Why neither the Veep, nor any of us here on this board, in the same circumstances, would have been tested for blood alcohol.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

1.) The typical late-night fodder for a few weeks and some ridiculing with morning cartoons and satirical editorials.

2.) Why? There is a thing in the law that says "accidental shooting." Legally, the vice-president is entitled to play that defense, because, from all reports: Cheney is at fault, but at the same time he is innocent for mistakenly shooting the gentleman. On the other hand, I would greatly enjoy trying to see someone slap up the current second-in-command of our government with criminal charges.

This wasn't about drinking while hunting. But it was about not firing until everybody knew where everybody else was. And that's why the man got shot. The incident could otherwise serve as a textbook example in how not to hunt, i.e., Cheney and friend didn't know where the other guy was, Cheney sights on a moving target, so his line of fire is changing/moving, the other man is coming up from a draw [where he couldn't be seen] and to make that even worse, Cheney is firing in the direction of the setting sun. And so the man entered Cheney's line of fire, or if you prefer, Cheney's line of fire intersected with the man. The only item we can add, and this depends on (1) whether safety comes before all else [sometimes it doesn't], and (2) also on where, exactly, the other 7 of the 10 hunters were at the time [what goes up must come down], but the low shot could have been avoided if a 45 degree rule/standard had been in effect [i.e., no shot unless the rifle is at least at a 45 angle relative to the ground]. And, no, never hunted quail, deer, etc. My hunting was strictly limited to the blue jays that would make short work of the grapes on the vine, the woodpeckers that damaged the walnut trees, and the coyotes who took a young lamb whenever the opportunity arose [unlike with Jodi, I never heard them "scream", but I did observe the pink froth and mist that attended certain bite wounds to the neck]. And, lastly, a majority of hunting accidents happen late in the day [owing to fatigue and poor visibility].

The fallout? Don't go hunting with Dick Cheney & Co.


Edited to clarify: Should be scrub [or California] jay, instead of "blue jay". And to bring some levity to this thread, first, here's one of the little critters:

http://www.avesphoto.com/website/NA/species/JAYWSC-1.htm

And the little buggers are smart too:

"You'd never fool a jay with one of those blow-up owls or snakes. They'd just laugh at you."

"I wish they would go away. I've tried everything to discourage them, but they're just too smart. I've started putting food out for them, since I'm convinced that someday they'll rule the world."

And they're mean as well:

"Jays dive-bombed my cat so much that he became completely demoralized, and would run for the house whenever he heard a bird."

"My dog finally gave up defending his bowl. He just sits there, looking miserable, as the jays finish his dinner."

Please see:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v182/ai_7351805

In Michigan we have something called "implied consent" when a patrolman stops a driver for suspected DUI. It means that if the driver refuses a breathalizer test, it is an offense. Now I realize that I'm talking about Michigan, and not Texas. But it doesn't seem to be the sort of law that other states would consider uncommon or unreasonable.

Do you mean to say that there is not a similar statute for hunters who accidentally shoot other hunters? Would not an agent of the Department of Natural Resources consider similar testing on a hunter who accidentally (or possibly otherwise) shot another hunter?

The Implied Consent you are referring to covers operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways, and probably also to boaters on public waters. It does not apply to folks operating motor vehicles on private property, nor does it apply to pedestrians in public places. It certainly does not apply to private citizens on private land.

Below are excerpts of the transcript of the interview between Dick Cheney and Brit Hume that Fox News did NOT broadcast. Fox News edited out EVERYTHING that you see below from their on-air interview.

The transcript is verbatim. Emphasis added.


Q Was anybody drinking in this party?


THE VICE PRESIDENT: No. You don't hunt with people who drink.
That's not a good idea. We had --


Q So he wasn't, and you weren't?


THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. We'd taken a break at lunch -- go
down under an old -- ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a
barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back
to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hour-long tour of ranch,
with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn't go
back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00
p.m.


The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon.
Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.



So, Dick Cheney said nobody in his party was drinking.
"You don't hunt with people who drink."
"That's not a good idea."
"I had a beer at lunch."

Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency here?


As far as the integrity of Fox News omitting Cheneys actual remarks:

Fox News: We Report What We Want To Report.
You Decide What We Want You To Decide.



COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT

So, let me get this straight...

The Vice President admits to drinking a beer - just like 99.9% of people who tell the cop before they get thrown in jail for DUI. The guy's been thrown in jail twice for DUI. Not once - but twice. You know, one time is a mistake. Two times is a problem.

But this guy who has shown he doesn't just drink one beer all of the sudden drinks one, shoots somebody several hours later, and avoids the police until the next morning because of technical issues.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't pass the smell test. The guys were hunting with women other than their wives. Alcohol was involved although they minimized it. What would you expect? Would you expect the guy that has not told the truth since the day he's taken office to admit he had more than one beer when he made sure it could not be proven?

Brit: "Were you drinking?"
Cheny: "Man, I was hammered."

Please...that's the reason cops get a statement as soon as the incident happens - to see if there was malice or negligent behavior involved. Apparantly that stops at the White House. Cheney's version of why he didn't release a statement made a lot of sense. He didn't know if the guy was going to survive being "sprayed with pellets" that simply "knocked him silly". But Brit Hume, in his hardball questioning, failed to ask why he refused to talk to the police until the next morning. That had nothing to do with the guy he shot's health.

I'm voting for Hillary so that when she does all the crap this administration gets away with, I can show how this hypocrisy has hurt our country. No way would the republicans let a democrat get away with this. No freaking way.

A democrat DID get away with this..... and a lot more.

The cops WERE with Cheney. They're called the Secret Service. They are sworn law enforcement officers. There is NO WAY they'd let Cheney out there if that group had been boozing. NO WAY. They're sworn to protect him and letting a group out with guns if they were under the influence in any way would have caused them to step in.

This is a non issue like 99.9% of the manufactured scandals that the democrats have been clamoring for in order to allow them to rationalize the corruption, the immorality, and the impeachment of President Clinton. This is all about political payback, nothing more.

The Bush administration has been the most honest administration in modern history. Not the most "forthcoming", the most "honest".

They're running this adminstration like a good company runs their executive staff. They don't go out there and blab every two seconds to the press like the self indulgent Clinton and his band of immature leakers and self promotors. They are DISCREET.

And this Cheney issue was a "private" matter. What happened to the democrat's fetish with "privacy"?? Is privacy only for democrats or women who want to kill their fetuses?

Focusing on this private accident involving a private citizen, focusing on Bush's daughter's partying or the sexual orientation of the VP's daughter (all private matters) seem to be fair game to the privacy-minded democrats.

And vote for Hillary if you want. She'll lose. And she'll lose because she'll create a reverse gender gap of unprecedented proportions.

I understand the case that you're trying to make here BD, but I do think that it is a stretch. If I shoot someone on my private land and the cops come, they'll test for drugs/alcohol. The testing might be done at a hospital or police station, but it will be done.

You can also be nabbed for public drunkenness in public places. Granted, not on private property, unless you shoot someone. That makes a big difference.

You have the right to remain silent . . .

...except when it comes to exposing a CIA agent whose husband debunked the party line about yellowcake and Niger...

This is a matter that would have made the newspapers, just not the front page, if you or I accidentally shot another hunter. Add to it the fact that Cheney may have been doing something privately, but he is, nonetheless, a PUBLIC figure. Like it or not, it was news.


I brought up Jenna and Barbara's behavior and their not being arrested while publicly intoxicated because YOU acted so shocked that anyone would think that the Secret Service LAW ENFORCEMENT officers might not follow the letter of the law under every circumstance. I refuted what you wrote, and I think you are more indignant about that than you are that the Bush twins received negative publicity and I pointed that out.

But if if makes you feel better, the Secret Service knew JFK had dalliances--no, affairs and they didn't report this to his wife or tell the press. And I do believe that in the 1960's there were laws on the books against committing adultery, but I'm not sure, because I was only a kid then.

Now that I've sullied the reputation of a major Democratic office holder, does that make you feel better?

EDIT:

Golly, I don't recall saying in the surveillance thread (which I am sure you are referring to) that I wanted to preserve the Constitutional rights to privacy only for Democrats.

And as to the fetuses, "that dog don't hunt" with this Democrat--I'm pro-life.

