Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word

Why do members of this administration seem to have so much difficulty owning up to mistakes? Why couldn't Vice President Dick Cheney have just said, publicly and immediately, how sorry he was for accidentally shooting Harry Whittington?

Countless media outlets used the shooting as an outlet for all those bad puns and Bugs Bunny wisecracks they've been saving up.* The New York Post threw the English language to the wind for the sake of the joke: "The White House took heavy flak yesterday for waiting a vewwy, vewwy long time before revealing that wascally Vice President Dick Cheney had shot a fellow hunter."

Of course, it wouldn't be quite so amusing if Whittington had been seriously injured. And it looks like that might be the case: Whittington suffered a minor heart attack as a result of some birdshot lodged in his heart. Over at Political Cortex, they were wondering as early as Monday afternoon whether Whittington's injuries were being downplayed.

But it was just "birdshot," right? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing that could inflict particularly devastating wounds. What is the difference between birdshot and other kinds of hunting ammunition? Is "shot with birdshot" instead of "shot with a shotgun" just some subtle distinction to make it sound less serious?

Now, I don't know for certain what size of birdshot Cheney was using, but 6 or slightly smaller is a fair guess. (A bit more explanation of why here.) A number 6 shot would contain a couple hundred pellets per shell. According to this helpful firearms tactical brief on home defense:

Birdshot, because of its small size, does not have the mass and sectional density to penetrate deeply enough to reliably reach and damage critical blood distribution organs. Although birdshot can destroy a great volume of tissue at close range, the permanent crush cavity is usually less than 6 inches deep, and this is not deep enough to reliably include the heart or great blood vessels of the abdomen.

So birdshot would not be the weapon of choice for killing someone, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Whittington is 78; at that age, complications are possible, if not downright likely.

Recall that our vice president has a history of going after captive-bred birds with no chance of escape. That's not illegal, obviously, but it's not very sportsmanlike, either. My guess is that the veep got a little too used to shooting those easy targets and forgot that hunting isn't always quite so simple.

Officially, the blame has largely been pinned on Whittington for not announcing himself upon returning from collecting his kill. Debater Chris Ford agrees: "'Peppering' is not uncommon and generally provides a good lesson for the person goofing up."

But Slate's John Dickerson, a gun owner himself, asks, "Shouldn't hunters and those who care about the Second Amendment be taking the Cheney accident just a wee bit more seriously?" He continues, "it seems hypocritical (and unsafe) to have talked for so many years about the American tradition of gun ownership and the responsibility that inherently goes along with that tradition and then go wobbly on safety when your ally has a misfire."

Besides, according to Knight Ridder, blaming Whittington is at best only partially accurate. Whittington may not have announced himself, but hunting experts suggest that "Cheney might have violated a cardinal rule of hunting: Know your surroundings before you pull the trigger." Reports have also surfaced that Cheney never took a class in hunting safety, and he also didn't have the proper permit to be quail hunting in the first place. (The accident report notes that Texas game law was violated, though Cheney has since purchased the required permit.)

Liberal columnist Molly Ivins believes that this incident is illustrative of "one of the many paradoxes of the Bush administration, which claims to be creating 'the responsibility society.' It's hard to think of a crowd less likely to take responsibility for anything they have done or not done than this bunch. They're certainly good at preaching responsibility to others -- and blaming other people for everything that goes wrong on their watch."

This reluctance to take responsibility goes hand in hand with Cheney's secretive nature. Time's Mike Allen (formerly of the Post) provides a fascinating and detailed explanation of Cheney's role in keeping the news quiet.

Still, the Washington Post editorial board wants to know how it is that "the vice president of the United States can shoot and wound someone and the American public doesn't learn of it until 18 hours later" -- a question the rest of the White House press corps has also been asking. David Ignatius believes it comes down to arrogance. Mike Littman writes in the Rocky Mountain News, "In Dick Cheney's America, we're all on a need-to-know basis."

Even Marlin Fitzwater, a press secretary for both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was "appalled" by Cheney's silence. The long delay in releasing details made the story about more than just Cheney, Fitzwater contends. "Now it has become 'when was the president notified?', 'why didn't he put it out?' It becomes a story about the White House handling of it." The Post's Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker report that several prominent Republicans are distressed at Cheney's "slow and unapologetic public response" to the accident. More often than not, it seems, Cheney just doesn't make them look very good.

And with the Katrina report coming out today (more on that later on), the last thing the administration and its allies needed was another example of the trouble their own inaction can cause. Debaters, was the accident and the subsequent radio silence no big deal? Or is it metaphor for the Cheney vice presidency -- secretive, blameless and above the law? Do you think Cheney's here to stay, or on his way out?

(14:10, 2/17/6) Update: Amazing how fast things move these days, isn't it? There's already at least one Cheney-shooting-at-people video game. Celebrity Hitman: Cheney's Fury allows players to choose their targets, including President Bush, Hillary Clinton and Osama bin Laden, and also throws some extra targets in for fun -- Donald Rumsfeld for one, and I'm think I saw Cindy Sheehan fly by a few times. Can you beat my high score of 47? (Not that I would ever advocate playing video games at work, of course ...)

In other news: Previously unreleased (and quite disturbing) photos from Abu Ghraib can be viewed here.

*Informal survey: What's the best headline from this story? I'm torn between Dan Froomkin's "Shoots, Hides and Leaves" and the "Ready, Fire, Aim" teasing Gene Robinson's column.

By Emily Messner |  February 15, 2006; 9:22 AM ET  | Category:  Beltway Perspectives
Previous: The Administration and the Law | Next: Revisiting Hurricane Katrina

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Futile though it may be, I'm going to ask this question again (and again), hoping that Emily will actually answer it.

RE: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/cartoon_controv.html

I've been a fan of Ms. Messner's blog here for awhile, but this statement in her post has had me thinking for a day:

"The New York Times today published a photo (page B8) of the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant manure, in a surprisingly blatant display of what Anne Applebaum calls the "hypocrisy of the cultural left." "

Emily, are you defending Anne A.'s characterization of this as "hypocrisy of the cultural left"? You addition of the words "surprisingly blatant display" makes me wonder.

Seems like a loaded statement to add to the quote.

It's one thing to say "It's sort of hypocritical to do this but not that", another to agree with some partisan hack saying "see? This is all the hypocrisy of the left/right/up/down/strange/charm"

Posted by: Curious T | February 15, 2006 10:29 AM

This response is typical of this administration. In their world EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL. You can be sure that within minutes the Rove political machine was working hard to get this under some type of spin control. Thus:

-the delay in reporting the incident explained as allowing the host of the hunting trip to report the incident. This also avoided it being the subject of Sunday morning talk shows.
-the "peppering" as opposed to "shooting" description of the incident.
-the wearing of orange on Tuesday around the White House trying laugh it off, then Whittington had the heart attack.
-Scott MacClellen's pitiful explanations and the (about time) reporter's angry reactions.

Cheney is no more on his way out that Rove is, and Rove admitted lying to his boss. The Bush-Cheney cabal will circle the wagons and lie, cheat and steal to stay in office. Its worse than Nixon and I believe that we have not seen the worst of this administration but will in the future. Their behavior guarantees it.

Posted by: Sully | February 15, 2006 10:32 AM

"Debaters, was the accident and the subsequent radio silence no big deal?"

It was indeed a big deal.

"Or is it metaphor for the Cheney vice presidency -- secretive, blameless and above the law?"

Nail, head. It's a metaphor for the Cardinal Richelieu attitude.

"Do you think Cheney's here to stay, or on his way out?"

Here to stay, of course. Do you really think his marionette (whom everyone thinks is really his boss) has the power to fire Unca Dick?

Also: Shoots, Hides and Leaves wins.

Posted by: Curious T, again | February 15, 2006 10:34 AM

circumstances point your gun at someone else...

I've seen grown men drop their gun when "following" a target, so strongly is this felt....


but these were not hunters they were live meat shopping...


that being said, who cares....

Halliburton "dentention centers," $385 million dollars of them in the United States.....do they have ovens?

who will they detain, you aunt edna?


this is like the belated concern about Tom Delay,

broke his oath of office twice IN CONGRESS on television, taped, everyone ignores it...


1. talks of using legislative and executive branch to control the judicial system.
2. talks of using the church, from a pulpit on national television, to control the electorate.

and no one in the legislative or executive branch says dick.


does something...."over there" to the tune of $20,000 and suddenly he's a criminal....he's been a criminal the whole time...as has Cunnin ham, Cheyney, Bush(es), the Royals and several hundred NSA, CIA and FBI people.....

The dick and Haliburton is all over this whole scandal, and yet it aint a scandal....howz zat?


you wouldn't know a coup if it stole your medicare benefits....


come on people....

Tom Coburn, senator from Oklahoma sayz why don't we take the money from the "Bridge to NOWhere in Alaska," and use it to repair the major bridge damaged in New Orleans during Katrina....no what 67 of the 80 senators sitting that day voted against it....know why, comity...not comedy


comity, is parochialism, having vested interest in getting pork for your constituents regardless of what the country needs....there are no national interests at the senate level....but I thought it was the House's job to do the parochial stuff......right....they represent districts and then the senators vote on what is best for the country right? guess not...

read George Wills article on it...Dr. NO

call a spade a spade and take them home...

Posted by: THE first rule of thumb for any hunter is never under any | February 15, 2006 10:40 AM

Emily, you question why it is so difficult for officials within the Bush administration to own up to a mistake. David Ignatius answers your timely question on the very same opinion page this very morning. Ignations writes:

"For my generation, the fall of Richard Nixon is the ultimate allegory about how power can corrupt and destroy. It begins not with venality but with a sense of God-given mission."

Nothing so precisely describes the Bush-Cheney mindset that that. Since the attack on 9-11, both men have bought into the fanatstically megalomaniacal notion that Providence had some hand in putting them in office at this particular time in history. Such notions are nothing new of course. Historians have often put forth that idea in describing other crisis periods in history and how certain historical personalities appeared at the most fortuitous time to address that particular crisis--Lincoln with the Civil War, Wilson with WWI, FDR and Churchill with WWII.

But none of those men ever gave the slightest notion that they actually believed that about themselves as Bush has. They only saw themselves faced with an awesome and daunting task and set about to enlist the support and involvement of their countrymen and their allies in the world in that task--something that the Bush-Cheney administration has studiously avoided.

Moreover, a significant part of the Bush-Cheney political base--the religious right--has enabled them in the putting forth of the dangerous notion that their election (or selection) to that office, was a Divine Act. I believe it is part of the reason that Bush's approval numbers never seem to ever get below the numbers that constitute that portion of the electorate that calls themselves the Christian right.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 15, 2006 10:46 AM

Emily, you question why it is so difficult for officials within the Bush administration to own up to a mistake. David Ignatius answers your timely question on the very same opinion page this very morning. Ignations writes:

"For my generation, the fall of Richard Nixon is the ultimate allegory about how power can corrupt and destroy. It begins not with venality but with a sense of God-given mission."

Nothing so precisely describes the Bush-Cheney mindset that that. Since the attack on 9-11, both men have bought into the fanatstically megalomaniacal notion that Providence had some hand in putting them in office at this particular time in history. Such notions are nothing new of course. Historians have often put forth that idea in describing other crisis periods in history and how certain historical personalities appeared at the most fortuitous time to address that particular crisis--Lincoln with the Civil War, Wilson with WWI, FDR and Churchill with WWII.

But none of those men ever gave the slightest notion that they actually believed that about themselves as Bush has. They only saw themselves faced with an awesome and daunting task and set about to enlist the support and involvement of their countrymen and their allies in the world in that task--something that the Bush-Cheney administration has studiously avoided.

Moreover, a significant part of the Bush-Cheney political base--the religious right--has enabled them in the putting forth of the dangerous notion that their election (or selection) to that office, was a Divine Act. I believe it is part of the reason that Bush's approval numbers never seem to ever get below the numbers that constitute that portion of the electorate that calls themselves the Christian right.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 15, 2006 10:47 AM

you can not insult the master by appealing to emotion....


the virgin mary surrounded by elephant shit, I doubt that if she or saint jesus were hanging around they'd be concerned....

they'd be trying to get george and dick arrested twit....and thrown out of the temple....perhaps washing windshields...


that would be nice....

real saints don't care about their images, that's the problem of the people that use them to control


"the mobbe"

you know, the users....

Posted by: there's an old buddhist saying..... | February 15, 2006 10:48 AM

We should compare Dick Cheney to Teddy Roosevelt. Both were rich men who liked to hunt, but Teddy would never have shot tame birds.

Posted by: Turnabout | February 15, 2006 11:07 AM

As for my part, the ineptitude, malfeasance, incompetence and general "klunkiness" of the Bsuh adminstration does not surprise me at all.

Back in the early days of the Bush administration, I was predicting on blogs and forums like this that the failures and miscalaculations of this administration would become evident to everyone by 2006. I knew then that Bush would be re-elected because I knew something about the conservative technique.

The conservative technique owes its success to the fact that it takes about 6 to 8 years for the negative consequences of their governmental philosophy to begin to surface. In Bush's case, it started almost immediately after his relection in November 2004. The conservative technique is always to elevate divisive, emotional issues to the fore in election years.

That is why they were successful in 2004. But, this technique has a shelf life. The reason is quite simple: Conservatives do not believe in government. Thus, job number one on the conservative agenda is complete passivity. That passivity expresses itself in the deconstruction of government responsibility for almost everything other than protecting our shores against attack, which they see as the only legitimate function of the federal government.

Thus, the government's passivity in the face of Hurricane Katrina, the trade deficit, public and personal debt, a rising tide of dissatisfaction owing to the cuts in government services, and the decrepit state of the nation's physical ifrastructure--part and parcel of the cause for the levee breaks in New Orleans.

Now, the fruits of that passive philosophy regarding governing are beginning to fall from that very corrupt tree and landing squarely on the heads of the American people.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 15, 2006 11:25 AM

Ohio and Florida both rolled on the voters...


there was also an illegal culling of voters about 30 days before the election in those states....to remove felons from the list of voters....but the culling was applied closer to an election than allowed and the algorithm also knocked "legal" voters off the list....the software guy told them the culling wouldn't be perfect...they said "go ahead"

illegal actions.

was Jeb govenor of Florida during the election of his brother?

Posted by: Corruption in the voting process is what got the "crewe" in... | February 15, 2006 11:46 AM

Dear Curious T,

The answer to your question is here: http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/cartoon_controv.html#c13995877 My sincerest apologies for the delay.

Best,
em

Posted by: Emily Messner | February 15, 2006 11:49 AM

Emily,

Thank you for your response. That's exactly what I was curious about.

I agree with you that printing A but not B is hypocritical. I'd even agree that it's blatantly hypocritical.

Unfortunately, the way you wrote it was such that it could be read as referring to the "blatantly hypocrisy... of the cultural left". Which is a position I feel is to be unwarranted and irrational.

My concern was that, if you *were* expressing that opinion, you wouldn't want to be a columnist that I continued reading. Not only because, to be honest, it wouldn't agree with my own political slant, but because it's an intellectually dishonest position.

I'm very satisfied with your response. Thank you. It appears to have been merely an issue with unfortunate sentence structure and semantics.

And no, I didn't read Ms. Applebaum's whole article. The "blah blah cultural left hypocrites blah blah" teaser didn't make me want to read anything she wrote. Ever.

