What lying? Which suspicious circumstances?

The White House's crime here seems to be not informing the press in a prompt fashion. Never mind that there certainly could be reasons why they may have done so that don't involve "cover ups" (the victim's wishes, perhaps, or the fact that Cheney had not given a statement to the authorities as of Sunday morning).

So know we're "Bushniks"? Nice attack. Blame Clinton? No, compare and contrast the reaction between Clinton (a president the left wing press fawned over) and our current president Bush (a president the left wing press hates with a passion). Compare and contrast is a standard debate tactic, is it not?

Also, are you maintaining that the war that was authorized by the UN and by Senators Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Reid, and Lieberman is for "Haliburton"? Do you REALLY believe such nonsense or is it just something one mentions to be fashionable within left wing circles these days?



I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The story WAS reported. The Washington press corps (as I mentioned in my post) seemed most upset about the fact that THEY didn't get to break it. Why should Cheney, who just was involved in a hunting accident, get on the phone and call Gregory, Blitzer, or that ultra-left partisan Helen Thomas?? There was no cover up. The story was released in due course. It was a "private" matter (to use terminology that the left uses for indecent acts taking place in the oval office with white house staff) not a matter of pressing national interest.



Well, your premise is false here. Clinton got off scot free in case you didn't notice. In fact, his charm and personality has even won over Bush's father (which is a mistake for him in my opinion). Speaking of statue of limitations, when will enough time pass where night timer doesn't feel compelled to act as an apologist for our former Impeached President??



Well, you're quite astute to pick up on my true feelings toward former president Clinton. In spite of his obvious gifts for politics, public speaking, and his personal charisma, I just can't force myself to look past his deeply flawed character, his long history of lies and deceit, and the over-the-top selfishness that defines his personality. And yes, I understand that one is innocent until proven guilty in our system.

But, that hasn't stopped you and your fellow leftists from attacking our current president based on half truths, distortions, or downright lies on issues ranging from his National Guard Status, to Katrina, to WMD's in Iraq, Plame, Enron, Halliburton, et al. Face it, if Juanita Broddrick had accused a REPUBLICAN president of rape, she'd be getting more airtime than Cindy Sheehan and the N.O.W would have likely set-up permanent camp in front of the White House demanding the resignation of the president.

The Cheney accident, the Bush presidency, and the entire Clinton presidency, provide enough evidence to support a lifetime study of left-wing press bias.

And frankly, any objective person can see it.

CNN - Cheney cleared in hunting accident but WH still faces questions

Oh, probably about the same time you stop acting as a apologist for our present needs-to-be Impeached President, lord helmet.



Change the surname from "Clinton" to "Bush" and you're accurately described my feelings for the current prez. I'd have to differ though on the part about "public speaking" and "personal charisma."



And that "objective person" would be...you?

As regarding our topic:

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas - The 78-year-old lawyer who was shot by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident has some birdshot lodged in his heart and he had a "minor heart attack," a hospital official said Tuesday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060214/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Oh yeah. Minor matter. Really trivial stuff. No big deal.

I'd encourage you to go read the transcript of the press briefing on the subject Amlord. During the press conference good ole Scotty couldn't come up with a solid reason for why it took the president 12 to 24 hours to learn of the incident and "get all the details", why it was the owner of the ranch that went public with it and not the White House, why the vice president's office says they worked that out with the owner but she was on Hardball saying something different. There are tons of statements in that press conference that would make all but the most blind partisan supporters suspicious of what was going on.

As I already told you when I first heard of this incident I believed it was an accident and there was nothing strange going on. This press conference certainly gives anyone reasonable doubts.

I just listened to most of it. Number of times that the press corps asked "Is Mr. Whittington OK? How are his family holding up? Is the Veep ok? = ZERO. Which could be why we didn't know about the "minor heart attack" until nighttimer posted it. The reporters were concerned more with their feelings than what happened, it sounded to me. Gregory was over the edge.


I'm going to go ahead and volunteer this info for you all. If I shoot someone on a Saturday, I'm not telling my boss until Monday, if at all. If he finds about it, I'd say "no big deal - hunting accident." I'm not apologizing or excusing anything, just saying what I'd do.

This debate is much too serious - I'm heading over to start a Cheney hunting joke topic.

1. What kind of political fallout would you expect from this incident?

None. As many have noted, this is a Teflon administration. What I find distasteful is the “blame the victim” mentality of all involved in the incident. However, there is a wealth of fodder for comedians!

2. Should Cheney be criminally charged?

No. While I, too, would love to see the veep dragged off in handcuffs, a hunting accident is not a crime.

It may be a different story if Mr. Whittington dies...although, maybe not. It seems a piece of the birdshot has migrated to his heart, causing a minor heart attack (Source)

While I’m sure most will diss the source, the NY Daily News published an article saying that Cheney did not have the required stamp on his license to hunt quail in Texas, and that he has not attended any hunter safety courses. Otherwise, he would have known that:


Edited to add:
Oh, and as for Scott McLellan , I guess the real action was off-camera. I read that things got pretty heated, complete with name-calling...on both sides. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Cheney can't suck it up and be a man, come out of his hidey-hole and just freakin' APOLOGIZE for shooting the poor schlub (instead of blaming him). Jeez louise!

