Fox News: “Dick Cheney accidentally shoots hunter in Texas”
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and injured a man during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, his spokeswoman said Sunday.How careless can you be? Man, I hope the old-timer is OK. As for Cheney, if shooting a guy doesn't give you a heart attack, nothing will.
Harry Whittington, 78, was "alert and doing fine" after Cheney sprayed Whittington with shotgun pellets on Saturday at the Armstrong Ranch in south Texas, said property owner Katharine Armstrong.
23 comments:
I'm flashing back to that scene in "Dave" where Bob Alexander says, "He's not a President. He's an ordinary person. I can kill an ordinary person."
any suggestions of who we'd all like to see cheney be hunting with?
Unfortunately, this is the sort of accident that often happens when bird hunting. (And by "often" I mean more than you would think.)
I'm not even into hunting birds, but know more than a few people who have caught a little shot accidentally. It might be the VP's fault, it might be the other guy's fault, or it may not even be anyone's fault.
The account of it I read said it was the fault of the victim for being where he wasn't expected or supposed to be, and not signaling that he was there. However, that's not how anyone will remember it, even if that is reported emphatically and noted on all the blogs that mention the admitted humorous story.
I told Deb it was funny for "Quayle" to be in the news after all this time.
This post I read on another (non-political!) message board today says it all:
Did anyone think that this administration would so easily and so quickly pass up Clinton's in terms of sheer hilarity? I mean, these dickwads still have 3 years to go.
You know there's gonna be some sort of claim against the NRA now, and Dick Cheney won't be able to argue back very effectively. Here's the news headline.
"Over protective mothers says guns are bad
Vice President says no
Over protective mothers shoots noone
Vice President shoots someone"
It's a bizarre one-off story. But what's business as usual for this administration is that the shooting was kept secret for 24 hours. Why? To what end? Apparently nothing but habit and hubris, the same institutional characteristics that have come back to bite them on the ass for the last year and more. Way to learn and evolve.
Is there anything that you liberals won't try to politicize?
while this isn't exactly the sort of thing to scoff at, it's also not remotely as serious as, say, driving off a bridge and leaving your passenger in the car to drown in 4 feet of water.. but I digress
the story, as I read it, is that they were upland game hunting.. Cheney was using a 28-gauge shotgun.. if you've ever seen one, you'd note that the bore of the barrel is about thick enough to slide a pencil down.. while this would be lethal if a person were standing 10 or so feet in front of the barrel, it's not likely to be life-threatening any further away, given the scattering effect of the bb's.. yes, it would sting like a sonofabitch, and could potentially physically scar a person.. but the danger it causes at the distance Cheney's hunting partner was shot at (about 90 feet) is the physical reaction of shock
and yeah, this sort of thing isn't all that uncommon.. I've personally known several people that have been shot in that exact manner.. I hope the guy is doing well (as I've read he is), but this wouldn't make regional, much less national news, if Cheney weren't involved
...what's business as usual for this administration is that the shooting was kept secret for 24 hours. Why? To what end?
TGK: Is there anything that you liberals won't try to politicize?
Is there any direct question about the White House that "you conservatives" won't avoid answering plainly?
The question is: "Why? To what end?" Whenever you come up with an advantageous reason why the news should have been delayed for one day, post away.
Do you think the kneejerk impulse to secrecy in regard to Iraq/torture/9-11/wiretapping/Katrina/Plame/Enron/energy/Abramoff/etc... and now, a friggin' freak buckshot accident.... is helping Bush's image and political effectiveness in 2006? If so, feel free to post the reasons why you'd think so.
it's highly doubtful there will be any criminal wrongdoing proven.. why would anyone involved want to rush out and make headlines with this news? the only possible outcome of it would be that Cheney is even more embarrassed than he already is.. I doubt it would make him any more sorry, since I'm willing to bet he instantly regretted what happened
but any suggestion that this should have been reported to the AP or Reuters immediately just smacks of political opportunism.. and the fact that anyone thinks it was "kept secret" for any length of time shows their inclination toward shadow governments and black helicopters
it was merely a case of personal embarrassment that kept it quiet for one whole day.. it's not like the guy was found dead in a park and later ruled suicide ala Vince Foster.. so give me a break
...shows their inclination toward shadow governments and black helicopters
...it's not like the guy was found dead in a park and later ruled suicide ala Vince Foster
AHHH HA HA HA HA HA!!! HA HA HA HAAAAA!!! AAAAHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HAAAAHHHH!!!!!