Didn't mean to pester you for an answer, but I did feel that I wanted to find out if you were worth keeping on my list of columns to read every day.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

T for Ted

Posted by: T, no longer Curious | February 15, 2006 12:44 PM

I'm busy eating crow for the pass I said we should give Cheney. Yuck

Today's NY Times has a graphic of where the birdshot went - mostly left shoulder/chest and up into the neck and lower part of the face.

This is not "peppering" of the edge of a burst of pellet fired into the air. This was a direct shot at fairly close range that had a fairly horizontal trajectory (unless Cheney was lying down). Cheney had to have shot directly into the bush, not at a bird in the air.

But I just can't get past the sending the police away for 12 hours part. If I had been the shooter I might have been too disgraught to talk to them, but it would have been up to the police to see that the interview might be better finished in the morning, not up to me to send them away.

Posted by: patriot1957 | February 15, 2006 12:54 PM

"Cheney to Discuss Shooting on Fox"

Alternate Headlines:
"Cheney to Discuss Shooting In Echo Chamber"
"Cheney to Be Told What a Good Job He's Doing on Fox"
"Cheney to Use the Word 'Pepper' 27 Times on Fox"
"Cheney to Lie Some More on Fox"
"Cheney to Issue a Totally Insincere Apology In Echo Chamber"

Posted by: Judge Crater | February 15, 2006 01:02 PM

50,000 acres roped off so a bunch of old men and their nursemaids can shoot at wingless, penned birds? That in itself is a crystalline metaphor for this administration. Add the fact that they miss the birds and hit each other - one can only hope that this is a classic portent.

Posted by: WTF | February 15, 2006 01:13 PM

I am concerned that given about 15 hours between official White House recognition, and the press notification made by the Armstrong family (who had allegedly been in contact with Karl Rove on Saturday night), the best explanation that could be concocted was "victim error."

Posted by: Tom Canick | February 15, 2006 01:13 PM

Cheney's mea culpa on Fox won't be birdshot, but it's one letter away.

Posted by: Jeff Mullen | February 15, 2006 01:19 PM

You are so right, it is not "peppering." Whittington got shot. Also, it is absolutely not "protocol" to let your hunting party know you're coming up. You're supposed to know where everyone is and besides, you always point your weapon up, not at somebody. And let's get really serious, you never shoot until you know what's behind the target, or in Cheney's case, in front of it.

We're gun owners and my husband is a gun expert, and he laughed at loud at what's being said about this, especially that Whittingon is to blame. The other real question that is finally being addressed: Was Cheney closer than 30 yards? This matters and on MSNBC the question was finally asked. But really, how did this happen in the first place? Hunter carelessness, period.

Posted by: Taylor Marsh | February 15, 2006 01:30 PM

"And it looks like he might was..."

Talk about throwing the English language to the wind.

Posted by: A. Runner | February 15, 2006 01:30 PM

Gee I guess it's better to be shot by a vise President
And live to tell about it.
Than it is to be left to drowned in a canal by a senator.
Where is your outrage over this.
No worry this will never make headlines in your paper.
Charlie Berry

Posted by: Charlie Berry | February 15, 2006 01:31 PM

Johnny Walker and guns rarely get along could that be why there was a 21 hours delay in allowing the Sheriff to talk to the VP?

Posted by: Camus | February 15, 2006 01:34 PM

The only reason Cheney is going on Fox (where he'll receive a sympathetic ear of course) is to check the box, so the Administration can "get this behind them." If you believe for one second that he actually gives a hoot about what the "press" or the "American people" thinks, well, there's some WMD from Iraq I'd like to sell you...

Posted by: vienna local | February 15, 2006 01:35 PM

Clearly the Washington Post reporters have far too much time on their hands. The hunting accident was just that, an accident. The Vice President's responsibility was to the friend who was directly involved and to his family, certainly not to the Press. To use this unfortunate event for political leverage is just deplorable. He does not owe us an apology. We were not involved!

Posted by: Art Messenger | February 15, 2006 01:36 PM

Ohhhhh Emily,

Puhleeeeese....can't we get back to something that actually matters, like whether Dick ought change his ammunition to slugs and shoot the Ayatollah in Iran, or line up Hamas as his next target, or the deficit, or Medicare/Medicaid, or Social Security? Anything but this Beltway obsession with relative trivialities.

Posted by: Cayambe | February 15, 2006 01:42 PM

What is most frightening is how Cheney et al. may react once now pinned. Consider what they've done so far (making no mention of planes): inroads on the Constitution, 325,000 (or more?) "terrorist suspect" names, spying on US citizens with no judicial order, torture and murder of prisoners, Haliburton contract to build detention camps (as one of your resondents notes, are there ovens?), lying to go to war, lying more to stay at war, shooting a friend, shooting self in foot, etc. etc. We used to ask how did the Germans let it happen. Don't think it isn't being asked, everywhere in the world, about us. Now we can wonder what part of the world these clowns will shoot next. Or use the ANWR oil to pay for Medicare?

Posted by: Paula | February 15, 2006 01:42 PM

Hey Art- We weren't involved in Clinton's moment with Monica either but that didn't stop the Republican lynchmob from impeaching him.

Cheney seems like such a crabby old dude, I bet he was pissed at Whittington for messing up his day. What a buzz kill.

Posted by: AS | February 15, 2006 01:43 PM

No matter what this Bush administration does, in a few years there will be a new administration.....however, this current George W. Bush, et al is doomed to be remembered is one of the worst GOP administrations and president Bush will be listed among the worst US presidents in the history of America.

Posted by: Jose - Arizona | February 15, 2006 01:45 PM

Ok I've heard many a conservative, in trying to postively spin Cheney blasting a 78 year old man in the face with a 20 gauge shotgun, say that "at least Cheney is a real Hunter." No, he isn't. Hunters don't, in the words of Mrs Armstrong, "drive up to the covey, get out of the (luxury SUV) car and shoot." Neither do they shoot "farm-raised quail" with "clipped wings." Lazy arrogant old men do that, not hunters.

Also, In trying to defend the VP, many Conservatives are stating that Dick Cheney is the paragon of Personal Responsibility. No, he isn't. People who act personally responsible would not, For 24 hours hide behind Mrs. Armstrong's skirt and now, when forced to make a statement, hide behind the skirts of the reliably on his side conservative Fox News. If he wanted to impress me he would have gone on PBS to discuss it with Bill Moyers.

And finally, can anyone explain to me why Mr. Law and Order Republican who blasted a 78 year old man in the face with a 20 guage shotgun, was improperly licensed, refused to speak with a sheriff's deputy sent to the ranch that night (common procedure when someone is blasted in the face with a 20 guage shotgun) and was illegally (hunting from an automobile is illegal in Texas) hunting in the first place?

Anyone?

Posted by: Dock Boggs | February 15, 2006 01:46 PM

In other news: Previously unreleased (and quite disturbing) photos from Abu Ghraib can be viewed here.

Uh huh. But how about them cartoons, Emily? Where's the helpful WP link to those.

Hypocrites.

Posted by: | February 15, 2006 01:48 PM

Hey Art, as another famous Texas Republican once said, "If it's inevitable, you might as well just lie back and enjoy it."

Posted by: WTF | February 15, 2006 01:50 PM

To all the Republican apologists out there trying to deflect attention from Cheney to Kennedy's Chappaquidick incident, it's sort of like the pot calling the kettle black. It's a bunch of rich, priveliged men who are irresponsible who use their wealth to conceal and coverup their crimes and mistakes. So yes, Democrats have done the same thing, but that doesn't remove the onus on Cheney for his act of stupidity.

Posted by: Chris | February 15, 2006 01:52 PM

Thank you Cayambe. Oh, and Dock, I heard that it was a 28 gauage, not a 20. World of difference.

Posted by: D. | February 15, 2006 01:56 PM

Folks,
The fact is that there are a lot of things about this that are extraordinary. That is perhaps understandable; the people involved are extraordinary (in the unusual, not superlative sense). It is probably not too much to allow for some time to circle wagons and understand events before talking to the press. I find no fault or waiting and there are a lot of clear reasons they would have for doing so (spin, avoiding the Sunday morning shows, news cycle control, etc..). These reasons may not be real popular but they are the sorts of things we tolerate out of politicians every day.

That said, I find it bizarre that we are focusing so much on the delay in notice and hardly at all on the event itself. As has been pointed out, this was not a common case of peppering (this is the term used for when people catch the outside of a shotgun blast; please stop intimating that this term is meant to downplay the event). At the very least, Mr Cheney broke one of the most basic rules of firearm use; don't shoot at something not clearly identified. The alternative is that he did clearly identify an elderly, Texas lawyer and chose to squeeze one off anyway.

Were this to happen to anyone else... do I really need to finish this thought? Someone earlier commented at having the police leave for 12 hours and, yes, that is odd. If the victim dies, will Mr Cheney be prosecuted for negligent homicide? In Michigan, such an event would definitly head down that path. Every fall we have 750,000 people in hunter orange trapsing about the woods in search of Bambi. There are usually one or two deaths and there are always consequences to them. Often, these cases are in connection to substance use (alcohol or drugs), age, or sheer stupidity. It is as simple as this; if there are projectiles leaving your weapon, where they land is your responsibility.

Finally, since when does the American people generally approve of the type of hunting being practiced here? I eat a lot of chicken. It bothers me not at all that nearly all of it were once aminals raised in densly packed barns and killed at the right age and size. My rationalization is that these are domesticated animals that would not survive in the wild and would not have existed at all were it not for my love of the McNugget. Don't bother trying to change me... just know that due to meat consumption, I'll die before you and be out of your way. However, what Mr Cheney was doing was taking what amount to pets, dropping them on the ground, and shooting them for being the hand-fed, pen-raised creatures that they are. They were not in any surroundings familiar or understood by them and they had no chance of escape or mercy. At least poultry barns provide a consistent life. Perhaps Mr Cheney should consider doing this kind of hunting more honestly and go throw the electrocution switch over at the nearest Tyson barn. It will up his numbers and reduce the chance of hurting any more old Texas lawyers.

Posted by: Don Turnbull | February 15, 2006 02:02 PM

"Gee I guess it's better to be shot by a vise President
And live to tell about it.
Than it is to be left to drowned in a canal by a senator.
Where is your outrage over this(?)"

Put to rest in the early 1970's. Or are you saying that, after Mr. Kennedy's personal triumph against alcohol and personal troubles in 1991, that we should still hold outrage against the tragedy of 1969?

Kennedy at least came forth and made amends.

- T for Ted

Posted by: | February 15, 2006 02:08 PM

On behalf of Canadians everywhere: HA!

Posted by: Mike | February 15, 2006 02:09 PM

Dear Emily,

Read my lips. No more "I'm sorries".

'Nuff said? Why would a man who has been attacked by a press pack of wolf dogs in open course hunting 24/7 for 6 1/2 years get on his cell phone to say this way please, and hurry!

I know you all "get it". I know you all love the bloodsport in which you engage while attacking this President & his Vice, and I know the game is to bring them down.

Please don't patronize us by feigning sincerity with a question such as why couldn't he just say "I'm sorry". He could, and would, and did to the man most intimately involved. That he isn't taking your bait is of no concern to me. The longer he holds out the more I admire him.

Posted by: Pete | February 15, 2006 02:12 PM

This is the level of absurdity that the country has sunken to. Dick Cheney sends thousands of people (American and Iraqi) to their deaths on the backs of deliberate lies - but his real crime is a hunting accident which he didn't announce to the press.

Someone please tell me what I'm watching is real. Dick Cheney has just finished waltzing through five years of a de facto (just about) presidency in which he has (the short list):

- met in secret with the very oil industry patrons that put him and the nominal president (W) in power, to "shape the country's energy policy" - just when we need [b]more than ever[/b] to work on shifting over to alternative sources. He then fought all the way to SC "on principle", to keep the details of those meetings from the prying eyes of that irrelevant rabble known as the American public, which he supposedly represents.

- pushed behind the scenes for an unnecessary war that effectively "annexed" for that same industry the world's second largest oil fields. A war which has cost the average taxpayer over $1,500 and resulted in over 2,300 American deaths and 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

- deliberately and repeatedly LIED to the American public about a connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein to sell that war

- worked with Sen. Pat Roberts to "shape" the congressional investigations into his own actions regarding said war

- played a part in outing a CIA agent for political payback

The press - and in natural progression from that - the public, have given him at worst a slap on the wrist for all of this.

NOW, everyone (including many Republicans) is seemingly prepared to indict the man for a [i]hunting accident[/i]??? What level of Dali-esque hell is this? This is the [i]one[/i] "newsworthy" thing this man has done for which he deserves little or no censure. It was a freaking hunting accident people! WHY CAN'T YOU GET NEARLY THIS WORKED UP ABOUT THE TRULY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?

The more I think about I realize it this is one of those cases Freud called "displacement". Committing thousands of people to their deaths on a pack of deliberate mistruths is too appalling a crime for us to get our nervous psyches around. So we need to shift our collective subconscious outrage to something that we can at least look out without feeling dirty to be an American. And [i]that[/i] becomes Dick Cheney's official crime.

Simply amazing.

Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2006 02:21 PM

why would he have to apologies to you people that had nothing to do with the accident in the first place. He does not owe you one single apology.

Posted by: fred | February 15, 2006 02:22 PM

I still fail to see how this concerns the American people. This is a personal issue and not a single person here (including me) know the facts. We are all operating on what we have been told. So quick to judge we are.
I'm certain that everyone on this thread is a saint and has never made a mistake before.

Oh, and Kennedy didn't make amends, as he didn't serve time in prison for manslaughter.

Posted by: TJ | February 15, 2006 02:26 PM

Pardon, the stupidity of someone whining that an occurrence 38 years ago, which led headlines and occupied national media for months and ultmately cost Kennedy the chance to be a candidate for President, could be brought up in defense of a current outrage on the basis that it is no longer making headlines is so ludicrous. I don't mind differing opinions it's just the stupid irrational ones that make me want to buy Cheney more ammo and send him out hunting with more of his buddies and defenders. God, the intellect of this country, common and otherwise is just missing. In the midst of this someone will attack my grammar or my grandma, because such is the state of the union.

Posted by: Lonnie S | February 15, 2006 02:27 PM

Please stop spreading the crap about 100k Iraqi's dead. That number is still a farse.

Where were you when Iraqi's were dying at the hands of Saddam?

I'm not defending Cheney, just stop using mis-information from a biased group.

Posted by: TJ | February 15, 2006 02:30 PM

Has anyone seen a picture or video of Whittington post-shooting? I'm just saying. We have no way of knowing how seriously injured Whittington is. We don't even know if he is alive.

Posted by: Josh | February 15, 2006 02:32 PM

Anybody that dreams of comparing the Cheney incident with Teddy's is nuts. Period.

I cannot begin to understand why this is a big deal. Letterman and Leno should feel free to take potshots. Republicans made fun of all Gore for getting lost in the woods. It was funny.

This incident is admittedly more serious. It is also should be more somber. Respectable (I use the term loosely) columnists/pundits that want to cite the Cheney incident as evidence that this Administration is indeed 'Nixonian' in its methods have lost credibility.

The arrogance of the press I find truly galling. Only the premadonnas in the press corps could feel so deeply offended that Cheney did not immediately come and tell them about his unfortunate and embarrassing accident.

Americans have a strange notion that they possess some unenumerated 'right to know'. Well, no you don't.

And if Cheney (or ANYONE else) could escape an embarassing, but non-criminal, situation with as little attention as possible, more power to them.

