Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DARTH CHENEY....From Byron York over at NRO:

So far, the vice president seems determined not to make any public statement about the hunting accident. Spokeswoman McBride points out that Cheney has a previously-scheduled speaking engagement this Friday, at the Wyoming state legislature. It seems likely that he would at least mention it then. But as far as today, tomorrow, or Thursday goes, there seems, at the moment at least, to be no plan to have Cheney say anything.

This is just flat out insane. What on earth is he thinking?

There's still nothing from the man himself, but a few minutes ago the VP's office finally issued a terse and bureaucratic statement saying that Cheney had been passed a note about Harry Whittington's post-shooting heart attack and "stood ready to assist." The statement ends with a pro forma declaration that "The Vice President said that his thoughts and prayers are with Mr. Whittington and his family."

This is now way beyond bizarre. Does the White House think that reinforcing the VP's "Darth Cheney" image is helpful in some way? That it's better if the world thinks he's callous and insensitive? Or what?

Kevin Drum 3:24 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (416)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

At this point I doubt even his partisans would say Cheney isn't a Major League A..H..., big time. The man is constitutionally (in the physical, not legal, sense) incapable of apologies.

Posted by: rvman on February 14, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Shoot first and, refuse to answer questions later"

Posted by: D on February 14, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

They. Don't. Care. What. You. Think.

They. Don't. Answer. Questions. From. The. Media.

They. Tell. The. Media. What. To. Say.

They. Have. Been. Very. Very. Successful. With. This. Strategy/Tactic. For. Six. Years.

They. See. No. Reason. To. Change. Their. MO. Now.

McClellen. And. Cheney. Are. Smirking. At. YOU.

Now, was that slow enough to comprehend?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 14, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously Cheney is still distraught about missing that quail.

Posted by: Frank J. on February 14, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

***What on earth is he thinking?****


cheney: yeah....so i shot him...what are you going to do about it....that's what i thought..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on February 14, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

There's still nothing from the man himself, but a few minutes ago the VP's office finally issued a terse and bureaucratic statement saying that Cheney had been passed a note about Harry Whittington's heart attack and "stood ready to assist."

Ready to assist how, with a mercy killing? He's standing by to put Whittington out of his misery? Or perhaps he's planning on sending a video of whittington to Frist so the doctor can make another one of his famous video diagnoses?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Well, while he stays silent and lets us think he's callous and insensitive, other prominent Republicans speak up and remove all doubt:

BEGIN QUOTE
[Scott McClellan] quipped Tuesday that the burnt orange school colors of the University of Texas championship football team that was visiting the White House shouldn't be confused for hunter's safety wear.

"The orange that they're wearing is not because they're concerned that the vice president may be there," joked White House press secretary Scott McClellan, following the lead of late-night television comedians. "That's why I'm wearing it."

The president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, took a similar jab after slapping an orange sticker on his chest from the Florida Farm Bureau that read, "No Farmers, No Food."

"I'm a little concerned that Dick Cheney is going to walk in," the governor cracked during an appearance in Tampa Monday.[END QUOTE]

Honor and dignity, baby. Honor and dignity. What a couple of scumbags.

Posted by: KPatrick on February 14, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney has to keep up his asshole image to get people's minds off impeaching Dubya.

Posted by: ogmb on February 14, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

I guess Dick just got tired of being called a chickenhawk, and snapped.

Now that he's blooded, we all better watch out.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Although I'm sure nobody in the media would understand this (never mind Democratic politicians who live by the glycerin tear and quivering lip on camera), but sensitivity and caring are not indicated by the number of press conferences you give telling the media how sensitive and caring you are.

You don't know what Cheney is saying to Whittington and his family, or what he's doing to support them, which might, out here in the real world, be considered the normal gauge of caring.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

I just heard that Cheney boasted that he would be the only high-ranking official to spend 8 years in the White House without having to give a press conference. Nice.

Now, what would happen if I shot someone in the face, blathered an empty apology, skipped town, and sent a eff-you check for $7 to cover my illegal hunting? This is becoming a bigger issue because of good ol' Dick. What a dick!

Posted by: rusrus on February 14, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

I hear that a newly created group calling itself Quail Hunt Veterans for Truth is preparing an ad claiming that Whittington's wounds were self-inflicted....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ready to assist?

What, is he saying he's willing to lend a few volts from his pacemaker if necessary?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

perhaps the goal is to keep this issue in the public eye as long as possible, to reinforce the image of Republicans as manly hunters (though rather inept ones). I doubt that this incident would lose the support of anyone who still liked Cheney anyway (after all of the other crap he's done).

Posted by: bc on February 14, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'll repost what I wrote from an earlier thread:

For comparison's sake, let's just imagine what Republican reaction would be if this were, say, 1998, and Vice President Gore, while on a secret weekend trip with a friend and two women not their wives, had gotten liquored up, shotgunned that friend in the chest, and then waited a day before reporting the offense. Let's extend the same kindness, courtesy, and benefit of the doubt to Cheney that Gore would have gotten from the Republicans if the situations were reversed....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

He's reserving the right to remain silent. He's taking the fifth, since he's already exercised the second.

Posted by: AC8 on February 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, the silence does make him seem heartless, but it also reinforces a view I have long held about Cheney: he really does not seem to believe in the "consent of the governed" thing. Perhaps it's because he served as chief of staff to a president who was not elected, then served as a leader in the House even though he represented the least populous state in the Union, then became vice president to a president who lost the popular vote. Whatever the reason, Cheney does not seem to think that the public, or its elected representatives, have any role to play in the development or implementation of public policy. That's why he can set up an energy task force that meets in secret to set a national energy policy, or why he can brief--but not report to--congressional leaders about eavesdopping on domestic phone lines. He shot a guy? Why say anything?

Posted by: Bob on February 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Better to remain silent and be thought callous and insensitive than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: neil on February 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

At this point I doubt even his partisans would say Cheney isn't a Major League A..H..., big time. The man is constitutionally (in the physical, not legal, sense) incapable of apologies.
Posted by: rvman on February 14, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Among that magical 39% hardcore supporters, this is actually a PLUS. The more he stonewalls, says "go fuck yourselves", the more evil he acts, the happier they are. It's all about Liberal-baiting. That's what makes them happy, that's what gets them off. That's been the Rove strategy from day one.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Does the White House think that reinforcing the VP's "Darth Cheney" image is helpful in some way?

apparently, yes. but only Jebus knows why.

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, I play this imaginary game with all kinds of GOP misbehavior. It's really, truly amazing that this double standard
1) exists
2) is so obvious
3) exists

Honestly, by now Gore would be tied to a rock and sinking to the bottom of the Pacific. But Darth Cheney just sails majestically on. Again, GOP supporters seem to have no boundaries whatsoever. Anything the Golden Child and his administration want to do, or not do, is hunky dory with them.

Meanwhile, look over there! A liberal! Stone him!

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

...and "stood ready to assist."

Mr. Vice President, thanks. You've done enough already. Mind if we hold the gun for you? And the country?

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: Does the White House think that reinforcing the VP's "Darth Cheney" image is helpful in some way?

It's not an "image".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

You don't know what Cheney is saying to Whittington and his family, or what he's doing to support them, which might, out here in the real world, be considered the normal gauge of caring.

Oh, I think we have a pretty good idea about what he's saying: "You breathe a fucking word about what really happened and I'll drag your miserable body back out to the fields and finish you off, you got that? Now everyone just stay nice and quiet and no one needs to get hurt."

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone checked to see if Cheney's mouth is loaded?

We wouldn't want him shooting it off during his talk and getting the truth injured, again.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Cheney shot the guy because hie vision was impaired by the helmet and the heavy breathing...

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

The coverup: first Cheney fails for something like 10 hours to inform the White House that he was the shooter. Undoubtedly, he was furiously trying to figure out a way to keep it under wraps forever.

Then he managed to supress the fact that the guy was shot in the heart (among other places). Actually, they now claim the shot "migrated" to his heart, but from where, I'd like to know.

Anyone able to find out how much Cheney had to drink that day? (seriously)

Posted by: Will on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

You don't know what Cheney is saying to Whittington and his family, or what he's doing to support them, which might, out here in the real world, be considered the normal gauge of caring.

Welcome to the world of tbrosz:

"Normal": just sitting down to dinner after you shot a 78 year-old man in the face with a shotgun.

"Normal": not allowing the police to interview you about the incident until the day after. [You know - gotta get our story straight, after all, like how we somehow a 28 gauge shotgun lodged 200 pellets in a man from 30 yards away. Right.]

"Normal": never appearing in front of the press to take personal responsibility, much less apologize.

Man, tbrosz - it must take real effort to be as gargantuan an asshole as you are.

Posted by: a fundie's fundamentalist on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

How do any of you know that Cheney has not apologized profusely to Whittington and Wittington's family? Indeed, it is almost a 100% certainty that he has done so.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 14, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

You underestimate the power of the Dark Side . . .

I find your lack of faith disturbing . . .

Posted by: Bragan on February 14, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

There are some discrepancies in the reporting, Talon News' Jeff Gannon's headline is "Dick Unloads On Friend's Face"

Posted by: truwest on February 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

You don't know what Cheney is saying to Whittington and his family, or what he's doing to support them, which might, out here in the real world, be considered the normal gauge of caring.

Welcome to the world of tbrosz:

"Normal": just sitting down to dinner after you shot a 78 year-old man in the face with a shotgun.

"Normal": not allowing the police to interview you about the incident until the day after. [You know - gotta get our story straight, after all, like how we somehow a 28 gauge shotgun lodged 200 pellets in a man from 30 yards away. Right.]

"Normal": never appearing in front of the press to take personal responsibility, much less apologize.

Man, tbrosz - it must take real effort to be as gargantuan an asshole as you are.

Posted by: a fundie's fundamentalist on February 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

KPatrick:

To be fair, those quips came before Whittington took a turn for the worse. And I really don't see a problem with them. After all, there's been no shortage of jokes from us subversives.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 14, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, this is a completely ginned-up issue. People are looking at the furious White House press corps like, "what's WRONG with these guys?"

It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate.

It's the press trying to nail him on something. Anything. Even if they have to generate the controversy out of nothing.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

How do a few pellets that supposedly barely penetrated the skin...y'know, that bird-shot stuff...end up entering his heart? Anyone with any Med. knowledge wanna chime in here?

Posted by: johnni on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky has it right. There is nothing but absolute contempt for the media and the public. I hope this victim has family who are going to sue the ass off of the Big C.

Posted by: murmeister on February 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

About Cheney's hypothetical private apologies: So fucking what? His attack dogs are out in force, claiming that it's Whittington's fault for having been shot. A stand-up guy would take responsibility for what he's done and correct the public record, rather than having the victim be blamed by his supporters.

Posted by: RSA on February 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate.

Like getting a blow job?

Posted by: alex on February 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: You don't know what Cheney is saying to Whittington and his family, or what he's doing to support them, which might, out here in the real world, be considered the normal gauge of caring.

You don't know either. So you make stuff up about what a lovely, sweet, caring person Cheney is, "supporting" Whittington and his family.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

truwest;
Awesome. You da man.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

How do any of you know that Cheney has not apologized profusely to Whittington and Wittington's family? Indeed, it is almost a 100% certainty that he has done so.

Of course it's entirely possible - but that's not the argument here. A public figure like Cheney should issue a public apology and a public expression of regret. It's a no-brainer.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

I respect Cheney's silence, for he is paying his respect to Aaron Burr.

Cheney is like the olympic athelete who has just performed, and is awaiting news of either gold or silver medal. He is gonna be quiet, modest, until the judges rule.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hrm. Just a question -- what happens if the guy dies from the shotgun wound?

Would Cheney get charged with manslaughter, negligant homicide, or something like that?

Posted by: Bemused on February 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

It's the press trying to nail him on something. Anything. Even if they have to generate the controversy out of nothing.

As I said above, I'm sure if Vice President Al Gore had drunkenly shotgunned a senior citizen in the chest from about fifteen feet away that Flanders would be saying the exact same thing....

It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate.

Yeah! It's not like he got a blowjob or anything! It's only reckless and depraved indifference to human life!

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, tbrosz, like a blow-job. Except that nobody was injured by the blowjob.

Posted by: Red on February 14, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Rove is truly brilliant. This is W's insurance. Impeach W and look what you get!

Posted by: alex on February 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

At this point, it's not about what Cheney may or may not have said to the victim. BUT, it's about what the American public expects.

The 39% might expect him to cling to his silence as Heston clings to his shotgun, but the rest of us may want to hear an apology (at least an empty one). That's only if he's interested in what the rest of us think, and he doesn't, so that's that I guess...

2 years, 8 months, couple days... Ahhh...

Posted by: rusrus on February 14, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

To be fair, those quips came before Whittington took a turn for the worse. And I really don't see a problem with them. After all, there's been no shortage of jokes from us subversives.

Yeah, but here's the crucial difference: the very people in the WH who decided to make jokes out of the incident ALSO knew the real extent of the man's injuries, and that he was NOT just "peppered" with birdshot that looked like "chicken pox".

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

"...and "stood ready to assist."

I will vote for that, just old Dick back down there with another load of buckshot and finish the job.

But, isn't that cheating? Aaron only got one shot.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Would Cheney get charged with manslaughter, negligant homicide, or something like that?

Medal of Freedom

Posted by: cleek on February 14, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate.

Yeah, it's not like he lied repeatedly to the American people about nonexistent Iraqi nuclear weapons programs and nonexistent connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in order to terrify the public and intimidate the Congress into supporting an illegal war of unprovoked aggression which has killed tens of thousands of innocent people while enriching Cheney and his war-profiteer cronies, pressured and ignored the CIA when it didn't support his lies, and led a conspiracy to discredit a former US ambassador who exposed his lies by exposing the ambassador's wife as a covert CIA operative.

I'm sure if Cheney did something like that, you would be really upset with him.

Unless, of course, he and Bush had bought you off with a tax cut. Then you'd defend any and every evil or stupid thing they do.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

It's the press trying to nail him on something. Anything. Even if they have to generate the controversy out of nothing.

Right. I mean, Cheney observed all the rules of safe hunting, he reported this incident minutes after it happened, he allowed himself to be interviewed by sheriff's deputies the same afternoon, he's made a public apology and he has also publicly remonstrated with those who would blame Whittington. The guy's done everything right--what do you liberals want?

Rove is truly brilliant. This is W's insurance. Impeach W and look what you get!

I believe Nixon was heard saying this very thing about Spiro Agnew on WH tapes of 1972 or so.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if they are going to use this as the excuse to have Cheney resign and install McCain or Rice. They are just buying time to work out the details...

Posted by: tinfoil on February 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

"Now everyone just stay nice and quiet and no one needs to get hurt."


Uh, it's a little late for that, isn't it?

Posted by: Mr. P on February 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

How do a few pellets that supposedly barely penetrated the skin...y'know, that bird-shot stuff...end up entering his heart? Anyone with any Med. knowledge wanna chime in here?
Posted by: johnni on February 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Speculate all you want. Neither side here in this blog has anything resembling close to the real, whole, unadulterated story.

The guy could be dead already, as I jokingly speculated, or he may not have had a heart attack, or the heart attack may have been caused by the treatment (the wrong combination of sedatives, steroids, antibiotics, and coagulents), or a pellet fragment may have nicked an arterey and gotten inside the blood stream - or Cheney could just have whispered "breathe a word of what really happened to ANYONE and your kids will find their way to Baghdad" to him, causing a heart attack. Any one of thousands of different things could have happened, and we don't know - because they don't want us to know. The media circus resulting from the lack of real information serves their political purposes. Hell, for all we know, there may have been no shooting, and the whole thing was staged by Rove to draw attention away from something else (like the Katrina hearings).

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney shot a man "while hunting". I am not a hunter, but friends who do hunt have always told me that the actual killing of the prey is only a small part of the hunt. Hunters stalk, read signs, understand the land they are hunting in, the various trails that the animals take, they learn calls, they do they stalk the animal, and if they have done this right, matched wits against a wild animal, they kill it. In other words, hunting has many components, only one of which is killing the animal. When you remove all of those components except the kill, you aren't hunting, you are just killing.
So, when the vice president rides in a truck to his shooting area and has tame birds released in front of him which he shoots, he isn't hunting, he is just killing. What we have here is a vice-president who thinks it is fun to get drunk and kill small animals. What a guy.

Posted by: patrick on February 14, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Waaahh! Waaahh! The media!! Mommy, the media!

Posted by: Cthulhu on February 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

It's a no-brainer.

So, apparently, are the people running PR on this.

Posted by: Stranger on February 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Cheney was hunting rich white people for sport. The deadliest quarry of all...

Posted by: rusrus on February 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Alek,

It may be good politics, but nothing more. In fact, I find such apologies, when not to The People themselves, to be tinged with insincerity. I suspect Cheney doesn't give a flying f*%k how the politics of this incident play out.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

(never mind Democratic politicians who live by the glycerin tear and quivering lip on camera)

You write this shit just to torment me, don't you? Go on, show me one single example of this particular strawman, and I'll buy one of your rockets.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

You know what?

As sceptical as I am of the Bush WH, and as burned as I've been in the past by them, I've got to confess that even I more or less accepted the story that the injuries were minor.

These people NEVER fail to disappoint, not even someone like me.

My cynicism just can't keep up. I guess I'm one of the slow ones, even this late in the game.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky is correct. They don't give a crap what we think. The question is, will that approach work forever? I'm betting no, but it's hard to argue with what works.

Posted by: travis on February 14, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

When I first heard of the Cheney shooting, I thought that this was a prime time for VPOTUS to have a heart attack.

When, as a 17 yr old, I put my Dad's truck in a ditch my chest got so tight, I could not breath for hours. Say what you will, I bet the VP's stress level hit a new high when he saw his friend crumple to the ground.

Is he being significantly medicated to manage the stress, therefore being kept on ice? I know if I accidently shot some one, I would make a bee-line for some Z-bars, pronto.

Posted by: Keith G on February 14, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek: Medal of Freedom

Hah! Excellent!

After all, the September 18, 2001 Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already implicitly authorizes Cheney to shoot anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

One of two things. Either there's something they're hiding (e.g., Cheney was drinking) and they are afraid it'll come out in a press conference, or they have nothing about this incident to hide but are desperate to hide the fact that5 years in the White House, surrounded by sycophants, has made the already arrogant and self-righteous bastard into something truly uninaginable.

They're either afraid he's going to get caught lying, or afraid he's going to get caught acting completely batshit insane. It's sort of like the problem a defense attorney faces with a guilty or totally slimy client--do you put him on the stand or not? Clearly, Cheney's people are agreeing that he can't go on the stand.

Posted by: theorajones on February 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: That it's better if the world thinks he's callous and insensitive? Or what?

Yes!! Don't you get it? Republicans understand that average Americans like their leaders to be tough, and if need be callous and insensitive. These are the manly values most Americans cherish. Everything liberals think of as a desirable quality -- nuanced thinking, sensitivity, tolerance, human rights for whoever is designated as the enemy, etc. -- are simply signs of weakness, feminine values that won't protect Americans and their stuff.

Remember when Cheney told Patrick Leahy "Fuck yourself"? Many liberals thought he was done for, that conservatives who are all for propriety would be upset. Ha! They thought he was just being a tough guy, and he just emasculated the wimpy Leahy. Republicans loved him even more. Now, see the liberals reaction: The Democratic party fires Paul Hackett, because among other things (as the NY Times reported) he made Democratic leaders nervous with his direct language -- at one point saying that the Republican party had been hijacked by religious extremists who he said, "aren't a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden." Ha! He had to be expelled because he was not sensitive and he insulted Republicans. Sherrod Brown, on the other hand, who never came close to winning any election in a heavily Republican district and is a total nonentity in Ohio politics, is the perfect Democratic candidate because he's so very sensitive and not at all callous like Hackett. Losers!!!!!

Posted by: No Longer an Ohio Democrat on February 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

This is really hilarious. A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick are opining on the proper conduct after an accidental shooting during a hunting trip.

I think you guys and your allies in the press should keep hyperventilating about this until next November. First, you've got Howard Dean saying he would like to get a few votes from guys who own pickup trucks with confederate flags and gun racks. Then the entire Democratic Party and its press corps wing goes absolutely lunatic over a story that anyone who has ever been bird hunting knows was the fault of the guy who got shot.

I've been hit by pellets and hit people with pellets, always minor. The story I hear is that this fellow dropped out of the line you are always supposed to stay in when hunting with others and came up without warning the others that he had returned. It's a shame that he got hit and a worse shame that he may have had a heart attack as a result. The response from Cheney to the follow who was hurt is private and even David Gregory has no need to know.