Oh, those tinfoil-hatted liberals!
http://www.etherzone.com/body.html
The shooting doesn't seem like that big an incident. But the followup is emblematic of an administration that takes a "you don't need to know this" approach to a sweeping amount of policies.
It's like when Clinton said he used pot but "never inhaled." The actual Q-and-A was meaningless, but the weaselly "something for everyone" answer was evocative of a personal flaw which was very relevant elsewhere.
So the shooting is just weird. But the inexplicable and unnecessary clampdown in revealing this unpleasant news story is highly illustrative of a President and Vice President who, it's fair to say, feel that having to explain themselves is an impertinence.
Noticing the lack of promptness "smacks of political opportunism"? Cheney's "embarrassment" trumps all? It can be argued that that's an infantile way of assessing the proper role and powers of government: "They're trying to hurt my daddy!"
There's no controversy here. Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all shot guys in the face, too.
I get it now. Cheney wanted to assassinate Whittington because he (Whittington) was about to go public with his knowledge that Bush had personally orchestrated the events of 9/11. Cheney intended to neutralize Wh. under the guise of a "hunting accident", but he is a lousy shot, so he only grazed his intended victim. The extra time was needed to befriend Wh. and convince him that Cheney intended no harm. During this time, real estate and oil assets were transfered to Wh., to ensure his cooperation with this official version of events (also, look for Whittington to be the next Defense Secretary, once Rumsfeld has an "accident").
Now, if you'll pardon me, it's back to the bong.
Mmmmmkay.
"I have no answer" would have covered the same ground, a lot more quickly.
give it up, kids/liberals... as John Hawkins explains over at www.conservativegrapevine.com
"First of all, Cheney isn't required to alert the jackals in the mainstream press about anything. It's their job to find out information, not his job to provide it for them. Moreover, Cheney's press secretary confirmed what happened when he was asked about it and said reporting the matter to the press had been left in the hands of Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, who called the local paper, Corpus Christi Caller-Times and told them all about it the day after the event. So obviously, there was no intent to hide what happened."
Carey, I didn’t respond directly to your question because it was a dumb question (and I wasn’t sure what qualified as an “advantageous reason”), but clearly this is something that you are deeply concerned about, so allow me to try to allay your concerns…
There were several innocent reasons why they took their time going public with the story: it was a relatively minor incident (although it could have been worse); it was unusual, and people were not sure how to react; there was an element of embarrassment; there were more pressing things to take care of, such as medical attention for Mr. Whittington; they wanted to make sure they had their ducks in a row, so to speak, because they knew the people in the media would fly into hysterics (which they did); and because there was no reason why this had to become public immediately. Sure, there would be paranoid types who would assume that there was some grand conspiracy afoot, but those types are going to whine and complain no matter what.
I think it’s a waste of time and energy to make a big deal out of this.
And now the victim's had a heart attack. Or as Dick Cheney would call it, "Tuesday."
When I wrote "I think it’s a waste of time and energy to make a big deal out of this. , I meant the delay, not the shooting. Getting shot is always a big deal. Just wanted to clarify...
[i]...there were more pressing things to take care of, such as medical attention for Mr. Whittington[/i]
Even by the standards of the past year, this mewling explanation is one of the stupidest Scott McClellan has been forced to say.
Congratulations to the ranch's lone EMT/press secretary on duty, for simultaneously handling two difficult jobs so ably.
[i]First of all, Cheney isn't required to alert the jackals in the mainstream press about anything. It's their job to find out information, not his job to provide it for them.[/i]
This premise is so laughably wrong on so many levels, both historic and tactical. Cheney's tough, he's smart, he's able, he's right, he's steadfast... but he needs to hide from Helen Thomas?
The highly competent VP's office really did a slam dunk job holding off "the jackals" on this story, eh?
When was this administration's last good day?
If Cheney really wants to save this guy's life, he should publicly claim Whittington is "in his dying throes."
Post a Comment