We live in a circus.

Posted by: Jon M | February 15, 2006 02:33 PM

Dear Emily;
Do we WANT an apology from Elmer Dud? I imagine it having the same impact as an apology from a thief for stealing one of your possessions--apology accepted, what else do you plan to steal from me? Hollow, contrived apologies are worse than the original offense. I despise pandering, and the pattern this administration has demonstrated in these last five excruciatingly long years has been one of total disregard for American honor, dignity and the rule of law.
So keep your apology Dick. I don't want it. I know you aren't sorry anyway.
By the way: blaming the victim of a hunting accident is indefensible and irresponsible. The person with the gun is solely responsible for knowing his target and what lies beyond. A special thanks to the media for letting Dick get away with that as well.

Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2006 02:33 PM

Dear Emily,

The questions this raises are why, if he was so concerned for Mr. Whittington's welfare, did the VP sit down to dinner rather than boarding his helicopter and getting to the hospital himself to check on his contributors welfare. You'd think he'd be more concerned since manslaughter charges could be filed if Whittington dies. Perhaps "dinner" is a euphemism for making sure everyone is "on message". Hunters have a tendency to drink while out hunting, could this be an explanation? That would possibly explain why, when he saw the orange jacket, he chose to pull the trigger rather than disengage the bird.
Something's rotten in denmark. Even trying to blame the victim and using semantics to try to defuse the situation. Instead of being "Peppered" or "Sprayed", Mr. Whittington was shot, as evidenced by the depth of travel the pellets took, this may also suggest that less than 30yds distance was involved. He surely was cleared rather quickly, don't you think?

Posted by: Jed the hunter | February 15, 2006 02:35 PM

Cayambe,
I'm not sure what you're referencing to determine Mr. Whittington is a Democrat. Numerous internet sites refer to him as a Republican.
For example from the
From the site: http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2006/02/accidents-will-happen.html
"Reportedly this was the first occasion for the victim, Austin "millionaire attorney" Harry Whittington, 78, to go hunting with Cheney. Naturally enough he's a Republican, and not surprisingly he's a Bush appointee: a few years ago, then-Governor George Bush named him to the Texas Funeral Services Commission. If that means anything to you, it probably means Funeralgate. TFSC was the investigating body on the case of Service Corporation International, headed by Bush family friend Robert Waltrip, which had been "recycling graves" and throwing corpses in the woods. Eliza May was the director of the TFSC when the investigation began, and was fired, she claimed, on account of pressure from the Governor's office to help his friend at SCI. Her replacement? Harry Whittington. (As we've noted, SCI has gone on to better things, like being tasked to disappear the dead of Louisiana.)"
And you're correct, this is straying away from the subject of comments on "The Administration and the Law" or maybe not?

For Chris Ford:

From the National Rifle Association, how can any conservative argue with the NRA?

Chris, you could change it from "Think first. Shoot second." to "Shoot first. Think second." then it would follow your rather lengthy, but wrong argument.
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

"Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second."
also
"Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns."
The entire initial story of the shooting accident is full of holes, no pun intended. For the shot to penetrate clothing, skin, rib cage or sternum, and then to the heart with a 28 gauge at 30 yards is difficult to believe, even if the shotgun had a full choke.
Ted Kennedy had Chapaquitic and now Cheney has "Chaneyquitic". The similarities, the 12 hour delay in reporting to perhaps sober up......You can't throw that one up in Ted Kennedy's face anymore.

Cheney staff members just released a statement on the accidental shooting:
http://www.travisandjonathan.com/cheney.html

Posted by: Jamal | February 15, 2006 02:36 PM

Pete-

"Please don't patronize us by feigning sincerity with a question such as why couldn't he just say "I'm sorry". He could, and would, and did to the man most intimately involved. That he isn't taking your bait is of no concern to me."

Did he? Honest question because I haven't read every article regarding this involving Cheney because it is an unimportant issue, but how do you know? Do you have a source for this? Are you assuming the Vice President apologized because he's such a nice guy? What makes you think he apologized to the man he shot?

Posted by: Will | February 15, 2006 02:37 PM

The goons are right. *We* don't need an apology from Fudd Cheney for shooting a man.

We, the American people, need an apolgoy from Fudd Cheney for intentionally trying to cover up yet another embarassing example of abuse of power on the part of the Fudd Party. Fat, bald, violent, angry men who hold grudges. The Fudd Party.

Someone above asked why people didn't get riled up before about Cheney's lying for this and that... they did. But the mainstream media was enthralled to the WH, so they didn't bother making much of a big stink about it. They just let it all slide... because they knew that they could do nothing about it.

This is just a symbol, this moment. This is the moment when Cheney went over the heads of his own 'boss', went off the reservation, in a manner more public than past issues. This is not a bigger issue than the past lies. But it's the "At long last have you no shame" moment.

Posted by: T for Ted | February 15, 2006 02:40 PM

The real issue here has nothing to do with VP Cheney or Mr. Whittington. The real issue is that the national media has its collective nose out of joint because the Corpus Christi newspaper got the scoop on their vaunted White House press corps.

The American public could care less. Why not go look for some real news? Sheesh...

Posted by: Expatriate | February 15, 2006 02:40 PM

Josh makes a good point. Who knows? Maybe Cheney very seriously injured Whittington? Maybe he's even dead? We know very few "facts" at this point. We know there was a shooting. We know that information was withheld for a long time. And we know that the stories we've heard so far are wildly inconsistent and filled with contradictions. That's about it. I'd like to hear from a media member that has seen Whittington in the hospital.

Posted by: Jessie | February 15, 2006 02:41 PM

Will,

And what makes you think you need to know if he apologized to the man he shot?

Posted by: TJ | February 15, 2006 02:41 PM

What is right with what is wrong ? ...Seems like the right wing fundamentalists can see no wrong as long as it comes from their confused leaders..Are there still that many cowering americans fearful of their shadows who still follow this sales pitch coming from the whitehouse..Most americans who voted for Bush were played for fools by Bush and his cohorts preaching fearand it worked...if people weren't such wimps then maybe bush may not have got reelected...Ever heard the song...I'm not scared of dying , and I dont really care....Bush has created a society of jelly minded people who were scared into voting for him based on FEAR...patriotism was another factor ...what do we have for all this...CHAOS IN THE WHITEHOUSE...AFTER ALL THESE YEARS THEY STILL CANY DO NOTHING RIGHT LET ALONE ADMIT ANY WRONGDOINGS....

Posted by: cowabunga | February 15, 2006 02:43 PM

Emily asks:

"Why couldn't Vice President Dick Cheney have just said, publicly and immediately, how sorry he was for accidentally shooting Harry Whittington?"

I am not quite sure to whom, where, or when the "apologies" are owed. When a public official is involved in an accident, do apologies have to be offered beyond those immediately affected to some "amorphous general apology to the American public"? When shall that apology be offered beyond - in this case - no doubt the immediate apology or expression of regret made to the conscious victim Wittington?? Where shall that notification and expression of sorriness be made?

And what qualifies for "an apology to the American people for being human"? Are all politicians obligated by media demands to attend the public confessional for any incident?

1. "Gosh, I'm sorry the golf ball sliced and hit and injured a spectator. I'm even more sorry I didn't stop play and apologize to the spectator, the entire crowd, and then to the whole American public via the elite White House Press Corps rather than a local TV station 4 hours later!"
2. "My deep Sorrow to every person in America for socializing with Greg Norman, having some beers, slipping on some stairs, and wrenching my knee!"
3. "I will apologize for each and every soldier killed. I agree that in the new Cult of Victimhood the Left sees America as that no higher duty as Consoler-in-Chief exists that apologizing when any soldier gets killed in war - and the apoogy must immediately be made to the Master Journalists of the White House Press Corps".
4. "I choked on a pretzel. I waited over a day to inform Mr. Gregory of NBC of the event. I just hope the people can forgive me!!"

========================

Would Ms. Messner use her public pulpit to apologize to all WP readers for a mishap in her personal life? Is she obliged to?

========================

When the Presidential motorcade of Jimmy Carter T-boned a car because a cop failed to block a sidestreet due to a Secret Service miscommunication and badly injured 2 passengers, was the apology Jimmy Carter's to make, the cop, the Secret Service? Should the apology be made to the whole American people via the annointed elite of the White House Press Corps - or just to that people hurt in the accident? (No apology was made. The city admitted fault and it's insurer covered it.)

Which brings up WHAT does warrant a politician apology or for Emily Messner or any non-public official WHAT does constitute grounds for an appropriate apology beyond those immediately affected. In the case of politicians, I think apology is due beyond the "victim" - if the action reflects poorly on the obligation of office to discharge duties and conduct oneself in a manner that honors the office. For Messner, she may in her personal life extend apology past the person she "wronged" if her actions disgraced her family or profession.

=====================

I happen to agree that the Bushies are as bad as any Administration in my memory in their inability to admit to a bad decision or flawed policy. This has been noted, however, as a general flaw of our American political system and the "Gotcha! Media". The Bushies also suffer from an inability to hold people accountable for fuck-ups.

But the media serves us poorly when they fixate on trivial or irrelevant events -unrelated to the discharge of duties of someone in public office. Clinton's blowjobs or Eleanor Mondale dalliance was absolutely unrelated to his Presidential role - his lying under oath and directly to the American people were not. His reluctance to get involved in stopping the Rwandan genocide was a serious event a lapse in how Clinton saw his Presidential execution of office that he later deeply regretted - but we forget how the "Gotcha Press Corps" barely mentioned that because they were out trying to crucify Clinton at the time for getting a 100 dollar haircut on the LAX tarmac, and trying to make him publicly apologize for it.

============================

The thing I notice most in this is the MSM treatment of the Tale of 2 Vice-Presidents. One story is in full "Gotcha!" mode, the other, involving a Vice President paid by the Bin Laden Family Group and other Saudis to denounce America in the heartland of it's Islamoid enemy - is being spiked.

Al Gore is not the only whore on the Saudi tab. Bush's brother Neil was also paid by the bin Ladens to suck up in his recent speech. And Dick Durbin gave more aid and comfort to the enemy than Gore's demounciations of America in the Arab heartland. But Gore disgraced himself, his Party, and the luster and reputation of past high office as a former Veep and the man nearly elected President.

The MSM silence, near blackout in coverage, on Gore's disgraceful borderline seditious remarks speaks volumes about it.

Instead they focus on the "eviiiiiillll" Mr. Cheney who accidentally hurt one other person, not the whole country, and are now cooing with glee that they can now run more Abu Ghraib pictures to harm America instead of the cartoons they fear so much.

Posted by: Chris Ford | February 15, 2006 02:46 PM

Can anyone post a link to an article wherein a media member visited or spoke with Whittington after the shooting? How badly hurt is this guy? The WH must want a comment or picture of him if he's in good shape like they say. Thanx.

Posted by: Samantha | February 15, 2006 02:46 PM

geez, look at the press in an uproar over something so trivial. Maybe you should have a group hug with the radical Muslim's in the uproar over the cartoons.

You both seem to have some insecurties and a chip on your shoulder. You scream the White House didn't play well with us. The Muslims scream that the Danish didn't play well with them.

To both I say: Grow up!!!!!

Posted by: rlee | February 15, 2006 02:48 PM

As a proud Canadian (IE one that doesn't need to insult their friends and neighbours to feel good about their country) please excuse Mike from Canada and his "HA!" comment - he is obviously a Liberal politician that hasn't gotten the word that they are not in power any more.

But seriously, we're worried about you guys - it's kinda like watching your big brother slip into Alzheimers' and not realizing that their shitting in their own pants.

Posted by: Margie | February 15, 2006 02:48 PM

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the only person to whom Cheney requires any explanation owed is currently in the hospital?

Public officials are not public property. From all information available, the appropriate authorities were notified, an investigation conducted, and most importantly, the victim of the accident was treated quickly.

The press can go screw themselves, they are not the first priority in a crisis. Certainly not a personal one.

I look forward to the day Whittington steps out of the hospital, hopefully issuing both to Congress, and the press, a rather scathing backlash response for assuming they're "need to know" was greater than the need to ensure a positive outcome from a most unfortunate incident.

No one owes the media any response on a pre-determined timetable. The freedom of press is not a blanket obligation to keep you people in the loop 24/7. Get your goddamned priorities in order, most importantly, your friggin' place in it.

Posted by: James Buchanan | February 15, 2006 02:57 PM

I love how people try to defend Cheney by saying that it is none of our business and that Cheney owes no apology.

What a load of contrived nonsense.

Of course it is. We are the American people and he is the Vice President. He is a direct representation of our government. How elected officials act and behave on work or off has and will always be under the scrutiny of the public and the press. Why? Because the job of most elected officials can be considered a full time thing. The President, nor the Vice President, get to pick and choose when they come into work (Or at least, thats how the office is supposed to work anyway. Anyone remember their responses after Katrina?). The fact of it is, they are directly responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the American People. To show such arrogance in the face of an accident, one which is by all accounts horrible and screams of negligence, is a horrible reflection upon both himself and how he takes his role as Vice President.

So yes, he does owe the American Public an apology or at the very least, an explanation. He is not just a man who SHOT another man. He is the Vice President who SHOT a 78 year old member of his hunting group. Whether or not Whitington has anyblame is moot at this point because ultimately, Cheney pulled the trigger. Thats the problem with being in such a powerful position. You don't get to be treated like an average person. Welcome to America.

Posted by: Freedom | February 15, 2006 03:00 PM

James Buchanaan,
I'm curious on your take of the police officers being sent away for 12 hours. Was this proper procedure?

You seem to have a distorted view of America. We the People feed off of this kind of thing. Throughout the history of the nation, you will find ample scenarios in which similar, 'personal' situations have occured in which elected officials have been grilled over. Public officials ARE Public property. We elect them. We pay their salaries. We give them power. This is how our government works. Otherwise why would anyone care about what a president did in high school or college? How often he goes to church? How wholesome his family life appears?

Posted by: Freedom | February 15, 2006 03:05 PM

I think that focussing on controlling the news misses the point. There is no way that this would not come out and everyone involved knew it. In fact, announcing it Saturday night would have been ideal - it would have missed the Saturday TV news and many of the Sunday papers. One has to ask - why wait?

The only thing that would have changed between Saturday night and Sunday morning is Cheney's blood alcohol content. Texas quail hunting requires the four B's - birddogs, buckshot, bourbon, and beer. This didn't hit the news until Cheney was sober enough to face the police.

This also explains why the accident occurred at all. When hunting quail the hunters form a line. The first rule is never to shoot into or behind the line. If, as has been described, Whittington had stopped to look for a bird and was rejoining the line, Cheney would have had to have tracked a bird through and behind the line before firing. Precisely the sort of accident an alcohol fuzzed brain can cause.

Dave P

Posted by: Dave P | February 15, 2006 03:10 PM

Cheney will be interviewed by Brit Hume of Fox News about this incident. Now why I am not surprised it's Fox News? Think Cheney's staff can get the script to Brit Hume in time for him to memorize it?

Posted by: wiccan | February 15, 2006 03:13 PM

US 'let slip 9/11 hijacker 13 times'
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D41E328A-DCF7-4227-96F1-DF888EE39601.htm
Did they follow him onto Jack Abramoff's casino ship?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3

Posted by: UBL - RIP | February 15, 2006 03:21 PM

TJ above wrote:

"Please stop spreading the crap about 100k Iraqi's dead. That number is still a farse."