This is another loser for Democrats so don't let me interrupt you. One more example of being out of touch with a huge segment of the population. It will help with the vegan vote though. Of course you've got that unless Nader runs again.

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

"tbrosz: It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate."

Well, other than trying to hide the fact that the entire incident atcually happened.

Posted by: mmy on February 14, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz said: (never mind Democratic politicians who live by the glycerin tear and quivering lip on camera)

and craigie responded: You write this shit just to torment me, don't you?

I believe I should be commended for my self-restraint in reading this latest best effort of tbrosz', considering responding and high-mindedly choosing not to do so.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Surely it's occurred to you that the cause of the accident was a cardiac event with Cheney.
Maybe he can't make a public appearance.
On the other hand, he is a huge asshole.. that's enough of an explanation.

Posted by: marky on February 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Cheney was hunting rich white people for sport.

I think we have a winner.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, this is a completely ginned-up issue. People are looking at the furious White House press corps like, "what's WRONG with these guys?"

It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate.

It's the press trying to nail him on something. Anything. Even if they have to generate the controversy out of nothing. Posted by: tbrosz

Lookee, T-Bone, 'ol Whitt croaks and Cheney could be charged with manslaughter 5/negligent homicide. All we need is one honest person out on that hunting "party" to spill the beans, and the whole thing unravels. It may anyway. Either way, Cheney would be made to resign.

The forensics on this will show that Whittington wasn't 30 yards away, but much closer.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's as plain as day that Cheney is involved in a cover-up.

They wanted this thing to all go by unnoticed. They waited to tell the cops. They lied to the cops (saying it was a "pellet gun" that shot Whittington). They made sure the media got a story that was light-hearted -- "Whittington just got a few scrapes, he's fine, he was just 'peppered' by a pellet gun." They blamed the victim for coming up from behind and staying quiet -- in other words, they blamed the guy that got shot for doing exactly what he should have done.

Cheney did not have the proper permit to be hunting there. Cheney did not follow proper gun safety procedures. Cheney shot a man in the chest and face with a shotgun. Cheney's delay in reporting his accident makes it impossible to know if he was hunting after dark or drunk.

Cheney is remaining silent, and fellow Republicans are having some fun with it. Why? It's a strategy -- they desperately want this to go away. This situation is totally irrelevant to their government, but it's just the kind of easy-to-understand dishonesty that can kill someone politically.

They're scared shitless right now. Mockery is lethal to a politician -- they want to do nothing to make this story go on any longer. Stony silence will work in that respect, even if it proves the VP a complete asshole (in addition to a reckless jerk who does not understand gun safety).

Posted by: teece on February 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Marvin Fitzwater, Reagan's last press secretary, says that Cheney and the White House' handling of this has been indefensible.

He was also Bush' press secretary, and when he collapsed at Camp David in 1990, they had a press release out WHILE the helicopter was picking him up to go to the White House.

Fitzwater knows what the proper protocal is.

Tbrosz does not, except for defending King George at every turn.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on February 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Political comic from H.L.
Cheney visits his hunting buddy in the hospital

The Hollywood Liberal

There is also a giant list of political comics at
H.L.s Comic Features

Posted by: Jack on February 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop -

So noted. As for myself, the 6-foot cardboard cutout of Tom is now in my office, ready for "peppering" whenever he strays into lazy stereotype territory.

(note to Tom's lawyers: just kidding. It's only 5 feet tall)

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

"So, when the vice president rides in a truck to his shooting area..."

Aaron rode a horse to the shooting, what's your point.

Look, maybe Cheney cheated a little, you know, turning and firing at the count of two rather than three. But he wasn't flagged by the seconds, so we have to let that stand.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

MIke K,

Do you even begin to get the seriousness of having some birdshot being lodged in your HEART, for God's sake?

How are all you right wing tools possibly going to manage to trivialize this? What does it say about you people that you're so happy to do so?

This is now, without question, a serious business. When, if ever, will you finally get that?

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

RSA: A stand-up guy would take responsibility for what he's done and correct the public record, rather than having the victim be blamed by his supporters.

republicans are all about taking responsiblity until they actually have to take repsonsibilty for something that matters. like, y'kno, someone's life, or governing the country. see then they get to bitch about how no one takes responsiblity for themselves in this society anymore, and that's why we don't need SocSec, MCaid and the like. it's really quite mindfuckingly ingenious.

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: I've been hit by pellets and hit people with pellets, always minor.

In fact, every time Mike K goes hunting he gets shot by his friends. At some point, you'd think he'd start to figure out that they're trying to tell him something....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK
Then he managed to supress the fact that the guy was shot in the heart (among other places). Actually, they now claim the shot "migrated" to his heart, but from where, I'd like to know.

Anything that gets into a blood vessel can end up in the heart; birdshot is small enough that it probably doesn't need to hit that big of a vessel for that to be a risk.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe Cheney was hunting rich white people for sport. The deadliest quarry of all...
Posted by: rusrus on February 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - where's our beloved Jesse Ventura when we need him? (Jesse addressed a hunting group, while governor of Minnesota, by telling them "until you've hunted man, you have not hunted."

"Cranky is correct. They don't give a crap what we think. The question is, will that approach work forever? I'm betting no, but it's hard to argue with what works.
Posted by: travis on February 14, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK"

No. It's preciesely the opposite. It's everything that drives them. The only thing they stand for is anything that drives Liberals mad with rage. (or anything that they imagine drives Liberals mad with rage).

Now, see the liberals reaction: The Democratic party fires Paul Hackett, because among other things (as the NY Times reported) he made Democratic leaders nervous with his direct language --
Posted by: No Longer an Ohio Democrat on February 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

NLAOD gets it.

The Democrats have NOT learned their lessons from the previous 6 years of election losses. They are going to SOOOO get their asses kicked in November.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney isn't saying anything because he doesn't have to. As a Slate article from December pointed out, since he isn't going to run for President himself, he doesn't have to care what the public thinks of him. He is hurting the administration with his conduct, but that's nothing new, and it's been obvious for a long time that there is no institutional control over his behavior. He does what he wants to, period.

Posted by: Rebecca Allen, RN,PhD on February 14, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K will say anything.

Tell us, Mike, why it's such a trivial thing to have birdshot lodged in your heart. Tell us about all the times that happened to you and your good buddies, and you just had a big laugh over it while slugging down your beers in the hospital ICU.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney was obviously drunk when he shot this guy.

That's the missing element.

If this man dies...what then?

Think about it.

Posted by: Frank Franklin on February 14, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,
Mike K. is typing from a script. Be nice, but don't expect the same from him while he's on the clock.

Posted by: marky on February 14, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

I've been hit by pellets and hit people with pellets, always minor. The story I hear is that this fellow dropped out of the line you are always supposed to stay in when hunting with others and came up without warning the others that he had returned. It's a shame that he got hit and a worse shame that he may have had a heart attack as a result. The response from Cheney to the follow who was hurt is private and even David Gregory has no need to know.

Mike, just shut up. This bullshit would not fool a third grader. A shotgun full of bird shot (28 guage) is not a "pellet gun." You've been peppered by falling shot (assuming you're not just straight-up lying about hunting). That is a 100% different thing than getting SHOT with said shotgun.

And have you even hunted quail -- want to guess what happens if you tell your partner, 30 yards from you, "hey, I'm over here!" Care to guess, you sage hunting genius? I'll tell you: you destroy the hunt. Quail are skittish bird.

You are completely full of shit. But what a surprise that is.

Posted by: teece on February 14, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick are opining on the proper conduct after an accidental shooting during a hunting trip.

Your worship of guns is a mental illness. I'm not impressed.

And what constitutes "proper conduct" by any individual responsible for causing any accident in which someone is hurt seriously enough to wind up in intensive care has nothing to do with knowing anything about guns, anyway.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Man, if you read only the conservative apologists on this board you'd think no one ever manages to go hunting without mowing down the whole party with buckshot. Considering the number of times they've all claimed to be shot it's a wonder any of them are still alive and/or not brain-dead....

Well, come to think of it....

The story I hear is that this fellow dropped out of the line you are always supposed to stay in when hunting with others and came up without warning the others that he had returned.

That's true. When your companions are stalking quail the proper procedure is to come up behind them, making as much noise as possible, and scream very loudly "I'm right behind you please don't shoot me oh God no no didn't you hear me I'm not a bird for fuck's sake please God no for the love of Goaarrrrrggggghhhhh!"

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K. is such an expert on everything. I can't wait til news comes out that Jeff Gannon gave Bush a rectal hemmorhage that needs surgery.
Mike will say "Hey, I do that with my buddies all the time.. um, psst.. Boss, i quit"

Posted by: marky on February 14, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K,

I think you sum up the basic character of conservatives. These are people who if they go hunting mostly shoot each other. I'm sure you and you're fellow Republicans have shot each other a great many times. However, basic competence in hunting involves shoot the prey, not your fellow hunters.

Posted by: MSR on February 14, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, let's do another comparison, you know for comparisons sake. Say a prominent Republican, politically active, family had a member of that family responsible for driving a car over a bridge subsequently killing a girl trapped in the car. Now that same individual notified no one of the accident until the following morning when of course it was much too late to even attempt a rescue of said woman. Now would this "republican" member of the family live his life in disgrace or rise to the top of the Republican party?

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

If Wittington lives, you'll get your public apology, a big press conference where Wittington will make some jokes, the two men will hug, and perhaps they'll call on Cogress to enact some sort of gun legislation (which of course it won't, which will allow GOPers to blame Dems for obstructionism).

Of course if he dies or falls comatose, you'll get some weeping and gentle but manly sobreity, but no real apology, as it might instigate a manslaughter or criminal negligence trial/investigation. Lots of "can't comment on that" or "it would be inappropriate for me to say..." and (probably) "how dare you ask me that, can't you see I'm mourning..." and so on.

But until Wittington's medical outcome becomes clear, you'll get nothing. It looks eerie to a Dem, but (politically) prudent to a Repub.

Posted by: brent on February 14, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

" . . . anyone who has ever been bird hunting knows was the fault of the guy who got shot."

Uh, no, Mike. Wrong. A hunter is responsible for the decision of when to pull the trigger. The fact that you believe otherwise shows that you're a liar, that you've never actually been hunting and that you don't even know the most basic facts about firearms. Clown.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: When your companions are stalking quail the proper procedure is to come up behind them, making as much noise as possible, and scream very loudly

When hunting with Dick Cheney, that is the correct procedure.

Posted by: alex on February 14, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I won't speculate on whether there was any cover up because we will never know. But I am VERY concerned about what we tell the CHILDREN about VP Cheney shooting someone.

Posted by: cq on February 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

"A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick..."


Cheney's defense?

"I thought I had a broomstick in my hand!"

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think when hunting with Dick Cheney, the proper procedure is to shoot first, then announce yourself. (Just kidding, NSA guy).

Posted by: marky on February 14, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, it's a matter of character and ethics. Dick Cheney works for us. The least he can do is not act like an ass in public and display the requisite amount of honesty and openness we should expect from the most powerful members of goverment.

Now, explain to us why you support these guys?

Posted by: Constantine on February 14, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: After all, the September 18, 2001 Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already implicitly authorizes Cheney to shoot anyone, anytime, anywhere.

This keeps cracking me up. I also liked someone's contribution early yesterday along the lines of, "It's my understanding that the Constitution allows the VP to pretty much shoot anyone he wants, anytime he wants."

And marky's right--nice cut-and-paste, Mike K. Tip: This might have been more convincing if you'd posted it in a place where people are actually complaining about hunting itself, rather than about Cheney's drunken and incompetent approach to same.

You're not smart enough for the job they gave you, guy.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure Mike K would make good excuses for John Kerry if Kerry shot someone...

Posted by: cq on February 14, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

A (slight) variation on Tinfoil's point:

It always seemed possible that Cheney would be going well before the 2008 election, so that the Repubs could put somebody in who was more popular (hard to be less popular than Big Time) and have an "incumbent" running for the Presidency in '08. Say, Jeb! or George Allen, etc., etc.

The question for Karl has been: When should Big Time go? Before or after the '06 mid - terms? One variable has to be getting someone in who can plausibly deny responsibility for Iraq during the '08 campaign, so that would argue for appointing someone later rather than sooner.

This incident speeds up Big Time's going out the door to probably before the mid-terms; if Whittington doesn't make it -- and a lot of 78 year olds exposed to that kind of trauma won't make it -- BT could be out of office very soon.

Posted by: fbg46 on February 14, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

"..what we tell the CHILDREN about VP Cheney shooting someone."

How about telling it as a punchline?

Three men were going hunting, a VP, a lawyer, and a Arab terrorist....."

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney and Wittington played brokeback cowboy the night before. The next day Wittington tells Cheney he doesn't lovee him and is going back to his wife.
Cheney shoots Wittington in a fit of jealous rage and then Rove spins the hole quail hunting story.

Posted by: A. Lee on February 14, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

These folks are fond of saying, "We will not comment on this issue while there is an ongoing investigation." We can assume that this investigation will last at least three more years.

Posted by: AZBob on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, it's a matter of character and ethics. Dick Cheney works for us. The least he can do is not act like an ass in public and display the requisite amount of honesty and openness we should expect from the most powerful members of goverment.

Now, explain to us why you support these guys?

Posted by: Constantine on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Now would this "republican" member of the family live his life in disgrace or rise to the top of the Republican party?

Probably she'd marry the President.


Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

birdshot is small enough that it probably doesn't need to hit that big of a vessel for that to be a risk.

the story on CNN.com said "a roughly 5 mm piece of shot became lodged in or alongside Whittington's heart muscle, causing the organ's upper two chambers to beat irregularly." that seems pretty huge to have wandered around in blood vessels, from the surface.

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK
A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick are opining on the proper conduct after an accidental shooting during a hunting trip.

Well, I've never fired a shotgun (M16? Yes. M249? Yes. M60? Yes. M2 HMG? Yes. .58-caliber musket? Yes. Various .22 caliber pistols and rifles? Yes. Shotgun? No.) but one thing I seem to remember from, oh, anytime I've been around guns -- and Army instructores were particularly big on this -- is that when you have one and you are planning on shooting it, it is your positive and absolute obligation to make sure that your target is and your friends are not in the path you are shooting in. Sure, you might have to push this a little bit in an actual life and death situation, but I doubt any bird was posing a mortal risk to the Vice President.

And, afterwards, its not hard to see that, if you're a public figure, and you shoot someone who is supposedly not your enemy in what is supposedly an accident, and its all over the news, a public statement that it was an accident and that you regret it is in order. Its not something that should take days for your office to put out a statement on.

The excuses being offered here to defend Cheney are beyond stupid.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of a story.

Two brothers, George and Jeb, were out deer hunting. They killed a big buck and started dragging him back to their truck. They were dragging him by his hind legs, and it was very slow going, since his antlers kept getting caught in the brush.

So George says to Jeb, "You know, it might be a lot easier if we drag him by his antlers instead." So they did.

After a little while Jeb says to George, "That was a real good idea, George, it's a lot easier now. But there's one problem."

George says, "Problem? What problem?"

Jeb says, "Well, now we're getting further away from the truck."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Man, if you read only the conservative apologists on this board you'd think no one ever manages to go hunting without mowing down the whole party with buckshot.

Okay, I didn't get much sleep last night, but I've now dissolved into helpless giggles. My stomach hurts. Everyone knock off the comedy for a few minutes.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Now would this "republican" member of the family live his life in disgrace or rise to the top of the Republican party? Posted by: Jay

Good analogy, Jay. And while the spirit of the post is correct, the Democratic Party at large would have washed its hands of Ted Kennedy decades ago. Also, Kennedy may be one of the longest serving members of the Senate; he's never been and never would have been considered for Senate leadership.

It's one thing for the people of Massachusetts to keep returning him to office. But the Democrats in the Senate have never considered him for the top leadership because of his personal baggage.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 14, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

It may be good politics, but nothing more. In fact, I find such apologies, when not to The People themselves, to be tinged with insincerity.

Well, of course they're often insincere. But why would sincerity be in question in this case?

I suspect Cheney doesn't give a flying f*%k how the politics of this incident play out.

With his party in trouble already from multiple scandals and demonstrable instances of incompetence, he damn well better give a flying fuck. Or perhaps you'd like to acknowledge that this is additional evidence that the administration cares only about itself and its accrual of power.

Now, as for Mike Klueless:

This is really hilarious. A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick are opining on the proper conduct after an accidental shooting during a hunting trip.

Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up. I suppose that, in your mind, since we're "liberals," we must all be effete, city-dwelling wimps, right? And all you tough, red-blooded "conservatives" know how to hunt quail, overhaul an engine, put up drywall, and fix a toilet?

Your ideas are cartoonish. Laughable.


Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 14, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist: Unless, of course, he and Bush had bought you off with a tax cut. Then you'd defend any and every evil or stupid thing they do.

If most conservatives got the same $300 I did, then they were even bought on the cheap. It's like that old joke with the punchline, "we've already established what you are - now we're just dickering on price."

Apologies to all the honest prostitutes out there, of course.

Posted by: DH Walker on February 14, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, you win the big fucking cigar.

Here's the link, in case the whole thing went over your head.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Secular Animist,

You have won the prize with that last quip.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I've never fired a shotgun (M16? Yes. M249? Yes. M60? Yes. M2 HMG? Yes. .58-caliber musket? Yes. Various .22 caliber pistols and rifles? Yes. Shotgun? No.)

You've now made me extremely jealous.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
the story on CNN.com said "a roughly 5 mm piece of shot became lodged in or alongside Whittington's heart muscle, causing the organ's upper two chambers to beat irregularly." that seems pretty huge to have wandered around in blood vessels, from the surface.

There are a number of not-particularly-small vessels in the neck and face that aren't far from the surface; if the story from the hospital or family is that seems to be what happened, I'm willing to credit it without a more concrete reason to believe they are part of a cover up engineered from the White House.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Why won't everyone leave me in peace? This is the worst thing that ever happened to me.

Posted by: Big Time on February 14, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, "your head" means "Jay's head", not Stefan's.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

a public statement that it was an accident and that you regret it is in order.

"regret" see, there's you're problem right there. the Veep regrets nothing. if the Veep does it, it is good, so sayeth the Veep. we shall all abide by this maxim or end up in Abu Garreefff.

Posted by: e1 on February 14, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

What will solidify his reputation as "Darth Cheney" is when he becomes the second American president to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population, which he fully intends to do in Iran.

I know, I know, Dubya is the de jure president, but it is now crystal clear that Cheney is the de facto president.

In the event of another 9-11 type attack in the U.S. by al-Qaeda, Cheney will pull the trigger on Iran, just like he did on Whittington. His lack of remorse will also be the same...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 14, 2006 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

If most conservatives got the same $300 I did, then they were even bought on the cheap. It's like that old joke with the punchline, "we've already established what you are - now we're just dickering on price."
Posted by: DH Walker on February 14, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

That's going to be a real problem for whomever gets elected next. They're going to have to repeal the tax cuts - I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I can't afford to go back up, even that $300/yr. Interest rates are up, my gas and electric bills are up, I've got expenses I didn't have 6 years ago, and my salary has gone down, both in absolute and real terms. Repealing these tax cuts is going to be very painful for most Americans, because they NEED them. They need them much more now than they did 6 years ago.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

This reminds me of another story.

Two brothers, George and Jeb, were out deer hunting.

George accidentally shot Jeb, who collapsed on the ground, bleeding and unconscious. George started to panic, and then remembered that he had his cell phone in his pocket, so he called 911 for help.

George got the 911 operator on the phone and started wailing, "I'm out in the woods and I accidentally shot my brother and I don't know what to do, I think he's dead! I think I killed him!"

The 911 operator says, "OK, calm down. The first thing you've got to do is make sure he's dead."

George says "OK, just a minute" and the operator waits. Then she hears a gunshot. George comes back on the phone and says, "OK, now what?"

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

I thought Monica won the big fucking cigar.

Posted by: Jay on February 14, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

"It's not like Cheney did something that affects America or the electorate."

His fundamental interest in recreational butchery does say rather a lot about his character and outlook. In 2003 he massacred 70 pheasants singlehandedly in one afternoon, which leaves quite a pile of gore. These were all captive birds that had grown up in a box and the first chance they ever had to fly was face first into Deadeye Dick's shot gun.

500 released, 410 shot, altogether. Them ol' boys must have packed on a few pounds after that one.

