you break line and wait for acknowledgement from the hunting party prior to moving. When Cheney flushed his bird, it flew towards Cheney as is customary with quail and Cheney fired within his assigned zone.

Accidents are not uncommon while quail hunting and the chance of accidents rises as the number of hunters rise. This is a non-incident.

As a news story, this dog don’t hunt.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 19, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #127534

Yeah Ron,

Depending on the shot size…especially if it went through an eye socket.

Sandra makes a good point.
How high could the quail have been?
Some hunters follow a 10 O’Clock rule (where the bird must be above the horizon before shooting at it, so they don’t shoot their dog(s), or each other).

Good thing Whittington is a good friend. I might be angry if someone in my group shot me. Especially if I was behind them, and one turned 90 to 180 degrees to shoot, and didn’t realize where I was. That is 3 rules broken. The beer, depending on how long before it was consumed, is another rule broken.

One good thing may come out of all this…be damn careful who you go hunting with. Many don’t understand the rules, some are jumpy, and some are absent minded. I know several people accidentally shot, and close calls, and every time, it was extreme negligence. People would be wise to take a class. You wouldn’t let your children drive without first taking a driving class (or test) first would you. Guns are just as dangerous. I’m not saying government regulation is needed - just that training would be wise. A refresher course for Cheney might have avoided this incident.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 19, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #127535

We do we stop with a bottle of beer, there is no evidence to prove that he was smoking pot, shooting heroin, snorting cocaine or eating mushrooms, droping acid or what ever. Paul “Fuck the rich” Begala said he would not hunt with someone who had drunk a beer five hours before. Really!

Posted by: Dan Hansen at February 19, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #127537

Goodkingned,

While this issue should in fact be a nonissue, and since Mr. Whittington thankfully has survived, all that remains to be said is that you don’t seem to know much about quail hunting, or gun safety in general. In fact, your statement contradicts itself.

First, you say that Whittington fell back to retrieve a bird and “did not follow protocal [sic] regarding announcing movement from the line.” You mean, he didn’t shout “Hey, I’m over here, I’m not a bird, please don’t…ARRRRRGH!”

Second, you said that ever hunter had an assigned shooting radius. That’s par for the course. By your own analysis, Cheney’s arc was his 6 o’clock? Whittington came up behind him and got shot because unsafe Cheney spun around and blasted.

The VP broke several rules of hunting safety and, to his credit, admitted it. You should do the same rather than trying to rationalize this and blame the victim.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 19, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #127544

Jack, Joebagodonuts and others:

It seems like my past comments are getting completely ignored on this issue.

Let’s take this from the top, shall we?

1: Cheney shot his friend in an act which displayed an extreme degree of negligence. That much is irrefutable.

2: Either cheney TOOK a hunter safety course and it did him no good, or he didn’t take one at all. He SHOULD HAVE KNOWN better than to swing a shotgun blindly and fire without seeing his target clearly. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT THIS.

3: The VICTIM is NEVER the one at fault in a shooting. the last fateful decision to fire in manner that was unsafe, was Cheney’s.

4: THIS SHOWS THE SAME PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF OTHERS (ALTHOUGH ON A SMALLER SCALE) THAT WE ON THE LEFT HAVE BEEN ADAMANT ABOUT FROM THE BEGINNING!!!

So it is NOT a mountain out of a mole hill nor a tempest in tea cup. It is a pattern. If Cheney were to later commit another act of hideous negligence and the result was that someone got killed, this past act would be admissable evidence in a court of law to show his PATTERN of careless and negligent thinking.

However, what is even more revealing here, and I dare say more politically relevant, is how the White House has responded to this. It is illuminating to me that the White House’s response blaiming the VICTIM happened at all. True, they back peddled rather quickly, but isn’t it interesting that they rallied to the side of Cheney so quickly and so erroneously after the story broke? …that is why it is relevant and more meaningful than you suggest, Woody Mena.

You can call it an accident if it makes you feel better, but you should know this old hunters’ adage:

ACCIDENTS WITH GUNS DON’T HAPPEN WITHOUT SOMEONE BEING NEGLIGENT.

So, back to the pattern - is this the kind of negligence you Republicans LIKE in a leader? If you answer no, as I assume you do, then why do you defend him? Has truth subjugated itself to politics for Republicans? I sincerely hope NOT.
…or we are all in trouble!

As for the deer hunting rifle/shotgun observation, it can also be said that if the victim were a mere foot or so closer, he would be dead or have lost of portion his body to the blast. Shotguns are MUCH more powerful than rifles at close distences, but a shotguns power faids rather quickly. This just shows that Cheney must have fairly close to his victim.

Oh, and Jack, how on earth do you know that a rifle bullet would have passed? Do you have information on the direct trajectory? Did the quail drop too? YOU DON’T KNOW, DO YOU?!!!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 19, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #127551

Folks-
For those thinking I’ve gone crazy with the What-Ifs, there’s only one big one: more powerful ammo.