Agreed. And, I agree that one must always take care to make sure what's in the line of fire. A previous poster talked about duck hunting but that person obviously has never been quail hunting. It's fundamentally different. You're not sitting in boats firing at flying flocks. You have a group of guys and dogs looking for birds bedded down and the action can be frantic. There in lies the fun.... and the danger.

Accidents in group upland hunting are NOT rare. I don't care for it, frankly for that reason. Many dogs and many hunters have been shot by mistake. I like my dog too much to take her out on such a hunt.

Cheney did nothing wrong other than not bow down and cater to the egomaniacal left-wing press. In their mind, he should have called them to tip them off that he was giving himself up and checking himself into jail after the accident. Helen Thomas would probably STILL not be satisfied not to mention that wanna-be David Gregory.

Hunting, flying supersonic jets like the F102, and engaging radical Islam are inherently manly and dangerous. Perhaps that's the root of the discomfort that the left have with this current administration?

I'm not disagreeing with you Carlito but I just think this is a crystal clear example of the White House being unable to tell the truth on even the simplest matter. Even in spite of all of that I still think this is nothing more than an accident and it'll be good joke fodder for a while. But I would encourage all of the Bush cheerleaders out there (not directing this at you) to take a close look at this press conference and ask yourself why it is so hard for the White House to be truthful and straightforward on even the simplest matter. If they can't do it here why should you take them at their word on more important topics?

I don't feel the need to read the transcript, since I watched it yesterday. I posted this less than an hour after the press conference where I reported at least two questions the press asked.

Scott McClellan talked about when he personally found out that there was an accident, which was Saturday night. He found out that Cheney was the shooter on Sunday morning. The President knew within hours of the shooting.

The outrage is that the White House press was not informed. The local paper was informed Sunday morning, but the White House press was never notified until Sunday afternoon!!

It would be a completely different situation if something had happened to the Vice President. Of course the public would have a right to know that they guy next in line to the Presidency had been hurt or hospitalized.

It's no secret that Cheney and the press do not have a rosy relationship. Why should it surprise anyone that informing the press was not the first thing on the Vice President's mind?

Given the obvious bias and behavior of so-called journalists like Gregory and Thomas, I think that Bush and his people would be best served to simply ignore them like Bush is ignoring Helen Thomas.

He should pretend they do not exist.

No, lordhelmet, that’s the whole problem now. The Bush administration has a history of minimizing, releasing as little information as possible, stonewalling and out right lying. Scott McClellan was at the same old tired game this morning. Keith Olbermann should have a new segment entitled least credible person on the planet. It would go hands down to McClellan and the brown recluse like creatures he works for.

Shining light on Dick Cheney has all the same difficulties as pulling Saddam Hussein out of that spider hole—if I may wax Biblical, the VP “prefers darkness to light because his deeds are evil.”

Now I’m not saying the shooing incident was anything more than an unfortunate accident, but Cheney could have spared himself and the administration much grief by just going before the public and explaining what happened That, however, wouyld have been too much like right. Instead, Cheney chose to curl up in the fetal position of secrecy and say nothing.

Ron Reagan said it well on last night’s Hardball



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11345667/

Contrary to what you’ve suggested lordhelmet, the White House needs to be more open and transparent.

lordhelmet,

Frankly, as a former hunter, I am personally elated that we never hunted together.

Please, read your words again slowly. You said:

...the person who was responsible
was the guy who got shot.
Cheney did nothing wrong...

You certainly have the right to revise and extend your previous remarks. If you choose to do so in this case, then there is no need for you to read any further.

If not, you may choose to defend your words by quoting sources such as the National Rifle Association. I invite you to do so.

The only point that I concede is that the actions of the victim, as reported, mitigate Cheneys blame to some degree. But, to suggest that the shooter is not primarily responsible for this accident fails to recognize that it was Mr. Cheneys' finger that pulled the trigger. To suggest that Cheney did nothing wrong sounds like something his attorney might say--words absent of truth or factual support whose sole purpose is to defend, not enlighten.

Here are just some of the things Cheney did wrong:

1. Always point the gun in a safe direction. A safe direction means even if the gun were to go off it would not cause injury.
2. Never fire in the direction of people.
3. Observe your area of fire before you shoot.

lordhelmet, you need to either address the above points or withdraw your statements.

Oh, by the way, the above points come directly from the National Rifle Association Gun Safety Rules: NRA Gun Safety Rules

And so does this one:

4. Think First. Shoot Second.

Technically, you are correct.

It's "Cheney's fault". It was an "accident".

I was attempting to put his fault in perspective. There are established rules of the road when it comes to bird hunting and the victim didn't follow them.

I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that.

But, lets keep obsessing over this story and continue to forget that Iran is being run by a madman intent on destroying Israel with nuclear weapons.

I still do not understand the claims of lies, coverups, and evil-doing.

What lies?

What coverups?

What evil-doing?