Republicans are so proud of this utter dog's cunt of a person.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

The non-apology is legal strategy, i.e. he can't apologize for blasting a 78 year old man with a shotgun because that is a defacto admission of guilt. He can't apologize because of legal jeopardy; it's _not_ a PR issue. If Whittington dies, that's manslaughter or negligent homicide, take your pick. The Veep/WH PR machine is in full CYA mode here, _that's_ why they're not apologizing.

This re-inforces my belief that this is much more serious than the jokey 'peppered with pellets' WH happytalk narrative would have us believe.

Recall, this is a 78 year old guy with major shotgun trauma who has now had a heart attack and has required almost 4 days in ICU (you think they'd keep him in there a minute longer than necessary?). Whittington could very easily get into, or already be, in real trouble and die.
No press conference from the attending physician, just vague 'resting comfortably' spin from (Rove/WH coached) hospital PR. More likely he's resting comfortably because he's chasing the fentanyl dragon to the point of delerium. They've 'left pellets under his skin'. How _deep_ under his skin appears to be unmentionable, but the fact that they've already worked their way to his heart, apparently not by movement from the face/neck area, is an ominous sign.

Let me repeat: The Vice-president of the United States almost killed (and may yet kill) a 78yr old man with a shotgun. HaHaHa - NOT. Laughing about it is playing right into the Rove's hands. This is literally deadly serious.

The only silver lining here is that if Whittington dies, Cheney's toast as VP. Which in turn means there's a chance the plans to invade Iran get derailed, thus saving thousands of (innocent) lives.

Posted by: quietpc3400 on February 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

You can put up drywall and overhaul an engine, Alek? Where do you live? Is it near me?

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Let them hate as long as they fear" -- Caligula.

For whatever it's worth, Brad DeLong says the rumor around south Texas is that my mother's theory was correct -- the reason for the delay is that they actually WERE waiting for Cheney to sober up before releasing the news of the accident.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on February 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

"I thought Monica won the big fucking cigar."

Well, seeing as how Clinton was such a "wuss" I am suprised she didn't use the broomstick.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

This story is already running on the Brazilian papers. One of them had an article about the jokes on Letterman, Leno and 'The Daily Show'.

Posted by: Brazil Connection on February 14, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

OBF: Repealing these tax cuts is going to be very painful for most Americans, because they NEED them. They need them much more now than they did 6 years ago.

I can't remember who said it first, but if I could give back my $300 and reverse all the colossal fuck-ups and long-term structural damage to the country and its economy, I'd do it in a cold second.

And as for holding W accountable for all this crap... for the 39% in this country, if they saw W strangle a baby on live TV, they would give you a 20-minute long explanation of just how the baby was asking for it. Bush and Cheney are completely incapable of wrongdoing - it's a simple matter of rationalizing, that's all. And rationalizing is just another form of reasoning, isn't it?

Posted by: DH Walker on February 14, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

In 2003 he massacred 70 pheasants singlehandedly in one afternoon, which leaves quite a pile of gore.

I've corrected this before, but it should be "peasants," not "pheasants."

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

The excuses being offered here to defend Cheney are beyond stupid.

This is so true, cmdicely.

But the sad thing is it works -- Republicans all over the land have already internalized all the talking points -- it was the victim's fault; it was just a "peppering"; liberals are pussies, they don't know anything about this manly game of hunting, etc; we should all just be laughing about this...

The Republican Noise Machine is very impressive.

Posted by: teece on February 14, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Good Lord, this is a completely ginned-up issue.

Sort of like .... Watergate?
Sort of like .... Paula Jones suing Clinton for something someone else said?
Sort of like ... Travelgate?
Sort of like ... the "murder" of Vince Foster?
Sort of like ... The Arkanasas Project?
Sort of like ... The Swift Boats?
Sort of like ... the made up Al Gore quotes?
Sort of like ... McCain's black baby?

etc farking etc.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on February 14, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Alek,

I think you are spending too much time in this here echo chamber. If Cheney makes no public statement, ever, it will matter not one whit to the Republican electoral prospects in November.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 14, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK
The non-apology is legal strategy, i.e. he can't apologize for blasting a 78 year old man with a shotgun because that is a defacto admission of guilt.

Unless Cheney's planned defense strategy is to deny having fired the shot that hit Whittington, it doesn't make much sense.

Legal guilt (or even civil liability) requires more than just causation; human regret does not in a case like this.

So, I have to say, I can't believe the idea that this silence is a legal rather than PR issue.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

You can put up drywall and overhaul an engine, Alek? Where do you live? Is it near me?

I didn't say I could do those things. I am in fact one of those urban (actually suburban)-dwelling wimps. I do live in a red state, though, if that counts for anything.

And, no, I don't live near you. Meaning my love will probably remain unrequited.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 14, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

He was drunk.

No other explanation.

Posted by: The Hague on February 14, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

The intelligence was fixed on firing into the second covey of quail. Had Dick helped his hunting bud put the first bird safely in the pouch they could have proceeded getting a nice buzz on while dusting up some feathers. Hmmm...why is this so reminiscent of my high school daze?

Posted by: lou on February 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Shooting a bunch of farm-raised birds isn't even hunting. Cheney the rugged outdoorsman and hunter is as much a myth as George W. Bush the rancher.

Posted by: Ringo on February 14, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

I would be more than happy to demonstrate to Mike K that this liberal knows which end of a gun is which, and if he would just hold a target for me I can show him that my aim is pretty good too.

Posted by: Kime M on February 14, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

He was drunk.

No other explanation.

Also explains why he 'had dinner' at the ranch instead of going to the hospital. Wouldn't want to be around any witnesses, or breathalizers, would he?

Posted by: tinfoil on February 14, 2006 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

"It's the press trying to nail him on something. Anything. Even if they have to generate the controversy out of nothing."

He shot a guy!!! He didn't use the wrong fork at dinner or wear white after Labor Day, he blasted a guy full of lead, refused to speak with the law until the next day and is letting his proxies blame the guy for getting shot. About the only two thing bigger than "he shot a guy in the face" would be "he shot a guy in the face and the guy died" or "he responded to the death of an American city by buying himself a mansion" or perhaps, "he engineered the conquest of a foreign country on false pretexts causing widespread death and mayhem in an area of American vital interests." Oh, rightI think I get your point...

Posted by: Chesire11 on February 14, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Good grief, we have been shooting lawyers for quite some time, including Andrew Jackson:

"His opponent was Charles Dickinson, a young lawyer who had insulted Jackson's
wife..."

Now, Cheney is no Jackson for Jackson let Dickinson shoot first.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I've been quail hunting tons of times and always used a 12 gauge. I have never hit or been hit by anyone. We always make sure, first and foremost, that no one is in the line of fire. Even when using a great bird dog sometimes the quail take off suddenly in a flurry and the hunter tries to be ready but always makes a last second check and consideration as to whether someone is in the line of fire. The quail is shot up in the air not near the ground. Shooting quail on or near (within 10 feet) of the ground is illegal and stupid and not real sport. They must be above the horizon, like skeet shooting. Buckshot spraying can occur if hundreds of feet away someone is on the ground, the hunter cannot see them or know that they are there, and the buckshot comes down near them. The buckshot lacks the force to break the skin usually in this case sense the hunter making the shot is several hundred feet away and the buckshot lacks velocity. If this man was shot within 50 to 100 feet then I would not hunt quail with Cheney, he's obviously an idiot. Unless the man was flying. First they said the man was sprayed-if this were true then the distance from the shot would have to be much greater, if the buckshot broke his skin then he is fairly close. What this sounds like to me is that Cheney didn't have the safety on and his gun accidently went of shooting just below the horizon into the dirt and this man happened to be standing there. If this man dies Cheney can face negligant homicide. No one I've ever hunted with shot quail within 50 feet at or near the ground. The sport is to shoot them as the suddenly fly from the ground up into the air-that's the fun of it. Just like shooting skeet. I wouldn't hunt with anyone that hunts like Cheney appears to have done it and if I did it would be the last time. Guns are dangerous and it takes all the fun out of it if you have to worry about some dumbass in your group or otherwise shooting you. While growing up on a farm we at times shot buckshot into our bull's butts to train them to stay at home. I know exactly how close you must be before the buckshot penetrates and makes your point regarding the bull, merely stings a little, or causes major damage. If the buckshot did penetrate into this man then Cheney was close enough to know he was there and is negligant. Something about the story just doesn't add up. It really sounds like Cheney's gun went off accidently, trigger safety not on, and he's trying to make it be more the injured man's fault.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Hm. Leave it to Mike K to forget and deny the fourth rule of gun safety. Admit it, you've never really fired a real gun outside of a video game, have you?

This coming from a BSA-certified Range Master. (.22)

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

stefan, I stand corrected.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I should be recognized and given an award for having recognized long time ago, before anyone else, that tbrosz is a major league asshole, as his first post above confirms beyond any fence-sitters' doubt.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Constantine:

Dick Cheney works for us. The least he can do is not act like an ass in public and display the requisite amount of honesty and openness we should expect from the most powerful members of goverment.

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat. Their behavior over the past couple of days shows that they're a lot more interested in nailing Cheney to the wall than they are in hearing him talk about the issue. The only reason they want Cheney behind a podium is so they can rip him a new one. Sorry Cheney isn't playing the game the way you want it played out. The Left is just going to have to chew its nails in frustration. Again.

It took the posters here about half a thread to descend into sheer hallucination. Already Cheney was "drunk" at the time, although nobody anywhere has even alluded to this.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

If this man was shot within 50 to 100 feet then I would not hunt quail with Cheney, he's obviously an idiot.

Whittington was hit with over 200 pellets from a shell loaded with approx. 300 pellets. Given the rate of spread of a shotgun blast, and given that the pellets hit Whittington in about a one foot wide area on his chest, shoulders and face, this indicates that Cheney was probably no more than about eight to fifteen feet away from Whittington when he shot him.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The quail is shot up in the air not near the ground.

Can cage-raised quail even fly that high?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

He was drunk.

No other explanation.

What if Dick had his own heart attack, and that's why he shot the poor sap? Just a mild one, whoops, sorry I SHOT - YOU - IN - THE - FACE and then back to the ranch.

I'll tell you one thing - Cheney hunts alone from now on. All over the South, they'll be saying "shit, I give $500,000 to the GOP and then they shoot me? Fuck that!"

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney is probly taking pain killers to help him with the denial that he is guilty of: faking reasons to go to war, being a traidor and outing our spies, giving billions upon billions to the rich while wathcing Katrinia people die before our eyes.

Pain Killers and Psycho/Anti depressants would cause someone to be unaware of what they are doing.

For Christ Sake how hard is it to keep track of 2 other hunting buddies?

Posted by: skibumlee on February 14, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

cld: stefan, I stand corrected.

Uh, thanks. What about?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

The simplest explanation is there is a man somewhere in there, and he is too ashamed of himself to say anything. Shooting your hunting buddy is about the stupidest half-assed trick a hunter can pull, and could go a long way toward shattering his self-image, which is probably a pretty thin veneer on the evil that seems to be inside him. Cheney could be a little fragile and erratic right now-- we should be worrying more about Arab wedding parties in Predator flight zones than about whether Cheney 'fesses up to being a stumblebum in the quail fields.

Posted by: quinnat on February 14, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat.

Good heavens, what a cynical thing to say about our esteemed press corp. Next thing you'll be claiming that they'd go after a president for getting a blow job.

Posted by: alex on February 14, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

I believe I should be commended for my self-restraint in reading this latest best effort of tbrosz', considering responding and high-mindedly choosing not to do so.

Consider yourself commended, shortstop. tbrosz, not so much. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

"Right. I mean, Cheney observed all the rules of safe hunting, he reported this incident minutes after it happened, he allowed himself to be interviewed by sheriff's deputies the same afternoon, he's made a public apology and he has also publicly remonstrated with those who would blame Whittington. The guy's done everything right--what do you liberals want?"

Um, according to all the newsclips I've read, he WAS NOT interviewed the day of the accident but the following day. When a sheriff's deputy showed up on Saturday, he was turned away from the compound. The Secret Service made arrangements for the Sheriff's Office to interview Cheney on Sunday.
PS Any regular Joe Blow who pulled a stunt like that would be in jail right now.

Posted by: lou on February 14, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

The next time Cheney goes hunting (has he already?) he should bring along Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume -- somebody that will understand and put hunting accidents and the shooting of dozens of small feathery cute quails into perspective.

I heard Cheney supplies the meat for all state dinners. Is this true?

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat. Their behavior over the past couple of days shows that they're a lot more interested in nailing Cheney to the wall than they are in hearing him talk about the issue. The only reason they want Cheney behind a podium is so they can rip him a new one. Sorry Cheney isn't playing the game the way you want it played out. The Left is just going to have to chew its nails in frustration. Again.
Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

I rest my case. See?

Read tbrosz' post.

It's ALL about Liberal-baiting. That's the defining issue and characteristic of movement conservativism. On absolutely every other issue, they've flip-flopped and compromised. But the one issue on which they won't compromise is "making Liberals angry". Anything at all that does that, is okay with them.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat.

Then they should talk to Cheney. Maybe he can bag them some. Assuming, of course, that the prey is cage-raised and that Cheney can drive up to it in his car. And of course the press will have to pick the buckshot out of the meat themselves....

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Lou: easy there. Shortstop was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on February 14, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

The people didnt need the tax cuts six years ago. And if you havent noticed, the tax cuts were more than compensated by increases in other government levees, just not all Federal. I thought I might have come out ahead in my tax bracket until the Alternate Minimum Tax came down and smacked people like me. Does Dubya care? Not likely.

Try to convince me that he cares about the AMT.

Posted by: troglodyte on February 14, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness."

If they were, they would be well advised not to waste their time looking for it from this administration!

Posted by: Chesire11 on February 14, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

"...eight to fifteen feet away from Whittington when he shot him. "

Well the standard in Jackson's day was eight paces, so this is about right.

Aaron and Alexander shot off at 30 feet, however.

Maybe, the Cheney duel was a little tight, considering they were firing shotguns.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Recall, this is a 78 year old guy with major shotgun trauma who has now had a heart attack and has required almost 4 days in ICU (you think they'd keep him in there a minute longer than necessary?). Whittington could very easily get into, or already be, in real trouble and die."

Well, he is rich and well connected, so he might have been in intensive care merely as a precaution... best healthcare in the world! (if you are dick cheney or someone like him).

However you are absolutely correct. The guy is 78. Even considerably more trivial injuries than this one can be reasonably life threatening to someone that old.

Posted by: jefff on February 14, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Whittington was hit with over 200 pellets from a shell loaded with approx. 300 pellets. Given the rate of spread of a shotgun blast, and given that the pellets hit Whittington in about a one foot wide area on his chest, shoulders and face, this indicates that Cheney was probably no more than about eight to fifteen feet away from Whittington when he shot him.

This is what I'm talking about when I say "hallucinations." The news story said "six to 200 pellets." See how easily that drifts into "over 200 pellets."

Film of an experiment with a shotgun here.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

The Hague: He was drunk. No other explanation.

...Hmmm, I wonder if it's too late to trot out a 'second gunman' theory where The Dark Lord was just a patsy?...

Oh wait! Was I thinking out loud again?! Darn it. There's inside words and outside words -- gotta remember.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Shooting quail within ten feet of the ground is illegal?! So they must have been tossing Whittington up in the air with a blanket, or something?


But the important point, the thing everyone is pussyfooting around, is, did Dick bag the bird? After all, that's really what it's all about.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat.

Yeah, and along that front . . .

Has anyone asked how many units of blood Harry received? This is probably the best indicator of severity of his initial injury and would be good background for understanding their decision to fly him by helicopter to a different hospital.

Also -- would Harry have survived if this had happened in 1804? What about Alexander Hamilton today? A good way to rub in the historical perspective and discuss why Burr was on the run from state authorities for multiple years.

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 14, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, I think your pod personality is getting too strong. You've really gone of the deep end now.

Bush and Cheney get a pass on pretty much every fuckup for 6 years, and the press is after them? Ho ho fucking ho.

Bush is at 39%, you appeaser. Thirty nine percent. Clinton never got that low, even in the middle of being swarmed by every "journalist" on earth. Thirty nine percent, and still we don't read about a "presidency in crisis" or "the beleagured president" or any of that crap.

Cheney shoots a guy - shoots a fucking guy - and you want to blame the press for being interested? Especially when Cheney can't have the good grace to go "whoops"?

Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised Whittington doesn't have a collapsed lung considering he was hit on the right and his heart is involved. What about his liver?

Also, why can't the press corps ask if Cheney was drinking before the shooting? And, is Cheney actually a friend of Whittington? I read that Rove is a longtime friend of Whittington, that makes it likely that he's no friend of Dick.

Posted by: jerry on February 14, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

My ass hurts.

So does mouth.

Someone please help me.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Now we've all experienced getting shot now and again, it's part of the thrill of the hunt. Hell, if we didn't get shot, peppered or sprayed with birdshot from time to time, it'd hardly be 'hunting'. There's literally nothing more fun than bagging some crippled chickens, having a couple of suds and picking pellets out of your ass.

We're not like you liberals, even you liberals that hunt, with your 'hunting rules' and 'tips'. We're more into the shooting. Loads of lead. Indiscriminately sprayed.

Why I don't know a single hunter who hasn't been shot. Ever. It's how we can tell a conservative from everyone else.

Posted by: conservative hunter on February 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

The press isn't looking for "honesty" and "openness." They're looking for raw meat.

Yeah, fine. But I'm looking for honesty and openness. Not just on this issue but on the way Dick Cheney runs his office (and much of this administration) in general.

tbrosz, as someone who has at times expressed some interest in liberty, I have two questions: Do you think Dick Cheney operates in a way that is consistent with allowing the citizens of a republic to evaluate his performance and gain accountability? And what would you say his honest views are about candidly informing the public? I'd say they're pretty much what Cranky Observer put out there up at the top of this thread. You honestly disagree?

I don't want to speak for you in advance of your response. But I will say this: Once upon a time conservatives understood the argument that absolute power corrupts absolutely, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and that sunshine is required to disinfect the halls of power. Watching the way folks like Barr and Bartlett get blackballed, I think it is undeniable that those principled conservatives of yesteryear (wrong, perhaps, but principled) have been replaced by a generation of pure radical authoritarians. And that is tragic for all of us.

Posted by: Bill Camarda on February 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'm surprised Whittington doesn't have a collapsed lung considering he was hit on the right and his heart is involved. What about his liver?

Cheney cut out the liver and ate it raw while still in the field, as any real hunter does after he's brought down his prey. Then he smeared himself with Whittington's blood.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Never apologize, never explain.

The mantra of the crazies on the right.

Posted by: JimBobRay on February 14, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

This is what I'm talking about when I say "hallucinations." The news story said "six to 200 pellets." See how easily that drifts into "over 200 pellets."

Film of an experiment with a shotgun here.

Amusingly, your post contradicts itself. The video that you link to has a guy doing a simulation, then holding up the target and saying "you can see that over 200 BBs hit in this torso area here."

Nice try on the tweed and pipe, I'm just a reasonable guy in a sea of crazies, pose.

And BBs. Fuck. What's with these hunters and their Weapons of Minimal Injury?

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
The news story said "six to 200 pellets." See how easily that drifts into "over 200 pellets."

The news stories I've seen (example) did not say he was hit with 6 to 200 pellets. They said that, besides the one larged in his heart, there may be 6 to 200 other pellets lodged in his body.

The only articles I've seen giving any account of the number of pellets Cheney was hit with (example) indicate an estimate 200, not "6 to 200".

So, while "over 200" may be inaccurate in that role, so is your "6 to 200", equally and oppositely.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

A bunch of wusses who would not know a shotgun from a broomstick...

I bet Whittington wishes Cheney had been holding a broomstick.

anyone who has ever been bird hunting knows was the fault of the guy who got shot.

Wow. Just wow.

I've been hit by pellets and hit people with pellets, always minor.

Apparently Mike K knows about as much about shotguns as broomsticks too. I want to go hunting with him!


Posted by: ckelly on February 14, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Simplest explanation for the silence: His lawyer told him to say nothing.

Simplest explanation for the shooting? Drunken hunter.

What do you bet that if Cheney was drunk, that he had a drink or two during dinner as well.

Posted by: AC8 on February 14, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: "I've been shot in the head any number of times. Hasn't changed my thinking a bit."

Those of us who shoot seriously (in my case, practical pistol and skeet) don't shoot with dipshits who shoot, or get shot by, their buddies.

Posted by: cd318 on February 14, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

The Hague on February 14, 2006 at 4:45 PM:

He was drunk. No other explanation.