Hunting is obviously not a risk-free pastime. But typically people don’t get shot on it. Some charismatic megafauna gets blown away, which offends the sensibilities of some ( as you’re not wiping a species out, not me), but otherwise, people typically respect the lethal power of what they have in their hands.

It’s a legitimate question whether the vice president really has the proper respect for the lethal power in his hands. I know that offends some people, requiring the VP to be a responsible person all the time, but really, lets recall that one of the dead guys on our currency got that way because of where a vice president aimed his shot.

Sanger-
Poor wording, perhaps, but it was not my intention to make the second part of that sentence conditional on the first. The issue is, the Vice President did something that put another person’s life in danger. The only saving grace was that the ammunition was not powerful enough to be lethal. Substitute one kind of ammunition for another, and you have a likely fatality on your hands.

From there, there is no need for speculation. If the Vice President shot somebody dead, all else should follow from the consequences of that happening. The Vice President, his office, and the Bush Administration in general should not have treated this as an insignificant issue.

All that said, I accept that the Vice President is truly apologetic for what has happened. I just wish he could admit other carelessness of his.

Angry White Man-
Not disputing that the two were dignified about their words to the public. I just wish the man wielding the weapon recognized his responsiblities sooner.

GoodKingNed-
Your criticism implies that my thought experiment here on the ammunition required that the circumstances of both be exactly the same. Admittedly, I’ve never hunted in my life, but really I wasn’t saying that deer-hunting and whatever kind of bird shooting was going on here were the same. The only analogies I intended to make related to anatomy (where the shots hit the gentleman), and to the admitted lapse of judgment. If Deer Hunters don’t occasionally get shot by their own people, why do they sell those flourescent orange vests?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #127576

You guys on the left love the counterfactual.

You have developed this into the worst possible scenario based on lots of things that didn’t happen.

If he had been hunting deer. If he had been using buckshot. If he had been closer.

Why not say that IF he had been hunting elephant and IF his friend had stepping in front of the rifle and if a bullet went clean through his body etc.

This is really a pattern with you guys. You get all excited about things before you think they happened and still get all excited after they didn’t and I think some of you actually come to believe your own stories.

You have a hunting accident where some guys made some stupid mistakes.

Perhaps none of you has ever been in a car accident, maybe never slipped on the ice when you should have been more careful. Maybe none of you has ever done anything stupid at all. Of course, if you think that you are.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #127583

>>You have a hunting accident where some guys made some stupid mistakes.

Jack,

This ‘some guy’ just happened to be the Vice President of the United States. He doesn’t have a problem being pretty straight forward in calling those he disagrees with pretty vile names. He does not hesitate to lambaste anyone who disagrees with him, his partner in crime, or their administration. If he can’t take the heat, he should take off his orange vest and retire from the field.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 19, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #127588

It seems to be that being the fact that VP Cheny was hunting with out the proper stamp for hunting birds, he was pouching. This would be a crime that he should be charge with by the State of Texas if they are doing the job their tax payers are paying them to do. So if he was pouching this means he was not using this gun legally and should be charge with unlawfull use of a firearm. His FOID card and hunting lic should be removed and formal charges should be filed.

Posted by: Roger at February 19, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #127590

Jack-
The basic logic is applicable: If the ammunition had been stronger, the man Cheny shot might now be dead of his wounds. The rest of the changes are not part of this central conditional statement (if-then), and are only there to provide the justification for the heavier ammo. In this cases, it’s just switching the kind of game, and leaving the rest of the details which are contingent on that kind of hunt to the reader’s imagination.

So, the basic logic goes like this: If the game in this hunt had required heavier ammunition, the shotgun blast to the head, neck and chest would have been much more lethal in its results. All the other changes in the scenario are those appropriate to the change in game.

The only reason I highlight the lethality which stronger ammunition would bring is to acknowledge more explicitly the lethal force inherent in the discharge of a weapon. I do that in order to bring into sharper relief the responsibility that any gun owner faces in the discharge of their weapon. Some accidents are preventable. This is one of them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #127601

This reminds me of the game when I was a kid camping where you wisper a story into the ear of the kid next to you and they whisper to the kid next to them and so on. At the end you find the final rendition has nothing to do with the original. I guess one would have to deduce that the dems have never grown up. This would explain their childish tendencies of whining and ability to make up stories and their fantasies of a world where everyone gets along. They percieve the current administration as their repressive parents that are holding them back. Thankfully they have good parents that will, no matter how much they cry, still take care of them. Now, you have been bad boys and girls, go sit in the corner for a timeout and don’t come back until you can tell the truth.

Posted by: Nunya at February 19, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #127605

Stephen

But he wasn’t and he didn’t.

This is a persistent pattern. Just below here we proved that air quality had improved (29% less SO2 & 10% less NO), but IF the air was dirtier etc. You guys like to play with the hypotheticals.