The White House's "sin" here seems to be deferring to Cheney's office (you know, the guy involved) to let this information out. Cheney's decision was to let some third party inform the press on Sunday morning. I'm shocked that a VP with such a close relationship with the press would defer to others for handling this matter.

Nobody has forwarded anything credible to indicate any malfeasance here. Was someone hurt because this story was delayed a few hours?

Whenever someone gets shot, the police need to file a report. The police showed up to question Cheney, but they were refused due to "technical" issues.

Cheney's been popped twice for DUI and rumors are flying he was hammered while shooting a gun. Had the police been allowed to interview Cheney when the accident happened, maybe this issue could have been resolved.

But since the police couldn't talk to Cheney until the next morning, it's entirely coincidence Cheney smelled like bleach, peppermint, and Fabreze instead of alcohol. Having Cheney state "No I didn't have anything to drink" and accepting it is like Cheney saying "last throes", "pretty well confirmed", "linked to 9/11", and any other complete lie that has come out of his mouth. We can't believe anything Cheney says because him and the truth aren't on speaking terms.

It's entirely possible Cheney obstructed justice. But since he's a republican, that's not possible and any suggestion of that is treasonous. So, Cheney gets another pass from the "party of principle".

Geez, DR, I'm sure that "rumors are flying" since we live in the age of the internet and there are many left-wing blogs who refer to the president as a 'dry drunk.' Wasn't Cheney "popped twice for DUI" more than 40 years ago? Is that really an indicator that he'd hunt quail in an unsafe manner in 2006? I take your points about the police interview, but to intimate the man was drunk is just a wee bit libelous. I haven't hunted a whole bunch, but for the hunters I've been with (all of whom love to have cocktails at night) - NONE would do so before hunting. None of them.

You are kidding here right? If it were either you or I we would be breathalized and a statement taken within a few hours if not within 1 hour. In ANY shooting accident we would be questioned immediately. If I shot a person in the face and head I most likely would sit all night in a jail, not go back for a dinner to the Ranch. ( and not even sit at the hospital?)

Delayed a 'few hours'? If only all of us had that sort of 'timeline'. Do you consider all american citizens should have 15 hours to get our story straight? Hey, Im all for that theory, lets make it law. We can call it 'Cheneys Law" where you have all night to get sober and consolidate your story before being questioned.




This is the most insane thing I have heard, ever. Not a single responsible hunter nor responsible NRA Rep. , nor Wildlife Fish and Game Rep, nor anyone with a sense of ethics and understanding of gun and hunting safety would ever say something so utterly absurd and wrong.
I see that there is so much at stake (?) that you would sell your soul and your ethics and basic responsibility and everyone elses in the field of hunting and shooting in order to defend this act, which everyone agrees was an accident, be it negligent, but so much shame on you! You have sold your soul for nothing, weak and foul player, your NRA membership should be revoked!
Its not so bad to say he made a mistake. Please save yourself from permanent insult in lying outright in blaming the victim and recant! If you do not this you will have dug a grave by which you may be insulted for life.
There are things upon which we may remain partisan and not be called upon, however, IF one blames the victim for being shot in order to defend their political party, this is just too much. It shows a complete lack of credibility, and I dont even think Cheney is THAT callous. In his mechanical heart, I know HE knows it was his fault, and it was. Dont sell out for him, who is he to you anyway, My god!
Can we be THAT shallow? Its positively painful to imagine.

The story was not delayed "a few hours." The incident occurred at 6:30 pm on Saturday and was not reported to the Associated Press until 3:34 pm, Sunday.

I don't care what Cheney's relationship with the press is. When the Vice President of the United States is involved in a shooting incident he should report this information in a timely manner.

Almost 24 hours after the fact is not timely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11354735/from/RL.4/

1. What kind of political fallout would you expect from this incident?

From what I have read about the incident I think, after this week of making jokes at Cheney's expense, there will not be much of a political fallout from the incident. Fact is, this was an ACCIDENT and if anyone was in the wrong it was the victim since he did not follow proper hunting procedures of notifying his part hunting partners when he makes a move towards a target. This is an unfortunate situation, but the White House should not be held accountable for an accident that Cheney had on his own personal time. Also, the White House did not have to notify the media immediately. They let Cheney and the victims family take the lead...that is the compassionate way to handle these types of situations. The News Media is making a heck of a lot out of nothing




2. Should Cheney be criminally charged?


For what? What could he possibly be charged for? He was written a citation for not having the $7 permit...many do not have this type of "up to date" paper work. yes, he is in the wrong for this...but I don't think it was methodically done. This whole incident is an ACCIDENT. The Dem's want to turn this into some big conspiracy.

Well, we'll never know, because the sheriff's department was refused (!) to conduct an interview immediately after the accident. Tell me what you want about "compassionate way to handle things", but was is so uncompassionate about talking to a police department the same day after you shot somebody? If Cheney did so, there would be no rumors that he was wasted at the time of the shooting. And now, can you be absolutely sure that it was really an ACCIDENT and not a case of drunken criminal negligence?

I thought it was pretty darned interesting that the Secret Service wouldn't let the deputy sheriff talk to V.P. Cheney because of their "concern for the condition of Mr. Whittington," or comments to that effect. As if Cheney were rendering first aid to the victim as a first responder and simply didn't have the time!