Well, at least he wasn't driving, thank God...something really bad could have happened then....

Posted by: grape_crush on February 14, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Burr was on the run from state authorities for multiple years."

Well, only a couple of days, before he went back to work. After all, he had to go back and help pick out another Secetrary of the Treasury.

Burr's problem was that he dueled in New York, which had, by that time, gotten damn tired of the federalists shooting each other.

It wasn't shooting lawyers that got Aaron in trouble, it was treason, later on. He evidently tried to carve a new republic from a piece of the old republic.

Vice Presidents! What characters I think they rebel against being second place all the time.

I like the way Andrew did it. He just shot the lawyer and rode home like any other day, well, except for that iron ball in his rib cage.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

craigie:

...you want to blame the press for being interested? Especially when Cheney can't have the good grace to go "whoops"?

I heard tapes of the questions. That wasn't "interest" I was hearing, never mind a simple desire to hear Cheney say "whoops."

Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?

You know, I bet that crap actually works on a lot of people you know, the kind of people who are a lot more concerned about what others think of them than about what the facts are.

Geez, read down this thread a bit. I'm not sure how many people here are going to survive until 2009, especially when they don't get Congress back this fall.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Hm. Leave it to Mike K to forget and deny the fourth rule of gun safety. Admit it, you've never really fired a real gun outside of a video game, have you?

This coming from a BSA-certified Range Master. (.22)

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten"

The comments are what I would expect. A "certified range master" ought to know better. Was that certification by the NRA ?

The pellet "near the heart" issue is a new one and having treated hundreds of shotgun wounds I know that it would have to be very close range to retain enough energy to penetrate the chest. I have doubts that the story is accurate. If indeed there are pellets that penetrated that far, the story may not be correct as currently explained by the White House.

As far as quail hunting is concerned, Good Morning America had a guy on a North Carolina hunting club discussing it this morning and he commented that the quail Cheney was hunting were wild and on a huge Texas ranch that is private property. I've never heard of stocked quail being hunted. Quail do very well around people and in hot climates while hot weather areas where I've done most of my hunting over the years will not support pheasants over the summer. Most pheasants hunted in California, for example, are stocked, either by the state or by a private hunting club.

Anybody who's hunted quail knows that they get up fast and most shooting is at about 20 - 25 yards. Pheasants are at longer ranges. If you shoot too close the bird is inedible.

It is mildly humorous to watch a bunch of lefties discuss guns and hunting. Especially the pronouncements by vegans and antigun activists that I must not know anything about hunting.

What grade of black powder do you, Mr Expert, use to charge the pan of a flintlock ?

Which is a larger bore, 28 gauge or 20 gauge ?

What is the difference between the upland bird stamp that Cheney's staff did not get and the migratory bird stamp that he did have ?

When you answer those correctly, I'll talk to you.

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, let tbrosz blather on. The hilarious stuff that comes out of his mouth is a handy barometer of how desperate the Cult of Bush has become. If Cheney only raised taxes the way he raises a shotgun...then we might see some decency from Brosz.

Alek, oh, dear, this is about the hemp tights again, isn't it? No liberal man can resist them.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

"Well, at least he wasn't driving, thank God.."

That is where Teddy went wrong. He should have been taking a lawyer home for a screw.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

If there is any chance of legal jeopardy, Cheney should do exactly what he is doing and keep his big mouth shut. One cant lie if one doesnt say anything. If this is more serious than we have been led to believe, there is a good reason for silence.

Posted by: TexasToast on February 14, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

"...Monday, Austin lawyer Harry Whittington, 78, left the intensive care unit at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial. He was in stable condition after being hit with as many as 100 birdshot pellets but incurring largely superficial wounds, said Dr. David Blanchard, who briefed reporters in Corpus Christi."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/02/14whittington.html

Not hallucination, exaggeration, perhaps, but hardly hallucination! Besides, the White House and it's slack jawed defenders can hardly cry about it when it fits their established method of dealing with damaging stories. First, they do everything they can to look as if they have something to hide, then once speculation has filled the information vacuum, they allow the facts to come out. After days of feverish speculation, the original story pales beside all of the speculation and is rapidly forgotten. They even get to cry about how unfairly they're being treated by those ferocious Pekinese in the press corp.


Posted by: Chesire11 on February 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Having never shot a 28 guage I cannot imagine it's distinctive operation, but a 12 or 20 guage has a plug that is shot out with the buckshot. The plug is larger than the buckshot and if it happens to hit the quail then the bird is useless for eating-it is totally destroyed. At the range Stefan describes one would have to infer that the 28 guage has no or a very small plug, that it missed the victim, or it would have killed him likely at that range. In that distance the plug would not have separated from the general pattern of the buckshot.

Yes, I would think and believe that cage-raised quail can fly just as well as any quail. That is the nature of the sport. It's like skeet shooting only the hunter gets dinner out of it. Shooting quail on or within a man's height of the ground is stupid, not a sport or like one, and totally ignorant. That's not quail hunting-I'm not sure what it is. The quail or covey of quail (group) suddenly take to air near the hunter and once above the horizon one quail is chosen and a shot attempt is made. By then the bird is probably at least 60-70 feet away. If one is good and has a pump reload shotgun, time to choose another bird and shoot it may occur. If one is extremely good and fast one might have time to reload and shoot a third bird. They can quickly get out of range since soon the buckshot disperses enough to make hitting them virtually impossible. Sounds to me like Cheney forgot (or was drunk or high on something)and left his safety off and the gun actually went off accidently. This happens when you hunt with morons that leave their gun loaded and safety off as they go through fences, ride in the car, or crawl through obstacles. It's a sure fire way for someone to get shot. We always practiced extreme gun safety and did none of these things. I know of someone that shot their own refrigerator inside their house while screwing around with their shotgun loaded and safety off. I would assume this is something Cheney might do.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

You avoid saying a simple "I'm sorry" if you are worried about being sued. Cheney's just making sure that his ass is covered.

Posted by: Robert Earle on February 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: The pellet "near the heart" issue is a new one and having treated hundreds of shotgun wounds I know that it would have to be very close range to retain enough energy to penetrate the chest.

And many of those injuries were on buddies Mike K shotgunned on his hunting trips, so he knows what he's talking about.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

. . . and having treated hundreds of shotgun wounds I know that it would have to be very close range to retain enough energy to penetrate the chest. Posted by: Mike K

So, either he is totally full of shit (likely) or we ought actually to encourage hunting amongst conservatives. If they are shooting each other left and right, as Mike K(KK) seems to be implying, I think they are, in time, a self-limiting sub-species of human being.

Posted by: Jeff II on February 14, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

"About Cheney's hypothetical private apologies: So fucking what? His attack dogs are out in force, claiming that it's Whittington's fault for having been shot. A stand-up guy would take responsibility for what he's done and correct the public record, rather than having the victim be blamed by his supporters."

That, as I see it, is exactly where Cheney is weakest. He has his women folk (Mrs. Armstrong, and Mary Matelin) out their bad mouthing the victim.

Mear as I can tell Cheney's only remaining supporters are amoung the rich and the NRA. The rich might still support him after this, Whittington is a lawyer after all, but to the rank and file of the NRA hiding behind the skirts of your women folk is unforgiveable.

Posted by: Ron Byers on February 14, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?

tbrosz:
You know, I bet that crap actually works on a lot of people you know,

I don't have to say that to anyone I know.

Although, heh, I was actually making a funny. Too bad you couldn't see the twinkle in my eye.

Meanwhile, the gist of my post, which was that the gist of your post made no sense, stands.

shortstop:
I can't help it. It's either poke tbrosz with a stick, or work. And work keeps losing.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nice try on the tweed and pipe, I'm just a reasonable guy in a sea of crazies, pose.

What a beautiful piece of prose!

tbrosz: You know, I bet that crap actually works on a lot of people you know, the kind of people who are a lot more concerned about what others think of them...

It does work on a lot of people, but the kind who possess, you know, integrity. That's a cool word, isn't it? I bet you've heard about it in all your readings.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

I know of someone that shot their own refrigerator inside their house while screwing around with their shotgun loaded and safety off.

Yeah, but I bet that refrigerator never fucked with him again, did it?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Did the refrigerator fail to announce itself?

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

The pellet "near the heart" issue is a new one and having treated hundreds of shotgun wounds I know that it would have to be very close range to retain enough energy to penetrate the chest. I have doubts that the story is accurate.

Your skepticism of the truth must come naturally to a guy who gets shot a lot and thinks it's an accident.

If indeed there are pellets that penetrated that far, the story may not be correct as currently explained by the White House.

Jesus Mike, if indeed. Here's the lede from AP: The 78-year-old lawyer wounded by Vice President Dick Cheney in a hunting accident suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday after a shotgun pellet in his chest traveled to his heart, hospital officials said.

So does this mean that the White House is lying?

And finally, to those who can't believe this is a story, the Vice President SHOT a man. At close range. You're like the fake Irish cop in the movies. "Move along, nothing to see here."

Posted by: n.o.l.t.f. on February 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney could be under the gun for quite some time. Say the victim develops a chronic heart problem due to the inury. If this guy has a fatal heart attack 18 months from now, did Cheney kill him? CMDicely?

Posted by: Keith G on February 14, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

craigie: I know, baby. It's hard, hard work resisting.

Mike K! Your masters finally e-mailed you some additional talking points so you can pretend you know a gun from a beer mug! But you're still flailing against invisible "vegans" and "anti-gun activists"--didn't the guys at HQ warn you to read the copy over and personalize it a little bit before cutting and pasting?

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney could be under the gun for quite some time.

Well, that would only be fair.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Burr's problem was that he dueled in New York, which had, by that time, gotten damn tired of the federalists shooting each other.

If memory serves me right -- and I'm reading Founding Brothers now, about a crew whose chamber pots Cheney wouldn't be fit to empty -- the duel occurred in New Jersey, with both participants being rowed across for the occasion.

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, the duel was in Weehawken, New Jersey, on the heights over the Hudson.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I bet that crap actually works on a lot of people you know, the kind of people who are a lot more concerned about what others think of them than about what the facts are.

Wheras tbrosz demonstrates repeatedly that he is concerned about neither. Yes, tbrosz, we're familiar with your complete and utter lack of shame.

Posted by: Gregory on February 14, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney's attitude toward our feathered friends is not one of outright butchery, but sportsmanship? Friendly competition?

Let's Google the VP's pheasant party,

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20031215/013366.html

"It was a good shoot," said (Sen. John) Cornyn, who figures he shot dozens of pheasants
himself. He conceded that bagging the birds was so easy, at times it seemed
"kind of like how Tyson's and Pilgrim's Pride and other people do it. I must
tell you that people don't necessarily hunt the same way in Texas that they
hunt in Ligonier, Penn., but it was enjoyable," he said."

The difference between a pheasant and a peasant is one you have for dinner and the other drops it's aitches.

While Republicans appear dressed neatly from the waist up.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK
The comments are what I would expect. A "certified range master" ought to know better. Was that certification by the NRA ?

If you could read, you would recognize that what you cut and pasted said "BSA-certified range master" not "certified range master". You could then use Google and quickly discover that the BSA Rangemaster certification is a separate certification by the Boy Scouts of America, though it is often conditioned on certification as an NRA Instructor in the same category of weapons.

What grade of black powder do you, Mr Expert, use to charge the pan of a flintlock ?

Dunno. Not really relevant to hunting safety with a modern shotgun, or how you ought to respond after you've shot your "friend" in the face, though.

The only flintlock I fired wasn't one I owned, and I wasn't involved in getting the powder. I could probably find out in a about 30 seconds if I cared, but, as noted above, its irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Which is a larger bore, 28 gauge or 20 gauge ?

20 gauge is a larger bore, though I have to admit I don't remember seeing anything about a 28 gauge shotgun until this incident; not that knowing this, again, is relevant to intelligent commentary on the issue at hand.

What is the difference between the upland bird stamp that Cheney's staff did not get and the migratory bird stamp that he did have ?

While relevant to the illegally hunting aspect of this story, that hasn't been the focus of this discussion. So, again, its just not relevant. The wrong stamp issue is tangential to the central discussion.

When you answer those correctly, I'll talk to you.

Oh, yeah, like you haven't been talking to us already. You conveniently pull out your "test" of questions irrelevant to the discusion to cover your inability to make a case when you've been stomped up and down by people that know what they are talking about. Cute distraction but, you know, your still a mindless partisan drone, and you aren't fooling anyone. Nice try, though.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K: Especially the pronouncements by vegans and antigun activists that I must not know anything about hunting.

As far as I know I am the only vegan who comments here. And while I am not an anti-gun activist I am anti-gun, and as far as I can tell from today's comments, I seem to be the only anti-gun person who has posted a comment on this thread. I do despise both guns and the killing of animals for "sport". And I did not "pronounce" that you don't know anything about hunting. I "pronounced" that your worship of guns was a mental illness.

Having said that, the comments from others who evidently do have experience with guns and with killing animals for "sport" have persuaded me that, in fact, you don't know anything about hunting.

You are just a brain-dead Bush bootlicking phony, making programmed, scripted, right-wing talking point apologies for Cheney.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK
Cheney could be under the gun for quite some time. Say the victim develops a chronic heart problem due to the inury. If this guy has a fatal heart attack 18 months from now, did Cheney kill him? CMDicely?

The common law rule required death within a year and a day from the original injury, though, the rule has been abolished by statute in the UK and its current applicability in US jurisdictions is mixed.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

"Integrity" often involves applying the same standards to your own side that you apply to the other side. The man who left a woman to drown (how long was it after the accident before HIS first press conference took place?) is a major leader in the Democratic Party, and to the best of my knowledge, has been carrying no baggage at all from the Left because of that particular incident.

BTW, found the shooting report at Smoking Gun, a good place to find things like this.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Keith G at 5:44 PM: Cheney could be under the gun for quite some time. Say the victim develops a chronic heart problem due to the inury. If this guy has a fatal heart attack 18 months from now, did Cheney kill him?

Traditionally, English law is "a year and a day". I don't know what the law is in Texas these days.

Posted by: derek on February 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

I enjoy bacon cheeseburgers and steaks and avoid vegetables. Does this mean I should switch to the Right and begin thinking of only how much I can get for myself? I feel conflicted....Mike K has confused me.

Posted by: murmeister on February 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

can one of you sportsmen tell us city slickers about the protocol in announcing your location, as wittington suppposedly should have done? doesn't that scare the birds or something?

Posted by: benjoya on February 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

I don't really know how to load a flint lock or what you hunt for with it once it's loaded but I know that quail season is in the fall in areas where it can be very hot in the summer. Places like where I did it, Oklahoma, and Texas, Kansas, etc. We never sprayed anyone with buckshot or got sprayed by anyone. The only times that I can remember anyone getting shot or nearly shot was do to poor safety habits. If you know anything about hunting at all, MikeK, then you would know that if someone got shot at this close range and they weren't flying, then someone pretty much failed to keep his safety on and was pointing his gun around weirdly and it went off. We always either pointed our gun toward the ground nearly directly down or when preparing to shoot quail up in the air. At no time did we point it out to where someone standing 20 to 60 feet away could be shot except at that short time when we were shifting it from the ground to the sky. And at this time we had the safety on. Any other operation than this is unsafe, stupid, and just asking for an accidental shooting. Cheney isn't saying anything because he's scared. In Texas this can be negligant homicide-whether it's called an accident or not. He failed to take adequate safety measures to insure the safety of his fellow hunters and if it can be proven he is not in a strong position legally.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Integrity" often involves applying the same standards to your own side that you apply to the other side.

Lol! I just love satire!

Posted by: Chesire11 on February 14, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

can one of you sportsmen tell us city slickers about the protocol in announcing your location

I believe most hunting stores sell whistles that emit a sound like "Hey fatso! I'm a huge contributor to the GOP! Don't shoot me, you chickenhawk fuck!"

Apparently, Whittington didn't have time to blow his.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

It is mildly humorous to watch Mike K discuss guns and hunting. After completely discrediting himself upthread by blaming the victim in a hunting accident, you'd think he'd be humiliated. But the little liar is back. Clown.

Posted by: Joel on February 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

"But [Senator] Cornyn said Wednesday that the birds had a sporting chance, even if they were farm-raised and released from nets for the hunters."

I am not a hunting expert, but it seems to me far easier to shoot the things while they are still in the cage.

I mean, its not like some referree got the Republicans and the birds together and said, "No low punches, OK?"


Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Now here is a guy who knows about guns. Notice how carefully he examines the bore ?

They were hunting with 28 gauge which suggests a pretty high level of skill. I have always used a 12 gauge with quail although I've used 28 gauge with pheasants. I've seen my father get two pheasants with a 28 gauge double barrel. One with each barrel. Far better than I could ever attempt.

cmdicely, you'd sure know a mindless partisan drone when you see one. Lots of practice in the mirror each morning.

The news stories that I read are about a cardiac cath being done because of arrhythmia, not a pellet. We'll see how it plays out.

Maybe the vegan anti-gun type just seemed like more than one. I don't actually track each of your posts. I just want to read what the left is thinking about.

It is funny how so many of you keep on the meme of talking points. Where do I get my "right-wing talking points?" Do you get yours from the other side ? Why is that so important to you ?

I think they call that projection in DSM IV

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, I see Flanders' is tossing out the old "buh-buh-buh he did it too, Mommy!" defense -- the favorite defense of cornered five year olds everywhere. Yes, indeed, because Kennedy committed a horrible and indefensible act thirty-seven years ago Cheney is fully justified in shooting his friends in the chest in the present day. But of course. So let's all get back in our time machines so we can travel to 1969 and make sure to denounce Kennedy there as well!

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: "Integrity" often involves applying the same standards to your own side that you apply to the other side.

Whereas the only standard you ever apply to Bush and Cheney is "I got a tax cut so they can do no wrong."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

I believe most hunting stores sell whistles that emit a sound like "Hey fatso! I'm a huge contributor to the GOP! Don't shoot me, you chickenhawk fuck!"

Craigie, you kill me. I burst out laughing when I read this.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: So let's all get back in our time machines so we can travel to 1969 and make sure to denounce Kennedy there as well!

tbrosz lives in a time machine, and it is stuck way, way further back than that. I'd say sometime in the mid-1950s, in the heyday of Senator Joe McCarthy.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Just doing my part for the children, Stefan. It's all for the children.

And coming from you, that's quite a compliment. You are the standard on this thing.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

MRB: If you know anything about hunting at all, MikeK, then you would know that if someone got shot at this close range and they weren't flying, then someone pretty much failed to keep his safety on and was pointing his gun around weirdly and it went off.

Proof, therefore, that Whittington was flying when Cheney shot him.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

"But [Senator] Cornyn said Wednesday that the birds had a sporting chance, even if they were farm-raised and released from nets for the hunters."

This is the same "sporting chance" that poor children have to get rich.

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

"They were hunting with 28 gauge which suggests a pretty high level of skill."

I think at thirty feet, you do not need much skill to shoot a lawyer, well, unless you are using a broomstick.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

The comments are what I would expect. A "certified range master" ought to know better. Was that certification by the NRA ?
Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

BSA - Boy Scouts of America - I teach 10-12 year-old boys on the basics of gun safety, how to handle and fire a .22, bb-guns (.177) and bows and arrows. I'm not shotgun certified, but the basic four rules of gun safety are the same for bb-guns (even single-pump Daisy RedRiders) as they are for shotguns.

I've fired a 12 ga. shotgun before, even done some skeet shooting, but I've never hunted. I know my brother brought home quail before, to serve, and it had stainless steel pellets embedded in it, because the poor sap couldn't pick them all out.

Too bad that I wasn't around to teach Cheney the basics of gun-safety, maybe if he had spent time in the Scouts he could also have learned something about honor and duty, and taking care of nature, instead of oil industry lobbyists.

The pellet "near the heart" issue is a new one and having treated hundreds of shotgun wounds I know that it would have to be very close range to retain enough energy to penetrate the chest. I have doubts that the story is accurate.

Well, maybe I'm right about Cheney using Depleted Uranium pellets.

It is mildly humorous to watch a bunch of lefties discuss guns and hunting. Especially the pronouncements by vegans and antigun activists that I must not know anything about hunting.

I would hope that basic gun safety was an integral part of hunting. At least among all the hunters I know - they talk a lot about gun safety, as if it were an important part of the "tradition" of guns, and the reason why the 2nd Amendment is even relevant anymore. Being cavalier about gun safety is seen as a betrayal of the gun-rights cause, among the gun nuts I know.