I like to play the alternate history game. What if the South had won the Civil War. What if the Japanese had not bombed Pearl Harbor. What if Kerry had been elected. What if games are fun, but they can’t be used as proof of anything.

So yes, if he had bigger gun, if the shot had hit this guy etc.

My favorite what if showed a Volkswagen floating in a river (they used to float) The caption read, “If Teddy Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagen, he would be president.”

Most accidents are preventable. I think that is why they call them accidents.

Posted by: Jack at February 19, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #127611

Texas Hunting Accidents Drop to Record Low (March 14, 2005)
Quote:
“The primary reason for Texas hunting accidents remains swinging on game outside a safe zone of fire. This happens when a person points a firearm at another hunter while following a moving target, such as a flying game bird. Hunter education teaches people to set up safe zones of fire where a gun can be safely pointed whether the target is moving or stationary.”

from: http://www.digitaltexas.com/npps/story.cfm?id=3

It was just an accident.

But, if it had been a Democrat the Republicans would still be giving us hell too.

I can just hear it: “no wonder then libby’s want to restrict gun laws, they couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 19, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #127612

……..Nunya and Jack….since you’re so obsessed with the “what if” theory, try this one……if Bush were to ever say anything intelligent, would you know what to do with that?? We could certainly come up with some wild stories based on that. Hmmmmm….guess there isn’t much need to worry though.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 19, 2006 11:35 PM
Comment #127613

Stephen, you’ve already admitted that these are just imaginary scenarios, so why do you keep trying to base arguments on them?

Yep, if Cheney had blown the guy’s head off it would be a different story—agreed. Is that what you need to hear?

Just like it would have been a different story if it had taken place in a church instead of a field in Texas.

A different story if had been a pregnant woman instead of a 78 year lawyer.

A different story if had been a pistol pulled out and fired at Edwards during the Vice Presidential debate.

No doubt—all of these would have made this a decidely different story. But we do live in THIS world, don’t we, and not in any of these alternate realities? Don’t answer that if you’re not sure…

Roger, he was properly licensed but did not have a 7 dollar upland bird stamp, which he subsequently bought.

According to the game officers, this is a brand new requirement under Texas law for which they are currently issuing notices and not even writing tickets. It’s certainly not poaching, and it’s not the kind of thing that “charges would be filed over” anyway.

Posted by: sanger at February 19, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #127614

The USA Today Timeline above tells all, the police were quickly involved. The primary issue wasn’t notifying the police or, much to their amazement, the NYT. The issue was the med care for the accident victim which was handled as best as possible.

There’s 3 points with this issue:

(#1) The Libs look to anything that they can complain about. It’s not that they necessarily like complaining (although one does have to wonder sometimes) but rather it allows them further delay in coming up with a solution to much of anything on their own.

(#2) 20, or 24 hours … whatever that HUGE delay was in notifying the media … somehow the country and even the executive branch of gov’t were able to press on. At some point the NYT will stop sobbing that the Corpus Christi paper got the story first … and even they will somehow find a way to get up in the morning.

(#3) If the dems can sweep Ted Kennedy’s drunk driving voluntary manslaughter under the rug, not to mention his awful actions in that scenario … I think the country can allow this unfortunate accident to pass as well.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 19, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #127616

This is a metaphor for the whole administration. They can’t shoot straight.

But Jack,

You probably almost have it right. Rove did not tell Cheney to shoot the guy - but they may have deliberately faked a coverup in order to distract the major media from the new revelations in the Plamegate scandal.

It is hard to believe that they are this incompetant at spinning a story. They are master propagandists. They are incompetant at running wars and countries, but they are not incompetant at manipulating the news and the American people. They did seem to follow all of the usual patterns though… talking heads repeating the same exact dishonest / inaccurate talking points even after they have been proven false… blame the victim… minimize… repeatedly change thier story / justification… They certainly followed the same play book that they always follow, but it did not work this time. On the other hand maybe we just have not given it enough time. The nazi style big lie allways works, and the tide of this story may be turning in thier favor as well. If the Bush regime was not deliberately using this accident to create a tempest in a tea pot as a distraction, then one does have to wonder what were they covering up. Was the Dick drunk? Did Whitington have an affair with Mrs Cheney? Is Cheney that careless - too quick on the trigger? They say that he gets more birds than anybody. What? What are they hiding? Why did they need to manage the story like this? It makes me crazy.

There are more important things to concern ourselves with. Like Scooter’s revelation that his boss ordered him to release classified info to the press. Like the subversion of the constitution through warrantless wiretaps.