For the Bushniks and Cheney apologists the strategy seems to be when in doubt say this was all a private affair and nobody's business. If that doesn't work Blame Bill Clinton.

But I'll try to explain this to you Lord Helmet:

1. When the Vice President of the United States shoots a man in the face and sends him to the hospital, that's news. I'm sorry, but it really and truly is. It is entirely within the public's right to know when an elected official is involved in a shooting incident---accidential or otherwise. Or are you seriously implying if Cheney does whatever he likes on his "off business hours" it's none of the public's business?

Now doesn't that open up the possibility for all kinds of mischief...

2. I'm presuming you are referring to the illicit relations between Bill Clinton and a certain thong-wearing intern? Well, besides breaking his marriage vows and getting caught in a bald-faced lie, what crime exactly did Clinton commit besides crimes against fidelity and good taste?

According to your standard if Bubba had only engaged in his stress-relief sessions with the thong-wearing intern on his "off business hours" at a Georgetown apartment owned by Vernon Jordan or some other insider, it would have been all systems go.

The problem is LH is that for all intents and purposes, high elected officials don't really HAVE "off business hours." Even when they're on vacation, quail hunting, or scrubbing in the tub, they're on the clock. Now I don't need a detailed list of everything Bush and Cheney do during the day up to and including bathroom breaks, but I have to laugh at the notion that whatever they do on their " time off" is nobody's business but theirs.

Regarding those who pooh-pooh, the "one beer" Cheney had before his ill-fated hunting trip, I have one question. What size was the beer Dick pounded down?

12 ounces? 24 ounces? A big ol' 40 ounce can of Schlitz Malt Liquor? Some of that watery, tasteless, right-wing Coors crap?

Anybody still want to argue a field sobriety test was needed?

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is a lie that you are perpetuating, period. It doesn't matter how many times the Perky Katie and the Today Show, you, and CNN talk about it, it's still a lie. I'm sure thepoliticalteen has the whole thing. I watched the whole thing and heard him say it. Don't belive everything you hear...

Her said he had a beer at lunch, the incident happened several hours later. You don't have to have a MD or be a biochemist to know that it was, in all likelihood, 100% converted to metabolites and he would have probably "blown" a 0.00%

And as others have said (and you don't really have a good response) how is that different than what any person pulled over by the cops is going to say when they ask the question "Have you been drinking?" I have a little bit of a news flash here, people lie about that kind of thing. One is likely to say "I haven't been drinking" or "I had a beer or two" they aren't going to say "Man I had like 7 shots, 2 boiler makers and then it got really hazy after that." That last statement only happens on that new DUI commercial put out by the cops.

And we won't know what he would have "blown" because the cops weren't allowed to interact with him until much later because of "technical" difficulties. If he was intoxicated that would have been sort of the point of that strategy.

As has already been cited "the cops" where there the whole time, in the person of Secret Service personnel assigned to the VP. They are sworn officers, and given the potential windfall, if they thought something was amok I'm sure one would have been on the phone with Krugman or Dowd by Sunday morning in time for an afternoon addition.

I guess also that given my maturity (read age) I'm more likely to belive someone had "a beer" with lunch legitimately. Due to many reasons, prostate glands among them, it's not at all uncommon for a senior to have "a beer", as opposed to "some beer(s)"...

There is NO, I repeat NO evidence that Cheney or anyone in his party was irresponsible prior to hunting with respect to Alcohol. Furthermore, the VP is under close monitoring from the Secret Service and there is NO WAY that they would have stood around and looked the other way if he and/or his hunting party had taken the field WITH GUNS if they had been boozing it up.

This is just another tired old example of the left using innuendo and gossip in an attempt to smear our fine Vice President who was involved in a "private" accident on "private" land during his "private" time.

Give the man a break, would you?

The press is obsessing on this story (because they weren't the ones who scooped it), while in the meantime Ahmadinejad in Iran has stated that the Jewish holocaust "never happened"

Iran leader statement on WWII

followed up by his promise that his country would obtain nuclear weapons....

Times online Iran nuclear ambitions

not to be topped by this madman's statement that he would see to it that Israel "ceased to exist"....