What grade of black powder do you, Mr Expert, use to charge the pan of a flintlock ?

FFFFg.

No, I'm not an expert on antique firearms. Never claimed to be, and I'd say this question is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Although I did (about 20 years ago) help a freind build a working replica of a 14th century .40 cal muzzle-loader.

Which is a larger bore, 28 gauge or 20 gauge ?

20

What is the difference between the upland bird stamp that Cheney's staff did not get and the migratory bird stamp that he did have ?

Who cares?

When you answer those correctly, I'll talk to you.

I'll tremble and wet my pants with anticipation.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the outcome of Mr. Whittington's health is uncertain. If he dies????

Posted by: Rick on February 14, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

The press has again proven they are mostly babbling IDIOTS.The spite and hatred for Bush has driven them over the edge,only Chaney can drum up more hatred than W. I only wish you piss ants could have gotten this riled up over Vince Foster.Remember 48 hrs late Bubbah lets the F B I Ck out the office at the White House you pussys didnt give a Danm about that did you? Hell from the reaction you would think Chaney flew a drunk car off a bridge then took a hike now thats a story. What difference did it make when Bush knew? Why is it so important that you are spoon fed stories? Real, good reporters go get stories not sleep in on Saturday. What would have been different if A LIB had been the Vice President? We would be getting lectures on hunter safety and how the V P is so concerned about the victim and oh he will give a left nut to re-live the day BLAH BLAH....PUKE. You know the way to end this Bush- Chaney Maddness? Wait 37 more mounths then for another Republican to HATE. The fact The BIG BAD media got scooped by a real reporter somebody listening to a scanner or has connections in his/her 911 center.( 911 center is where Emergency calls come into.It is not a Drink) Maybe just maybe the guy was hanging around at the site doing his FUCKIN JOB!!!! Get over yourselves.Show some Class or at least stop slobbering. Looks un-professional.

Posted by: Glyn on February 14, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing to watch: critics of the administration have for over four years been claiming that Bush could shoot a man in broad daylight and his worshippers would say "no biggie". And now we're seeing the attitude in action, but who would ever have thought it extended to the vice president as well?

Posted by: derek on February 14, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

If this happens to Cheney while quail hunting then I certainly wouldn't want to go deer hunting with him. The projectile carries so much further and if he's just going to aimlessly shoot it out there then I wouldn't want to be in the same county as he. Idiots with guns and an IQ smaller than the gun bore is why I gave up hunting and went to fishing. Hunting with morons that have no safety considerations or training as well as the proper attitude for the distinctive type of tool that a gun is makes it a much more deadly sport than it really need be. Hell with fishing the moron just drowns or gets hooked, not shot by his friends.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

Mike K, if you used 12 gauge to blast quail you must not have been too interested in eating what you killed.

Posted by: Keith G on February 14, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK
cmdicely, you'd sure know a mindless partisan drone when you see one. Lots of practice in the mirror each morning.

How very 3rd grade of you.

The news stories that I read are about a cardiac cath being done because of arrhythmia, not a pellet.

Strange. The one's I've read are about a cardiac cath being done after both an arrythmia and a "silent heart attack" resulting from a pellet that the doctors had previously known to be near the heart moving into the heart.

New York Times:

The 78-year-old lawyer who was accidentally shot by Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday suffered a mild heart attack today after bird shot migrated to his heart, doctors in South Texas said.

Doctors said Mr. Whittington was moved back into the intensive care unit after his heart monitors detected an irregular beat this morning. After consulting with cardiologists in Corpus Christi, Tex., where he is being treated, and with those on the White House medical team, his doctors decided to perform a cardiac catheterization around 10 a.m. Eastern time to determine the extent of the damage.

Peter Banko, the administrator of Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christi, said that the procedure, which sends a dye into the blood vessels all the way to the heart, detected one BB size pellet in his heart that was causing his heart to quiver.

"Some of the bird shot appears to have moved and lodged into part of his heart, causing the arterial fibrillation, in what we would say is a minor heart attack," Dr. Banko told reporters this afternoon at a news briefing outside the hospital.

FOX News:

A birdshot pellet that hit Harry Whittington, the friend Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot on Saturday, has migrated to his heart, causing a "minor" heart attack, hospital representatives said on Tuesday outside the hospital where Whittington is being treated.

Malaysia Star:

HOUSTON (Reuters) - The Texas lawyer accidentally shot by Vice President Dick Cheney during a weekend quail hunt suffered a minor heart attack on Tuesday when some of the birdshot migrated close to his heart, a hospital spokesman said.

Harry Whittington, 78, has been moved into intensive care and will have to stay in the Corpus Christi, Texas hospital where he is being treated for at least another seven days to monitor his condition, said Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital spokesman Peter Banko.

Dr. David Blanchard, the hospital's emergency room chief, said at a news conference Whittington underwent cardiac catheterization after doctors noted an irregular heartbeat due to a minor heart attack.

Reuters:

HOUSTON (Reuters) - The Texas lawyer accidentally shot by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney during a weekend quail hunt suffered a minor heart attack on Tuesday when some of the birdshot still in his body lodged near his heart, a hospital spokesman said.

Harry Whittington, 78, was moved into intensive care and ordered to stay in the Corpus Christi, Texas, hospital for at least another seven days to monitor his condition, said Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital spokesman Peter Banko.

The news suddenly gave a serious edge to the incident that the White House had begun making light of on Tuesday after tense exchanges with the press the day before over failure to disclose the shooting for almost a full day.
.
.
.
Doctors and officials had assured the press that Whittington suffered only minor wounds, but Blanchard said on Tuesday, "We knew he had some birdshot very near to the heart from the get-go."

At least one of those pellets had gotten close enough to the heart to cause "irritability," which led to Tuesday's heart attack, he said.

What news stories have you been reading, anyway?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

They were hunting with 28 gauge which suggests a pretty high level of skill.

. . . or pretensiousness.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Darth Cheney is one of my favorite recent images:

http://themandarin.blogspot.com/2006/02/cheney-gets-his-man-sort-of.html

http://themandarin.blogspot.com/2006/01/cheney-leaves-hospital-after-breathing.html

The Mandarin
http://themandarin.blogspot.com/

Posted by: TheMandarin on February 14, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

The only Quail I'm interested in hunting is Dan Quayle. I'd love to paintball that pussy's ass. Another TANG draft-dodger chickenhawk.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

( 911 center is where Emergency calls come into.It is not a Drink)

I think I am finally speechless. What the bloody hell is this supposed to mean?

From the rest of the post, however, I deduce that the anthrax poisoner is back on the loose. Ah yes, whatever happened to him? Another bad guy the WH let get away...

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

And the majority of Americans ignore the story, just as they have ignored the Domestic wiretapping, Plamegate, and the Patriot Act. I'm begining to give up hope for America. Maybe we should have some sort of intelligence test for voting. Frickin Jesusland! Will they ever get it?

Posted by: paltry on February 14, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

But [Senator] Cornyn said Wednesday that the birds had a sporting chance, even if they were farm-raised and released from nets for the hunters.

Just like Saddam was given a chance to avoid war, as GWB likes to say.

Posted by: lib on February 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: "'Integrity' often involves applying the same standards to your own side that you apply to the other side."

Okay... Let's take that definition and try it out.

For several decades now, the right wing has hammered Senator Kennedy incessantly about the accident at Chappaquiddick. They have said:
- Kennedy should have gone public sooner,
- he must have been drunk at the time,
- there should have been a full investigation,
- he should express more public remorse,
and
- it should be the end of his political career.

If you have disagreed with any of the right-wing talking points on this issue, we haven't heard you mention it.

Now we've got a prominent Republican - first in line for the Presidency - involved in a serious accident. Questions about behavior and responsibility are being raised. And suddenly you are now telling us:
- Cheney didn't need to go public sooner,
- there's no reason to think he was drunk at the time,
- there's no need for a full investigation,
- he shouldn't express any public remorse,
and
- it should not affect his political career.


Hmm... Not much "integrity" in your position, is there t-boy?

Posted by: Oregonian on February 14, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney's people have been saying that it was Whittington's fault. But this AP story says:

The wildlife department issued a report Monday that found the main factor contributing to the accident was a "hunter's judgment factor." No other secondary factors were found to have played a role.

They didn't say which hunter's judgment they were talking about, but it would be strange if they weren't talking about the guy doing the shooting.

Posted by: JS on February 14, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

...Yes, indeed, because Kennedy committed a horrible and indefensible act thirty-seven years ago Cheney is fully justified in shooting his friends in the chest in the present day. But of course. So let's all get back in our time machines so we can travel to 1969 and make sure to denounce Kennedy there as well!

Actually, I was discussing to the reaction of the Democrats and the Left to both incidents at the time of each incident, not whether or not one act justified the other.

Oddly, what Bush and Kerry did many years ago were major issues in the presidential election. Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 14, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

These assholes stole two elections and committed numerous war crimes. What's a little assault with a deadly weapon to a life-long criminal like cheney?

Posted by: Pechorin on February 14, 2006 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

..The spite and hatred for Bush has driven them over the edge,only Chaney can drum up more hatred than W. ....
Posted by: Glyn on February 14, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

See? Liberal-baiting. We're only waiting for McArthur to show up and broadcast it in ALL CAPS, and Bush's 39% has fully represented in this thread.

I don't know what the law is in Texas these days.
Posted by: derek on February 14, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

If you're white, and you shoot somebody, you're either defending your home, or it was an accident. No harm no foul. If you're black, and you shoot someone, or if you were shot, you're obviously committing some kind of crime, and it's likely your third strike, so no trial's really necessary.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

C.J. Colucci posted this on Ezra Klein's comment board : "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"
My only thought was that I'm not sure I'm that charitable.

Posted by: opit on February 14, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Bush and Cheney have done more for liberal politics than all the progressive politicians of the past 50 years. They've polarized, screwed over people to such a great extent that they will be remembered for decades. Without their tireless efforts to fuck the country and everyone living in it as well as friend or foe throughout the world liberals would never have been able to see and understand how to stimulate all possible support. I, as a non-conservative, would like to thank Bush, Cheney, and the conservative congress for showing me the extent at which they can destroy a republic and bankrupt the treasury in such a short amount of time. I think we all owe a certain gratitude to these people for taking "fucking the country" out of the abstract. I don't suppose any of us imagined how a group can take a democracy and corrupt it so thoroughly and quickly. Our education regarding America's destruction has been helped so much that I want to think Bush, Cheney and all the rest for providing the intuitive lesson. These people have done more for liberal/progressive politics than one could have ever dreamed possible. Thank you George, Dick and the rest. The country may be screwed now but I think that as an important potential lesson for us all it will have been worth it somehow.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

A new Hunter's orange vest - $68.00
An out of state hunting license - $125.00
Shooting a 78 year old lawyer - $7.00
Having the help of the local police in covering up your drunken shooting by not investigating immediately - Priceless.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on February 14, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

If I shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun, will I also not be charged?

Posted by: Just Asking on February 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Oddly, what Bush and Kerry did many years ago were major issues in the presidential election. Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

Apparently Neddie has never heard of this thing called the 1980 presidential primary, in which Kennedy faced numerous questions about his role in Chappaquidick. Indeed, most observers concede that Chappaquidick destroyed any chance Kennedy ever had of rising to the Presidency, or even getting the Democratic party nomination.

By the way, it's a little off-topic but you never responded to my post yesterday when you asked for even one example of "the Left" favoring Israel over the Palestinians and I provided you with the example of the Democratic Party. Couldn't you have stuck around long enough to thank me for the example?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK
Actually, I was discussing to the reaction of the Democrats and the Left to both incidents at the time of each incident, not whether or not one act justified the other.

A sizable portion of the present voting "Left" and "Democratic Party" had no reaction at the time, having been either young children or actually unborn.

Oddly, what Bush and Kerry did many years ago were major issues in the presidential election.

As was it for Kennedy when he ran for President in 1980.

Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

Maybe because everyone voting for him is familiar with the story, and has made up their mind about its importance, one way or another. I mean, its been 36 years, its not exactly news to anyone.

The only people still making a deal about it are the same people lining up to defend Cheney now. While that isn't surprising, it is kind of odd for you, tbrosz, as one of them to claim Democratic hypocrisy is the issue. Since, you know, the people that attack Kennedy over Chappaquiddick to this day every time his name is connected to a story however tangentially (and sometimes insert him into a story that he isn't connected with just to attack him and distract from the story) are lining up to excuse Cheney here. Not different people in the same political party in a different time, but the exact same people.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK
Indeed, most observers concede that Chappaquidick destroyed any chance Kennedy ever had of rising to the Presidency, or even getting the Democratic party nomination.

I dunno -- I thought his inability to answer why he wanted to be President when asked was considered a major factor, too.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

If I shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun, will I also not be charged?

That depends -- are you a Republican?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

sensitivity and caring are not indicated by the number of press conferences you give telling the media how sensitive and caring you are.

However, dedication to national security IS indicated by the number of times you refer to "war" and "9/11" in media presentations. Well, at least that's what I've learned from the RNC.

I always love how tbrosz invokes the "talk is cheap" defense on the one occasion when talk might actually mean something. On virtually any other occasion, he's all about cheap talk.

Posted by: Irony Man on February 14, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

An occassionally sane conservative (Andrew Sullivan) comments:

Dear Mr Cheney
14 Feb 2006 06:40 pm

Just a word, if I may. You are employed by the American people. You are not a monarch; and you are not a Pope. You have seriously wounded another human being. The news was kept from the public for a day. The man is in intensive care. There are many serious questions about the incident: How did it happen? What happened immediately thereafter? Why the decision to keep it secret for so long? The least the American people deserve is your own account in public in front of the press corps. Who are you hiding from? And who on earth do you think you are?

Posted by: hopeless pedant on February 14, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

He's reserving the right to remain silent. He's taking the fifth, since he's already exercised the second.

Well, maybe if he hadn't downed a fifth he wouldn't have had to invoke the Fifth!

Posted by: clone12 on February 14, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs."

Because he has to face it every single day because Republicans know nothing else about any Democrat prior to the discovery of Clinton's dick.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a recreation of the shooting on video:
http://www.caller2.com/specials/2006/gun_demo/index.html

Think Progress also has it: http://www.thinkprogress.org/

Posted by: arkie on February 14, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

After Kennedy's incident I wrote so many blogs condemning his deplorable behavior. Can tbrosz provide any proof that liberals bahaved in the manner that he describes? At least I was quite critical of Kennedy in my blogs.

Posted by: lib on February 14, 2006 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

He was drunk. That is the logical conclusion.

Posted by: Guy Banister on February 14, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

"I'll tremble and wet my pants with anticipation.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten "

I hear you do that a lot. :)

Pretty good for knowing that FFFF powder is what is used to prime the pan of a flintlock.

Gun safety is important and I've gone hunting with people once that I would never go with again. The original versions of the story suggested that Cheney was being careful although maybe not careful enough.

It's pretty clear it was an accident unless the facts are different from those apparent to me. If there is a pellet in the heart or very near it, that changes the story. A pellet will not penetrate clothing at 90 feet, which is what the story said was the distance. Most accidental shotgun incidents involve the face because it is exposed. There is a slight chance that a pellet penetrated a jugular vein and embolized to the heart. That is the only way I see that it could be true. In that case, the pellet would cause little damage. I've testified in bullet embolus and catheter embolus cases.

The pellet in the heart story is so similar to hundreds of inaccurate versions by people who know nothing of gun shot wounds or guns that I will wait for the final word from the docs.

If the NY Times says it, I wait a little longer, even.

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

What a stupid thing to say. It's probably the only reason he wasn't president.

Posted by: Ben V-L on February 14, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: "Integrity" often involves applying the same standards to your own side that you apply to the other side. The man who left a woman to drown (how long was it after the accident before HIS first press conference took place?) is a major leader in the Democratic Party, and to the best of my knowledge, has been carrying no baggage at all from the Left because of that particular incident.

Tom, you've had your bare bottom spanked by others in the last 24 hours for your invocation of the monolithic "Left," and yet you still haven't learned. Will you ever?

This big old lefty thinks Ted Kennedy's political career should have ended with Chappaquiddick...actually, I think it should have ended when he got kicked out of Harvard for cheating in Spanish. How in the name of Ned (that's an actual Southern expression, particularly handy in this circumstance) do you honestly expect to discharge (heh) Cheney of moral responsibility here by correctly pointing out that Ted Kennedy is an asshole? Oh, you don't? So is your purpose, as it seems always to be, to argue that because one man is amoral or immoral, it doesn't matter what everyone else does? Is this really what you believe?

Your MO of constantly blaming others when you're called on your lack of honesty and ethics doesn't work, Tom. It doesn't matter that you don't want to be a person who's patently incapable of behaving with honesty and integrity. You don't need to admit it for it to be true. You are one.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

I believe most hunting stores sell whistles that emit a sound like "Hey fatso! I'm a huge contributor to the GOP! Don't shoot me, you chickenhawk fuck!"

So many classic lines. I believe I'll compile a little Hallmark-purchased scrapbook, "Your Gun Don't Mean Dick If It Ain't Got That Kick (back): Wit and Wisdom of the Cheney Incident."

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
If there is a pellet in the heart or very near it, that changes the story.

IF? Is there a story that doesn't say this? Yes, there is a pellet in or very near his heart, yes, the pellets hit him in the face, neck, and chest.

The pellet in the heart story is so similar to hundreds of inaccurate versions by people who know nothing of gun shot wounds or guns that I will wait for the final word from the docs.

Um, that is the story from the docs, dumbass.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

The original versions of the story suggested that Cheney was being careful although maybe not careful enough.

Yeah, the fact that he shotgunned a man in the face and chest is probably proof that he wasn't careful enough.

It's pretty clear it was an accident unless the facts are different from those apparent to me.

As opposed to what? Either he shot Whittington on purpose or it was an accident. So saying "it's pretty clear it was an accident" isn't really conceding all that much. The fact that it was an "accident" doesn't absolve Cheney of anything except the charge of attempted murder -- it was an accident that Cheney, as the shooter, was responsible for causing, an accident that was caused by his recklessness and disregard.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Cognative dissonance makes life so much easier to live.

Attack the press for reporting different stories about the shooting, then saying you can't believe any of them.

Forget that Cheney could clear up this all if he spoke up at the beginning or at any time since.

But he's the viceroy, so we can't have that, can we?

Posted by: hopeless pedant on February 14, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

The pellet in the heart story is so similar to hundreds of inaccurate versions by people who know nothing of gun shot wounds or guns that I will wait for the final word from the docs.

So when the Reuters story notes that:

"Dr. David Blanchard, the hospital's emergency room chief, said at a news conference Whittington underwent cardiac catheterization after doctors noted an irregular heartbeat due to a minor heart attack...Doctors and officials had assured the press that Whittington suffered only minor wounds, but Blanchard said on Tuesday, 'We knew he had some birdshot very near to the heart from the get-go.'"

how is that not hearing from "the docs"? You did catch, didn't you, that someone identified as "Dr. David Blanchard, the hospital's emergency room chief" is probably a doctor, right, and that he himself said Whittington "had some birdshot very neart to the heart"? Your medical training went far enough to enable you to recognize what a doctor is, didn't it?

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

Whittington's heart attack is probably nothing but heart-beat irregularity and the buckshot may not have penetrated far or embedded under the skin. The problem would be Whittington's age and overall physical shape. If Whittington were to, God forbid, worsen and/or die then the case could be made, helped along by eyewitness accounts, for negligant homicide regarding Cheney, as it would be for anyone in similar circumstances. Cheney's silence indicates that he is scared shitless and potentially sees the rest of his life behind bars or seeking presidential pardon.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

I believe Mike K's definition of "It was an accident"--something nobody has, except in jokes, been denying--is a little different from ours.

Us: "Cheney didn't intend to shoot his friend in the face, but his massive irresponsibility and recklessness caused this horrifying consequence."

Mike K: "Cheney didn't actually aim the gun, shout, 'Juris doctorate this, Donor Boy!' and purposely send a load of buckshot into his friend's face, so this could have happened to anybody."

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

What a stupid thing to say. It's probably the only reason he wasn't president.

Posted by: Ben V-L"

There was a great political cartoon, maybe by Oliphant, in 1980 (I think) showing Ted Kennedy driving Jimmy Carter someplace and Carter is in the back seat wearing a snorkeling mask.

It kept him from being president but he should have gone to jail.

Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Oddly, what Bush and Kerry did many years ago were major issues in the presidential election. Wonder why Kennedy never has to face his past when he runs.