It does make you wonder...

The hunting accident itself was pretty unremarkable, but the way the administration hemmed, hawed and outright stalled talking about it and then decided to pass the ball to the owner of the ranch to give the statement speaks volumes of an administration so determined not to release anything to the press that isn't carefully crafted and sanitized. It is ironic that with all of this care, nobody said that Cheney actually told Mr. Whittington he was sorry it happened. That would have been basic, in my opinion.

LH must have been reading the republican talking points to the point he has them all memorized- already blaming the victim are we LH? I bet if Cheney were ACCUSED of rape- you would be saying "she was asking for it?"- seems to be the double standard of "situational ethics" you guys seem to be eating up.

Nice long delay before talking to the LEGAL AUTHORITIES IS an issue- maybe not the press BUT THAT HE HID OUT FROM THE LAW, WOULDN'T LET THE DEPUTIES TALK TO HIM- smacks to high heaven of cover up- big time.

I am betting he had a very high blood alcohol level - and needed to "consult" his " cousin LayLow" while he waited for his mean old liberal blood alcohol level to drop a bit.

The fact that he was not IMMEDIATELY tested for BA like, you know, any person on this board would have been pretty much seals it for me.

And, any person that says it was the victims fault in any way IS NO HUNTER AT ALL.

Blind shots, not knowing where your line of fire is going- is inexcusable ANY TIME, EVER.

Too bad you are too blinded by your worship of GW and co to see that he might be very, very culpable in this case.

Seems like there are some misperceptions to clear up here...

First, I find it very worth investigating why the news wasn't released earlier. However, I don't think this is any cover-up by McClellan. Rather, he is more the victim of it.

Second, (and not very relevant to the real issues, IMHO), there is indeed culpability on the part of the victim here. Anytime you walk into a known potential line of fire without making very sure the hunters don't know you're there, you are putting yourself in danger. The adages about knowing your line of fire are simply not feasible in quail hunting...you simply don't have time to check when the birds take wing. However, I do think there should have been a general awareness amongst the group that they had a hunter behind them: Didn't they all know he had left to retrieve a bird? What was he going to do, catch a cab to get in front of them?

An unanswered question here: where was the Secret Service during the hunt? I would assume they would keep the VP in sight, if not close contact. Why would they not have taken steps to ensure gun safety here? ie....how did an armed man sneak back that close to the VP without them knowing about it? If they did know it, why didn't they take steps to prevent the shooting?

LOL. You're "betting" that he had a high alcohol level.

That's just too much.

It doesn't take much to "seal it" for you, does it?

Just impugn any republican, the current administration, or anyone to the right of Mao and it's believed.

This issue is a "private" matter. I'm sure Cheney feels terrible about it. It's between him and that private citizen.

No laws were broken. As I've pointed out before, the issue the press is having right now is that THEY were not the ones who scooped this story.

Well, tough beans.

I hope Bush ignores Gregory AND Thomas from this point on in his press conferences.

He holds the cards and should start exerting his power over these egomaniacal whiners in the press.

WHAT A LOAD OF RHETORIC...

Ok.... being from Louisiana and that I live in TX, it's not far fetched to say that I've been in this situation a million times (not shooting someone while hunting, but pheasant/dove/quail hunting).

The reality is that it's a gentleman's rule that if you walk out to get a bird (i.e. the dog doesn't do it) that you are responsible for being out of the line of fire.

Realistically, you're making a "blinded by GW" rhetorical rant, but I'd venture to state that you've never hunted in this capacity.

We have a cabin in East TX that we go to this time of year to go Quail hunting, as the season ends the end of this month. While it's great to make jokes, I'd venture to guess that both men were at fault to an extent.

Frankly, 30 yards in tall grass is a distance at which the hunter's orange vest/hat should've been visible, but in the event that he was walking out to get the bird that he'd shot, everyone around him should've known. The eye witness accounts lend themselves to the idea that everyone thought that he wasn't anywhere close to the Vice President... but in either case, safety is everyone's responsibility.

Blood alcohol level? I'd say that there is often alcohol involved with fishing, camping, etc... but in hunting it's rare and extremely poorly received. Firearms and cold beer are great as long as the latter comes after the hunting has been done...

Blinded?... I ask you to consider your distaste for this administration and its impact on the matter at hand. Any real hunter will tell you that this is a horrible situation, but I wouldn't place blame squarely on either man.

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer slapped the wrists of Dick Cheney and the White House press corps.

Ari Fleischer, who served as President George W. Bush's first press secretary, added to the growing criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney's handling of the weekend shooting incident in Texas, telling E&P this afternoon that it "crosses the threshold of news worthiness that ought to be announced and explained."

Fleischer, who was Bush's first press secretary - from 2001 to 2003 - told E&P that Cheney's accidental shooting of Texas attorney Harry Whittington on Saturday during a hunting trip should not have taken nearly a day to be reported. "It would have been better if the vice president and/or his staff had come out last Saturday night or first thing Sunday morning and announced it," he said during a phone interview Tuesday. "It could have and should have been handled differently."