Here is an entry from Rays Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases:

Faith (Fāth) noun. 1.) The idea that George Bush will not abuse the awesome power of warrantless wiretaps and the Unitary Executive to subvert The Constitution of the United States of America. 2.) The idea that some future President will not abuse the awesome power of warrantless wiretaps and the Unitary Executive to subvert The Constitution of the United States of America, if George the Second gets away with consolidating that much illegal, unbalanced, unchecked, uncocnstitutional power in the office of the Presidency. 3.) The belief by neo-cons that George the Incompetent is above the law. 4.) The blind belief that Dick Cheney will not shoot you, if you go “hunting” pet birds with him, after he has been drinking. 5.) The cute, naïve, innocent quaint, and blind belief by neo-cons that creating a democracy in a country full of people that hate us will produce a country that loves us. 6.) A comforting belief to have when your life is passing before your eyes after Dick Cheney has shot you in the face and heart. 7.) The idea that electronic voting machines with no paper trails are actually posting your vote in the same way that you cast it. 8.) A comforting, uplifting, meaningful belief in God. 9.) A religion that turns its rigid fundamentalist dogma into a craven image of God. 10.) The neo-con idea that you can force somebody to be free.

To read more, go to www.rayspoliticalblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: Ray G. at February 19, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #127619

A lot of things have become a lot clearer in watching the liberal response to this Cheney story. It almost makes you think that this is all a plot hatched by Karl Rove to make liberals look foolish.

This Cheney story makes an increasingly obvious fact stand out in sharp relief: there is no reasoning with the left because even on small matters they will not see and accept reality.

If they can’t accept the truth—even the obvious truth—about a minor matter like this Cheney story, is it any wonder they refuse to accept that we are in a war, even after 3000 American civilians were killed on American soil?

That they continue to buy into this nonsense about “Bush lying” about WMD, Bush abusing presidential authority and the rest of it?

That they believed in the forged TANG memos (that some still believe in them) and the other dozen or so trumped up cock and bull scandal stories fed them by liberal blogs and the liberal media?

Jeez, some people still believe that the White House “outed Valerie Plame,” even though a two year investigation initiated to establish that didn’t.

There is no end to the lies and fantasies. But there is also no end, at least so far, to their drubbing at the ballot box. That’s something, at least, to be grateful for.

Posted by: sanger at February 19, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #127622

Jack,

“This is a persistent pattern. Just below here we proved that air quality had improved (29% less SO2 & 10% less NO), but IF the air was dirtier etc.”

****************

Your self proclaimed “win” regarding the environment did not include any discussion of the “link” I provided there. I know it’s a waste of time but here it is again.

Bad Science and the Bush Record
How the Bush administration has systematically distorted science to weaken regulations and serve political ends.
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/science/default.asp

Just a few notable Quotes:
***
“In my 30 years with the federal government, this is the worst administration I’ve seen for squashing science and rewriting it at will.”
— Erick Campbell, retired biologist, Bureau of Land Management, PBS’s “NOW” show, July 22, 2005
***
“If you believe in a rational universe, in enlightenment, in knowledge and in a search for truth, this White House is an absolute disaster.”
— Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
***
“We were geotechnical engineers determined to find the truth. We simply wanted to get to the heart of the matter - find out what happened and why, and to prevent it from happening again. But all that was thwarted at the top of the agency by Bush appointees who obstructed professionals trying to do their jobs.”
— Jack Spadaro, former superintendent of the Mine Safety and Health Administration
***
“[There has been] a pattern of political interference with science by the Bush administration. This pattern has involved gagging scientists, suppressing research, and rewriting reports to eliminate scientific answers that conflict with the administration’s political or ideological agenda.”
— Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee
***
“Obviously it’s of great concern if you’ve got people, a substantial percentage of the scientists who are, who were interviewed for that report saying that their ability to give their frank opinion is impeded because they feel that there’s political pressures on them. I think that we can only make good public policy if we have honest scientific advice and if it’s all going to be skewed we’ll wind up in the same mess that the Soviet Union used to find itself in, where basically if you didn’t agree with Stalin’s view of what the science ought to be they didn’t want to hear from you. We don’t need that in this country.”
— U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (R-New Mexico) in response to a question about the White House’s alleged suppression of science, E&E TV’s “On Point” show, March 15, 2005
***

KansasDem
PS: Stephen, sorry to change topics in your thread but Jack declaring he won the environmetal argument was reminiscent of Bush declaring a “mandate” and counting all of that “political capitol”. It’s easy to win anything if you ignore anything you don’t want to include in the “judging”.

Not to mention, “see we won”, is also reminiscent of an elementary school playground argument.

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #127623

Now Sandra, the timeout in the corner didn’t work so go to your room and you are grounded. No watching TV unless it’s Fox news so you can learn what the truth is.

Posted by: Nunya at February 20, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #127626

Sanger,

“Stephen, you’ve already admitted that these are just imaginary scenarios, so why do you keep trying to base arguments on them?”

Do you suppose he’s exhibiting freedom of expression? I thought that was a good thing. Or maybe he just bought stock in the drug company that manufactures Valium and he hopes to raise the value by increasing the stress level of Republicans.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 12:10 AM
Comment #127627

Sanger….it seems the bottom line is that we just don’t believe any part of this story except that poor old Whittington is going to have to avoid metal detectors and magnets the rest of his life.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #127628

Sorry Nun……Fox leans so far to one side, it never comes in clearly on my TV…

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #127629

“If Deer Hunters don’t occasionally get shot by their own people, why do they sell those flourescent orange vests?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 08:34 PM

Stephen:
Hunters are primarily concerned about being shot by people from OTHER hunting parties. The bright orange color is visible to humans over a great distance and not visible to animals.