BBC story on Iran and Israel

We have the modern day Adolf wanna-be pursuing WMD's and creating his own Arabic "Mein Kampf" and the democrats and their loyal accomplices in the liberal media want to do blood alcohol tests on VP Cheney???

I remind everyone that the week prior to 9/11, when Islamists were ready to escalate their Jihad to unprecedented levels against our nation, the national press was consumed with.... you guessed it.... the most pressing matter of our nation's history..... Gary Condit.

I can't decide if the left wing media is lazy, incompetent, or just blinded by the Kleig lights of their self appointed celebrity.

In any event, the public is not served well by their malfeasance.

Has your drinking ever created problems such as two DUI's and shooting someone in the face?

The problem is, Cheney has a history of having problems with alcohol. Given that, it is absurd to think that was not a factor when there is no plausible reason for him not to talk to police until the next day and admittedly, drinking beer. Regardless of what the Kool-aid drinkers say, the secret service is not the law enforcement personnel for that jurisdiction. If the secret service was the controlling legal authority, then the police who finally were able to investigate the next morning should be fired for not knowing the law that some people here appear to know much better.

"I had one beer at lunch, I swear officer, and that was hours ago" LOL

And te Bushies will buy it LO:- they only need evidence when thier own guy is accused you know- total lack of evidence and 88 million dollar investigations that bring up nothing but thick bottom girls and thongs aside- Cheney get's the old double standard "pass" again from the right.

To bad they don't apply those "morals and character" to thier own guys- heck, they might even get a real conservative elected if they did LOL

We already have a modern day Adolf LH- right here in our own country- his Initials are GWm and he already has his right hand man addict too.

And the secret service will NOT investigate or arrest the guy they are protectiing- that history has already been shown- he skipped out on the breathalizer like a draft notice to Vietnam- several times.

It seems you and others are under some kind of assumptions about the secret service that do not exist, they are not cops in the traditional sense. They do have an investigative role for things like counterfeiting, but their primary duty is to protect the people in the White House. This comes directly from their website on the mission page.



I don't think it is far fetched to say that protection extends to keeping them out of trouble with the law too as has been shown with the children of recent presidents. Did that happen in this case? I don't know and neither does anyone else but the people who were there. The problem is that the way in which the Vice President has handled this situation has lead to suspicion. We have obfuscation by the press outlet of the white house and those speaking about the incident can't seem to tell the same story more than once. That would indicate that someone is lying about something.

If you go back and read through this topic you'll see that I came into this assuming this was nothing more than an accident and nothing nefarious was going on. I'd be willing to bet money that is the way a lot of Americans felt until people starting getting on the air and talking about the incident.


Is that supposed to mean something to me? I don't even know how old you are, whether you are mature or not, in fact I know nothing about you. What I do know is that it is pretty much human nature to lie about the amount of alcohol you've consumed when it could potentially get you in trouble. You'd be pressed to find one documented example of someone admitting to drinking 10 beers after being pulled over for swerving on the road.

And if you have a history of drinking problems, however distant in the past, your word is worth even less on the subject.


"the left", "the left", "the left" - channelling Ann Coulter much? If you are the vice president or the president of our country you don't have private time, you are on the clock 24/7.

Cubejockey, do you REALLY think that the Secret Service agents there, who's entire careers are involved with protecting the life of the Vice President would look the other way and wink if the VP and his hunting party went into the field loaded with LOADED GUNS???

Is that what you are hypothesizing here?

Such a notion is absurd.... like 99.9% of the other manufactured allegations against this administration.

It's dismissable on its face. Patently false.

I don't know what the real story is LH, but the actions of the people involved have really cast doubt on their stories since they can't seem to get them straight and they keep changing. That is even aside from the suspicious circumstances of the whole thing.

I choose to look at it with skepticism and critically examine new information, discarding that which doesn't make sense. You on the other hand are a party loyalist and would probably be supporting Cheney if he got on FoxNews and said he deliberately shot that guy because he didn't like lawyers. I can picture it now: We'd hear some kind of arguments about how Bill Clinton was bad, how "the left" was in on it somehow and how it was ok to shoot lawyers on one's "private time."

Why not just be honest and claim that you don't like President Bush and Vice President Cheney because they don't share your outlook, your politics, or your worldview and that you won't believe anything they say, anytime, anyplace?