But Fleischer also took a jab at the reporting frenzy surrounding the story, saying most Americans are not as focused on it as the White House press corps. "The press is largely right on the issue--but it can be right and go too far," he added.

He also said that if he were still in the White House, he would urge the vice president's office to take some of the heat off Bush's staff: "I think you go to the vice president and say, 'you need to be handling this.'"

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/ne...t_id=1001996948

Cheney has granted an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News and it will be broadcast this evening at 6:00 pm (EST).

I presume the subject of the shooting will come up, but with Fox News you never can tell...

The story was reported early Sunday morning to the local paper.

Who defines "timely manner"? What great and pressing interest does the public have in this issue? Since it wasn't the Vice President's health (I don't think a reporter has asked about that yet) or the health of the victim (ditto) what was the pressing issue? Why would this be a bigger issue than the VP actually being hospitalized last month? or in 2005? or in 2004?

The fact that the VP has been treated harshly by the press in the past is very relevant here. I think a different VP would have handled this personally instead of allowing another to do it (in this case, the landowner). The media's treatment of the VP is partially to blame for the delay in reporting this story (the delay was about 12-14 hours, not 24).

Anybody want to place a bet whether Snarlin' Dick will apologize? Or whether Fox "News" will fawn all over the veep about how those nasty ol' reporters are picking on poor widdle Dickie? Hmm, that second one's a sure thing....

There is such a pattern with Snarlin' Dick. Stay silent on an issue (major or minor, doesn't seem to matter), let everyone get all worked up, then act like a poor, put-upon victim and try to apply damage control. Whatta maroon.

Jeez, at least when Dubya fell off his bike, it was immediately all over the news, he acknowledged it and moved on. Never thought I'd hold Dubya up as an example, but there ya go.

What kind of political fallout would you expect from this incident?

I've already answered this and stand by my initial response in terms of what fallout I expected. I've since modulated my opinion on what the fallout may actually be.

In my first post, I said:
I had assumed at the time that, were Cheney innocent of any wrong-doing, there would be a brief statement with an explanation of the facts and some sort of apology to the Whittingtons and those who are capable of using firearms safely. I had no idea that, even if Cheney were innocent of any wrong-doing, the administration would respond with secrecy, evasion, obfuscation, equivocation, and lies.

There may not be much fallout from the shooting incident itself, but the typical Bush administration reaction could cause considerable fallout. It might even prove the downfall of Dick Cheney.

First, with this incident, the Bush administration may be alientating a significant portion of one group that has, so far, had no direct reason to be displeased with the neocons: the gun lobby. Those who may still believe in Santa - er, Good Hunter Cheney might want to read the current editorial at Field & Stream (where over 80% of readers so far feel that the incident will "do significant damage to public perception of hunters"):
Field & Stream editor Doug Pike, who also covers the outdoors for the Houston Chronicle, goes on to dismiss what hunt hostess Katharine Armstrong called the "Texas protocol" of announcing one's presence as "misleading" and plainly states that "the onus is on everyone who carries a gun not to shoot at anyone else". This makes sense to me. It even makes sense to the NRA. And the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's report states that the main contributing factor to the accident was a "hunter's judgment factor".

According to Slate, there is a protocol to quail hunting - a real one, not an Armstrong invention:
Among veteran quail hunters, there's speculation that no one was in charge of the hunt - as a someone who was not shooting should have been - or that they didn't know what they were doing. So this was, at the very least, poor judgement compounded by recklessness.

Further, Cheney was violating the law - Parks & Wildlife Code 43.652 (according to the eventual police report). So that's poor judgement compounded by unlawful recklessness. So much for the Great White Hunter.

Field & Stream concludes:
And that is the crux of the problem. This administration is incapable of owning up to any mistake. One of the reasons people seem to be latching onto this is that it is so bloody typical. Not only should "poor judgement compounded by unlawful recklessness" ring more than a few bells, but the response to the incident is also the White House modus operandi writ large: secrecy, arrogance, evasion of the facts, conflicting stories, and the refusal to accept responsibility. Why the standard operating procedure in relation to a hunting accident?

Maybe it's because, like most everything else about which this administration prevaricates, there is something to hide. What is most suspicious in this regard is extent to which the story by the only "witness" who has come forward (and the only one cited in the eventual police report) is so contradictory, that of "Cheney's alibi", Katharine Armstrong.

Ms. Armstrong, a White House lobbyist who depends on her good relations with the Oval Office, claimed that "Whittington came up from behind the Vice-President and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself." That's the statement I saw her make on CNN - and the one which has become the official line. However, Armstrong was in a car 100 yards away at the time and later amended her account:
So, uh... she didn't see the shooting - and couldn't possibly have heard whether or not Whittington had followed the non-existent "Texas protocol". Is Armstrong also the source of the reported "thirty yard" distance between the shooter and the victim? According to Slate:
Yet Armstrong claimed that the wound "knocked [Whittington] silly, but he was fine" and that "bruised more than bloodied, and his pride was hurt more than anything else", while other witnesses state that Whittington was "bleeding profusely from wounds to his face, neck and chest".