Others have already pointed out that, in fact, what Ted Kennedy did at Chappaquiddick was an issue when he ran for president; and that it was so long ago that the Massachusetts voters he faces every six years when he runs for re-election to the Senate have already made up their minds about it one way or another long ago, or weren't even born then and have other things on their minds.

I would add that the specific things that "Bush and Kerry did many years ago" that "were major issues in the presidential election" of 2004 had to do with how they conducted themselves during the Vietnam war, which was purported to be of specific importance in evaluating their fitness to serve as commander in chief of the US armed forces during what is supposedly a time of war. Under other circumstances, their activities of 35 years ago might not have been major issues in the election at all.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

What is the punishment for negligent homicide in Texas?

Posted by: lib on February 14, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK
Whittington's heart attack is probably nothing but heart-beat irregularity and the buckshot may not have penetrated far or embedded under the skin.

Right. The doctors saying that the shot was lodged near the heart and moved closer, apparently triggering the arrythmia and heart attack, of course, have no idea what they are talking about.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

"What is the punishment for negligent homicide in Texas?"

"Negligent homocide" You mean wounding the lawyer instead of completing the job?


Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Just noticed this headline at Fox News,

"NRA backs bill that would require establishments that sell hunting and fishing licenses to offer voter registration forms"


But same-day registration at the polling place is deeply wrong, I take it.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

lib wrote: What is the punishment for negligent homicide in Texas?

Death, I think. Isn't every crime punishable by death in Texas?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on February 14, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney looking under desk:

Nope! No quail under here!

Posted by: K on February 14, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

..The pellet in the heart story is so similar to hundreds of inaccurate versions by people who know nothing of gun shot wounds or guns that I will wait for the final word from the docs.
If the NY Times says it, I wait a little longer, even.
Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

You're making the mistake that there's a chance in hell that the whole real story is known outside of Cheney's secret service detail, or that it will ever come out.

Like Bush Sr.'s presidential archives, like Bush Jr.'s full TANG records, like Cheney's Energy Policy meeting, the world will never know what really happened.

None of us have any hope in hell of commenting intelligently on this story - except for on the facts that we do know:
1. We're told that there was an accidental shooting during a hunting outing, and that Cheney was the triggerman.
2. We're told that, despite what is indicated by basic gun-safety rules, and basic logic, Cheney's target was at fault in this accident.
3. We're told that this sort of thing is no big deal and happens all the time, despite the fact that the target had a heart attack.
4. We're told that this incident was not reported to the press in a timely manner.

Despite the delays, and lack of details, and inconsistencies in the story, there's really no reason to suspect that this is anything worth making hay over. (and I particulary agree on this point, other than, it's a nice way to waste an afternoon ridiculing Cheney for being an idiot and a poseur and Wittington for being freinds with such a jerk). In fact, this may be yet another textbook example of Rovian Liberal Baiting - refined to a routine task of spinning even an unexpected event into an excercise in Liberal-baiting. Another round of free November '06 campaign advertising courtesy of the Conservative newsmedia: "look how much those liberals hate guns! they want to take away your guns, and take away people's freedom to hunt carefree on their own property! - those commies hate your right to shoot!"

At the end of the day, this is all that matters, and will be the result, no matter what becomes of Whittington, no matter what Cheney does or says now.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Imagine if the Wittington does kick the bucket, and you're the local DA.

Justified homicide? Nope.
Murder 1? Not premeditated and deliberate.
Murder 2? Depraved heart killing, extreme recklessness, wanted to cause serious bodily harm? Probably not.
There goes the need for the voluntary intoxication defense.
Manslaughter? General criminal intent. Getting warmer.
Negligent homicide? An act that negligently caused the death of another. Bingo! Don't worry Dick, w''ll bargain down to 2 or 3 years -- and I'll keep my job.
Interfering with a police investigation? Do we still arrest people for that?


Posted by: kostya on February 14, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

It kept him from being president but he should have gone to jail.
Posted by: Mike K on February 14, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, too bad it didn't prevent Laura Bush from becoming first lady. Maybe she can be in the same hypothetical cell-block as Kennedy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

From Fox News,

'Blanchard added that doctors were taking a "conservative" approach in treating Whittington and that he and other cardiologists at the hospital had the "concurrence" of the White House medical team.'


That's just what he needs! Treat him like the government. Reduce his income by giving it away to corporations and a few people so severely wealthy they might as well be corporations, so he will be unable to pay for any further medical procedures so he can be thrown out of the hospital, whither and die and we can all just go over to his house and take what we want.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

The explanation for some people/trolls not caring about this is simple: In this administration, incompetence is an excuse. If Cheney forgot to completely survey the area he was aiming into before unloading a lethal projectile into it, well, that's fine. Because he didn't mean to seriously injure an innocent man, he did nothing wrong! Sure, maybe it might have been a good idea to double-check that the quail he was about to shoot didn't look suspiciously like a lawyer, but that's hindsight. We have to deal with the here and now, and anybody in his situation would have pulled the trigger without thinking anyway.

Posted by: Viserys on February 14, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it's worth noting that Big Dick's senior moments seem to be getting longer and longer. The "fuck you" to Leahy on the Senate floor, the duck hunting outfit worn to the Auschwitz memorial service, mistaking Whittington for a quail...he's on the long slide downward, to be sure.

Posted by: SED on February 14, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

Gun safety is important and I've gone hunting with people once that I would never go with again.

Quit pretending your a hunter, Mike K. It's obvious you're not (or if you are actually a hunter, it's obvious you'll say whatever suits you to get "your team" out of trouble).

You actually said this:

I've been hit by pellets and hit people with pellets, always minor. The story I hear is that this fellow dropped out of the line you are always supposed to stay in when hunting with others and came up without warning the others that he had returned. It's a shame that he got hit and a worse shame that he may have had a heart attack as a result.

Getting "hit by pellets" is nothing like what happened here. If you're a hunter, you know that. Whittington was SHOT. He was not "hit by pellets." If you know the difference, you've got no problem lying to make Cheney look better. Or you're not a hunter at all, and don't actually have fucking clue what the difference is. Either way, you're not at all reliable.

What Whittington was doing -- irrelevant, and only a liar or a non-hunter would make an issue of it. The first thing you'll have learned when you hold a gun, assuming you've ever actually held one, is that YOU are 100% responsible for what you do with it. Cheney pulled the trigger -- and in so doing, he shot Whittington. He is no longer qualified to hunt -- EVER. Anyone that's ever gone hunting, and actually values their life, knows that.

The fact that Cheney was able to hit Whittington AT ALL shows a reckless disregard for his hunting party -- he should have been shooting into the air, not along the ground.

Really, give it a rest. You are so full of shit.

Posted by: teece on February 14, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Laura Bush from becoming first lady.."

Hey, good point. The little sweetheart is also a killer, just like fat Teddy.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

"What on earth was he thinking?"

Has anyone who was there other than Katherine Armstrong said that Mr. Whittington did not announce his presence? If so, I haven't read it. She was apparently 100 yards away -- how does she know what Mr. Whittington did or didn't say? Perhaps Chaney is keeping quiet because he knows that answering questions would make the story worse. He may not be speaking for the same reason that Attorney General Gonzalez wasn't sworn in when he testified last week before the Senate about the domestic spying program.

Posted by: Mary on February 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Well.. Im a hunter (upland & waterfowl)

Yep, teece sounds about right! He shot the guy.

Cheeney reminds me of my Brother, a rather intense guy who's out there to bag something, pure & simple. (and will be pissed that he got "skunked" if he cant bag anything)

Anyway... those type of guys seem to get real excited and go for ANY shot when a bird flushes.

Almost got shot more than once, never got peppered.. and its always the same A-holes.


Hunter #1. Damn, #@%*@#$ I missed again!!! @#$%#$ Cant believe I got skunked ...this sucks.

Hunter #2. A bad day hunting is better than a good day working.

Im an #2, my brother and Cheeney are #1

Posted by: Fitz on February 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Go to cnn.com right now.

"Cheney Prays for Hunt Victim". Does CNN's whoring make you want to just spew?

Posted by: Chris on February 14, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Chaney is keeping quiet because he knows that answering questions would make the story worse. He may not be speaking for the same reason that Attorney General Gonzalez wasn't sworn in when he testified last week before the Senate about the domestic spying program.

No.

The reason he's keeping quiet IS the same reason why Gonzalez wasn't sworn in. Because the more they stonewall, the more people will speculate and discuss, and suspect the worst (of those who have already shown us the worst). And the more people speculate and discuss and suspect the worse, the more they can throw it right back at them and say "see? irrational bush hatred syndrome! waah! make the evil liberals stop! they hate America, they hate Freedom!"

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on February 14, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK
Has anyone who was there other than Katherine Armstrong said that Mr. Whittington did not announce his presence?

Armstrong reports that she ran onto the scene afterwards, seeing Cheney's security detail responding and assuming Cheney had collapsed. She was not there before the shot, and thus, whatever she says about what led up to the shot is hearsay, not eyewitness testimony.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently Alberto "Abu" Gonzalez has just issued a legal memo concluding that, since Whittington was brandishing a shotgun while not wearing a uniform, he is officially an illegal combatant and therefore not subject to Geneva protections and can be shot at will by the vice president.

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK
They were hunting with 28 gauge which suggests a pretty high level of skill.

. . . or pretensiousness.

...or wimpiness. typically the larger the gauge (yes, MikeK, that means smaller bore) of the shotgun, the smaller the "kick", and thus less pain in the shoulder for the shooter.

Posted by: Edo on February 14, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum compares Dick Cheney to Darth Vader. This is a ridiculous analogy. Sure, there are some similarities. They are both evil; they both have medical problems. However, there are enough differences to make the analogy untenable. Darth Vader used to be a good person. Cheney has always been a piece of shit. Darth Vader fought valiantly in the Clone Wars. Dick Cheney sought a whole bunch of deferments to get out of Vietnam. Even though he was on life support, Darth Vader was a powerful warrior. Dick Cheney is just a doddering old man who shoots his friends. Darth Vader redeemed himself in the end. Dick Cheney will always be a piece of shit.

Posted by: Charles Strickland on February 14, 2006 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

It's was called atrial fibrillation and can be caused by all sorts of things especially in the elderly. Things like sudden loud noises. The buckshot could have caused the atrial fibrillation, no doctor will say that it definitely did because no doctor can know that, or the stress could have caused it. Atrial fibrillation is not like what we think of as a heart attack-it is an irregular heartbeat and can happen easily to anyone at anytime. It could cause blood clots to be developed that can cause major problems. Doctors cannot know that the buckshot triggered the atrial fibrillation although it could be a possible theory-no one knows for sure. However, Wittington's health as it relates to this issue is extremely important now in that if it fails or he dies Cheney could be charged with negligant homicide even if he may have, for instance, had a bad heart to start with. Due to his age and overall condition the spiralling down (hopefully not) of his health could be laid at the door or be the responsibility of the hunter, Cheney. Cheney has one year in which Wittington better not have any major health issues that can be considered a result of this shooting.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

If Cheney needs to be pardoned for this, Bush is powerless to do anything.

Since the law involved is Texas state law, it would be Gov Rick "Good hair" Perry who would have the power to pardon him.

Bush can only pardon for federal offenses.

Posted by: hopeless pedant on February 14, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

whittington is no neanderthal. not a fascist bastid. he is an old school reptillian.

i think the real background sty is that he has been outraged by the bushit trampling on the constitution: the sigint intercepts without warrants, the police state gulags, the renditions, the abu ghraib[s].

my understanding is that the weekend was intended to cajole whittington to get back on the fascist reservation, to put his moral squint back in the closet.

having known whittington long ago, knowing of his intelligence and moral probity, i view the weekend as a series of arguments - whittington telling cheney that he and his baby bushit were wrong. in fact, i believe that whittington told him that what he and baby bushit were doing tantamount to treason.

at some point i think that whittington told cheney that unless he and the baby bushit changed their programs, policies, that he was going to publicly renounce his allegiance to the party.

and relate why as a lifelong republican he was doing such a thing.

cheney and the fascist hostess gave whittington an ultimatum of sorts. they told him that he might want to reconsider...that life could be made very uncomfortable for him if he proceeded with publicly renouncing bushism.

when he heard this, whittington should have left the ranch as soon as he could. and as quietly as possible.

but he didn't really believe that these republican gangsters follow the luciano/gambino/gotti rules.

it was the end of the outing. whittington had been considering his honor and the threat for more than 24 hours. as darkness intruded, and the possibility of seeing any quail ended, harry came up behind dick'em and said this.....

i've thought about it, dick. and i cannot go along with you. i am opposed to what you and george are doing, intending to do.

BANG!

it was attempted murder. and whittington will not survive. there can be no opposition witnesses to the event.

and there will be no inquest.

Posted by: albertchampion on February 14, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

If Whittington dies or lapses into a coma, then there likely will a major investigation. If he fully recovers, and doesn't press the issue, then the matter will fade into insignificance. If there is a major investigation it'll be interesting to see what stances various politicos take on the issue of forcing Secret Service agents to give testimony, and how closely they adhere to the postions that were taken on that matter during the Clinton years.

The key fact in comparing this matter, at this moment, to Kennedy's misdeeds is that there was a dead body in Massachussetts, and that Kennedy and his cronies never attempted to summon help from authorities while the victim may have been alive, waiting until morining to call the police, and there is some reason to think that Mary Jo Kopechne did indeed survive in an air pocket trapped in the vehicle for a while. Of course, no autopsy was ever done (gee, can you imagine that?), so the issue was never examined closely. Imagine Cheney blasting this fellow, and then waiting 12 hours to summon medical help, and you have some sense of Kennedy's behavior.

As to the position of Democrats in regards to Kennedy, the moral midgets which comprise the United States Senate saw fit to allow a man who behaved in the manner that Kennedy did to serve as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for ten years, as his victim lay mouldering in her grave. Imagine that; a U.S. Senator drives a car a off a bridge with a passenger, makes no attempt to summon professional rescue personnel for 12 hours, there is no autopsy done, and he is allowed to become Chariman of the Judiciary Committee, and thus play a major role as to the fitness of prospective federal judges. If it weren't so pathetic, it'd be laughable.

Ted Kennedy is still allowed to serve on committees in which he questions the ethics of other citizens, and he is still given the podium as national conventions. The Democrats which control the party really don't mind giving a manslaughterer significant prestige and power, as long as he delivers in other ways.

If this victim dies, we'll see if Republicans behave similarly in regards to an investigation, and then, depending on the facts, whether they will display similar tolerance to a powerful party member who criminally kills a
fellow citizen. I'll say this; when Janklow of South Dakota killed a citizen by running a stop sign, it was fully investigated, and Janklow was duly convicted and jailed. If this victim suffers a similar fate, I hope there is a county prosecutor who takes his oath seriously, and makes every effort to find out what happened.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

What would the right wing say in his defense if Wittington was giving Cheney a blowjob instead of being shot by him? Just wondering.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: That it's better if the world thinks he's callous and insensitive? Or what?

Cheney is the man who wouldn't let Bush fire Rumsfeld after Abu Ghraib. How's that for promoting a positive image?

Posted by: lila on February 14, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

What would the right wing say in his defense if Wittington was giving Cheney a blowjob instead of being shot by him? Just wondering.

Oh god, my mind's eye! Ze goggles, zey do nozink!

Posted by: Stefan on February 14, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK

On a tangental matter, I see people from both parties in this thread writing of hunting quail with 12 gauge shotguns, one of whom said that he used buckshot!

Why would you do this?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

12 gauge and buckshot was how it was done. Sometimes we used a 20 gauge and also a 410. All with buckshot. Since I don't know of the particular hunting intellect of you, Will Allen, then I don't know necessarily at what level of understanding from which your question arises. We also hunted dove and pheasant with shotguns and buckshot. The quail were quite good eating although messy to clean but usually it took very few buckshot to bring one down. We were careful not to shoot each other, however.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I was just asking. In my experience a smaller bore and smaller shot results in a better carcass to dress and to cook.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

We didn't hunt like rich republicans though. We hunted wild quail so we put time in on it. We constantly watched and prepared prior to season and located areas that we could get permission to hunt on and that we knew contained quail. We didn't fly in from afar, throw around some bucks, political favors, or tax breaks for someone to plant pen-bred and fed quail for us to shoot. We walked miles and worked at it. I'm sure if we hunted with Cheney that we wouldn't even recognize it as hunting. More like rich failures-at-life shooting up in the air, attempting to hit whatever flew over. The kind of hunting where one is guaranteed a kill. Yuck, that kind of hunting isn't really hunting. Shooting fish in a barrel takes everything enjoyable and laudable out of the exercise.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

The man who left a woman to drown (how long was it after the accident before HIS first press conference took place?) is a major leader in the Democratic Party, and to the best of my knowledge, has been carrying no baggage at all from the Left because of that particular incident.

The man who invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to the United States on the basis of easily exposed lies and killed tens of thousands of innocent people is a major leader in the Republican party, and to my knowledge has been carrying no baggage at all from the Right because of that particular incident, or from his military desertion, or from reading a children's book while our country was under attack, or from appointing incompetents to FEMA, or from allowing a prostitute to pose as a member of the press corps, or from meeting with a criminal in the White House, or from tapping thousands of communications without the warrant required by law, or from appointing convicted criminals to high office, or from allowing a security leak that destroyed the career of a covert agent.

Go figure.

Posted by: Repack Rider on February 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Quail aren't big birds. They are extremely fast in flight and that's when they are shot. It's against the law/rules to shoot them on the ground or on electric/telephone lines. The enjoyment and skill is shooting them in flight and is a lot like skeet shooting. One walks with a dog (although it can be done effectively without a dog) and another hunter or two and suddenly as the quail are frightened, they take to flight away from the hunter and he attempts to bring them down with the shotgun. I've never used a 28 gauge but it looks like in the pictures when someone fires one that it is a girl's (pussy) gun. This means that it has little kick, like a 410. The buckshot load is less than a 20 or 12 gauge and so is the kick. If you shoot a 12 gauge, hold it tight and hang on. It can kick the living shit out of you. So pussies and geezers like Cheney wouldn't shoot a 12 gauge, they might get hurt. But a real man would and he'd love it. It only stings for a little bit.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, MRB, I understand your undeniable virtue, and the utter, bottomless, mendacity, in all aspects of life, of those with whom you disagree.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

MRB, you are full of shit.

Buckshot would disintegrate a quail.

Posted by: Chris on February 14, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, MRB, htting a small, fast-moving target with a small-bore weapon takes more skill that is the case with a 12 gauge. Your insistence on assigning qualities of masculinity, depending on what bore weapon is chosen, for what size game, is more than a little weird. A good friend of mine served in Patton's Third Army, mostly on the point, and was decorated several times. He once brought down a charging grizzly at close range while hunting elk, and and killed a mule deer running at full speed at a range which astounded his professional guide. He was as good with a large-caliber rifle as you would hope to see, and damned good with a 12 gauge when hunting ducks or geese. Was he not a "real man" because he would have thought it absurd to use a 12 gauge with buck shot on quail?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Did I miss something or does Cheney seem not to have apologized to the man he shot -- someone who was supposedly his friend? Is Cheney that callous or is his staff that stupid, that they might think that no one would care if he had apologized?

Posted by: freelunch on February 14, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

freelunch:

Apologizing would lend pesky verisimilitude to the idea that he had, you know, erred. Can't have that while the troops are busy blaming the victim as fast as they can type, dial and spew!

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Freelunch, I have no idea, but do you realize that it is possible for even the Vice President of the United States to have a conversation which does not make it into the public domain?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone asked the VP if he is color blind and what would be the consequences if he were? Since about 10% of men have this condition this is not an unreasonable question. A perfect example of the effects of color blindness is shown on the attached URL.

http://www.vischeck.com/info/wade.php

If he couldn't see his companion's orange vest against the background that might explain the accident somewhat but it would raise other questions about responsible hunting practices.

Posted by: JSM on February 14, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Er, right, Will. But VPs are a little different than you and me. When they empty a 20-gauge into a friend's mug through their own carelessness and disregard, the demanding old world kind of expects them to publicly acknowledge their regret.

Hey, by your argument, Bush could have sent a handwritten condolence note to the King family and skipped the funeral, or told the war widow he was sorry for her loss without making her into a State of the Union prop, but sometimes politicians feel an inexplicable need to express their concern for others publicly. It's the damnedest thing.