Just to catch you up TJ, that number is taken from a scientific study published in The Lancet, which is the most respected peer-reviewed journal in Great Britain. It came from a survey done jointly by a group from Johns Hopkins University and Iraqis on the ground. The figure is an estimate of deaths due to the war (including degraded infrastructure and health care system), IN THE FIRST YEAR AFTER OUR INVASION ALONE.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15555665

If you consider The Lancet a "biased source", then I suggest you start ignoring any of the medical advances derived from work they have published over the past few decades. Wouldn't want to be benefiting from any "biased" medicine either.

Posted by: | February 15, 2006 03:27 PM

TJ-

"And what makes you think you need to know if he apologized to the man he shot?"

Because the man he shot happens to have been an attorney from Austin, TX. Seeing as how I've spent my entire life surrounded by Texas Attorneys, more specifically Austin Attorneys, and seeing as how this shot man happens to be spoken of highly among my friends and immediate family, and seeing as how this person could die, and seeing as how I know what I would do if I accidently shot a friend of mine, it is of importance that I know whether or not the person wronged was ever apologized to by the Vice President of the United States. More specifically: 1) I have respect for Mr. Whittington. 2) If I shot someone and failed to apologize it would speak to my moral character. It is of absolute and vital importance that we know the moral character of the 2nd most powerful person in the United States of America. Do you disagree?

But, as a matter of fact, I wasn't the one who brought it up. Pete did, he said that Cheney had apologized to Whittington, and I asked the relevant question: How do you know? Did Whittington say the President had apologized to him? Did Armstrong? Has anyone? Should we assume the Vice President apologized because he is such a nice guy?

These are not "GOTCHA!" questions. If someone can post a link where Whittington says the VP apologized to him, by all means. I just want to know.

Posted by: Will | February 15, 2006 03:28 PM


I thought the canal reference was to do with the 2-3-4-5-10,000 dead (unknown, never-to-be-known) from Katrina. and RE: that's not the government's fault it's mine - and yours. Everyone reading this babbling tripe - arguing over a trigger pull - is ignoring every trigger being pulled everywhere else. And that's a lot of trigger pulling to be ignoring.

Americans are guareaunteeing the deaths of more Americans. Lemmings on the march. Look at that! ->

Clinton's need to be loved. O.J.'s problems with racist cops. Jacko's daycare. Britney's weightgain. (Thank you Moses for keeping Madonna in England.) And now Cheney's bad shot.

Paul Hackett stabbed in the back! - Forget that - A billionaire for Bush lawyer got "peppered" - hell, Cheney shoulda salted him afterward.

Bottom line, Cheney follows Rob Lowe and Charlie Sheen - There's no such thing as bad publicity. A magician's trick obscured again.

Sadly, very sadly, I have to wonder if these magicians are better than gutless fingerpointing rubes in the form of gelded Democrats.

The question is whether the hunt, bible, rust, corn belt Americans will care that Cheney was poaching, drunk, or just out killing. Too bad Cheney wasn't f***ing a quail, or Quayle, then there might be American outrage.

Personally, I hunt. And I kill. There is a difference. Birds on the wing, you lead them, and you have a fraction of a second to know the difference between a bird and a lawyer. Ground squirrels, you turn them to bloody mud. mud to ashes, ashes to mud. That's killing. Shooting birds, still in the bush - that's killing.

Trouble is, again, rather have a hunter-killer in power than a Golfer. Go figure. Shoot your own lawyer, instead of spending your day looking for your balls.

To further my rant - I don't like Nazis. I don't like Jews that use the term "The Chosen People." I don't like cartoon protesters. I don't like Christians that deny that Jesus was a Jew or black or Liberal. I don't like Blacks that use the term Nigga or Nigger. And I don't like anyone who cares about Cheney shooting anyone.

We have bigger problems.

So, let's not address any real issues, and it's not - Cheney's got a gun - the whole world's come undone.

For now, let's just put the Katrina victims into Halliburton detention centers, 'cause they may just be the first to realize that they were left to drown in a canal by the rest of the Americans.

Just Two Questions:
One, If my phone is wiretapped - will I get fewer dropped calls? And two, can I reserve my room at the Halliburton Hilton now?

Thank you, Jesus.

Posted by: Peter, the 2nd | February 15, 2006 03:29 PM

Going on FOX News is a direct slap in the face to all the prima donna media media outlets, especially the WH Press Corps. So arrogant and so partisan, why wouldn't Cheney seek friendly ground? After all, when you've got bozo's like Dana Milbank (WP)appearing on CNN in blaze orange cap & vest, any illusions of a "nonpartisan, just the facts ma'am" media are quickly put to rest.

Man looked like a parking lot attendant. Sheesh, have some pride.

So how soon before the wingnuts start positing the "second shooter on the grassy knoll" scenario?

Posted by: D. | February 15, 2006 03:30 PM

My last thought on the subject.

While I wholeheartedly agree that Cheney's accidental shooting of Mr. Whittington is a private affair, I think in keeping with national precedent we need to start up a $40 million taxpayer-funded investigation of the details of that private affair. It would also behoove the country to de-rail the Congress for the better part of 2 years in order to make sure we can find out *where* Mr. Whittington was shot, and (most importantly) whether any of the buckshot got on his clothing. I can think of nothing more relevant and urgent to the national business.

And I'd like to thank my Republican friends from across the aisle for educating me to this moral value. Without them I might have naively let the whole incident pass as if it were merely a private event.

Posted by: Mark | February 15, 2006 03:32 PM

He was not peppered with "buckshot". If he had, he'd be quite dead. Get it right.

Posted by: | February 15, 2006 03:35 PM

Why are we talking about this? Oh yeah-- we live in the 21st century world of 24 hour news cycles and instant communication, and it is a slow news week.

Cheney immediately notified the one person he had to: THE LOCAL SHERRIF.

Even you Cheney haters can agree that the one thing he is NOT is stupid. He new this would eventually come to light, he would take a few lumps, and answer it in stride.

I suspect what he did not expect was this high intensity media circus complete with allegations of a phantom cover-up. The way this has been handeled and portrayed tells us much more about the Washington press corps than Dick Cheney or Administration.

Posted by: Jon M | February 15, 2006 03:36 PM

Mark:

Clinton was facing allegations of sexual harrassment from Paula Jones. Feminists have taught us how serious of a crime sexual harrassment is, on "par" with rape.

Mr. Clinton only had to answer questions about his private life(under oath) because he was being sued by a private person. When it became clear that Mr. Clinton had lied under oath, THEN we got the whole messy (NPI) Lewinski episode.

Posted by: Jon M | February 15, 2006 03:42 PM

are you trying to point away from a pile of doo doo?


are you the kind of a little boy that steals cookies and says she did it first so it's all right to mom?


well, this is the grown up world...


when somebody is drunk and shoots a lobbyist, and doesn't tell anyone about it for 21 hours....well, they're just trying to get sober and make sure the story is tight....


and you're puttin the spin out....you're a traitor to the united states people....thanks so much for your hard work....

hope you do jail time.

Posted by: Hi Jon, you seem to know a lot about sexual indiscretions.... | February 15, 2006 03:46 PM

no. 7 or 8 shot?

chilled or coated?


probaby coated

Posted by: do you think he was using | February 15, 2006 03:48 PM

EMILY,

IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, TAKE A DUMP!!!!!

"Philip's Milk of Magnesia...When fruit just won't do the trick"

Posted by: The Lonemule | February 15, 2006 03:48 PM

Mark:

Another point. Vicent Bugliosi noted that Clinton should not have shown up for the Paula Jones civil action - then he would have been FINED and that would be the end of it. No Ken Starr, no impeachment. But could Clinton thumb his nose at "the law." No. He should have hired Dick Cheney to advise to his being above the law - but legally. Or he could have hired Dick to shoot his lawyer for him (while he was golfing).

Posted by: Peter, the 2nd | February 15, 2006 03:49 PM

Freedom.

Unless you can show me somewhere that office hours are 24 hours a day, seven days a week, then public officials do have private lives. If the American people "feed on this kind of thing", I'd suggest a change in diet. The information age is slowly degenerating us into a society of perverse voyeurs.

What would you like next, webcams in the Lincoln bedroom? Do you think there's any bearing on job performance related to which position Dubya delivers the goods to the First Lady? Enough already. These are friggin human beings, they've got flaws, they've got vices, they screw up their personal lives like the rest of us bums. I don't elect archetypes, I elect human beings. I elect people who do the job as demanded. Even soldiers spend time off duty. Always on call, but allowed to live part of their damned lives as they see fit without superior officers breathing down their neck. Elected officials have the same damned right to tell the American people, "Go to hell, I'm off for the night/weekend, the Blackberry works if there's a crisis."

If the American people are so desperate to know how the lives of someone more important to themselves than themselves (a tragedy in and of itself), then they can hit Access Hollywood for a cheap hit from the red carpet bong.

As for the police investigation, if they took statements, and the officer on the scene determined that the incident was not a malicious crime and pursued the matter more fully when the victim's condition stabilized and accepted that the persons involved were not flight risks (which from the sounds of things, they stayed put overnight and answered questions fully when asked), then yes, they probably acted within procedure. Its a judgement call, intelligent people use it from time to time. You can bet your ass if they found an egregious situation like a bunch of shitfaced politicos looking doe eyed trying to pass this off while staggering drunk, they would have busted the news themselves long before Cheney or the administration would have. Cops are like the rest of us, cynics with no use for politicians' bullshit when they step out of line.

Bottom line, if you think the American people "own" politicians, I'd suggest you stop whining about the Constitution and read the damned thing. I believe somewhere in there about a hundred and fifty years ago, ownership of human beings was criminalized. I'd hate to think we're a nation of wanted felons.

Posted by: James Buchanan | February 15, 2006 03:50 PM

hello sandy.

and Carter was driving right?


what a loser.....point away little boy,

try so hard to keep your buddies clear from the truth


go away little boy


some day, you'll real love...


go awaaaaaaaaaaayyyy little boy....

Posted by: carter motorcade? | February 15, 2006 03:52 PM

cheyney was surrounded by people...


why don't we do a lie detector test on them to see if he was inebriated...

the government doesn't own the people, they're hired by the people....

public servants....right...


not hitleresque looming figures, back off.

Posted by: hey look chimmmy | February 15, 2006 03:55 PM

is international landed, royalty...


he controls and tried to control media in Australia and around the world....he owns fox news....he's "one of them"

"above the law" but something still smell like dogshit in here is it "them"?

where's s. segal when you need him...

Posted by: Murdock, Rupert.... | February 15, 2006 03:58 PM

James Buchanan:

We are at war.

Sometimes a Blackberry doesn't cut it.

Strategic nuclear bomb in a shipping container in Washington DC? Email me, I'm shooting lawyers, I mean quail.

Dick

Posted by: Peter, the 2nd | February 15, 2006 04:00 PM

Everything that is done by the Pres or VP is news. It comes with the job. By now, Dick and George should know this. Bill knows it (he couldn't even have sex without it getting on the front page).

Posted by: Rjtj | February 15, 2006 04:02 PM

Kennedy was warned...


simon.

Posted by: we all know it was LBJ.... | February 15, 2006 04:04 PM

What Gore said for Petrodollars:

"Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.

The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States.""

Gore ignores the Inspector General Report that stated 762 Arabs were rounded up, almost all for being in the country illegally like Mohammed Atta, all but 24 were formally charged within a month, and probable cause was found for arrest in all but a half dozen cases. Gore calls, apparantly, for a restoration of the Arab "visa express" into America and and end to the tougher screening the Congress and the 9/11 Commission endorsed as critical to America's security. What he means by "terrible abuses" and "unforgivable conditions" may need clarification from his Saudi benefactors and speechwriters.

=======================

Two other bought Saudi whores besides Gore spoke. Gerhard Shroeder apologized on behalf of Europe for the publication of the cartoons and Cherie Blair commending Saudi Arabia and the Arab world for substantial progress in woman's rights, though she warned women there must combine the need to be "patient" with a desire for progress.

Both Cherie and Gerhard's remarks were priceless. Though neither denounced their own countries like Quisling Gore did for dollars, what both said was more destructively comical than the Mohammed cartoons.

"Cherie Blair, the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, urged Saudi women on Sunday to be patient in seeking their rights in the ultraconservative kingdom, saying that societies do not change overnight.
"Women must combine the desire for progress with a degree of patience. Society will not be transformed overnight," she told participants at the annual Jeddah Economic Forum in the Saudi Red Sea city.

Blair, who emphasized that she was expressing her own personal views, said that "no country in the world has achieved true gender equality".

But she acknowledged strong progress in the status of women in the conservative Muslim Gulf region.

"What we are witnessing here [in the Gulf] is an irresistible trend in which women take their rightful place nationally and internationally," she told an audience segregated into male and female sections.

Former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has criticised the publication of cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammed, by several European newspapers.
In an address at the Jeddah Economic Forum in Saudi Arabia, Schroeder called the publication "a major mistake", saying "we should return now to a reasonable and acceptable way to respect sanctities and beliefs".

Schroeder said: "I share with Muslims around the world the anger over the offensive cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, and we should turn to tolerance and respect of cultures and religions."

None of the 3 is willing to say how much gold the Saudis poured into their mitts. Previous toadies have gotten 70-150K, with Clinton getting 202K for a 1992 speech at the same summit.

I think it is a shame that "Patriot" 1957 or ErrinF can't just keep saying the same things they do and be at least paid as Saudi sluts for saying it..Some people like Gore get all the breaks....

=================================

Gore's sponsors at the The JEF 2006 sponsors include Emaar Properties as lead sponsor; Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Binladin Group, Al-Khayala (NAS), Al Hilal Group, National Commercial Bank and Xenel as diamond sponsors; Gulf One Investment Bank, Enany Group, Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (SABIC), Citigroup, Aal Taher Group, EFG-Hermes, Budget Car Rental and the Prince Sultan Foundation (Medunet) as gold sponsors; and Riyad Bank, Credit Suisse, Saudi Electricity Company, Savola Group, General Motors, Khaled Juffali and Sumitomo Chemical Asia as silver sponsors. Media sponsors include Saudi Research and Publishing Company, Al-Madina newspaper, Sky News and Al Arabiya.

========================
The Lefty fever swamps are ablaze with the usual specious, reckless charges of "drunkeness involved" in Cheney's hunting accident. Fortunately, Conservatives don't play that game except with Teddy Kennedy. Does the Lefty's speculation extend past Cheney or "drunk Bush" to Gore being drunk in Saudi Arabia when he made those remarks - as drunk as Durbin was on the Senate floor talking about America being worse than Pol Pot - or as drunk as Dean must have been when he made his "Dean Scream?". Was Saint Martin Luther King staggering drunk on his balcony when he was shot? Possibly? Is Hillary so silent on Iraq because she is being blackmailed by a conservative lesbian lover of hers?

Point being malicious speculation on any person in the total absence of evidence or past behavior well-known to all is nothing but pure malice.
===========================

"Patriot"1957 sez - "This is not "peppering" of the edge of a burst of pellet fired into the air. This was a direct shot at fairly close range that had a fairly horizontal trajectory (unless Cheney was lying down). Cheney had to have shot directly into the bush, not at a bird in the air."

Sorry, but you are ignorant of the flight path of flushed quail. You clearly don't know what game birds are normally shot on a horizontal level, and what birds are high flyers that are shot from a more vertical firing stance. A clue, "Patriot".....quail are not geese.
===================

And if any politician is required to apologize to the general public for a simple accident after immediately honoring the demands of the 24/7 annointed elite DC Press Corps - does the same obligation hold in reverse to a member of the public who harms a politician by accident??