“… all that remains to be said is that you don’t seem to know much about quail hunting, or gun safety in general. In fact, your statement contradicts itself.

First, you say that Whittington fell back to retrieve a bird and “did not follow protocal [sic] regarding announcing movement from the line.” You mean, he didn’t shout “Hey, I’m over here, I’m not a bird, please don’t…ARRRRRGH!”

Second, you said that ever hunter had an assigned shooting radius. That’s par for the course. By your own analysis, Cheney’s arc was his 6 o’clock? Whittington came up behind him and got shot because unsafe Cheney spun around and blasted.”
Posted by Arr-Squared

I said that Whittington broke the hunting line. He did that by moving forward, not backward. You don’t seem to have a clear idea of what’s involved in quail hunting. Your sarcastic statement about yelling is also based on an inaccurate understanding of quail.

Quail are flushed by movement, not sound. Quail hunters are certainly making enough noise for any quail in front of the hunting line to have heard them. Their natural defense is to hunker down and hide in the grass when they feel menaced. They take to flight only when the potential predator is quite close. The normal reaction is to fly toward the predator because the sudden movement often confuses animal vision which tracks motion not light.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #127630

“If Deer Hunters don’t occasionally get shot by their own people, why do they sell those flourescent orange vests?”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 19, 2006 08:34 PM

Stephen:
Hunters are primarily concerned about being shot by people from OTHER hunting parties. The bright orange color is visible to humans over a great distance and not visible to animals.

“… all that remains to be said is that you don’t seem to know much about quail hunting, or gun safety in general. In fact, your statement contradicts itself.

First, you say that Whittington fell back to retrieve a bird and “did not follow protocal [sic] regarding announcing movement from the line.” You mean, he didn’t shout “Hey, I’m over here, I’m not a bird, please don’t…ARRRRRGH!”

Second, you said that ever hunter had an assigned shooting radius. That’s par for the course. By your own analysis, Cheney’s arc was his 6 o’clock? Whittington came up behind him and got shot because unsafe Cheney spun around and blasted.”
Posted by Arr-Squared

I said that Whittington broke the hunting line. He did that by moving forward, not backward. You don’t seem to have a clear idea of what’s involved in quail hunting. Your sarcastic statement about yelling is also based on an inaccurate understanding of quail.

Quail are flushed by movement, not sound. Quail hunters are certainly making enough noise for any quail in front of the hunting line to have heard them. Their natural defense is to hunker down and hide in the grass when they feel menaced. They take to flight only when the potential predator is quite close. The normal reaction is to fly toward the predator because the sudden movement often confuses animal vision which tracks motion not light.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 20, 2006 12:23 AM
Comment #127632

After a relaxing weekend at my son’s I was going to play nice, but an op-ed I read earlier just begs to be read by all:

Warning to Dems, go pee before reading or you may wet yourself.

Warning to Repubs, take your bloodpressure medication before reading.
***
RJ Eskow: Shot Through the Heart And You’re to Blame: Conservatism as Psychopathology

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/shot-through-the-heart-an_b_15942.html

To quote my favorite part, “……where the psychopathology comes in. “Antisocial personality disorder” — what they used to call “being a sociopath” — is described in the DSM psychiatric manual as follows:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another”

Just read and enjoy.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #127634

“Sorry Nun……Fox leans so far to one side, it never comes in clearly on my TV…

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 12:17 AM “

Sandra,
I have found Fox news to be fairly effective for curing constipation. Their distortion of the facts should make anybody crap.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 20, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #127635

Then perhaps I should consider watching it occasionally for medicinal purposes…….constipatively speaking, of course !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #127640

KansasDem, I have no problem with anybody exercising their “freedom of expression.”

In fact, I’m exercising my own when I say that the left is up the creek without a paddle on this one (and an imaginary creek at that).

Anyone has the right to say anything they want, no matter how foolish, a right that liberals avail themselves of every day of the week. So keep it coming.

Posted by: sanger at February 20, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #127680

Bottom Line:
1.) Cheney did something stupid
2.) Somebody got hurt.

Kind of consistent with this administration.

Posted by: Cole at February 20, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #127714

>>In fact, I’m exercising my own when I say that the left is up the creek without a paddle on this one (and an imaginary creek at that).

Let’s see…Jack says he ‘won’ the ecology blog, and sanger says we ‘lost’ the Cheney is a bad hunter and an irresponsible human being’ one…I guess us Dems might as well tuck it in, leave the field with our tails tucked between our legs and cede to the lyingest, least honorable, most boastful bunch of hacks in America.

The rest of you Dems ready to call it quits?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #127724

Goodkingned,

“I said that Whittington broke the hunting line. He did that by moving forward, not backward.”