Whose idea was it to go public - and when? Our reliable Ms. Armstrong has at least two different stories: she and Cheney decided Saturday night when they could think of niothing but Whittington's well-being and/or she decided on her own Sunday morning ( in one version, in consultation with her family). Interestingly, in two versions, the Veep had nothing whatsoever to do with going public or not.

And what about alcohol? Reliable Kate first told the press that no one in the party was drinking: "No, zero, zippo - and I don't drink at all. No one was drinking." But she later told NBC (the link is to a screen-grab - the original story has been scrubbed ):
She doesn't say who may or may not have been drinking or who may or may not have been shooting. Perhaps Cheney wasn't drinking. Perhaps the person who was supposed to be in charge of the hunt - and who failed to halt the line when Whittington dropped back - was. Assuming that such a person existed. With a "witness" like Armstrong, we will never know - especially after her statements have been filtered through none other than Karl Rove (with whom she spoke hours after the incident).

Was there malfeasance on the part of Cheney or another member of the shooting party? As with so much else surrounding this administration, it's unlikely that all the facts will ever come to light. It remains probable that this was no more than a simple hunting accident. But it is the response from the White House that is creating the fallout. Considering the crimes of Dick Cheney, it would be ironic if something relatively innocuous, like the shooting of a Republican lawyer, brought him down - sort of like Al Capone getting done for tax evasion.

Maybe there is good reason for the secrecy, evasion, obfuscation, equivocation, and lies. Maybe there is something to cover up, however minor. Or maybe, to paraphrase Dick Gephardt, it's just that "they can't help it, they're the Bush administration."

Amlord, you're being disingenuous to the extreme.

Since you're giving us a hypothetical how a different Vice President would have handled this situation, allow me to indulge in a hypothetical of my own.

What if Whittington had been killed by Cheney? Would that be a "great and pressing interest" in the issue? What if Whittington dies from his wounds? Does it become in the public's interest then?

What if Whittington had shot and killed or wounded Cheney? Does he get to hide away from the public and press too?

There has doubtlessly been some demonstrated arrogance on the part of the media in pursuit of this story. But there's also been considerable arrogance by Dick Cheney who didn't seem to think he owes anyone any answers at all. I don't see how you can say Amlord that the media has treated Cheney badly. He doesn't even SPEAK to the media until he faces so much pressure as in this case to do so.

“I’m the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry,” Cheney told Fox News Channel in his first public comments since the shooting Saturday in south Texas.

“You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time but that’s the bottom line and — it was not Harry’s fault,” he said in an interview with Brit Hume. “You can’t blame anybody else. I’m the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11361657/

Cheney isn't blaming Whittington for getting shot. Will the apologists for the Veep do likewise?

Before someone has the opportunity to let himself get deliberately shot in the face with a shotgun, any and all people with guns for hunting need to get a license. If the first rule of law was followed this would have never happened, I think. Or at least it would have happened a bit more legally. I'm no hunter by the way.

aevans176,

It was just reported on Fox News that, in fact, Dick Cheney admitted to Brit Hume during his interview that he had been drinking beer the afternoon of the shooting!
Can there now be any doubt of the extremely poor judgement Cheney used on the day that he shot his friend?

To lordhelmet and all others who have made every excuse possible for Cheneys behavior:

What possible justification can there be for ever--EVER--drinking beer and using a firearm in the same afternoon?


This is deplorable behavior. Cheneys drinking is completely unexcusable. There are NO rules of gun safety that sanction drinking and hunting. This would be unacceptable behavior for a teenager, let alone the Vice President of the United States!

What excuses now? At least it wasn't bourbon?

lordhelmet,

Exactly what part of personal responsibility was Cheney using when he risked the safety of his fellow hunters and friends by drinking and hunting?

Cheneys admissions over alcohol use in this event change the nature of this accident into one of willfull negligence.

To all who have defended Dick Cheney in this incident, how can you possibly justify his behavior now?

Who should he apologize to Daffy? You?

I'm sure he's had several PRIVATE conversations with him about this PRIVATE matter. I can't imagine that the VP didn't apologize to the victim for this accident. Do you have information otherwise?

But, since you brought it up, perhaps you can explain why....

1. An accident that involves the VP on a weekend, off business hours, in Texas, on a private ranch, involving a private citizen is a PUBLIC issue while...

2. A transgression that occurs (repeatedly) via the former president, in the oval office, during work hours, while he's on the phone with Arafat, with an unpaid member of the white house staff is a PRIVATE issue??

Perhaps you can explain the hypocrisy of the press and the left with respect to these two cases?

Cheney has finally spoken on the issue, from CNN:

You'll rarely, if ever, see me in this man's corner (I actually didn't mind him much at all under Bush I, ironically), but from what I've seen he has owned up to what happened, explained why things happened the way they did. It was an unfortunate accident, its time to move on to other matters.

Ever think for a minute that this wasn't his fault?? Should the poor man that got shot get on national TV and apologize for giving cynical liberals something to harass the Vice President about? Seriously... people that don't hunt analyzing this is like me telling you how to fix your plumbing (and I haven't the foggiest idea about plumbing)...