"My name is Rhonda Spicklestein, I'm holding this National Press Conference to apologize to the American people for accidentially killing President Clinton's Labrador Buddy with my car. While Buddy did indeed have some fault in the incident, running in front of my car with no warning, I cannot escape my responsibility. I apologize for any fault I may have though I can't figure out what fault I have - but nevertheless the pain this has caused the Clinton family, Budy's dog friends, and how I might have let my own Spicklestein family and its supporters down demands public purging of any imagined sin...And of course my total abject apology for failing, after immediately contacting the police, to inform David Gregory and the White House Press Corps of this incident. It is important to always remember the family automobile can be a lethal weapon and this national tragedy only points out the danger of needless suburban driving and the need for a national dog-car avoidance training program for each and every driver, even people like me who have been driving for 50 years. So, again, I, Rhonda Spicklestein, express my sincere sorrow and remorse to the loved ones of Buddy and neglecting my primary duty to be interviewed and grilled by the press after contacting the police."

Posted by: Chris Ford | February 15, 2006 04:09 PM

Any experienced hunter knows you DO NOT put your finger on a trigger until you have cleared your line of fire. Either Cheney was drunk or he is incompentent. Judging from his personal history (a drunk driving arrest) and political history (every president he ever worked for did not win re-election or resigned - Nixon), he is both! Nobody could harm this country more than Dick Cheney has, except for the morons lined up to kiss his butt because they want some of that power or riches. Well, you won't take it with you but you will send the rest of us to hell with you.

Posted by: Joe Dirt | February 15, 2006 04:16 PM

Cheney apologizes and admits it was his fault, but still why did he let the story run for several days that it was Harry's fault and not his?

"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. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."

Why would he let his friend be a fall guy (no pun intended) for so long? Why did it take him over 12 hours to talk face to face with the police? It was an attempted cover-up, one that wasn't working. Thank you journalists, the American public, and comics. He owes Harry another apology for letting him be his scapegoat and an apology to the American Public for misleading them again.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_17;_ylt=Aj_HmeJ1hZyjilTo6.fqek1qP0AC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Posted by: Jamal | February 15, 2006 04:31 PM

The more these NRA (National Right to Assassinate) Pro-Life Killers shoot each other, the better off the world will be. Keep up the good work, Torture Veep. How about another killing trip this weekend at the same ranch? The poor shot is starting to resemble Clinton during Monicagate. One difference is that Clinton wasn't killing anything.

Why is every Republican the Bushmen know is a lobbyist?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11349649/

Posted by: Steve Dexter | February 15, 2006 04:35 PM

The issue is dead. That pretty much ends it completely. Cheney admitted fault, took blame, apologized, what more could the Press Corps want? Our thoughts should be with Harry Whittington now. Every minute spent on this story from now on is wasted.

Posted by: Will | February 15, 2006 04:35 PM

Thank you David Gregory, you're a perfect example of what an excellent journalism is. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Jamal | February 15, 2006 04:38 PM

If, though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly life is promised to me. Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is the lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself.

I willl describe around me a picture and shadow of virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail the subtle and crafty fox...


But...I hear someone exclaiming that the concealment of wickedness is often difficult; to which I answer, no thing great is easy.....With a view to concealment we will establish secret brotherhoods and political clubs. And there are professors of rhetoric who teach the art of persuading courts and assemblies; and so, partly by the persuasion and partly by force, I shall make unlawful gains and not be punished.


Plato, The First Republican.

Posted by: vox populi.... | February 15, 2006 04:44 PM

James Buchanan-
You seemed to have missed my point. Using the slave analogy is a horrible one as that is not what a politician is. They don't have to be a politician and can step down if they do so desire. But to be a politician is to be an appointed figure of the people. To keep power, one must reflect their base's views and desires. to do otherwise is to destroy their chances of maintaining what power they have. By the very logic of being elected and paid by the American people, they become the American people's property, until they decide they no longer want the power or switch base. This train of thought is the basis by which campaigning is based upon. Cater to the bases, and try to sell youself to more voters than any other guy.

To be an elected official is to be under the constant scrutiny of the people. You are not always judged or elected based upon your political policies/work ethics. Despite how much I wished that's how America was run, its not. There's a reason why to 'come out' as a politician is damn near political suicide in this country. No where is it written that you must vote based only on what someone does in their 'office hours.' As a professor I once had in college liked to note when speaking of politics and the media, his mother voted soley on the factor of which one looked the most like JFK. Politics and work ethic isn't enough. Bush has a large backing of people who support him not for his policies, but for where and when he worships.

This is how the American people are and probably always will be. From a PR standpoint, Cheney should have come out immeadiately with the information. As a politician, especially one at that level, it is damn near PR suicide to not break the news yourself or offer a follow up explanation to the breaking story. Especially with the political climate as it is today. Delaying it or hiding it screams to the media and the public "this is more than an accident," regardless of whether or not it is. You can see just by the stories run and the gravity of them, Cheney is not judged by the American people like an average man.

And in the political world, employment is a full time job. Like any celebrity, anything that you do or say is subject to public scrutiny for the sole reason that you're larger than life. People that vote for you want to make sure that you are their man. Not some pretender with bad ethics/morals/beliefs in your free time. This applies especially to the president and co. They are who 'we've' chosen to govern and protect us. There's a reason that Bush's actions following 9/11 and Katrina were broadcast and analyzed in depth. People want to know that at any given moment, their officials are doing the right thing and can protect them or help them if necessary.

On a side note, I'd like references to where I whine about the constitution. I see the comment "We the people..." but I would hardly interpret that as whining. If so or if there are others, please let me know so I can choose my words more carefully in the future. Whinning is not my goal and I would hate to create a false image.

The only thing I've seen that I would construe as whining persay, is your desperate attempts to protect your boy from scrutiny.

Posted by: Freedom | February 15, 2006 04:48 PM

it's quality not volume....


shit stinks....

refering to what is in front of you, would be better than trying to tarbaby it....

drunk VP, shoots self in foote.

Posted by: hey sandeeDee...akachrisfordtoday.... | February 15, 2006 04:49 PM

or the Iraqi's I'd say he's right!

timeline:

Bush Sr. CIA, Panama, Noriega

Bush Sr. Desert Scam, Hussein, Madelaine Albright, Kuwait OIL

Bush Jr. "Remember 9/11" "Remember the Maine," "Remember the Alamo"

Remember the Alamo got us California, and Texas

Remember Silverado, and daddy bailing Neil Bush's ass out of a felony charge on that one?


yes, let's bring up the past that has led us to today...


punk.

Posted by: Hello, since it wasn't the arabs that blew up the world trade center... | February 15, 2006 04:54 PM

Was he drinking or was it all the drugs he's on? Or could it have been that he was trying to impress his mistress Pamela Willeford by shooting a pen-raised quail. Chicks really dig a guy that can kill a pen-raised bird that thinks you've come to feed it.

Posted by: eddiesharp | February 15, 2006 04:58 PM

Just read the story on MSN on Cheney's interview. Without reading the actual transcript or seeing it on TV, I'd say this probably will go a long way to calming things down and saving Cheney PR-wise. The man comes off as too sterile/harsh, and being somber and saying that it was 'the worst day of his life' will go far in humanizing him. That is, of course, assuming no other information surfaces to contradict anything he says and the one or two flaws of the story aren't probed too deeply.

Posted by: Freedom | February 15, 2006 05:04 PM

you've come to feed them...

that would pretty much describe how bush got the "moron vote" wouldn't it?


MORON VOTE GETTER: testytosterone, patriotizm(like nazi-ism only sneakier), guns, gawdz on yer side...sounds little like mohammed dont it?

we'll kill 100K iraqi's but keep the gays from getting married to support your homophobia, we'll make it legal to use teflon coated bullets and buy assault weapons even though the amount of murders committed with guns last year is 2.5 times the amount of people purported to have died in 9/11....and we'll throw in not allowing you to get recompense from gun manufacturers regardless of what they do to sell firearms, and throw in gawd is on your side....


only a good ANTICHRIST-ian can use gawd like the romans did...

Posted by: killing pen raised birds that think..... | February 15, 2006 05:12 PM

Jeff Mullen wrote:
"Cheney's mea culpa on Fox won't be birdshot, but it's one letter away. "

We have a winner, folks! What's his prize, Emily?

Posted by: james | February 15, 2006 05:37 PM

"Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe the only person to whom Cheney requires any explanation owed is currently in the hospital?" Not exactly ...

Cheney owes:
1. An apology to Whittington. That's between them, and I'll leave it that way.
2. An explanation to the American people for why he obstructed justice and refused to participate in a proper police investigation for 12 or more hours, and why he was above the law.
3. An explanation to the police as to how an apparently level shot into the bush was "bird" shooting, and why he was hunting from a car without proper certifications.

The police owe the American people an explanation for why they allowed Cheney to be above the law ansd impede their proper investigation. It was for the police to determine if Cheney was physically/emotionally fit enough to answer questions that night.

Too bad Ken Starr isn't running an investigation here. Might be interesting to see the Secret Service under oath testifying as to whether or not any alcohol was involved that night.

Posted by: patriot1957 | February 15, 2006 05:38 PM

Why is so much time wasted talking about Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. Make it simple... dress them in orange jump suits, shackle them and deliver them to The Hague... to stand trial for crimes against humanity. This would end all this silly speculation about things already known, and have the added bonus of showing the world that the USA really does believe in justice.

Posted by: David Evans | February 15, 2006 05:41 PM

deliver them to the hague, and liquidate their estates, and daddy's too, refreshing the


General Fund...

let that be a warning to future users.


.

Posted by: I agree.... | February 15, 2006 05:54 PM

both Froomkin and Gene R. had good column headlines, but Gene had the best first line of anyone:
"I told you people Dick Cheney was dangerous." ("told" in italics)

Posted by: re informal survey | February 15, 2006 05:59 PM

Why should you demand Cheney get before a hostile press and say he is sorry he shot his friend, when anyone with a brain has already figured that out. You and the rest of the press seem to think that rather than be concerned about the well-being of his friend and his family, he should be worried that he didn't tell you first. You and most of the press are being so juvenile and idiotic about this that it is almost unbelievable....but so predictable.

Where is your outcry against Edward Kennedy for leaving the scene of an accident, not sending or seeking help for the poor drowning girl, and the whole thing about not reporting the accident until the next day, etc., etc.

Gee! Sure sorry Cheney didn't tell you how sorry he is - we all know it already.

Posted by: Patricia | February 15, 2006 07:16 PM

This is completely nonsensical. All this foaming at the mouth over a tragic accident.

Cheney immediately notified the local sherrif. Less than 24 hours later the Wash. press corps was briefed.

We have Iran on the verge of acquiring nukes, Islamo-fascists torching embassies, illegal leaks of a top secret NSA program, and a looming budget crunch due to soaring entitlement costs. And yet some people want to pretend an isolated hunting accident is news.

This week the Washington press corps has earned the esteem in which they are held.

Posted by: Jon M | February 15, 2006 07:24 PM

how dare you petulant one!!!!


it's up to us to help the world be a better place to live in....


and protecting looters disguised as leaders is really poor thinking...

why don't you leave off your pathetic cover-up attempts and turn a friend in?


save us all having to arrest him in 3 weeks.

Posted by: what a little wanker..... | February 15, 2006 07:34 PM

The Administration's focus now (after Cheney's interview) seems to be to distract us by accusing the press of hounding an honorable and innocent man. The party line is to paint the press's attention as an hysterical witch hunt. Did anyone catch Bay Buchanan on Lou Dobbs tonight?

Posted by: wiccan | February 15, 2006 07:51 PM

I don't understand what the big deal is. Someone got hurt in a hunting accident. On the other hand, when Teddy Kennedy negligently operated a vehicle and caused the death of a passenger, I don't recall him having apologized. Plus he went to the police well after any blood alcohol would have been unmeasurable with the technology of the time, whereas Cheney's accident victim was immediately tended to by medical personnel. Kennedy not only got to keep his Senate seat but was re-elected up until the present day. Cheney is being hounded by partisans in the media. End of story.

Posted by: George | February 15, 2006 08:09 PM

OK...enough already. For you jugheads who see a conspiracy when Bush/Cheney takes a shit, get a grip...there is no there there...no apology to the prissies in the WH media corps is needed, nor should one be offered. What's next? Karl Rove left a racing stripe in his boxers and sent to to be cleaned without warning the laundry staff? We need an apology...publicly, of course. Andy Card purportedly cursed at a taxi driver for cutting his car off in NW? He must immediately go to the altar of real truth - the WH press corp - and grovel for forgiveness. Do you idiots really believe this stuff? Here's an idea...get back to work and stop wasting your employers time and money for your internet jollies. Wait a minute...I want an apology for this you thieves!!! You're stealing company resources!!! Get on your knees and beg for forgiveness...NOW!!! Losers...

Posted by: Will | February 15, 2006 08:18 PM

Am I the only one who's completely appalled by how disgracefully our the American media's behaving? Visiting the CBS news website was completely unfortunate!, even al Jazeera's not this vile and insensitive.

We keep reading about the various "jokes" the comedians are awash with. Why? Because another human being is fighting for his life in Texas? Jokes are all of a sudden popular?

It is true that this is a non-story and waste of time and energy by our futile media, but the lack of class and utter distaste with which white house press corps have behaved is indeed news! Scott McClellan ought to take some lessons from donald Rumsfeld on how to tame this limelight-thirsty thugs who pose as journalists.

Funny how Americans now have to flock to foreign websites to read NEWS about stories that affect their lives, but not in our own media? funny and shameful.

Posted by: Adam | February 15, 2006 08:56 PM


George wrote:

"I don't understand what the big deal is. Someone got hurt in a hunting accident. On the other hand, when Teddy Kennedy negligently operated a vehicle and caused the death of a passenger, I don't recall him having apologized. Plus he went to the police well after any blood alcohol would have been immeasurable with the technology of the time, whereas Cheney's accident victim was immediately tended to by medical personnel. Kennedy not only got to keep his Senate seat but was re-elected up until the present day. Cheney is being hounded by partisans in the media. End of story."

You have to realize, its true Ted Kennedy never apologized.....and he never made it to the White House or even got his parties nomination.

Will,

Has nothing to do with Bush/Cheney bowel movements. The idiot (Cheney) is a liar and most Americans and journalists were smart enough to call him on it and keep the pressure on him, except for a few idiots like you. Now get back to work.

Posted by: Jamal | February 15, 2006 09:03 PM

above the cold steel death-pipe his eye tracks the bird in flight...


is it a bird, or a screaching news reporter in the eye of his mind? or maybe a cantankerous, democratic eohippus speaking in unknown tongues...but enough about endoplasmic reticulums and their ilk...

POWEE!! OWEE! the conspiratorial necon projectiles festoon themselves with flourescent orange kite-tails as they enter Dick`s "friend"....


don`t believe anything...eat dog food....it makes one strong and clever


now you know, my children...

Posted by: your freestyle really, really sucks | February 15, 2006 09:32 PM

the legless pumkin mutters to himself as the conservative hemp farmer dances seductively...

when you`re, like a gourd or something...

the macarana is one more vociferous validation of a static existence...


you know what I`m getting at...use it to your advantage when...hey....Dick, I`m a friggin` poet, man...put the death-pipe down...AARGGHH!

Posted by: more on this in 22 hours | February 15, 2006 10:07 PM

Jamal, need another forum to spew on Cheney/Bush? Check out moveon.org...it's a great site and you'll be right at home with the rest of the Bush/Cheney/Area 51 conspiracy loons.

Posted by: Will | February 15, 2006 10:08 PM

I'll pay attention to you later, until then...


try and put a little something in there to eat...


like a thought.

Posted by: oh aren't you the sweetie... | February 15, 2006 10:33 PM

To the anonymous commenter above who accused me of a double standard for linking to the photos of Abu Ghraib but not to the Mohammed cartoons: If you read more than just this post, you'd see that I did link to them, at the top of a post titled "Should U.S. Media Reprint the Cartoons?"

By all means, my covert friend, have a look.

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/02/cartoon_controv.html

Posted by: Emily Messner | February 15, 2006 10:37 PM

macrena is movement.

vociferous refers to voice or sound...


now if you'd said uulate....that would've been sheerness...

throat singers of tuva...

golgi bodies snatching your peals...

Posted by: ps....like dude.... | February 15, 2006 10:41 PM

4 Words: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE
Please, no-one is exempt, oh...wow, what if he died or dies from complications? Enough, just stop.... actions speak louder than words. We (the public)don't need elementary definitions, too late excuses, or reminding, we really aren't stupid. It's all bad. What excuses anyone from stupidity? If you want some answers, please make Cheny answer for the Katrina Crisis, Iraq, Enron and other more pressing issues. Yes, he needs to go away, & it saddens me that I am a republican.

Posted by: Ponitayl | February 15, 2006 10:56 PM

Freedom,
"By the very logic of being elected and paid by the American people, they become the American people's property, ..."

I swear by the illusion of Holy Heaven Above, if that isn't precisely the definition of a "slave", I don't know what is. Finally I understand why they are bought and sold so easily and often. Really Freedom, it is hardly James who doesn't get the point.

"As a professor I once had in college liked to note when speaking of politics and the media, his mother voted soley on the factor of which one looked the most like JFK."
Really... and did he perhaps inherit the same process of political judgment himself? Passed it on to you maybe?

"Politics and work ethic isn't enough."
Well, lets see. How about Scoop Jackson, Bill Proxmire, Moynihan, Barry Goldwater, Eugene McCarthy, and a few more known to be direct, contrary if necessary, quite principled, and not nearly as handsome as JFK.

"This is how the American people are and probably always will be." Oh bullshit. I'm an American person and I'm not that way and I'm not going to be. Are you?

Thank goodness a lot of us aren't like your "American people". Give it a rest.

Can't the damn Democrats here get on to something more substantial than character assassination, PR techniques, and campaign mechanics? You know, like what they would do if they actually had the power, where they would take the country (specifically). In other words, what are the technical specifications of the product are you all are going to sell?

Posted by: your customer | February 15, 2006 10:58 PM

destroying the mind puppets with relentless...


methodology...

of listening, not talking.

check this out from Rumi:


...If you want to learn secrets your heart must forget shame....

...
And not knowledge: walk with those innocent of that: faces inside fire.


birds nesting near the seacoast, earning
their living: servants to the ocean.


There is a sun within every person, the you we call companion.

.


let me know if you can see the horizon.

Posted by: coherence is the object of extravagance... | February 15, 2006 11:01 PM

why does it have to be democrats...


crooks a crook....just cuz your boy sucks the big one and you hold it...


well, listen closely...

let go.

Posted by: hey penny whipper.... | February 15, 2006 11:04 PM

that...


you wish.

Posted by: I mean, can you touch... | February 15, 2006 11:22 PM

EMILY!!!!!

It won't hurt a bit....Just sh@t!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: The Lonemule | February 15, 2006 11:35 PM

Will, I'm not sure what bubble you live in, but there are many things to justifiably spew about with this administration. As for conspiracy, I've explained since Monday why Cheney was at fault only to be verbally assaulted by Chris Ford and today Cheney basically confirmed what I explained, including a little drinking. The only conspiracy was trying to frame poor Harry Whittington as the party responsible for his own shooting, but that does not bother you at all.

And please check out http://www.redstateupdate.blogspot.com/ to join the rest of your redneck good ole boys.

All Bill Clinton did was have a strong economy, balance the budget, and pretty much keep the country at piece and all you did was cry for eight years what a terrible job he was doing.

Posted by: Jamal | February 15, 2006 11:48 PM

ahhhhhhh, my sources say, he was brain wiped, mixed meds/beta-blockers and drinking,

thought his buddy was Jimmy Stewarts, Harvey the pooka, a 6 foot tall rabbit, and thought he'd cop some hassenpfeffer....when his vision cleared....he realized that his fantasies had overrun his temporal lobe...

called the prez on an encrypted phone....George weenie boy bush said, speaking from years of experience said: "Best wait until it's out of your system, they're gonna blood test you, you don't want to go down for manslaughter...."

Posted by: Actually..... | February 16, 2006 12:00 AM

Thought that came to mind about the hunting set up - the "hunting" that has no sport in it

both the President and the VP only like the rigged game - crony capitalist private sector jobs, elections run by partisan hacks, public figures who will not answer to the public, speeches only before friendly partisans, no-compete contracts for private sector cronies, justifications for war that ignore the facts, laws they just don't bother with ..

no wonder when the game can't be rigged - 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, national budget problems - they're just out of their league, and the nation suffers more

Posted by: Mill_of_Mn | February 16, 2006 12:01 AM

Emily -

You hit the nail on the head. This Administration is incapable of admitting mistakes. Clinton was able to save himself by that simple human gesture. Remember Fonzie from Happy Days? Cunningham, I was wrrrrwrrrwrrr. He couldn't admit to being wrong. At the least the Fonz was cool, meant well, and made the world a better place with his existence. This administration has contributed virtually nothing positive at all to the human condition. His father did as much as I disliked him on most issues. Same with Reagan. Hell, even Herbert Hoover contributed to famine relief in the Ukraine. Nixon created the EPA, OSHA, and facilitated detente. I have no regard for Reagan, Bush 41, Hoover, and Nixon but one can find redeeming features in their service. Can't say the same for Bush/Cheney.

http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

http://www.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal | February 16, 2006 12:10 AM

I have to agree with the Lonemule, this topic is a "waste." It was a bad accident, and very embarrassing for both involved.

I can't believe the number of posts so far.

Posted by: johnnyg in NE DC | February 16, 2006 01:07 AM

Jamal - "As for conspiracy, I've explained since Monday why Cheney was at fault only to be verbally assaulted by Chris Ford and today Cheney basically confirmed what I explained, including a little drinking."

You deserve to be "verbally assaulted" or whatever Lefty whine works for you, Jamal because you say stuff like this:

1. "Why did it take him over 12 hours to talk face to face with the police? It was an attempted cover-up, one that wasn't working."

That would be the coverup the cops were informed of 1 hour after the shooting? That would be the fact that the cops wanted all the witnesses to the shooting to come in at 10 AM and CHeney said "how about 8 AM"? I suppose you could say that asking to come in 2 hours earlier was a clever attempt at coverup because the cops would be munching donuts and not at their intellectual peak...

2. "The idiot (Cheney) is a liar and most Americans and journalists were smart enough to call him on it and keep the pressure on him, except for a few idiots like you. Now get back to work."

Sounds like Lefty verbal assailing...*whine*

3. "Ted Kennedy had Chapaquitic and now Cheney has "Chaneyquitic". The similarities, the 12 hour delay in reporting to perhaps sober up......You can't throw that one up in Ted Kennedy's face anymore."

Slur. The shooting incident was reported to police as soon as Whittington had been treated and sent to the nearest medical center (by 7:00PM) - the "possibly drinking" is just a gratuitous smear. Sort of like saying Rosa Parks was "possibly giving blowjobs" before she boarded her bus. And the Chapaquiddick analogy is inappropriate because it was over 12 hours before police were notified and 13 hours before rescue divers were in the water.

I repeat:

The Lefty fever swamps are ablaze with the usual specious, reckless charges of "drunkeness involved" in Cheney's hunting accident. Fortunately, Conservatives don't play that game except with Teddy Kennedy. (And that speculation was based on Teddy Kennedy not only being observed drinking heavily at the infamous Vineyard party, but being observed sloppy drunk on several other occasions that summer).

Does the Lefty's speculation extend past Cheney or "drunk/coked up Bush" to Gore being drunk in Saudi Arabia when he made those remarks - as drunk as Durbin was on the Senate floor talking about America being worse than Pol Pot - or as drunk as Dean must have been when he made his "Dean Scream?". Was Saint Martin Luther King staggering drunk on his balcony when he was shot? Possibly? Is Hillary so silent on Iraq because she is being blackmailed by a conservative lesbian lover of hers?

Point being malicious speculation on any person in the total absence of evidence or past behavior well-known to all is nothing but pure malice. Malice aimed at serving the poltics of the smear and the politics of personal destruction..

====================
The MSM blackout of Gore's Saudi Arabia speech is disgusting.

Posted by: Chris Ford | February 16, 2006 01:13 AM

picking my peasantly way low along literary art`s cobbled, mountain path...

how I ached to stride the glassy expanse of intellectual marble fishboned neatly just above me...


uulating...a little...gingerly...

when golgi bodies snatched my peals...

again...

pealessly reeling into the abyss, taunted by the mocking of flatulent pseudo-angels clad in mohair space suits

until silence...

open this profane sarcophagus! I wish to walk a bit further...again

Posted by: 22 hours in a rhetorical fashion | February 16, 2006 01:26 AM

"Ready, Shoot, Aim!"

That best expresses the Gestalt.

Read the Cheney interview with Hume, the weakest link was the reason to use Armstrong to report the incident.

Hume gave one of the more plausible reasons for doing it in one of his questions, highlighted in the Post From commentary on why Hume:

Hume added that "the suspicion grows in some quarters that this was an attempt to minimize it, by having it first appear in a little paper."

David Brooks a notable spinmeister himself, points out the role of liberal spin on the matter, point well taken. Now, is he willing to take the same critical look at himself and his allies, who have taken spin to new low whitewash cycles, on far more significant issues than this unfortunate shooting mishap?

Even, George F. Will in his look at the ridiculous justrification for warrantless NSA wiretapping, that "gives him a headache" in today's paper looks like Diogenes (at least for a day) compared to some of the talking heads in this town. I like best Broder's piece today on the ethics and public service of Stanley Tupper, whidh might have been headlined, "Tupper Wears Well."

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 03:56 AM

I think that Millbank comes to a similar conclusion about these folks in his sketch today, "Responsibility with an Asterisk*":

Cheney, similarly, said the way he handled disclosure of the shooting -- leaving a private citizen to announce it to a local newspaper the next day -- was spot-on. "I thought that was the right call," he said. "I still do."

Since Bush won the presidency in 2000 with a promise to usher in a "new era of personal responsibility," a public acceptance of culpability is de rigueur when something goes wrong.

But admitting mistakes is an entirely different matter. That could convey weakness and, as such, is to be avoided entirely. Hours after branding the federal response to Katrina "unacceptable," for example, Bush qualified that by saying, "I am satisfied with the response. I'm not satisfied with all the results."

Cheney, speaking to Fox News yesterday

Just as in Abu Ghraib, General Geoffrey Miller (the numerary) a designer of the policies gets off scot free and some minor functionaries (supernumeraries) took the fall. This pattern repeated again and again, except for "Brownie."

Being an old fashioned liberal, I somehow would like to resurrect the Henry Fonda presidential character in "The Best Man," heck Joe Cantwell his rival for the nomination (who invents the threat of a Communist Mafia as a platform to run on) even looks like Bush and sounds like Karl Rove.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 07:00 AM

This whole incident has turned into an ugly portrait of media entitlement. VPOTUS's office chose to respond in their own way and own manner and the media is upset because they weren't told first. It is so ridiculous.

It was a private hunting trip. I'm sure the VP was devastated that he accidently shot someone. I can't imagine that's a good feeling and I have to also imagine he was thinking of the state of his friend's well-being rather than, "Oh, David Gregory will want to know about this."

This whole situation is a spotlight on the problems within the media industry rather than the indictment of Cheney that so many wish it were.

Please, move on to the genocide that is occuring in Darfur and how Koffi Annan let it happen. Hundreds of thousands of people being murdered is more of an issue than the VP's hunting accident.

Posted by: KJM | February 16, 2006 07:31 AM

I don't think the press would have been quite so confrontational and antagonistic concerning the Veep's little shooting spree if not for one key consideration: Scott McClellan is simply the worst press secretary that this nation has ever witnessed. I feel for the WH press corps, having to sit through his non-answers every day.

Posted by: Boomer | February 16, 2006 08:08 AM

How about moving on to Dafur, period. As for the VP sounding sorry, I'll grant you that, but the incident encapsulates an ethos. Certainly, the incident itself, is small potatoes, the pattern itself from Iraq to Abu Ghraib, to Katrina, is not. I'd rather folks drew lessons from the latter and forgot the former. But, apparently remembering the former, becomes short-hand for the latter, as well. So it serves some useful purpose.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 08:11 AM

The same news outlets like Fox "News" who gleefully showed the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, in the name of Free Speech, refuse to show Torture photos at the Abu Graib! Hypocrites! If there really were Islamoid terrorists, they would drive truck bombs up to the media's glass houses in NYC and DC. It isn't just the cartoons. Its the torture, the violence, the airstrikes, the terror. Saddam is rightly on trial for ordering the killing 148 Iraqi Civilians after an assassination attempt, but George WMD Bush is plotting an attack on Iran after ordering the killing of 250,000 Iraqi civilians because they tried to kill his dad. The same newspapers gleefully waving around the cartoons of the holy Prophet Mohammed in the name of free speech, don't publish photos of the caskets of US Troops returning home, of Iraqi "collateral damage", the Torture, the beatings, etc. The actions of the Zionist US Corporate State Controlled Media are those of traitors to the American people. I'm all for non violence but its getting to the point where the US Government and its Corporate Media should be tarred, feathered, and strung up on light posts!

Posted by: Rebellion To Tyrants | February 16, 2006 08:14 AM

Some gossip: I heard that Cheney was there with his mistress, Pamela Willeford, and the reason for his delay was so she could be spirited away.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060215/cm_huffpost/015705;_ylt=A86.I0S.SvNDIhEA1g39wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Posted by: Turnabout | February 16, 2006 09:15 AM

1. Chris: "You deserve to be "verbally assaulted" or whatever Lefty whine works for you, Jamal because you say stuff like this:"

Chris, I don't expect any apology from you, but you've been wrong on this entire shooting incident, be a man, a human and admit you've been wrong. Perhaps you can give some first hand insight why "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word"

2. Chris: "That would be the cover-up the cops were informed of 1 hour after the shooting? That would be the fact that the cops wanted all the witnesses to the shooting to come in at 10 AM and CHeney said "how about 8 AM"? I suppose you could say that asking to come in 2 hours earlier was a clever attempt at coverup because the cops would be munching donuts and not at their intellectual peak..."

Seems like your saying that if the hunting party didn't report it, it would never have been reported? From the mere act of taking Whittington with a gun shot wound to the hospital the shooting was going to be reported, that is the law.
Local law enforcement wanted to see Cheney the evening of the shooting, but the secret service "negotiated" with local law enforcement to delay the Cheney interview until the following day.