From the Dallas Morning News:

“We really thought he [Mr. Whittington] was way back behind us,” said Pamela Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland since October 2003…Harry Whittington dropped back to pick up a bird he’d shot. The vice president and I moved on to shoot another covey and unbeknownst to us, Harry had picked up a bird and caught up with us. He had walked up…”

So Whittington fell back and was shot as he approached. You can keep blaming him, or you can just accept the VP’s accepting of responsibility and move on.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 20, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #127728

Another long post about Cheney and still not one word of concern for the birds that may have been hit and wounded or killed. How self absorbed we are. Didn’t god create the birds? Why are they less miraculous than us? How do we know they are not as important? Because God told us? I’m guessing that if Jesus told us that animals were as important then that religion would die out real quick.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 20, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #127732

If Cheny had called the press it would not have made any difference at all,because it was Cheny not Clinton.Clinton can do no wrong and Repubs can do no right.

Posted by: RDAVIDC at February 20, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #127735

I don’t like Cheney, and abhor the Bush administration. What concerns me isn’t that Cheney didn’t notify the press immediately, but the fact that the Secret Service sent the police away when they arrived and told them that he would talk to them in the morning. This will always leave one to wonder if he had imbibed in more than a beer 5 hours before or had one 5 minutes before. As much as I dislike Cheney, who like the whole administration feel themselves to be above the law, I can understand that he might be rattled after shooting his friend and wanted all family members to be notified before making a statement to the press. But the fact that he was able to manipulate the interview with the police, is what I find most disturbing.

Posted by: earjoy at February 20, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #127742

>>But the fact that he was able to manipulate the interview with the police, is what I find most disturbing.

Posted by: earjoy at February 20, 2006 09:46 AM

ear,

That, and that he found it necessary to do so.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 20, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #127753

If Cheney had been deer hunting, he would be in a set position beside his hunting partner. There would be no danger of an accidental shooting.

Posted by: Jerry Lindstrom at February 20, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #127769

The fact being, that this would have never been such a big deal if the White House wasn’t so secretive all the time. Accidents happen, but if Cheney and his little puppets could have kept this a secret they would have, and that is what enrages America! I wonder how may other “accidents” have happened that we don’t know about? IRAQ???

Posted by: Craig Manns at February 20, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #127795

Here ya go….enjoy. I just took this from bloggerradio.com …

MazeRat7 (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-20-06 12:26 PM
Original message
This is a great read from the Jamaica Observer. re: Dead Eye Dick
This made my “Presidents” Day…. hopefully it will yours..

Swiftboating a shot friend
In Our Time
Wayne Brown
Sunday, February 19, 2006


‘Now, this story certainly has its humorous aspects, but it also raises a serious issue, one which I feel very strongly about. Moms, dads, if you’re watching right now, I can’t emphasise this enough: Do not let your kids go on hunting trips with the vice-president. I don’t care what kind of lucrative contracts they’re trying to land, or energy regulations they’re trying to get lifted.he’ll shoot them in the face.’
(Jon Stewart, The Daily Show)

To begin with, certainly, it was funny.
Two Saturdays ago, on a bird shoot on a Texas ranch, the vice-president of the United States, on paper the second most powerful man in the world - though in reality, of course, the most powerful, given a president who’s always been at his happiest riding his little bicycle down in Crawford -
- Last week Saturday Dick ‘Darth Vader’ Cheney, the snarling bag-man for Halliburton and Big Oil, King of the Gun Lobby, Defender of Wire-tapping at Home and Torture Abroad (and Torture at Home, too, for that matter), had, following the flight of a quail, spun and shot his geriatric hunting partner full of birdshot, in the chest, neck, face.


….


O but it was funny, a barbaric version of the top-hatted gentleman slipping on a banana skin, and American comedians, amateurs as well as pros, went to town on it.
‘Bush-Quail 2006’, quipped a Democratic strategist.

‘The CIA assured Cheney that Harry Whittington was actually a pheasant,’ cracked a Democratic speechwriter.
‘The worst part is, he was aiming at the special prosecutor,’ suggested a John Kerry spokesman.

And then there were folks who dug up a Bush 2000 interview with the Houston Chronicle in which he advertised Cheney as ‘somebody who is going to shoot straight with the American people’.
David Letterman’s Top 10 list of ‘Dick Cheney’s Excuses’ included: ‘I thought the guy was trying to go gay cowboy on me.’ (Whittington had apparently been approaching Cheney from behind.)
Letterman also contributed: ‘We can’t get Bin Laden, but we nailed a 78-year-old attorney.’


Here the link if you care to read the entire thing….

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/html/20060218T21…

Enjoy.

MZr7

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at February 20, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #127797

There are some level-headed comments here.


We have two manipulations at work here. First we have the WHAT IF. Then we have the mountain out of a molehill.

There’s some truth to that.

What is interesting is the partisan motivated comments:

You guys on the left love the counterfactual.