The more I read, the more I realize that this poor man made a sincere mistake that cost him a few days in the hospital and bad press for both of the men. I find it interesting that people turn it into an angle by which to badmouth the administration. Sure, Mr. Cheney might have had a split second to react, but we don't know what the terrain is like, have pictures of the incident, etc. Ordinarily, leaving to retrieve a bird entails letting everyone know that you're going to be out of line-of-sight and returning to the group in a fashion that would allow them to keep from making similar mistakes.

It seems as if liberals will stop at nothing...

Sorry, we interrupt this regularly scheduled liberal bashing session for an important bulletin...

Perhaps you'd care to address some of the substantive points Wertz has just made which pretty eloquently state the problems with this whole issue.

Or certain individuals could continue blaming liberals for the world's woes, up to you.

The only reason it has been turned into an occasion to bad-mouth the administration is that this administration currently holds such low regard for the American people that first they suppress the information, then they reluctantly come out with a sanitized version of it in an attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility for negative outcomes. This is the modus operandi of President Bush and the members of his cabinet.


Am I the only person who read the post that said that Cheney admitted to drinking beer the afternoon of the hunting accident? The silent response to that piece of information here is deafening.

Here is what schmed and PE are referring to, according to CBS news. I guess I can see why you didn't post the story. He didn't exactly admit to "drinking and hunting" here. Not saying that he couldn't be lying, but if a guy as big as Cheney has "a beer" and does something several hours later (it was evening, right?) it's not exactly still in your system.

There is so much wrong here but I want to focus on your question and your continued belief that the press was easy on the former president. Have you really forgotten that for over a year and a half and almost on a daily basis it was THE lead story on every newspaper and news broadcast? You couldn’t escape Blue Dressgate if you wanted. Yeah, they sure took it easy on him, hardly a peep. That my friend is the biggest fallacy that continues to comes from the right.

I’ll stand by my original post on this subject that the press corp acted a bit foolishly on Monday. Reflecting back maybe they sensed something wasn’t quite right and now it’s been proven their instincts were spot on. I made my statements foolishly believing there couldn’t be much to this story and surely the administration would be straight with us.

I won’t touch that oven again.

Well, let's see, carlitoswhey. It's wintertime, which means the days, even in Texas, are now short. The sun probably rose around 7:45 local time, and set around 6:00. (BoF, I am sure, can fine-tune the hours of actual daylight Texas has this time of year.) Cheney certainly wasn't hunting in the dark: that is really illegal.

Now let's figure in that Cheney got up and dressed, probably first had breakfast, then he was driven to the ranch. Then he had a beer; would that have been around noon? That left about six hours before sunset for him to do his hunting. So how much time would "several hours later" entail? That is, unless he had the beer for breakfast, or he started hunting really late in the afternoon.

Edit: The incident report from the link Wertz produced stated that it took place at 5:30 p.m.

Sounds to me that it was likely that the alcohol was still in Cheney's system while he was hunting. In addition, this guy is undoubtedly on heart medications that interact with alcohol. Many medications state on the bottles that usage of alcohol while taking them is contraindicated.

Do we still have doubts as to whether Cheney was using poor judgment?

Chapter 11 of Doris Kerns Goodwin’s new biography of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals: The Political Geniuis of Abraham Lincoln is titled after a statement made by Lincoln in January, 1861, “I am now public property.” (Page 305) While I recognize that elected official do have some rights to privacy, apparently the current Republican leaders have replaced that old foggy nonsense of public service, apparent in Lincoln's words, with a policy of secrecy over accountability.




This whole sad episode is exactly about what PE said it was, a pattern of concealment by both this President and even more Cheney.

Yeah, the VP did finally make a statement today, but my guess is that it was prompted by statements by conservatives, Robert Novak, Marlin Fitzwater and Ari Fletcher. I’m posting Novak’s and Fletcher’s, but because of the two consecutive paragraph rule, you will have to look at the link to see Fitzwater’s.



<snip>



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11365809/

On Hardball David Gergen, a man who served three Republican and one Democratic president and someone I consider scholarly, moderate and objective, had this to say:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11365815/

Yet Cheney and the current regime left Scott McClellan blowing in the wind. Who and what won’t they sacrifice for their nefarious ends.

This episode will blow over, with little if any fallout, but secrecy in the Bush White House will continue as usual. Are we going to have to resurrect Doc Holliday to forcibly extract the informational teeth of this bunch?

Edited to add:

The days are getting a little longer in Texas as else where. I'll try to get some exact information, but it starts getting dark around 6:30 p.m.

Update

Sunrise in The Fort Worth/Dallas area today was 7:10 a.m.; sunset will be at 6:15 p.m. This will vary slightly from Saturday and possibly in the part of the state Cheney was in.

carlitoswhey,

When I saw Brit Hume report Cheney admitted he was drinking beer at lunch on the day that he shot his friend in the face, it was on Fox News between 2:10 and 2:15 Central time. Hume was barely audible and, like you, tried to dismiss the significance of the admission.