3. Chris: "Sounds like Lefty verbal assailing...*whine*"

As a moderate Democrat and not a left or right wing extremist like you, I agree with your assessment of Ted Kennedy. As for the rest of your post, do you want some cheese with it?

Posted by: Jamal | February 16, 2006 09:38 AM

Are you people still prattling on about this? Was there a second shooter behind the grassy knoll? Come on, there are better things to piss away your time with.

Emily - How come the WP saw it appropriate to publish new Abu-Ghraib photos but not the Mohammed cartoons? Its getting clearer what side the MSM is on (I know, I know, but you support the troops!)

Posted by: D. | February 16, 2006 09:51 AM

You know, you ultimately reach a point where you sort of become jaded to all of this. You think, surely Bush and Cheney will take to heart some of the criticism they are getting and at the very least express some little whit that their low national poll numbers carries a message that they ought to pay attention to: that when you are in a deep, stinking hole, for God's sake stopp digging!

The idea that Dick Cheney is going to put all of this to bed by going to a known flack for the administration, who works for a network that all but announces that it is in complete thrall to Bush-Cheney is sort of like Josef Goebbels consenting to an interview with the Volkischer Beobachter.

Look. Mary Matalin is Dick Cheney's press secretary. Anyone familiar with that shrewish vamp knows that Bush or Cheney could tak a dump in the Rose Garden and she would spin it as a fertilization exercise. In fact, she would pronounce the bouquet.

No. It isn't the mainstream media at fault here. It is a corrup, arrogant, imperial administration led by two secretive, megalomaniacal ideologues whose first instinct when any bad news approaches is to duck, hide, dodge and seek out a friendly forum where they know they will have a sympathetic audience of gullible, brain dittoheads who believe their asses are made of burnished gold. And Brit Hume has a wealth of experience in burnishing the asses of conservative republican politicians.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 16, 2006 10:09 AM

For the record (especially to Jamal)-

I post here a lot so I hope you all can tell the difference between posts made by me and posts made by someone shoplifting my name (though it's a pretty common name so I guess I can't blame anyone for stealing it). I didn't write any of that garbage about bowel movements, or moveon.org. That's someone else.

Posted by: Will | February 16, 2006 10:27 AM

I do agree with the right on one point: There are far more important issues we ought to be discussing. But those issue point to far more sinister activities on the part of this monumentally corrupt and incompetent administration.

Both Bush and Cheney subscribe to the dangerous political philosophy that the Executive Branch has exclusive power over the conduct of foreign policy. That, despite the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the power to ratify treaties, declare war and appropriate funds for the execution therof.

Both Bush and Cheney subscribe to the dangerous political philosophy that the Executive Branch has exclusive power to define the meaning of the word torture and the phrase prisoners of war notwithstanding the fact that those phrases were explicitly defined in International Treaties to which this government is a signatory and which Congress has ratified.

This Vice President has declared that he has the power to declassify classified information absent any oversight from any other branch of government in direct contravention of the laws that Congress has set down and the courts have declared Constitutional.

Somehow though, I suspect that what the right has in mind as a more important issue is Al Gore's windy pronouncements in Saudi Arabia--an opinion protected under our Bill of Rights, and coming from a man who has no power whatsoever to affect the sort of dangerous assaults on our Constitution that the Bush-Cheney regime has done.

Trust me. The right has no interest in calling Bush-Cheney to account for their unConstitutional power grab. What will be their position if Bush-Cheney are successful and by happenstance the next President is a democrat? They will find that absolute power, once conferred upon an office, is not so easily taken back.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 16, 2006 10:31 AM

I don't know about you Will, or any of the other posters on this blog, but I believe the phrase "bowel movement" is a perfectly representative analogy of just what the Bush-Cheney administration does to the American people.

Posted by: Jaxas | February 16, 2006 10:36 AM

To Peter the 2nd

Respectfully, yes, we are at war, and Dick Cheney's not the President. I remind you that even in wars past, presidents and vice presidents managed to have private lives while said wars were underway. And lets make sure we're clear here, even if there were a crisis, the operational procedure would be to get the President for leadership, and lock the Veep in a dungeon for safekeeping. It would be a slightly different story were he the President. Only slightly.

Let me be also clear that my support for the Veep is limited to this particular incident. He absolutely has a lot to answer for to the American people. What separates me from a lot of the Cheney bashers here in this blog boils down to the fact that I draw the line at applying guilt where guilt is present. The fact that he's a screwed up individual in his politics is not immediate grounds to simply say anything he screws up is out of malice and callousness.

Regrettably, critical thought is in far shorter supply in this country than oil refining capacity.

Posted by: James Buchanan | February 16, 2006 11:14 AM

Your customer,
Did you actually read my post or are you trying to flame? Because honestly, the ineptitude in your comments is astonishing.
""By the very logic of being elected and paid by the American people, they become the American people's property, ..."

I swear by the illusion of Holy Heaven Above, if that isn't precisely the definition of a "slave", I don't know what is"

You seem to have left out the clause where I mention that if they don't like being a property of the public, they can resign from office and pursue other means of employment. Last I heard, slaves were never able to legally do that. But who am I to get in the way of you picking and choosing parts of an explanation. As a politician, someone the American people choose, they become property in the sense that they 'sell' themselve to the public to get votes, based on what they offer. Unfortunately, with the state of the union and the media, this is both during conventional office hours and before and after. Most people want to make sure the perrson they allow to govern them is an actual representation of their beliefs, 24/7.

""As a professor I once had in college liked to note when speaking of politics and the media, his mother voted soley on the factor of which one looked the most like JFK."
Really... and did he perhaps inherit the same process of political judgment himself? Passed it on to you maybe?"

Excuse me, but where did I insinuate this? If anything, I claim the opposite by opening the subject with the statement, "You are not always judged or elected based upon your political policies/work ethics. Despite how much I wished that's how America was run, its not." Again, I apologize for getting in your way of picking and choosing out of context statements, but let me remind you this is a forum where my statements can actually be read in context.

"Politics and work ethic isn't enough."
I still stand by this statement. Do you really think that when the candidates were running, no one looked at their backgrounds? No discussion of their family lives? No look into their college years? No discussion about whether or not they once used drugs and if they did or did not inhale? These things are important to people. Otherwise you wouldn't have so many corporations that are devoted to advertising and public relations. I'm sorry, but if you honestly think that advertising doesn't work, which is basically PR, then I don't know what world you're living in.

And finally, "This is how the American people are and probably always will be." Oh bullshit. I'm an American person and I'm not that way and I'm not going to be. Are you?"
I'd like to say I'm not, because I realize it exists and actually make myself look at cold, hard facts. But do you really think that it has no effect on the public at large? PR is a major part of how our society chooses elected officials. People care what religion you are. People care what your military record is and what people around you say about how you served. People care about what you did in college. People care about who you prefer sexually. All of these things, many from outside the life of the office, are important to people in judging your character. To say otherwise is to actually deny proof from the media around you, human nature in general, and general discussion over politicians lives from sex in the White house, a gay govener in NJ, and a Vice President that shot a 78 year old man while 'hunting.' The American People are largely manipulated by PR. It's why Kerry was critized for not speaking out about Swift Boat sooner, or why Bush has 'touching' photos taken of him and his family, or dog, or whatever.

Posted by: Freedom | February 16, 2006 11:35 AM

Cheney Denies Whittington Death with Dignity

Vice peeResident Dick Cheney offered a tearless, reptilian mea culpa today for a hunting "accident" in which he "accidentally" pounded a case of Lowenbrau and mistook a 78-year-old man for a tiny bird. However, he didn't offer an apology to the quail he murdered, or to the New York Times for failing to immediately notify them of the "accident", as the Constitution requires. Tragically, the Old Grey Lady was forced to obtain the scoop from some backwoods redneck fishwrapper rather than from the customary "anonymous sources", or from "recently obtained classified documents" that strangely reek of Sandy Berger's crotch.

As much as he tries to deny it, Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Furthermore, he's 100% responsible for what happened to that poor man. A human being - nay, a Conservative - was seriously injured in what appears to be an act of senseless violence, for the lack of any offensive cartoons to justify it. If Whittington succumbs to his wounds, Cheney could quite possibly be indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of criminal negligence. He would have no choice but to resign in disgrace, leaving the GOP seriously weakened come election time. Hillary's chances of winning back the White House in 2008 would increase tenfold. A new progressive President would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, free from want, need, or sexual responsibility. With a Democrat-controlled senate and liberal Supreme Court to provide checks and balances against the three token Republicans left in Congress, America could at last realize Harry Belafonte's friend's dream of total economic equality among all of Gaia's creatures (except for those who are more equal than others). Indeed, it would a be virtual Heaven on Earth.

So it's no wonder that Cheney is keeping that poor, brain damaged man alive against the wishes of those of us who really care about him. The Secret Service won't even let Michael Schiavo in the building with a pillow and a hammer.

So much for "Compassionate Conservatism", I guess.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

Posted by: NE Prog | February 16, 2006 11:39 AM

Emily,

Please!! Let it go!! I know its like an old friend but your going to have to have a B.M. sometime.

Just imagine how much better you'll feel. You won't have to spend your days focused on "how evil Bush and Cheney are"..

Get a life...Get happy...Get Exlax!!!

Posted by: The Lonemule | February 16, 2006 12:00 PM

Cheney doesn't have to say he's sorry to anyone except Harry Whittington. This story is ridiculous. There are actual important issues facing this country besides hunting accidents.

Posted by: | February 16, 2006 12:12 PM

Your customer,
And before I forget,
"Can't the damn Democrats here get on to something more substantial than character assassination, PR techniques, and campaign mechanics? You know, like what they would do if they actually had the power, where they would take the country (specifically). In other words, what are the technical specifications of the product are you all are going to sell?"

So You're telling me that something is actually being sold in this scenario? You mean, as in property? And what exactly is this product, other than the person in office and the politics they will operate based on?

Secondly, your comment seems to suggests that democrats are too preoccupied with PR and campagin mechanics. And republicans aren't? Two words. Karl. Rove. Or, in case you were refering to the actual discusion and the democrats on this site, then I must ask why should they should focus on what they would do in power when this particular debate revolves around Cheney apologizing/speaking out about shooting a 78 year old man. Perhaps it would be wise to wait for a debate that encompasses that subject. Or is it better to disregard the topic at hand and basically ignore the point of this forum?

Posted by: Freedom | February 16, 2006 12:13 PM

KJM writes -

"This whole situation is a spotlight on the problems within the media industry rather than the indictment of Cheney that so many wish it were. Please, move on to the genocide that is occuring in Darfur and how Koffi Annan let it happen. Hundreds of thousands of people being murdered is more of an issue than the VP's hunting accident."

Observations:

1. This is not the 1st time the elite DC press got entirely sucked up into an Inside the Beltway mentality where the parlor games or personal lives of the "playas" became far more important than the national stories they were sent from the hinterlands to the Imperial City to cover. They are disconnected from the major world events and even events important to whole pluralities of Americans - whose "unsophisticated concerns" are dismissed as the "goings on in Jesusland and Flyover Country". One of the worst ever examples was Rwanda's genocide going almost uncovered in a year where "Clinton's LAX haircut" was deemed a far more important story.

2. The arrogance and sense of entitlement of some media "luminaries" particularly of the TV "prettyboy/prettygirl damn good Teleprompt reader, ilk" is astonishing. They comport themselves on a par with a senior elected Senator, sans the credentials - able to hold Inquisitions of anyone outside the media they wish to - As the Annoited Ones. (rarely if ever "reporting" on the personal foibles of other reporters as "unprofessional" while politicans, celebrities, and Joe public are considered fair game for public roastings.) They somehow have come to believe an adversarial relationship with most politicians, especially the White House, is de rigeur - but in their entitlement think they are owed butt-kissing as the mighty MSM. All while they give their special media favorites like McCain, Noble Algore, Hillary, Colin Powell near-total passes from scrutiny.

3. The obsession with personal lives of politicians unrelated to the discharge of their public office "Because Enquiring Minds Want the Dirt" is harmful to the national interest. It creates more ill-informed voters - by journalist's complicity in making coverage all about meaningless tabloid "sound bites" and advancing the agenda framed the personal politics of the journalist or his/her editor.

4. The "urge to be 1st", frequently without any facts - does not create news but makes for meltdowns of media credibility. Especially if we are left with the middle-level minds of journalists and "puffed-up from 15 minutes of fame bureaucrats" - especially dumb cops - collaborating. That is why we hear for two weeks of the DC sniper manhunt for an "angry white man in a white van". Katrina was about black baby-raping cannibal gangs, 10,000 dead, hundreds of murders at the Superdome and Convention Center, and hundreds "dying everday from hunger and thirst on rooftops". And we know how Gore won the 2000 election, whoops we declare Bush the winner, whoops too close to call....but each was a real scoop!!

5. Chandra! Monica! Sharks! The Heroes! The Plame Affair! Hillary! Obama! Laci! Terri! Ariel! More sharks! The MSM is growingly becoming indistinguishable from the tabloids, except the tabloids come without the pretentiousness.

Posted by: Chris Ford | February 16, 2006 12:24 PM


otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

www.killinghope.org

The Anti-Empire Report: Things you need to know before the world ends
By William Blum

How I Spent My 15 Minutes of Fame

In case you don't know, on January 19 the latest audiotape from Osama bin Laden was released and in it he declared: "If you [Americans] are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book 'Rogue State,' which states in its introduction . . ." He then goes on to quote the opening of a paragraph I wrote (which appears actually in the Foreword of the British edition only, that was later translated to Arabic), which in full reads:

"If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and the orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. I would then announce that America's global interventions -- including the awful bombings -- have come to an end. And I would inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings and invasions. There would be more than enough money. Do you know what one year of the US military budget is equal to? One year. It's equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

"That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated."

Within hours I was swamped by the media and soon appeared on many of the leading TV shows, dozens of radio programs, with long profiles in the Washington Post, Salon.com and elsewhere. In the previous 10 years the Post had declined to print a single one of my letters, most of which had pointed out errors in their foreign news coverage. Now my photo was on page one.

Much of the media wanted me to say that I was repulsed by bin Laden's "endorsement." I did not say I was repulsed because I was not. After a couple of days of interviews I got my reply together and it usually went something like this: "There are two elements involved here: On the one hand, I totally despise any kind of religious fundamentalism and the societies spawned by such, like the Taliban in Afghanistan. On the other hand, I'm a member of a movement which has the very ambitious goal of slowing down, if not stopping, the American Empire, to keep it from continuing to go round the world doing things like bombings, invasions, overthrowing governments, and torture. To have any success, we need to reach the American people with our message. And to reach the American people we need to have access to the mass media. What has just happened has given me the opportunity to reach millions of people I would otherwise never reach. Why should I not be glad about that? How could I let such an opportunity go to waste?"

Celebrity -- modern civilization's highest cultural achievement -- is a peculiar phenomenon. It really isn't worth anything unless you do something with it.

The callers into the programs I was on, and sometimes the host, in addition to numerous emails, repeated two main arguments against me: 1) Where else but in the United States could I have the freedom to say what I was saying on national media?

Besides their profound ignorance in not knowing of scores of countries with at least equal freedom of speech (particularly since September 11), what they are saying in effect is that I should be so grateful for my freedom of speech that I should show my gratitude by not exercising that freedom. If they're not saying that, they're not saying anything.