If Cheny had called the press it would not have made any difference at all, because it was Cheny not Clinton. Clinton can do no wrong and Repubs can do no right.


Bottom Line:
1.) Cheney did something stupid
2.) Somebody got hurt.
Kind of consistent with this administration.


This reminds me of an episode on Star Trek, and Data say: I find it facinating. Please continue with the petty bickering.

: )

Posted by: d.a.n at February 20, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #127817

Sandra,

I especially liked the one about Whittington going gay cowboy on Cheney. Cheney would sure enough shoot him for that - at least that is - if anybody was watching…

I sort of just thought that Cheney just shot moderate Republicans and Democrats on sight…

The thing that amazes me about these blog threads is that the Republicans clearly live in a parallel universe to ours. I mean, somebody out there actually said that this would have been no big deal if it had been Clinton, but was a big deal because it was Cheney… Please… In the first place, the Clinton Administration was much more transparent than the Bush Regime and this is a story about lack of transparency. But forget that. These Machiavellian idiots spent one hundred million dollars finding out who licked Clinton’s cigars… and now they want to cry crocodile tears because we are having little gay cowboy fun with Cheney… please.

This is a tempest in a tea pot. The only real issue here is the stonewalling of the police on the drinking issue.

Here is what I wrote in Ray’s Brief Dictionary of Political Buzz Words and Phrases:

Common Sense (Căhm-mŭn΄ Sĕnsss΄) noun. 1.) Synonymous with dissembling. As in: Bill Clinton used common sense when he lied about what is is. (in Texan: disassembling). As in: George W. Bush was using common sense when he disassembled the truth about WMD. 2.) A simple concise clear statement of the truth. 3.) A catchy 30 second sound bite about complex highly nuanced issues involving national security. As in: You see… uh… um… thar’s uh… bad people… uh… so… uh… um… we gotta… uh… uh… smoke em out… you see… its uh… just uh… um… common sense – you see. 4.) If you are hunting small pet birds, you do not pull the trigger when your gun is pointed at large orange things.

To read more go to: www.rayspoliticalblog.blogspot.com

Posted by: Ray G. at February 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #127853

The debate over this is so laughable….Like good ole Hilary…she can’t believe the secrecy of this administration….can she not remember the secrecy of the administration of her husband. Unfortunately…many people believe what they hear the most often….but the democrates have gone to a truly laughable level. Dependent on short memories of the masses…not just on the shotting accident..but think back on all…especially the war we are now involved in. Each day,,,regardless of their reaction previously they say what they believe will work for them today and just assume the masses of people are so ignorant they will go for it. Unfortunatley…it works…Wake Up America…

Posted by: John M at February 20, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #127854

Hey JACK!

What about this this:

…IF Sadaam still had WMD’S? …Hmmmmm?

YOUR Party has become the ultimate WHAT IF party, to the tune of billions of American Dollars, and more tragically, thousands of American lives. Similar negligence to this Cheney thing, que no?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 20, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #127865

This whole ‘accident’ argument is rediculous.

It’s like saying that a drunk driver’s accdient was just an accident. Similarly, this could have been avoided if only Cheney had acted responsibly.

I am from Texas. I grew up hunting. I was nine the first time I fired my fathers shotgun on a hunting trip (under his supervision, of course). It was not until I was ten, after which time I had completed a hunter safety course, that I was allowed to go out and hunt with my own shotgun.
Cheney is at the responsibility level I was at when I was nine…except SOME FOOL out there actually trusted him with his own gun prematurely! Since Cheney is an ADULT (presumably), HE should have been the one responsible enough to recognize the need for learning about hunter safety. BOTTOM LINE.

The what ifs are, on one level, a bit silly. I’ll grant that. But, not entirely! It doesn’t take much of a tweak to this situation to arrive at a scenario that might have resulted in death.
What that shows, is the level of negligence exhibited by the Vice President of the United States. those of us who vehemently disagree with this administration see a pattern in this. It is VERY similar to the disregard and manipulation of inteligence that has resulted in our involvement in a war that was begun by an act of TREASON, from a left perspective, and from a right-wing perspective - is based on a deception that too many on the right are willing to look the other way about.

The hunting ‘accident’ is, basically, unimportant. What is has revealed about Cheney and this administration, IS relevent.

There is a comment above about the ‘drubbing’ of democrats in the polls…

In all of American history, the second largest number of votes received by any Presidential candidate was received by JOHN KERRY! W was first by NARROW margin. That isn’t a ‘drubbing’
especially when you consider that voting machines were moved in Ohio, Florida in a way which made it MUCH harder for people in predominanatly democratic precincts to cast their votes on a working day, while the predominantly republican precincts had more machines than they could use and had lines only a couple minutes long compared to the waits of up to eight hours endured by Kerry supporters. Don’t feed me that ‘drubbing’ nonesense! It simply isn’t even remotely TRUE.