Why cook up this conspiracy nonsense that has no basis in fact, doesn't pass the "common sense test" and is deeply rooted in a paranoid and conspiratorial outlook?

We can be honest in this forum, can't we?

I'm always honest LH and I bear the President and Vice President no ill will, I doubt you could say the same for Clinton. I do disagree with many of their policies but if they did something I agreed with then I'd support it. For example, if Bush followed through with even a fraction of the stuff he said during his SOTU on domestic issues I could support a lot of that, I don't see any bills being introduced in Congress on those matters though.

But getting back to the topic at hand. I'm not manufacturing anything. The people involved in this have not been straight with the press and the public, period. The owner of the ranch has changed her statements on key details numerous times now, almost with each new interview. That is a pretty foolproof way to tell that someone is lying.

What she is lying about I don't know, but given the circumstances I can wager a guess. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut or paranoid to feel that something off is going on here, you just need to be observant and not a loyalist.

I'm asking because I don't know, so please don't accuse me of kool-aid drinking. Does Cheney really have "a history of having problems with alcohol?" During the election, I remember hearing about 2 DUIs in 1963 or something, when he was just out of college. Is there something else? I've never heard those rumors about Cheney, unlike some other politicians through history.

And, sad to say, drinking and driving in 1962 was pretty commonplace. Probably not a lot of cabs in Wyoming. That's not to say it's ok, but some of our younger posters probably think that this was always a taboo, and it was not. Thank G-d it is now.

More directly:
1962 - 2 DWIs at age 20 or 21
Completes coursework for his doctorate
House of Representatives
CEO of Halliburton
Presidential Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, etc.
Vice-President 2 terms
2006 - shoots guy in face

I just think that we may be reaching here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

edit - just saw that I hadn't responded to this:

1 - yes (see 2)
2 - yes I think he was NOT hunting. In the Fox interview, they said they took a tour after lunch. Also, based on the the The New York Times article, the shooting occurred at 5:50. No chance that they had lunch "immediately before" 5:50, given these are old guys and old guys tend to eat early, no offense to anyone here intended. Go to denny's at 11:00 and see the lunch crowd and tell me their average age.



3 - No. But, that's not what happened here it appears. If it were me, I probably wouldn't even have had a beer at lunch, but hunting 4 or 5 hours later ... maybe I would. Hard to say.

Despite Curmudgeon's doctor's comments, grown men weighing 180 pounds metabolize one beer an hour, whether we like it or not. Even if he had a big beer or strong beer or 2 1/2 beers, there probably wasn't more than a tiny trace in his system, if any, at 5:50PM. Basically, every drink ups your blood alcohol content (BAC) by .02, and every hour reduces it by the same .02. So 2 beers is gone after 2 hours, for example.

BAC content

0.00 g/210 liters of breath - This is the only safe BAC level.
0.02 g/210 liters of breath - At and above this level US federal laws mandate that a person in a safety sensitive transportation job must be removed from the workplace.
0.04 g/210 liters of breath - At and above this level US federal laws mandate that a person in a safety sensitive transportation job must be sanctioned and may lose their job. Also in most states a person can be convicted of driving under the influence at this level.
0.08 g/210 liters of breath - At and above this level you can be convicted of driving while intoxicated in most states.
0.10 g/210 liters of breath - At and above this level you can be convicted of driving while intoxicated in ALL states.

nighttimer, if Cheney was drinking Schlitz Malt Liquor 40's, I'm voting for him in '08, forget everything else.

So what about Dick Cheney?

Isn't this Republican responsible for his actions, choices and behavior?



And what exactly it is you think the Secret Service would have done, lordhelmet? Tell the Vice President that he's too drunk to go hunting?

Let's get something straight. The Secret Service are not nannies or chaperones. They are bodyguards. They see the President and Vice President when they're happy, sad, mad, sick and hung over. They know when the prez is drinking too much, smoking too much, cheating on his missus, is a closet homosexual or suffers from bouts of flatulence. They see all, but they don't tell all. And they darn sure can't wag a finger at Dick Cheney and say, "Sir, you've had too much to drink."