2) America has always done marvelous things for the world, from the Marshall Plan and defeating communism and the Taliban to rebuilding destroyed countries and freeing Iraq.

I have dealt with these myths and misconceptions previously; like sub-atomic particles, they behave differently when observed. For example, in last month's report I pointed out in detail that "destroyed countries" were usually destroyed by American bombs; and America did not rebuild them. As to the Taliban, the United States overthrew a secular, women's-rights government in Afghanistan, which led to the Taliban coming to power; so the US can hardly be honored for ousting the Taliban a decade later, replacing it with an American occupation, an American puppet president, assorted warlords, and women chained.

But try to explain all these fine points in the minute or so one has on radio or TV. However, I think I somehow managed to squeeze in a lot of information and thoughts new to the American psyche.

Some hosts and many callers were clearly pained to hear me say that anti-American terrorists are retaliating against the harm done to their countries by US foreign policy, and are not just evil, mindless, madmen from another planet.[1] Many of them assumed, with lots of certainty and no good reason at all, that I was a supporter of the Democratic Party and they proceeded to attack Bill Clinton. When I pointed out that I was no fan at all of the Democrats or

Posted by: che | February 16, 2006 12:26 PM

Will someone please help this woman (Emily) release build-up of fecal matter dating back to the Reagan years???????

Posted by: The Lonemule | February 16, 2006 12:46 PM

Chris,
"2. The arrogance and sense of entitlement of some media "luminaries" particularly of the TV "prettyboy/prettygirl damn good Teleprompt reader, ilk" is astonishing."

News, as we used to know it, is no longer to be found on commercial broadcast media. These have become entertainment shows, judged by the same standards of ratings and profits as entertainment shows are. Sex sells, rumors of sex sells, kinky sex sells best, celebrity sells, outrage sells, betrayal sells, wit sells, gore sells, drama sells, beauty sells, ...need I go on?

I shall always despise NobleAl for buying out the only world news channel on cable for that useless CurrentTV thingee. No wonder he is drunk and shmoozing for money in Saudi Arabia. So now I am stuck hunting and pecking for BBC (a poor second to ITN) in various PBS channels and slots. Its hardly a surprize voters are poorly informed.

Thank Heaven for Jim Lehrer. When he goes, well, it's like the dinosours, gone forever.

Posted by: Cayambe | February 16, 2006 02:28 PM

Freedom whined...
"Secondly, your comment seems to suggests that democrats are too preoccupied with PR and campagin mechanics. And republicans aren't?"

Democrats...EXACTLY Republicans...WHO GIVES A RATS ASS

Dumb dumb dumb dumb
No wonder you keep losing elections you fool! Just give me a good reason to vote FOR A DEMOCRAT. Are all of you brain dead?

Posted by: your customer | February 16, 2006 03:44 PM

From the HuffPo:
"TiVo Moment #1: After Cheney walked Hume through the specifics of the shooting, including a cataloguing of Whittington's injuries ("He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body"), Hume inexplicably followed up with this jaw dropper: "And I take it you missed the bird?" "

OK, shouldn't there be some sort of rule about clearly senile reporters not being allowed to interview important people?

Posted by: Judge Crater | February 16, 2006 04:07 PM

Your Customer,
And yet, you respond to none of my points. And please, forgive the following request, as your intelligence so clearly eclipses mine that you must resort to calling me dumb, but please explain this statement?
"Democrats...EXACTLY Republicans...WHO GIVES A RATS ASS"

I'm not sure I understand it exactly as you intend and would hate to respond in a way to something that you didn't mean. For the record and clarification, I find proper grammar and sentence structure can often help convey points. Then again, I may be wrong. After all, I'm only "Dumb dumb dumb dumb," and the best I could do was only refute every point you posted before in your obviously intelligent attempt to flame.

So please, enlighten me as to what your point was and how it pertained to the discusion we were having about whether or not should Cheney have come forth and made a statement, rather than trying to transform the conversation into something it's not. We can have that discussion(the type of one thats rehashed constantly in threads that have to do with actual politics rather than PR, where I'm called a democrat, even though I'm not), if you would like. But first, I'd like you to respond to the actual conversation. Thank you.

Posted by: Freedom | February 16, 2006 04:19 PM

The real Will,

Thank you for the clarifiction. That explains the Jekyll and Hyde personality.

Posted by: Jamal | February 16, 2006 04:55 PM

your responses should include a modicum of ability....


what the ability is

is this....

listening to lies and truth....

and seperating the truth from the lies by contrast....

sort of like pouring grease off of a roast....

Hello, since it wasn't the arabs that blew up the world trade center...


I'd say, Al Gore is demonstrating something that the current administration can't for want of being arrested....compassion and truth...

or the Iraqi's I'd say he's right!


timeline:

Bush Sr. CIA, Panama, Noriega

Bush Sr. Desert Scam, Hussein, Madelaine Albright, Kuwait OIL

Bush Jr. "Remember 9/11" "Remember the Maine," "Remember the Alamo"

Remember the Alamo got us California, and Texas

Remember Silverado, and daddy bailing Neil Bush's ass out of a felony charge on that one?


yes, let's bring up the past that has led us to today...


punk.

thanks for your kind attention, I'll diss assemble you later for future-children to play with....


ha ha ha.........hah.

picquant puissance....

Posted by: regarding Al Gore.... | February 16, 2006 04:55 PM

let me see...


hmmmmmmmmm....

if one is pushing something that is good for the nation, then you should vote for it...

it's really not about the party.

only a fool really believes that the ravens or the rams or the cardinals

are what life is about...


you know, kids believe in superheroes, comic books and males are shall we say of limited attention span...


like it's all about the crotch.


for instance, the best gaurd dogs are female....


want to know why, they don't have an attention span that is "action based"


they nurture, they care, they think, they see some of the larger picture beyond

immediate gratification.


primitive males, party animals


sports/political parties/tribal-affiliations


are primitive thinkers....


that don't, they react.

the intent of customer is to provoke.


the best way to destroy him is to point out what he's doing....and then step to the side

kick him in the side of the knee,

seperating his leg into two pieces.

and then do a knee drop on his throat....get up and do a knee drop on the bridge of his nose....and drop an elbow into his ribcage, left-side...


that is what he is trying to do to you.


there is no intent to create a better world...take him out of this one....


if there isn't some openness to dialogue, he might as well be a born-again ANTICHRIST-ian trying to sell you some JESUS....

don't go there.

take him home.

Posted by: a reason to vote for a democrat... | February 16, 2006 05:41 PM

Emily wrote: Do you think Cheney's here to stay, or on his way out?

Cheney is here to stay. It's not in his personality to leave on his own and he's not a quitter. He doesn't think his goal for the United States has been completed. The operations side of administration has more of his personality stamped on it that George Bush. And the shooting incident proves the power he welds. On numerous occasions the white house press secretary (supposedly the point of contact for the entire administration) can't answer simple questions from White House Press Corp pertaining to the vice president and has to refer them to Cheney's office. I'm no fan of Dick Cheney, but he is absolutely not a quitter, he is a fighter. And he has the perfect arrangement with a president who will at times let him run his own private executive branch.

Posted by: Jamal | February 16, 2006 08:10 PM

it's not about the people it's what they do or don't do with power...


I don't admire hitler....

most considered him, a not too important primitive, appeal to the ignorant kinda guy...


no one took him seriously.


and that's a fact...


making people more ignorant, only makes them more dangerous.


to everyone.

Posted by: Actually, | February 17, 2006 01:05 AM

I think before this hunting accident, it was plausible that Cheney would step aside for health reasons, and more importantly, to allow Bush to appoint his successor (Condi '08). However, if he steps down now, the press will be crowing about how they and their intrepid reporting of the hunting "scandal" were the real reasons Cheney resigned.

Cheney would never give them the satisfaction.

Posted by: D. | February 17, 2006 10:38 AM

Dick Cheney walked into a Mexican whorehouse, used a live cougar as a condom and f**ked 18 Mexican prostitutes to death. The Mexicans refer to this night as the "Night of the Cougar Prostitute Massacre". Cheney calls it "last Thursday".

Posted by: MS | February 17, 2006 01:55 PM

The Cheney story is by now well covered in the American media.

'The shooting was first reported by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. The vice president's office did not disclose the accident until nearly 24 hours after it happened.

Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.

Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.

Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.

"The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good." (My, my!)

This is a quote off the wire. Had an email from someone who saw the initial SS report to the White House and it runs almost the same except to put a slightly different spin on it. Cheney, heavily guarded and accompanied by a small army of security men and a few medical personnel, was hunting quail in thin brush. One of the party who was a little behind him shot a quail and had to hunt it up in the bush. He found the bird and then charged after the Cheney people. The VP, who is terrified that people are going to assassinate him, heard his friend calling and crashing towards him, saw a figure with a gun... and fired right at him.

Man was hit in the face with bird shot.

Cheney was stone sober at the time and I am surprised he was shooting at birds on the wing. Normally, he likes tethered or tame game so he won't have to overexert himself. A tame white duck, trussed up and hanging up, alive, in a tree (not too high) is a perfect point blank target for the sportsman Cheney.

The only sinister aspect to this is the hysterical behavior of the VP .

I have done a lot of hunting in my life: quail, pheasants, ducks, geese, a big rabbit hunt in Germany with beaters and all, German wild boar, deer, elk and the occasional beater.

I have gone after quail before and know the part of Texas they are talking about. I am positive it all happened as described but am equally positive that Cheney way overreacted and shot out of sheer terror.

Think about it. Our senior leadership is not only corrupt, they are nuttier than fruitcakes!

Posted by: Americans R Cowards | February 17, 2006 03:29 PM

"Tell me again how "we are responsible" for the 10's of thousands the Islamoids and Saddamites have killed. (30-40,000 NOT the 100K that Al Qaeda and Euroweenies bandy about) And we have whacked over 14,000 Islamoids, maimed thousands more - and captured almost 15,000 - plus 15,000 native Saddamites - numbers "we" are very happy about, though the IEDs have made us take more light casualties for longer than anyone expected..." Posted by: Chris Ford

Damn you are a sick fuck if you don't think US Explosive Devices KILL people!

As Many As 250,000 Iraqi Civilians Slaughtered In The Territorial Pissings In Iraq!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm
New studies make the Bush administration's "liberation" argument for a 'pre-emptive' war against Iraq seem questionable.

WMDS?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lies.mp3

It's been 1,615 days since GWB said he'd catch UBL 'Dead or Alive!'

Posted by: Chris Floyd | February 18, 2006 10:10 AM

It's obvious Cheney isn't going anywhere. The left has to realize that his continued presence is a political gift, especially for the 06 elections. The public truly has disdain for Cheney, and even many on the right are now starting to see how he thinks that the rules do not apply to him, and he always has thought that way. Dick Cheney is another high profile example of "what is wrong with this country" for the left to campaign against. Yes, he may be popular with the true "base", but from the polls I've seen, that base seems to be a shrinking and sinking ship. The worst thing for the democrats would be a new VP, like Guiliani, who would be groomed for the next race, and would then have all of the powers of incumbancy, and would be a new popular face (in the short term) to campaign for the republicans in 06. As a democrat, as much as I cant stand Cheney, I say let him stay. He's a great punching bag. The DNC needs to beg him to stay, at least thru november!!!

Posted by: kcdetroit | February 18, 2006 02:41 PM

It was an accident, no issue there, but the initial false statement from Katherine Armstrong with Dick Cheney's approval is an issue. This fraudulent state was pre-approved by Cheney who claimed to bring honesty and ethics back to the Executive Branch. It is not an issue if the undisclosed third hunter was a female friend of Cheney's, that between him and his wife.

Ms. Armstrong in her own words did not have a clear view of what happened. She admittedly could not tell the difference between Cheney and Whittington. But as member of the family that owned the ranch she surely asked Cheney what happened and investigated a shooting on family property. And Cheney would never have allowed her to comment on his behalf, unless he knew verbatim what her comments would be. Karl Rove and Mary Matalin were also involved before the release of the initial statement implicating Harry Whittington being at fault. And what of Harry, did he approve of the initial Armstrong statement, possibly.

And Mary Matalins comment, on Meet the Press today, to David Gregory that the press is carrying on a "Jihad" against Dick Chaney is an attempt to portray the press as aiding the terrorists. It was just a matter of time before an idiot representing the administration tried to link the shooting to terrorism.

One beer for a man on certain prescription medications could very well impair his ability to safely hunt. And by law prescription drugs that have synergistic reactions with alcohol will be labeled with a warning not to drink.

Posted by: Jamal | February 19, 2006 11:20 AM

your responses should include a modicum of ability....


what the ability is

is this....


listening to lies and truth....


and seperating the truth from the lies by contrast....


sort of like pouring grease off of a roast....

Hello, since it wasn't the arabs that blew up the world trade center...or the Iraqi's I'd say Al's right!!!


and so, if you weren't chowing down on the crawlfjord salami in your face, would you!

I'd say, Al Gore is demonstrating something that the current administration can't for want of being arrested....compassion and truth...


SETUP FOR THE BUSH(S) OLIGARCHY,
A CHRONOLOGICAL JOURNEY OF LARCENY:

Bush Sr. CIA, Panama, Noriega

Bush Sr. Desert Scam, Hussein, Madelaine Albright, Kuwait OIL

Bush Jr. "Remember 9/11" "Remember the Maine," "Remember the Alamo"

Remember the Alamo got us California, and Texas

Remember Silverado, and daddy bailing Neil Bush's ass out of a felony charge on that one?


yes, let's bring up the past that has led us to today...


let me see...


hmmmmmmmmm....


if one is pushing something that is good for the nation, then you should vote for it...


it's really not about the party.


only a fool really believes that the redskins, ravens, the rams or the cardinals

are what life your life is about...


you know,
kids believe in superheroes, comic books, and males are shall we say of limited attention span...


like it's all about the crotch.


for instance, the best gaurd dogs are female....


want to know why, they don't have an attention span that is "action based"


they nurture, they care, they think, they see some of the larger picture beyond

immediate gratification.


primitive males, party animals


sports/political parties/tribal-affiliations


are primitive thinkers....


that don't, they react.


the intent of customer is to provoke.


the best way to destroy him is to point out what he's doing....and then step to the side

kick him in the side of the knee,

seperating his leg into two pieces.

and then do a knee drop on his throat....get up and do a knee drop on the bridge of his nose....and drop an elbow into his ribcage, left-side...


that is what he is trying to do to you.


there is no intent to create a better world...take him out of this one....


if there isn't some openness to dialogue, he might as well be a born-again ANTICHRIST-ian trying to sell you some JESUS....

don't go there.

take him home.


nice peace don't cha think.

Posted by: a reason to vote for a democrat... | February 19, 2006 05:22 PM

Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families.

Posted by: OIL igarchy..... | February 19, 2006 05:25 PM

How do you get a psychopath to say sorry? They just don't understand sorry, as you can see from Cheney.

Posted by: SpeakoutforDemocracy | February 21, 2006 10:31 AM

A written report from Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago says Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.
Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said.

According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.

We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.

"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."

Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.

If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.

But we will never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.

Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return to the station.

"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.

"We've known these people for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.

Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest employer.

"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.

Secret Service officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."

It's a sure bet that is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then the memo that shows the Vice President was drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.

Posted by: DOUG THOMPSON | February 22, 2006 02:39 PM

ZBFLAw7Ez9n vBuSi1WY6LLV B93MYFrarHTZ

Posted by: Kkse19qdU4 | February 24, 2006 11:24 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.