TELL ME:
What would it take for you folks on the right-wing side to LOSE respect for another republican? I am completely flabbergasted that we aren’t there yet…at least for some of you blogging here. I knew many republicans in Texas who are so ANGRY and dismayed with Bush and his administration, that they are vowing to vote against this party next time. More than you would care hear about I’m sure. My father is one and many in my family as well. I was once very conservative in my outlook, these guys changed that. Why are you not with us? Look up the definition of the word ‘conservative’ and ask yourself what you are conserving!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 20, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #127880

Conservative is simply a word that they use to describe themselves. It has no relationship to any reality. Liberal is a word they have used for so long to describe their opposition, that they can not get away from it. McCarthyism is alive and well.

Carter, Clinton, Gore, and Edwards were and are all conservatives, but since they are Democrats, they are often described as liberals, without any basis.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 20, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #127918

Bill Clinton, that’s all republicans want to talk about. Maybe I’m missing the point, Bush has taken us to war, and put us so far in debt we cannot even see the end. And tries continually to justify his moronic decisions with nescient arguments that hardly can be placed above a third grade level. Perhaps if Bush and his cronies could present plans and make decisions that would benefit the American people and not just his rich buddies, democrats would not have such problem with the administration.

Posted by: Craig at February 20, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #127964
but the democrates have gone to a truly laughable level. Dependent on short memories of the masses…not just on the shotting accident

John M,

I’m not sure who has the shorter memory here. You say Cheney shooting a guy in the face is no big deal. But remember when Clinton shot his gun in Monica’s face? You Cons spend millions in taxpayer dollars and splashed it into our living rooms for how long? It would be laughable if you Cons hadn’t wasted millions in tax dollars.

It’s like saying that a drunk driver’s accdient was just an accident. Similarly, this could have been avoided if only Cheney had acted responsibly.

RGF,

Very good point. Unfortunatly, apparently the V.P. is also above the law and didn’t have to give a statement until the booze wore off.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 20, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #128070

“Another long post about Cheney and still not one word of concern for the birds that may have been hit and wounded or killed. How self absorbed we are. Didn’t god create the birds? Why are they less miraculous than us? …” Posted by Schwamp earlier

Oh please, it’s called the food chain. Have some pork chops and read up on it.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 21, 2006 1:04 AM
Comment #128104

GKN,
Wait until we all find out Cheney won that $365m lottery.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 21, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #128164

“I’m not sure who has the shorter memory here. You say Cheney shooting a guy in the face is no big deal. But remember when Clinton shot his gun in Monica’s face? You Cons spend millions in taxpayer dollars and splashed it into our living rooms for how long? It would be laughable if you Cons hadn’t wasted millions in tax dollars.”
And at least Monica was a concenting adult in that drama….I kinda doubt Mr Wittington really liked getting shot in the heart and the face.

Posted by: qat at February 21, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #128211

The linkage of this non-incident, the Cheney shooting, with the Monica/Clinton affair, another non-incident, is a cheap shot (Pun not intended, but unavoidable). Let’s step out of the gutter or snip this thread.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 21, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #128320

If Chaney had been hunting deer then mabey He would have killed his friend. If that were the case then Im sure he would have informed the public immediatly. On the other hand his friend may have killed him. Hey shit happens. Getting sprinkled by some bird shot happens too. I for one dont want or need to hear about petty little accidents no matter who is involved.Why dont you guys find something more important to worry about like say what color kool aid to drink?

Posted by: commander JC at February 21, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #128483

Petty accidents?
I’m sure neither the Vice President or his friend felt the incident was that petty. From the public perspective, The Vice President of the United States accidently shooting someone hardly fits that description, either.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #128486

Anyone that cannot see the difference in this hunting accident and Clinton’s famous gun shooting, seriously needs to have their head examined. Clinton lied and lied. Our vice president stood up and took sole responsibility for the entire thing. It is sad the platform you stand on is so weak and unstable you have to stoop to that level to find fault. Good for us republican’s though…it just shows how hard it is to find anything to boo hoo about in us. And back to Clinton, his lies did not stop with Monica.. there were other lies also in his administration…ones that he should have had to answer for that could have been devastating to our country. As for Hilary, she owes an apology to every woman in this country. She sacrificed her very self for political gain.

Posted by: Jesse P at February 22, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #129783

oh realy i find your opinion of conservatism and liberal quite amusing,the political party liberal in the united states split off from the labor party in the early 1900s, true the conservative party in the us started a little later than the liberal party. your comparison to mc carthyism is like to ted kennedyism it has no merit both are nutballs,they both fell off the edges. as a philosophy conservatism is much older (wikipedia)i realize that ive not been in college since 1979. and carter, clinton,gore, edwards, are not conservative, possibly on economic matters, but they are considerd centrist, left of center. i think also you would find the founding fathers were more conservative. than you would think they were. they were real so therefore they had reality. i am not trying to change your ideology.

Posted by: rodney brown at February 26, 2006 11:54 PM
Post a comment