I immediatly went to the Fox News site to include the source in my post. There was brief mention of the interview but no information about the drinking at all. The AP had no information, nor did CNN or Drudge. I made the post based on what I saw coming out of Brit Hume on Fox News. If a link were available at the time I would have included it. The information I posted was correct, and to suggest I didn't post the link to make Cheney look bad is unfounded and inaccurate.

Editor & Publisher reports the following:

The first inaccurate report was from Ranch owner Katherine Armstrong:

"Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong has said no one hunting that day had any beer."

The second misleading report from the ranch:

"The Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that it had been told that the hunters that day "broke for a lunch of antelope, jicama salad and camp bread, washed down with Dr. Pepper."

The third inaccurate and/or incomplete report from the ranch:

"Armstrong later modified her remarks, saying there may have been beer in coolers but she didn't think anyone who was hunting that day had any."


Source: Editor & Publisher

Now Cheney admits to drinking beer!

What's next?

Carlitoswhey,

1. Was it O.K. for Cheney to have 1 beer hours before shooting his friend?

2. Do you think he was not hunting immediately after lunch and drinking his beer?

3. If you think he was hunting immediately after lunch and drinking 1 beer, was that O.K?

I don't know how big a guy Cheney is, but I do know how big I am. I am about 250 pounds, and I suffer from diabetes, cholesterol, and high triglycerides. All of these contribute to my already poor ability to metabolize alcohol. One drink leaves me under the influence for several days. I recall a doctor telling me in December one year that I needed to cut down on my drinking, pointing to all kinds of markers in my blood analysis that said I was an alcoholic. I had had a drink the previous New Year's Eve. I have heard hunters tell stories in which they claimed to ban all alcohol from their hunting camps. I have heard "hunters" tell stories that they banned all weapons from their hunting camps because of the amount of alcohol they consume. I haven't been hunting with Dick Cheney, so I don’t know what his definition of "a beer" amounts to.

What we do know is that the Secret Service kept the local police from investigating until he had time to sober up.

We also know that Cheney got a warning ticket for not having the appropriate small game permit attached to his hunting license. As he was not ticketed for shooting a lawyer, I assume that he had the appropriate license to do that.

This is an unbelievable statement.

You DO realize that the secret service, as Homeland Security Federal Agents, are LAW ENFORCEMENT officers who swear an oath to uphold the laws of our country?

Secret Service

Are you attacking their integrity as well?

Just unbelievable.

Did the Secret Service agents, law enforcement agents, turn in Barbara and Jenna Bush for public intoxication a few years ago while they were under Secret Service protection? Doubt it. But the tabloid pictures were posted on every supermarket check-out rack.

It seems to me that Secret Service agents have winked at some things that their proteges have done, that sometimes it can be a tough call for them.

Just to reply to some snippy remarks.

Um, I said that he should apologize and own up to his actions instead of foisting the blame onto the victim. To his credit, he has done so (took him long enough). It would seem that Cheney, while hardly a charming fellow, has more class than SOME people.

I am not attacking the integrity of the Secret Service. I am assuming that as they are sworn to protect the President and Vice President on a 24/7 schedule, that they probably develop some degree of friendship and certainly a sense of loyalty towards the people they are sworn to protect. While they were likely "eye witnesses" to the shooting, it is probable that they literally had their backs turned to the Vice President most of the time so that they could keep an eye on their environment and the horizon; looking for threats to the V.P. If called upon to testify in court, they would likely have protection of some sort from testifying against the V.P., and could honestly say, "I had my back turned and I saw nothing."

This subject has certainly gotten more complex since it first came out. My first take was gee, the guy got sprayed with bird shot at 30 yards, what's the big whoop? At that range the pellets shouldn't penetrate farther in than a zit. Now it turns out that the pellets penetrated enough to lodge in his heart muscle, which means pretty far in. A lot farther than I'd expect at 30 yards, but at maybe 10 feet, yeah. My image of the guy has gone from red marks on the face to a bloody mess, and yes I have hunted ruffed grouse many a season in Minnesota during my youth with #9 shot, which never penetrates anything but the head.

But then I only took ground shots with a single-shot .410. That way you have to be good, so no drinking. Along with that the birds were wild and wary. Stalking skills counted. Quiet counted. Sharp eyes too because the birds would stand still until you got almost on them, and then FLAPPAWHAPPAFLAPFLAPPY! Scares the jewels off you if taken by surprise. The sport was to spot them standing still and take the shot before they flew.

Anyway, a 28-gauge shotgun is smaller than a 20-gauge and bigger than a .410. I wonder if high base or low base shells where used? I would imagine low base for quail, else there wouldn't be much eatable meat left.

Here's what might have really happened. Dick was carrying his gun propped in his arm, finger on the trigger, ready to take the wing shot. The lawyer comes walking back into the line and Dick jumps, surprised by someone coming up. Or maybe he tripped, maybe from being snockered. Boom! Dang, sorry dude. That must really hurt. Dude? Dude? Holy Jesus H. Sneering Criminy, get a doc!

One of my classmates lost a foot after shooting it with a 12-gauge while climbing over a fence. That was through a leather boot and with low-base bird loads, #8 shot I believe.

This thing can still turn into manslaughter. It's not very funny anymore.