Anyway, you'd know all this if you bothered to read the threads on this topic. But perhaps you did...trying to get people to rehash points you've already lost is a favorite trick of yours.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I like this take on things:

Guns dont shoot people, Cheney shoots people

[...]An anonymous administration official denied eyewitnesses claims that Cheney was also seen feeding on the blood of his victim. Its preposterous said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. The victim is a 78 year old man, not a unicorn or 16 year old Azerbaijani virgin raised on life-giving Bahmaz. After a pause, McClellan added perhaps Ive said too much.

By all accounts the shooting incident will help boost Dick Cheneys recently flagging street cred. [...]

Posted by: Augustus on February 14, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Chris, obviously you know nothing about quail hunting and I wouldn't hope to educate you here, if that were possible. Go look up some information on how to quail hunt, how it's done, the rules, and try to come off as having learned something instead of an ignorant baffoon.

Accurately, a small animal killed with a small bore, non-shotgun rifle would take more skill than perhaps, say skeet shooting. I had hoped that you would give personal evidence that you knew someone that shot quail-sized birds in the air with rifles but since you didn't then you must have realized the extreme difficulty in doing it and therefore come to the conclusion, as most hunters of quail have, that realistically the only way to bring them down in-flight is with a shotgun. The accuracy one would need to shoot them in-flight with a rifle would be somewhat like the ability to toss a coin in the air and hit it with a bullet. It can be done but the difficulty in doing it is extremely high and virtually impossible for the average person. Shooting quail or skeet with a shotgun looks substantially easier than it is and does take some skill. The masculinity factor apparently escaped your intellect because that dealt with the kickback of the weapon when fired. 12 gauges have a nasty recoil therefore women, older men, and chickenshits prefer the 410 and likely the 28. It refers to the punch of the weapon more than any real masculinity factor, of course, some women love a 12 gauge. Some of the cushions that fit on the shotgun stock are quite helpful in reducing the kick, the black-and-blue, and the pain. The main thing is to hold the shotgun extremely tight against the shoulder-any gap and it will knock the shit out of the user. Believe me, I did it when I was 12 years old. Once is a kick, an entire day of hunting and shooting can be painful. These 12 guage babies kick. Just look at a shell sometime. It's like a small cannon.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Ze goggles, zey do nozink"

In some circles, that is what is referred to as "the money shot" - Annete Haven refused to do them. However, the granddaughter of the Parducci Winery clan...........

Posted by: stupid git on February 14, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, so that was what Ms. Parducci was up to. I haven't had a chance to look her up after your reference of the other day. (Okay, I forgot. Sorry!)

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

As far as has been reported Cheney has apoligized to Wittington and asked if he or his family needed anything. It seems as if Cheney has done the right thing there. With respect to public announcements I would guess that legal council has indicated that he refrain from digging a deeper hole for himself with respect to future civil and criminal problems that may insue. A real potential for negligant homicide exists is hunting accidents. It would be nice to have some eyewitness accounts as to what really happened. What are the extent of Whittington's injuries?

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Will, I agree that he may have apologized, but if he did then his PR staff and Scott "Even more useless than the General" McClellan managed to overlook that and they have done him a serious disservice by making it appear that he refused to apologize.

Those who have claimed that he did not apologize or do so publicly to avoid legal liability or criminal responsibility are silly. Not only doesn't it affect any cases, but in a study of medical malpractice, doctors who were honorable and quickly owned up to their mistakes were less likely to be sued for similar problems than those who stonewalled. I wonder how long it will take for Cheney to be sued. Cheney and Whittington may not have a say in the matter, as the insurer (I don't know what Medicare does, but I expect that Whittington has a secondary insurer) who is paying for Whittington's hospital stay may sue Cheney's insurer because of the prima facia evidence of negligence on Cheney's part.

The rumors that he was drunk are interesting and add a great deal of spice to the stew. Whittington will know, and if he was treated as badly as Cheney's staff and the White House staff imply, Whittington isn't likely to take this one lying down.

Posted by: freelunch on February 14, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

Is that deranged git talking about Little Oral Annie again?

Will Allen,

As to South Dakota convicting and jailing Janklow on the manslaughter charge, he served 100 days in county jail, not the state pen. After a month, he was allowed to leave jail for short periods to perform community service. He has been granted the return of his law license and can now practice law.
When he was Governor of SD, he pardoned his son-in-law for 2 DUIs and an additional charge of marijuana possession. Yeah, they are really tough on Repug pols up there.

However, if you think 100 days in the county jail with your cronies is sufficient for speeding through a stop sign and killing someone, then wunderschoen.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 14, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Scott "Even more useless than the General" McClellan

Oh, beautiful.

"If the press secretary is not using his influence, I should like to borrow it for a short while."

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

MRB, assigning qualities of masculinity based upon what size bore a person decides is appropriate for the game being hunted, because smaller bore weapons have less recoil, is idiotic, and just a tad weird. It can thus be concluded that you are idiotic and weird. I'll ask again: is it your contention that men who hunt quail that 28 guage or .410 shotguns are not "real men"?

Yes, Shortstop, I understand that politicians have a need to express all manner of things publicly. It often is one of the qualities of politicians that makes them so revolting. That you cannot discern the difference between a public expression of gratitude or condolences to the King family or a war widow (let it be noted, however, how Lincoln often made such expressions entirely private) and the nature of a communication between a politician and a citizen whom the politician has injured in an accident, is somewhat odd.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose that there is some blessing in the fact that Whittington was not a democrat. Then they could have just called him a terrorist, shot him again, and said he deserved it. His being republican makes it all so messy somehow.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, third paul, at least the Republicans didn't make him Chairman of the House Ethics Committee, and he won't be given the podium at the Republican National Convention, which would have been the Kennedy treatment. I'll take what I can get.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

no serious quail shooter, who had any interest in eating the "kill" would ever use a 12/20 guage gun.

why? because there would be no bird left.

using such a weapon for quail/pheasant/chukar/woodcock/pigeons is tantamount to using dynamite as a fishing device. oh, it kills 'em alrighty. but it ain't real sporting.

and shooting quail is sort of a strange practice no matter how you look at it.

you show me a bird shooter, i show you a sick motherf*cker.

and you really can't eat those quail that get shot.

tougher than baseballs and impossible to remove all the shot. and you sure don't want to chow down on that residue - will break your tooth[teeth].

so, shooting quail is akin to practicing homicide.

it is like killing poor defenceless iraqis. so much fun. such a sport.

but shooting harry wasn't a mistake. he was going to break with the bushit regime. it was attempted murder.

covered up by a hunt.

Posted by: albertchampion on February 14, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

The rumors that he was drunk are interesting and add a great deal of spice to the stew. Whittington will know, and if he was treated as badly as Cheney's staff and the White House staff imply, Whittington isn't likely to take this one lying down.

Why wouldn't he? He's one of them and they can't un-shoot him.

Posted by: AlanDownunder on February 14, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

Personally I feel it an honor that you consider me idiotic and weird, thank you. Coming from you that is a really wonderful consideration. Whatever my contention was or is-you are beyond the ability to understand it. Grab hold of a 38, shoot it, then shoot a 12 gauge shotgun and see if personal evidence leads you intellectually to consider the difference. Some know everything and cannot therefore learn-others are constantly learning. You'll have to determine on your own which catagory you fall into.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

On the contrary, Will; the entire world knows that Cheney wronged Whittington, so it's even more incumbent upon him to make a public gesture of regret (as is customary in these slightly post-Civil War days) than it would be in one of the other cases I mentioned. (Sorry you missed the point of all that, by the way, but there are other, sharper knives in this drawer who didn't/won't.)

The comfort provided to the poor birdshotted crony by such an action would certainly be minimal, but it would offer some evidence that Cheney is taking responsibility for his actions. And that, of course, is exactly why he isn't doing it, nor is he suggesting that his foot soldiers stop blaming the victim in this case. Either one of these things could be handled via a simple, dignified press statement. One has to work pretty hard to avoid doing that much; this omission isn't accidental.

You're working damn hard to find an excuse that isn't there, Will. Cheney fucked up. He's still fucking up. Save your energies for something that's remotely defensible.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, albertchampion, the people who shoot birds don't eat them, and they certainly don't taste good. Really.

You are right, however, regarding the problematic nature of eating such a small bird that has been killed with a large bore shotgun.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

albert, get a grip, please. If Whittington actually did recover from the five-year slavish devotion to leadership virus, which I doubt, there are better ways to silence him--even off him, if that's the game--than by having the vice president of the United States shoot him and draw the attention of the entire globe. My money's on the old goat simply being drunk again.

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

...although it does have a nice Clue-like ring to it.

Vice President Mustard in the field with a gun!

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Shortstop, why must you always demonstrate your illiteracy? I've not defended Cheney in any way; I merely stated that when one party has injured another, until it is determined that a criminal offense has been committed against the public, it is a private matter. If the wronged party desires a public apology, it certainly is within the wronged party's rights to demand it. That, however, is the wronged party's perogative, not yours or mine. Must you always be so obtuse?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

From Reuters:

Dr. David Blanchard, the hospital's emergency room chief, said at a news conference doctors noted an irregular heartbeat during a morning examination of Whittington and it was determined he was having a minor heart attack.

He was moved into the hospital's intensive care unit and underwent cardiac catheterization for his quivering heart.

"We picked up an irregular heartbeat. At no time did he have any chest pain, the classic signs of a heart attack or anything like that," Blanchard said.

.......

Doctors and officials had assured the press that Whittington suffered only minor wounds, but Blanchard said on Tuesday, "We knew he had some birdshot very near to the heart from the get-go."

OK, let me just ask the question.

How do you get all these medical people to tell your lies for you? I mean, is there no integrity in Texas? Will every person in authority back up anything any Bushite ever wants them to say? Are Texans in the aggregate just that far beyond the bend?

I've got to say, these people just disgust me.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

MRB, apparently you are also too stupid too grasp that I never contested that different weapons have different degrees of recoil. I contested the idiocy of considering whether a hunter was a "real man", depending on what bore weapon was deemed appropriate for what size game. Are you truly so moronic?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really, really going to miss this thread. Snif...

Posted by: craigie on February 14, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, we used to do it all the time. Every fall we would shoot quail with shotguns and eat them. They weren't blown to bits and tasted a lot like those small fowl that are purchased at the grocery store. The bee-bees, or buckshot, were removed when they were cleaned but every once in awhile one might come across one while eating them. You'd just spit them out or pass them right on through unintentionally. They tasted very good.

It's always amazing how pretentious some individuals are. They know all about that which they know nothing. And then they proceed to compound their ignorance by stating false information. And as we mature and grow up it is such a bummer to find so much of this pretentious data to be totally false. Then it's aggravating to some who realize that they made choices on bad information and bullshit. That they may have gotten ahead further or made their own life easier had they bothered to find the truth rather than listen to bullshit. If albertchampion and will allen prefer to believe that one can't shoot quail with a shotgun and eat it then that is fine. It's not true but, hey, go with it. Keep repeating it and good luck.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well, perhaps Dead Eye should thank his lucky stars that he didn't hit any of the undocumented workers who were ahead of him beating the bushes to spook the quail.

Instead of the headlines reading, "Cheney helps solve Social Security problems", it would read, "Minuteman Cheney gets tough on Immigration abuse"

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 14, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

I merely stated that when one party has injured another, until it is determined that a criminal offense has been committed against the public, it is a private matter.

How about the idea that, no matter what, Cheney is a fucking public menace with a gun his hand, and shouldn't be out hunting with ANYBODY?

Does THAT count as a reason the public should care, even if he hasn't committed a felony?

And shouldn't this sloppy, careless piece of work at the very least offer to give up hunting voluntarily? What kind of reassurance could this man ever give that he won't do the same damn thing again?

Posted by: frankly0 on February 14, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

MRB, you really are an illiterate dunce, aren't you? I never once stated that it was impossible to kill quail with a shotgun and then eat it. In fact, I stated precisely the opposite, unless, of course, you were also too stupid to grasp the obvious sarcasm in my remark to albertchampion. I did state that a smaller bore shotgun would result in a carcass which is easier to clean and to cook, and that hunting such small animals with a large bore shotgun and large shot would be problematic in comparison. This happens to be true. I also contested the inherent idiocy of assigning "real manhood" based upon what size bore was chosen for what size game.

Are you just putting everybody on here, or are you as dumb as your posts progressively indicate?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

What this is really fundamentally, most strikingly about is responsibility, the very thing Republicans think everyone else should have a lot of, while thinking we should all applaud and admire them for having none.

"Elect us, we're not responsibile for anything!"

albertchampion,

That is an excellent scenario, though I think if they had intentionally shot him he'd never have survived. It seems a perfectly reasonable succession of incidents like that could have taken place, leading to Cheney's gun accidentally (through his efforts to restrain it) going off. Suddenly the Secret Service appeared, and that made too many witnesses.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Keep calling me names, will, it really helps me to come around to the mastery of your arguements. Are you about 6 years old? I think that that is about the age wherein name calling loses it's potential. Come on, call me some more names, it's so instructive as to your intellect, age bracket, and persuasive abilities. And your desire to pull others into arguements that they didn't make but you somehow impose upon them in your inability to understand what they were imparting. Superimpose your own prejudices over what they implied. Then argue with them about your implications. Oh, what fun. What game. 6 years old?

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Did Armstrong really see it? At first she seemed to say she did, then she said she knew something was wrong when she saw the Secret Service guys all running and thought the VP had a heart attack.

What about the rest of them? The Ambassador to Switzerland! Did she get spattered with blood?

The scenario where Cheney's gun goes off by accident because he didn't have the safety on may fit most closely what we know.

Or, of course, he could have simply shot the guy outright because he had served his usefulness. Either one seems completely plausible.

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Check out my site for a different take on Quick Draw McGraw.

Posted by: Matt on February 14, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

If I were called illiterate and dumb by anyone else but you, will, it might actually have meaning. But from you it shows esteem and positive connotations. I'm not sure of the reflection back onto you, however. It just seems to be indicative of your poor ability at reason and intellectual truth developement. But as you grow up, you know-7, then 8, 9, you'll see how these techniques are unhelpful in imparting any real information. But in the meantime, please, keep up with the name calling, it's just so cute.

Posted by: MRB on February 14, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

franklyo, unless Cheney were to make a practice of hunting on public land, and thus expose people who have not voluntarily decided to be around him when he is handling a firearm, I don't care too much. Perhaps he has, and if so, I'd prefer he stop, absent the extremely unlikely event that he is not primarily responsible for this shooting.

Look, I actually would support a public hearing as to what occurred in this shooting, but the reality is that absent a dead or complaining injured party, it isn't going to happen. As to what Cheney expresses to the injured party, I just don't care, unless the injured party makes a request, and Cheney refuses him. I stopped caring about the expressions of regret that politicians put forth publicly so long ago that I can't remember when I actually did care. I'd much rather that they just shut up the vast majority of the time, if they won't just go away. If we could be so lucky.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Billy Allen, Cheney did this on the public dime, with public doctors, public servants, while dating the American Ambassador to Switzerland, so yeah, we can demand a full-accounting of him shooting another hunter or partier while possibly intoxicated. High crime or misdemeanor--it really depends on how many pellets are threatening his friend's life right now.

One positive, thanks to wing nut insistence in 1999, the Secret Service can be compelled to give evidence against the VP. QED.

Posted by: Sparko on February 14, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm really, really going to miss this thread. Snif...

It was the best of times.

And a fine portfolio of your and Stefan's work, with solid supporting performances from many, many others!

Posted by: shortstop on February 14, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

We can thank the Republicans for devolving the Presidency, the government and ruling elite of our country from Shakespearean drama to Stephen Kingian drama.

What next, little man?

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

("What next, little man?" was an anti-fascist play of the 1930s. I just tried googling it to be sure everyone would get the reference, but the only thing that comes up is 'Shoot the neighbor's cat!' by Lyndon laRouche, apt in a demented way.)

Posted by: cld on February 14, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

MRB, any reasonable reading of our interchange can only lead to the conclusion that you cannot read, in that you attributed to me positions that I did not take. Finally, if you do not wish to have a dialogue devolve into remarks about your stupidity, you would be wise to refrain from saying that "The masculinity factor apparently escaped your intellect...", and then idiotically assert that I was unaware of that different weapons have different degrees of recoil.

Not only are you a cretin, it appears, you are also a cretin completely lacking in self-awareness, in that you find it notable that one would remark on your cretinous nature after you asserted that one's intellect had failed to grasp a fact that was never contested.

Well, if you are to be a cretin, I suppose there is some comfort in being a cretin that lacks self-awareness, given the painful nature of the alternative.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

Apparently, Sparko, you have reading difficulty as well, in that you missed where I stated I'd support a full accounting of what happened here, and also that I thought it'd be interesting how various politicos' positions differed from the ones they took eight years ago, vis-a-vis Secret Service testimony. The reality is that this is a local law enforcement issue, absent Articles of Impeachment being drafted, and that such cases are difficult to pursue absent an injured party who cooperates, or is dead.

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

In old country, we use ze peppercorns, instead of ze buckerooshot - zhey not only knock down ze bird, but flavors zem as well - a leetle wine and voila

Posted by: Jauques Pepin on February 14, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Must you always be so obtuse?

Oh man, that's rich. Will Allen calling somebody else obtuse. While he continues to blather on about how no public apology is needed for the vice president shooting a lawyer and hunting buddy in the face. And talking at great length about Kennedy's fuckups of 35+ years ago. In a thread about Cheney's shooting, of this last weekend.

Man, that's rich.

Posted by: teece on February 14, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, teece, what's a little killing that took place 35 years ago, right? I mean, Ms. Kopechne really doesn't matter anymore, does she?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Teece, was Ms. Kopechne even a person, or just a "fuck-up"?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 14, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, teece. Coupled with his inability to read and understand along with his incorrect determinations based upon this stated inability whereupon he then resorts to infantile fascinations because it doesn't make sense as he hopelessly interpreted it. Then he resorts to name-calling and defensive postures when it actually is him that cannot get above his own intellect and prejudices that in effect keep him from the potential to understand. For this he throws tantrums, resorts to name-calling, and becomes unhappy and resorts to a downward spiral unable to effectively communicate objectively. But instructively as to his intellect, I like it when he calls people names. Somehow he us unable to restrain himself from it, all the while reinforcing his negative attributes personified by what he posts. It's delightful, yet fascinating. Almost like crib watch.

Posted by: MRB on February 15, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Say, MRB, are you really so stupid as to find it notable that the dialogue took the direction it did after your remarks? Are you truly so ignorant of the fundamentals of human relations that it escapes you that if you would like a civil dialogue, you would be well advised to maintain civility? Does it escape you that if one would prefer to not have remarks directed at one's ability to read, one would be well-advised to not attribute to people postions that they did not take? Is all of this a mystery to you?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

David Letterman, "If this goes on much longer pretty soon they'll have to tell the President."

Posted by: cld on February 15, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, the scent of seething, impotent rage! Will Allen--the man about whom all acquaintances will uniformly remark on the 11:00 news, "Yeah, um, actually we did think he'd do it. It was just a matter of time," after he burns down a government building, shoots up a McDonalds or tries to beat up a woman who spurned him in 1987.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

cld: Don't you wonder what the president is saying right now? Oh, to be the fly on the wall as the Buship founders on the rocks.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Keep it up. You have never provided a civil dialog nor attempted to. You have immediately delved into name calling and character asassination at a rapid pace. Anyone that disagrees with you immediately gets will allen condemning their intelligence. If you want to be accepted as making relevant intelligent arguements then you'll have to refrain from negative behavior. If you expect to be taken seriously then act grown up emotionally and presumptiously. Don't accuse someone of lacking civil dialog when you bring none to the table but instead spout off something then call everyone names for discussing it. If your personality is an example of your posts then you must get beat up a lot. I know that my own considerations would soon tire of someone that resorted to name-calling defense mechanisms everytime anyone else failed to fall in line with their attitudes. Grow up.

Posted by: MRB on February 15, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

well,you know, harry is still fighting to survive. for all practical purposes, he was murdered.

and for the reasons i cited.

you are still not getting it.

harry's family gets it. they are scared shitless. they now know that the bushits will kill if they are crossed.

you doubt me?

Posted by: albertchampion on February 15, 2006 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Shortstop,

He's thinking up some big distraction, to distract us from the results of his last few distractions. But this one has to be a really, you might say, Big Time destraction.

Ever read the Dead Zone?


That, or no one can take it anymore and Cheney voluntarily resigns, because there are so many personal responsibility angles this story can so easily illustrate. This is just about the only thing that could possibly unstick Cheney from Blair House.

Which is why I earlier had the idea it was some incredible plot of Barbara Bush to do him in because she doesn't like the way he's managed Golden Boy's rep.