I wish to say that the men of this service detailed at the Presidential home in Washington or elsewhere are instructed not to talk of anything they may see or hear. So far as the actions of the President and his family and social or official callers are concerned the men are deaf, dumb and blind. In all the years this service has been maintained at the White House and the freedom with which many important public matters have been discussed in their presence, there has never been a leak or betrayal of trust. Responsibility in the matter of the safety of the President . . . was accepted willingly when thrust upon us in an emergency, and from the beginning has been regarded as a sacred trust, overshadowing in importance all other duties and responsibilities.

-- Lewis C. Merletti, director of the U.S. Secret Service/05-19-1998

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...letti052098.htm

If Cheney was the biggest lush in Washington and got stinking drunk every night, you'd never know it from his Secret Service detail. They might try to protect a disoriented president or vice president from his being victimized by his own vices, but they can't knock a glass out of their hands.

The Secret Service doesn't just protect a President and other high officials from those who would harm them. They also protect the secrets of high officials who may engage in behavior that if known would be harmful to their reputations.

What part of the 5th Amendment escapes you? Drug and alcohol tests are self-incrimination, period.

Yogurt,

Your accusation is wrong. Period.

I recorded the entire interview from Fox News last night. After your blunt charge that I lied in my post, I painfully reviewed the full broadcast. Twice. I wanted to make sure that I hadn't made a mistake. I can't claim to know if Fox News in Pennsylvania, my home state, gave you a different broadcast than I got here in Texas. What I can say is that the broadcast on Fox News I saw, and recorded, did NOT contain the questioning about Cheneys beer drinking that was in the White House full transcript. Fox News had edited it out.

I stand by my post.

Even worse is the video of the interview Fox News currently has on their website.
When you play the video, it downloads in 3 parts. The beer questioning should be at the end of part 1 but instead, the video switches magically elsewhere. No beer questions. No beer answers. None in part 2 or part 3. Not even any mention by a narrator. Where is it? Is it filed with Nixon's 18 minutes of lost tape?

If you still don't believe me, go there and watch:

1. Go to FoxNews.com
2. Go to "VIDEO" button in upper right of page
3. Click on Cheney Interview



Removing all Cheney beer references would be brilliant, if it were just the White House trying to manage a delicate story and minimize its impact. For this information to be removed, by a major news network, from its own interview, is irresponsible.

Fox News: We Report What We Want To Report.
You Decide What We Want You To Decide.

The transcript, including the "lunch beer" is at Cheney/Hume, the link that is provided at the top of the Foxnews web page for an "full transcript". The page also has big bold wording at the top saying the excerpt on their (Fox's) page is edited.

I don't pretend to understand why Tx wouldn't have had the whole thing, but mine in PA and my son's in CA did for sure that I know of. Perhaps there's a guy in the grassy knoll in Texas again slipping in extra commercials for a few extra $$

Yogurt,

Here is a link to a transcript from Fox News titled:

Full Transcript of 'Special Report With Brit Hume': Feb 15, 2006

This was the same broadcast we all saw yesterday and to which I referred.

What I origionally said was that Fox News edited out both questions about drinking, and Cheneys full answers to those questions from their broadcast. I reference my original comments below:




I said Fox edited out all the above from their on-air interview.

You said that was a lie.

I've now given you the full transcript of that broadcast according to Fox News.
Prove it was a lie! Find the quotes that I said weren't broadcast by Fox:

Full Transcript of 'Special Report With Brit Hume': Feb 15, 2006


And, please, don't make the same mistake you did last time by referencing the White House transcript. I KNOW those statements were made. I SAID they were made. What I also said was that Fox did NOT include ANY of them in their BROADCAST. And their own full transcript of that broadcast proves it.

I thought the following commentary from Tucker Carlson was interesting. Yeah... that same conservative commentator, Tucker Carlson.

Oh come on guys- the old "I just had one beer" defense- right up there with "I was holding it for someone else" and "the check is in the mail" and "I am a conservative, and so is GW Bush"


You have to be pretty soon out of the cabbage patch to buy that particular line of malarkey-

the only person in this country that can avoid a sherrif's deputy and the breathalyzer would be Cheney- whose stalwart Secret Service agent helped him dodge the bullet again.