How did she convince Whittington to literally take a bullet for George? Now that would have been a scene out of Shakespeare!

Posted by: cld on February 15, 2006 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

albertchampion,

Whittington --victim or pawn, I can't decide!

Posted by: cld on February 15, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK

Whittington - victim or prawn.

Prawn. Grilled. Shelled.

Posted by: craigie on February 15, 2006 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK

The nice thing about a thread, MRB , is that people can actally see what was written, and when. First, MRB, you bizarrely call those who do not share your preference, for using a 12 gauge shotgun for quail, "pussies". When it is noted how strange this is (really, you cannot grasp how utterly weird this is?), you reply that, regarding those who are conversing with you, "The masculinity factor apparently escaped your intellect...", and then you find it notable when your intelligence is questioned?

Has it ever occurred to you that if one prefers a civil dialogue, it may be best to refrain from calling people "pussies" if they don't share your preferences? Has it ever occurred to you that if you would prefer that a dialogue that didn't involve remarks about your lack of intelligence, it may be better to avoid making a remark about what has escaped another's intellect? Is this truly revelatory to you?

Is it revelatory to you that it might be better, if one didn't wish to have remarks directed at one's reading ability, to avoid falsely attributing to others positions that they planly did not take (as when you attributed to me the position of saying one could not hunt quail with shotguns), after you have stated that their intellect couldn't grasp something? Do you normally pursue civil dialogue with others by asserting that those who don't share your preferences are "pussies" whose intellect cannot grasp something, while simulteaneously making false assertions of what their positions are? Is this how your mind actually works?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Teece, was Ms. Kopechne even a person, or just a "fuck-up"? - Will Allen

Ms. Kopechne WAS a person Will, but after reading through all of your posts in which you DO name call and demean, I'd say that you are the fuck-up.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on February 15, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Centerfield has a timeline up that apparently reveals Cheney pulled the trigger at 6:30, sun sets in that part of the state at 5:30. Thats an illegal shooting and could be criminal negligence. That may be the resaon for Cheney simply not talking, he is protecting himself. The other option of course is simply that Cheney is the asshole we all think he is, either way this behavior is revealing and disturbing.

Posted by: tb on February 15, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Eric, please, show one instance in this thread where I demeaned or name-called without first receiving clear indication that this was precisely the sort of exchange which was desired. Or are you illiterate as well?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINK

Face it, will, you don't have a clue. Your circular route of self arguement and presumptiousness always leads to the same place-a circle. You argue for the sake of arguement rather than understanding. Look at your own posts at how your basic discussion logic consists of:

1)Calling names,
2)Asserting someone stated something that you implied incorrectly,
3)Belittling someone's intelligence because they failed to either agree with you or made statements that you, on your own, chose somehow to mean not a correct assessment of what you had posted.

These characteristics are consistant and well defined by your posts. You would have to consider, I suppose, why you post here. Either to learn by discussing the issues and finding if there are substantual reasons people believe as they do, or find one's self, or to just to be an asshole. Just remember that your character insinuations and name-calling mean nothing to me and probably mean little to anyone that discusses anything beyond a few posts with you. It reflects more about your character than it does any of the individuals that you attempt to assault. But carry on, don't surprise any of us by suddenly becoming borderline civil. The shock might be to great. Your ego seems to get in the way of discussion.

Posted by: MRB on February 15, 2006 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

"so, shooting quail is akin to practicing homicide.

it is like killing poor defenceless iraqis. so much fun. such a sport.

but shooting harry wasn't a mistake. he was going to break with the bushit regime. it was attempted murder.

covered up by a hunt.

Posted by: albertchampion"

Spoken like a card carrying lefty who is able to discuss the matter with the benefit of zero knowledge.

Good job !

Posted by: Mike K on February 15, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, and then you make the perfect example of what I just posted with respect to Eric. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I present exhibit A. Will allen's 1:41 post. It just shouldn't take that long. I mean, really. What a chip on the old shoulder. Good luck with the therapy, Will. Don't assume that you are all right yet.

Posted by: MRB on February 15, 2006 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, MRB please show one instance where I called you a name prior to your asserting that people who didn't share your preference (weirdly enough, a preference for what type of weapon was best for hunting quail) were "pussies". Or are you such a lunatic as to think that calling people "pussies" is not name calling? Or that your name-calling should not be returned in kind? Again, are you truly so lacking in self-awareness?

Please show an instance where I questioned your intelligence prior to you making a remark that "The masculinity factor apparently escaped your intellect because that dealt with the kickback of the weapon when fired. 12 gauges have a nasty recoil therefore women, older men, and chickenshits prefer the 410 and likely the 28." Or are you too dumb too grasp that this sort of statement may be returned in kind?

Please show how my making this statement...

"Hey, I was just asking. In my experience a smaller bore and smaller shot results in a better carcass to dress and to cook"

...can be interpreted by somone with an average grasp of english as to mean, in your words...

"If albertchampion and will allen prefer to believe that one can't shoot quail with a shotgun and eat it then that is fine."

...given that the my statement quoted above clarly implies smaller "shot" is preferable for quail? Again, is this how your mind works?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, MRB, in your strange, strange, world, is calling someone a "fuck up" an invitiation to a civil exchange? Is what passes for neurons in your skull able to grasp that an opening statement which calls someone a "fuck up" much like a statement in which others are called "pussies", in that what is likely to ensue will be less than civil? Truly, is this beyond your intellect?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, I missed all the fun on this thread. The Will/MRB duel (gentlemen, choose your weapons) seemed interesting and I read back to educate myself (a confessed non-hunter) about guns and such.

MRB did fire the first shot, so to speak, with his "28s are for pussies" remark. It's not clear that the remark was intended as a personal insult -- in fact MRB seems to have thought that Will was just chatting -- but Will took it as such and fired back (if only Whittington had done that too). There was some good give and take until Will misunderstood MRB's 11:41pm post as being addressed to him (Will); in fact, MRB was responding to albertchampion's 10:40 (about eating what you shoot). Ironically, Will also responded to the same albertchampion post and also disagreed with it, thereby implicitly agreeing with MRB. But this brief window of opportunity for lasting peace was quickly lost (aren't they always) as neither of them realized there had been a mix-up. Things deteriorated further from that point. MRB never answered the simple question posed by Will, namely (and I paraphrase): do you choose a gun that matches the girth of your member or the size of your intended prey? On balance, both MRB and Will were too blinded by concern about their masculinity -- MRB asserting his, Will thinking that his had been insulted -- to find common ground. A pity, as both seem to have been hunters at some point and could have shared fictitious hunting stories instead, as is the norm. Perhaps next time.

Posted by: umpire on February 15, 2006 at 4:31 AM | PERMALINK

Correction: the misunderstood MRB post was at 11:01, not 11:41.

Posted by: umpire on February 15, 2006 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

"Have you no decency sir? At long last, have you no decency?"

You know, I bet that crap actually works on a lot of people you know, the kind of people who are a lot more concerned about what others think of them than about what the facts are.

I mean, think about it. If you actually don't have any decency, this is exactly the kind of thing that you have to say, isn't it?

Still, it is amusing to hear Tbrosz whine about people speculating about things just prior to doing the exact same thing himself. And "the facts" is just conservative-speak for "my interpretation of a small, cherry-picked subset of the facts". Often, in the case of pundits like Limbaugh and O'Reilly, this gets ammended with "plus a few outright lies".

Regardless, it's always funny when someone from the faith-based reality set talks about "the facts". Of course, Tbrosz, like most conservatives, can't care what other people think of him. He can hardly afford to.

Posted by: DH Walker on February 15, 2006 at 8:13 AM | PERMALINK

Love that Secular has a stash of Aggie (see also: Redneck jokes) jokes which can so recycled as W and Jeb.

Around here these are told, in heavily accented Cajun, as the Adventures of Boudreaux and Alphose with lots of colorful embellishment.

Man, I can just *see* Jeb and W dragging that buck.

Chortle.

Posted by: CFShep on February 15, 2006 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, I missed the Will Allen show last night!

The nice thing about a thread, MRB , is that people can actally see what was written, and when.

How ironic that Will -- who has used his trademark "call-anyone-an-idiot-who-questions-my-assertions" tactic on me many a time -- should adopt a point I've cited to him time and again.

How doubly ironic that, as is so often the case, that fact -- the fact that Will's superiority complex, arrogance and thin-skinned bluster are on permanent display here as in other threads -- doesn't give Will the comfort he seems to think it does.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

By the by, MRB at 1:51 AM has Will's number.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Look, Will's MO is to charge onto a thread, talk some trash, instantly get his feelings hurt, then demand that the entire conversation center on his wounded pride while he repetitively and unimaginatively flings about charges of illiteracy.

Meanwhile, we're not talking about whatever the topic in that thread used to be, which I guess is the plan.

It's really interesting to Will to keep talking about Will, but I actually think the VICE PRESIDENT SHOOTING HIS BUDDY IN THE FACE has some cachet as a discussion point. Who else thinks so?

So current reports indicate old Whittington's not leaving the hospital any time soon. I wonder if all those GOP hunters who claim getting shot is part of the fun have spent days in a hospital as a result of it?

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Had to hit the sack early last night - missed most the "duck season, wabbitt season, no, duck season, no wabbitt season" debate

12 gauge or 28 gauge, hell, real "MEN" carry Uzis, AK-47s, M-16s, M-4s and Chinese assault fully automatic full clips when they hunt quail. Hell, why not an old .50 cal buffalo gun from the plains days.

Thanks, Gregory, for the final scoring of the "debate". Once again Bugs beat Daffy.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Alcohol may have been involved in the hunting accident. How would you have handled it?

Posted by: slanted tom on February 15, 2006 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

P.S. thethirdPaul - I'll take the umpire's call on the field over Gregory's rant in the stands any day of the week.

Given Charlie/Cheney's lengthy track record of dishonesty, I couldn't ask for a better endorsement that this.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

Let me know what specifically you disagreed with umpire's call above - I think most people here thought he was right on the ball.

My comment addressed you, Charlie, not umpire, but 1) umpire's analysis of this discussion and the identification of Will Allen as an arrogant blowhard by other posters, myself included, who are long familiar with his pattern are far from contradictory, and that 2) since you, Charlie, are also well known as a serial prevaricator, any statement you make is safely presumed to be the opposite of the truth.

Posted by: Gregory on February 15, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

adverse interaction to alcohol

Is that what the kids are calling multiple DUIs these days? This administration surely has more than its share of drunks and dry drunks.

But I'm feeding the troll. Moving on...Since the law 'n' order party refused to allow the sheriff's deps (and their breathalyzers) contact with the VP until the night had passed, we may safely assume the old boy needed to sleep it off. Of course, being slow thinkers, they may also have needed the time to get their stories straight, and there's also the matter of needing to decide who shot Whittington if he should go to Jesus. But all these needs are complementary, not contradictory.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

As I live with A-Fib daily, the biggest fear is a stroke, not a heart attack. When one is 78, it could well become more acute.

However, the question, and a rather black humor one at that, is how many "heads" are mounted on the walls of Dead-Eye Dick's den at his Jackson Hole ranch? Is there room for one more? Well, two considering the outcome of the coin toss between Dick and Twiggie for Saddam's.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

I say thank God Cheney is shooting the old men down there so we don't have to shoot them up here....

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but I think there's a simple explanation for why Cheney hasn't apologized or admitted fault - he's worried about his legal liability. Any lawyer will tell you not to publically admit any wrongdoing or fault on your part regardless of the circumstances, because you risk giving ammunition to the other side in an eventual court case.

Posted by: wvmcl on February 15, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Couldn't you have stuck around long enough to thank me for the example?

TBrosz isn't interested in facts Stefan.

Posted by: ckelly on February 15, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney, as the shooter, was responsible for causing, an accident that was caused by his recklessness and disregard.

Recklessness? Disregard? Hmmmm, I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Posted by: ckelly on February 15, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

This thread is awesome. I must remember to bookmark it somewhere.

Every now and then I think some of the more literate trolls, such as tbrosz and Mike K - okay, I'm stretching it with Mike K, he's pretty much a moron - actually have independent reasoning faculties.

Then a thread like this comes along where they are out of the gate with the most blatantly stupid partisan talking points, and I am reminded again that no, they haven't independant thought after all.

Information arrives and is immediately put into the "how must I think of this, to place those whom I worship in the best possible light" filter. It's really quite staggering.

Cheney shot a guy while hunting. Didn't call the police for a good long time. Shows no remorse.

Immediately tbrosz is certain that all sorts of tearful remorse are being shown in private - apparently purely based on faith. Further, he says later, if a good media wouldn't care about this sort of minor incident; they are "generat[ing] the controversy out of nothing."

That's a damn quote! The Veep shoots a man and tbrosz says the media is sensationalizing it!

And then Mike K saunters in with his "knowledge" of hunting - oh, such a Republican sport, not like any liberals (well, besides myself and numerous posters to this board) ever hunt - and repeats the current noise-machine favorite that it was no big deal! People get shot all the time.

The guy went to the hospital! It was a direct goddamn hit!

Jesus, I hope Mike K never hunts anywhere near me!

Then, in the course of a long and remarkably one-sided thread, out comes the 100% irrelevant bullshit about Chappaquiddick - I mean, talk about off-topic - and the various right-wing speakerbox lies about it being the victim's fault, etc. etc.

And Will Allen, who's been gone for a while, shows up with his usual "Pronouncement from on High" about the incident, which is its usual bullshit, and when it's rejected does his usual rapid collapse into invective and histrionics.

This thread's a freaking gold mine.

Of course it would be nothing without the intelligent and humorous comments by the usual suspects, out in force. Shortstop, Stefan, cmdicely, OBF, Gregory, craigie, SecularAnimist, the rest of you lads - battling insanity with reason is a hopeless task, but you undertake it with such elan. Cheers!

Posted by: S Ra on February 15, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan: I say thank God Cheney is shooting the old men down there so we don't have to shoot them up here....

My God. A night's sleep has only improved you. And I thought you were at the top of your game last night.

Thanks, S Ra! I can't count myself among our leading comic lights here, but it's been a hell of a good ride!

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

The Shooter will speak at 2 p.m. eastern today. I can hardly wait to hear this.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Will Allen,

Heeheeheeheeheehee, you smugly accuse illiteracy while spelling perogative.

And you've got an interesting theory that violence between allegedly "consenting" adults should not interest the state. I'm sure Dr. Kevorkian would like to discuss that further.

Why, I think Cheney is embracing a "culture of death" (shudder). School children everywhere will now turn to the empty solace of drugs.

Posted by: Tripp on February 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Mike K: Spoken like a card carrying lefty who is able to discuss the matter with the benefit of zero knowledge.

Typed like a card carrying Rightie who has his lips so tightly glued to Bush's ass that he can't see the world around him.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 15, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

S Ra,

I'm hurt, hurt I say. You left me off your list.

I know I don't post with volume but I'd like to think I provide at least a tiny bit of quality, especially in the humor department.

And I can speak with a certain amount of confidence about hunting and outdoorsmanship. Well, at least the Minnesota kind. I have actually hunted, I continue to fish, and hang around with hunters, including my immediate family.

Cheney gives a bad name to real hunters and outdoorsman and he makes it harder for the true outdoor values to be explained.

Posted by: Tripp on February 15, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

The Shooter will speak at 2 p.m. eastern today. I can hardly wait to hear this.

He's going to announce the invasion of Poland.

Posted by: craigie on February 15, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney gives a bad name to real hunters and outdoorsman and he makes it harder for the true outdoor values to be explained.

Actually, Cheney's murderous disregard has provided the rest of the country with a bit of a free seminar on the rules of hunting and gun safety the last few days. Gun classes everywhere can now begin "Rule Number 1: Don't do what Cheney did!" and people will know what they're talking about.

Rule No. 2, meanwhile, is don't go hunting with Republicans, who seem to spend an inordinate amount of their hunts spraying each other with buckshot. I imagine the end of one of Nathan's or Mike K's hunts must resemble the hospital scene from "Gone With the Wind"....

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

true outdoor values to be explained.

Squeal like a pig! soooeeee! Howdja like that boy! Squeal louder!

Posted by: craigie on February 15, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

He's going to announce the invasion of Poland.

I imagine the end of one of Nathan's or Mike K's hunts must resemble the hospital scene from "Gone With the Wind"....

Y'all cut it out! I have to work today! More than I did yesterday!

"Dr. Meade, Dr. Meade, you've got to come! Mellie is having her baby!"

"Good God, child, I can't leave these men! Mike K has mown down 45 of his buddies like ducks in a gallery! (He didn't get any actual ducks, though.) And Nathan has felled every person he could get to come out with him today, which was pretty few because he won't shut the hell up about Brokeback Mountain. Get some woman to help you. Get Kit Armstrong...she's not doing anything but sipping her flask 100 yards over there."

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Lawd, Mizz Scarlett, I doan' know nothing but shootin' no quail!"

"It wuz mosly' me...Mizz Scarlett done helped too, some...."

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Unless he's hunting caged pheasant, then it's more like the Battle of the Crater in Cold Mountain.

Posted by: cld on February 15, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop, Stefan -
I am killing myself laughing at this stuff. I really, really have to do something useful...

but it ain't happening yet!

Posted by: craigie on February 15, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Kinda ironic that the thread has reached .410 comments.

Don't worry about Dr Mikey - the only hunting fields anywhere near him at the stocked "hunting" fields around Corona - You pay the fee and get an assigned stocked field - true "hunting" area for true "hunters" -

If only Pale Rider was not on a sabbathical, we could discuss the merits of Perazzis versus Franchis. Poor old Danielle Perazzi worked his entire life developing the Perazzi shotguns and it only took one "imbecilli" to wreck their name.

Now, I must check with Mrs O'Hara - she'll know what to do.

Posted by: stupid git on February 15, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Perazzis cost about $7500 per. That's some real manly non-elisist shootin' right there, son. What, the Vice President can't shoot a Remington like a real American?

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, the more I'm hearing about this and the more the facts aren't lining up the more I'm tending towards the "second vice presidential shooter" theory. Probably shooting from a grassy knoll.

Posted by: Stefan on February 15, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe. But I'm more and more willing to buy the "magic pellet" theory, that says that Whittington was injured in 200 places by the same pellet, which then ended up lodged near his heart.

Posted by: craigie on February 15, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

"grassy knoll"

Good one.
Well, Stefan, they were in Texas.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 15, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

craigie, that is ONE MAGIC PELLET.

It's really scary when I can follow your train of thought from Stefan's 12:50 post to the Seinfeld Keith Hernandez-gravelly road episode to this! Scary and fun as hell.

Posted by: shortstop on February 15, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, umpire, I was noting MRB's stupidity as early as 10:58, in response to this quote by MRB in his 10:08 post...

"The masculinity factor apparently escaped your intellect because that dealt with the kickback of the weapon when fired. 12 gauges have a nasty recoil therefore women, older men, and chickenshits prefer the 410 and likely the 28."

I'l also not that MRB still hasn't answered a simple question, nor has really explained why he thinks it notable that a conversation takes an uncivil turn after he call people "pussies" if they have diffeent preferences. I didn't take it personally, as I no longer hunt birds, not being close to a location that lend itself well to such pursuits. I just thought it idiotic and very weird to have someone attribute degrees of masculinity based upon preferred bore size, and when MRB decided to toss in the "escaped your intellect" crack, which was pretty clearly directed at me, given I was the only one who was asking him to explain his weird take on masculinity, I concluded that MRB wished to have an invective-filled exchange. I granted his wish, and then was further astounded that someone who started off by calling people "pussies" would find it notable that a similar tone was directed at him.

This is a consistent feature of this forum; people here have no hesitation in denouncing those with whom they disagree in an insulting manner, and then they express surprise when others address them in a similar tone. I'll repeat the request I made to Eric Paulson at 1:13: Please show where I demeaned anyone prior to their indicating, via their own words, that they desired a exchange lacking in civility. I'm serious; would you please provide one example?

As to yet more illiteracy, Tripp, please quote me where I stated that violence between consenting adult should not involve the state. I stated precisely the opposite (again, why can't you read?) , that I would prefer a full investigation. I did state that in an accident in which no one is killed, it is difficult to puruse anything if the injured party does not cooperate, but that isn't anything close to asserting that violence between consenting adults should not involve the state. I must ask you, as I have regularly ask others: are truly so incapable of reading, or do you think it is an effective rhetorical device to pretend you are illiterate?

Shortstop, when people plainly misstate what has been written, as Tripp provides a fine example of, what is in play if not illiteracy or dishonesty?

Posted by: Will Allen on February 15, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly