PeterDavid.net

I fully admit I've never hunted, but how the hell does one step "into the line of fire" of a gun elevated at fifty degrees toward the sky? I don't know how close Whittington was standing, but if he was at point blank range he'd probably be dead, and if he was any distance, he'd have to be ten feet tall. I just don't get it.

For what it's worth, The Smoking Gun has posted the incident report from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department at http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney1.html

In the section noting "Contributing Factors", a box is checked for "Victim covered by shooter who was swinging on game". Notably, the box for "Victim moved into line of fire" is not checked.

I'm no hunter either, and I haven't seen any of these news reports that Whittington wandered into the line of fire. But from this report and some other newspeople's description of the accident, I don't think any reasonable person can credibly suggest that Cheney had his gun pointing skyward and Whittington managed to get in the way. It more credibly seems that Cheney was aiming at a group of flushed quail, turning to track their movement, and elevating his gun as the quail flew up, and, so swinging, accidently fired on Whittington (who, according to the report was about 30 yards away; I leave it to those more mathematically minded to recreate the angles and distances and vectors and whatever else.)

I'm amazed-no where have I yet seen anybody making a Ralphie from A Christmas Story jokes.

One version of the spin I heard early on was that Cheney thought a bird had just "flushed" and swung around to try to nail it before it got into the air. Because those tame, farm-raised "quailtards" are damnably hard to hit if they can get more than a few feet off the ground, you know.

Just taking a shot here (ba dum bump) but most of you haven't had a close proximity to quail, right?

They can fly but in my experience they mostly scurry around the ground in nice long lines. Cute as the dickins. I'm not a hunter myself but I'm thinking that if I were I'd be taking a shot that was either at ground level or somewhere around Lawyer level to get as many as possible.

Firing straight up in the air might work for ducks, bald eagles or hang gliders but I'm not sure it's a viable quail hunting strategy.

Nice to see that this story has knocked the Mohammed cartoon story right off the front pages. Why wprry about the supression of free speech when we have a REAL scandle to worry about? ( and yeah, there should be room for both...but there never is.)

Hey, you too can pretend to be the VP at http://www.weddingcrashersmovie.com/index_quail.htm

You can shoot the low flying birds or just wait until the shadow of a fellow hunter pops up in front of you and blow him away. Scream "Dick, No!" for full comedic effect.

I'm no expert either, but The Daily Show seemed to indicate that because this was a game farm, the birds were all either wingless, or had their wings clipped. As they put it, "to level the playing field." Cheney's an old guy, you know.

well, i cannot speak to whether cheney was negligent or not - he may very well have been. but when hunting for quail, you normally try to shoot them as soon as you can, when they are lower to the ground and closer to you. the more distance they put between themselves and you, the harder they are to hit. it is very common to be shooting level, or nearly level, to the ground - depending on your height, you might even be shooting a little bit down (though if you can't draw a bead, or miss them low, you track them until you can get a shot, so sometimes you are shooting up).

anyway, the fact that he hit a standing person is not out of the question by any means, regardless of what a photo op shot would show, and the fact that he was shooting level to the ground in and of itself is NOT an indication of negligence.

on a related note, does anyone think that this incident might be the final event that causes cheney to resign?

does anyone think that this incident might be the final event that causes cheney to resign?

Are you kidding? He didn't resign after helping to kill thousands in Iraq - why should he resign after wounding one guy in Texas?

I don't hunt, either, but my step-dad down in Texas is a hunter. He was telling me once about Quail hunting, and I think I remember him saying something about how Quail don't fly very high at all.

I've seen various hunters comment on this in the media. They say two things. A hunter has a "shooting zone" of about 130 degrees in front of him. Shooting outside this zone is unsafe. It appears Cheney swung around following a bird and shot behind him. Also the hunters said you should not shoot if you cannot see sky under the bird. In other words not blindly into the brush.
Sounds like contrary to the White House spin, Cheney is was a negligent and unsafe hunter.

One more thing. How does a man surrounded by secret service agents have some one "sneak up behind him"?

So now the "Victim wandered into the line of fire"? Oy. I swear to god this incident is quickly becoming a parody of the Bush administration's usual pr tactics. I mean, already we've got the attempt to keep it quiet, the confused flailing about of the (literally) uniformed White House officials when questioned about the incident, now we've got the the White House pr flacks trying to avoid accountability by shifting blame, this time onto the victim. Pretty soon Bush will come out with a speech stating that Cheney has to keep hunting in order to protect us from the quail.

Seriously though, what probably happened is that Cheney & Whittington were probably waiting in the brush for the birds to be released. Cheney heard or saw his friend move and, his hearing not being as good as it once was, mistook it for the quail and swung around to track the sound. (Yes, you do shoot towards the ground when hunting quail, so hitting Whittington would have been easy.) Maybe he saw or thought he saw some quail in that direction. If the sun was in his eyes then that would have made it difficult for an elderly man with poor vision to register Whittington & the orange vest (I presume) he was wearing in his line of vision. He probably fired without thinking, and didn't realize his error until it was too late.

It's basically a case of a guy who is too old & whose health is too poor to be doing this kind of thing, but keeps doing it anyway (hence the ambulance following him around). Lots of hunting accidents happen this way. The only difference this time is that the person involved happened to be the VP.

You guys just don't understand this, do you. Whittington can fly. Pretty easy to be accidentally shot by a fellow hunter then.

Why does everyone care so much? To me, this is a quick little story that no one cares about. What exactly is the significance?

If it is a case of "As the White House attempts to claim that they intentionally waited for a public citizen to report the story to the press..." (with an apropos analogy to Pee Wee), then I understand, but the focus for all media outlets (regardless of political persuasion) is off for that.

In all seriousness, I think the media is tired of being bashed for their cowardly kowtowing to Muslim extremists, so this comes as a welcome relief.

At least the press core finally got the opportunity to grill the president's spokesman and ask the question on everyone's lips: "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?" (Editors note: I didn't make that up?)

Why do people care? Well, for one thing, it's pretty funny in a sick and twisted way.

Now, I'm not a hunter, but I support anyone's right to hunt of they like. However, I can't for the life of me figure out what is so sporting about these canned hunts where "hunters" drive up to the covey in their car, then shoot these farm-raised birds whose wings may have been clipped on the ground.

There's been quite a bit of speculation on the blogosphere as to whether Cheney had been drinking, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that allegation.

What I think is the reason for the delay in telling the press and the little wooden boy in the White House is that, after they realized Cheney had screwed up, they put the cones of silence down until they could develop the right spin. The day's delay also enabled them to make sure that they could report Wittingham's condition as "very stable"*. Of course, he had to go and have a heart attack the next day and throw a monkey wrench in that plan.

Since the neocon mantra is "never apologize, never admit to a mistake." The official spin had to blame Wittingham. I'm sure a big wad of cash fell into the lap of "Pioneer" Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, so that she would support the spin, too.

I'd love ask the White House press, after the cherry picked intelligence used to justify Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake, the bungling of Katrina, the Abramhoff scandal, and the wiretapping controversy, why the hell is this the issue they're fired up about, but I think the real reason this story has legs now is because of the fact that Cheney's office has yet to show any responsibility on his part. If they had just issued a statement saying, "It was an accident and the VP has apologized to Mr. Wittingham and his family," he still would have been the butt of jokes from the late night crew, but the press would not have had anything to harp over.

*Side note: This is the first time I've ever seen a patient's condition listed as very stable in a press release.

BTW, if you ever want to know how not to do spin control when your guy screws up, this is it:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3658290.html

BTW, if you haven't seen the Daily Show's take on it, it is just too freakin' funny.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/13.html

I'm no hunter, but my understanding from those who are is that if you are the one holding the weapon, the accident is your fault -- barring bizarre situations like someone jumping on you and forcing you to pull the trigger, which I'm surprised hasn't been alleged yet.

I agree with others above -- this is starting to read like a parody of every other shift-the-blame tactic the administration's ever used.

And as to "why should we care?" -- well, one, because someone might possibly die with the sitting VP as a direct and obvious cause, which hasn't been true in 200 years. Two ... because, to paraphrase Stalin, thousands of deaths in Iraq are a statistic as viewed by the public. This sort of incident isn't.

I don't think it's worth the hoopla it's getting in comparison to other things, but I think that's more the fault of previous things the press has underplayed than it is this. I'm delighted that Cheney is finally getting the negative PR and massive disapproval that he has so richly deserved for eons, and that the public is continuing to wake up to just how swooningly incompetent this administration is at basic truth-telling.

(Oh -- and as to "very stable", it might be worth pointing out that the term "stable" is more or less meaningless as a medical term. If "stable" means that various vital signs aren't significantly changing, then being DEAD could be considered "very stable".)

TWL

I'd love ask the White House press, after the cherry picked intelligence used to justify Operation Fix Daddy's Mistake, the bungling of Katrina, the Abramhoff scandal, and the wiretapping controversy, why the hell is this the issue they're fired up about

I suppose it's just a matter of time before Karl Rove is accused of creating the entire incident to distract attention away from Katrina, Abramhoff, etc etc. In much the same way that he made a pact with Sutekh, the Egyptian God of Storms and Violence, to use Katrina to distract attention from the Valery Plame scandel, itself a phoney story meant to keep us from asking to many questions about Grandpa Bush's Nazi connections to the Philadelphia experiment and the Allende Letters. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point.

I'm delighted that Cheney is finally getting the negative PR and massive disapproval that he has so richly deserved for eons, and that the public is continuing to wake up to just how swooningly incompetent this administration is at basic truth-telling.

Here's the thing though; if the press makes TOO big a deal out of this and continues to ask stupid "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?" type questions it will end up not hurting Cheney at all. Quite the opposite.

Never underestimate the ability of Democrats and the Press (but I repeat myself) to overplay a hand.

The short answer to the question of hitting a man and not a bird is that buckshot spreads out to cover a wider radius as it travels. The spray from a shotgun can cover a good sized bear if you are far enough away. I'd imagine that Whittington had to be some distance from Cheney to have the minimal initial damage that news reports have suggested.

I'm more intrigued by the fact that Cheney was committing an illegal act by hunting without a fully authorized licence to begin with.... cause we have all known for some time that he doesn't clearly identify his intended target before going after it and that he has a propensity for shooting his own mouth off constantly, so the incident itself doesn't surprise me in the least.

Fred

While it's true that the term "stable" is not an official medial term, it's still widely used in a press releases. The fact that they tacked on "very" just made it an even more obvious spin.

As for the press overplaying their hand, I don't know if there is anything they can do to make Cheney look better in all this. By first having his spinmeisters blame the victim, then hiding under the radar, Cheney has done just about everything he could to look like an insensitive prick.

In fact, I'd say there's an almost Chappiquidick aura to their response to this.

While it may be fun to caricature Dick as a trigger happy Elmer Fudd, the handling of this incident speaks volumes about the mentality and priorities of the VP. If Wittingham does die, he's going to have a hell of a problem trying to convince people that now he feels bad about it.

I'm pretty sure the VP was hunting quail with birdshot, not buckshot. At the distance Whittington was apparently standing, buckshot would have fatal.

oops... please replace buck with bird. My bad for not proofing my post or putting more thought into what I was typing.

Well the press has been saying buckshot a lot so don't feel bad.

I would guess that, if one WERE to hunt quail with buckshot, there wouldn't be a whole lot left of the quail. Shredded tweet.

Others have touched on this, but just to bring it all together...

Quail do not fly very high, or for very long distances. Once they are flushed out, they tend to fly quickly to a nearby spot of cover hoping to hide from whatever is hunting them.

The spread from a shotgun expands the further away from the barrel it travels. Also, because the shot (pellets) are so light individually, they lose a great deal of potential energy quickly. Fortunately for all involved, it doesn't take much to kill a small bird, but does take more to kill something human sized. Up close, a shotgun is a devestating weapon, but over distance it is not. Especially if the distance of 30 yards quoted above is accurate.

Whittington did wander into the field of fire, but remember the field of fire expands the further away from the gun. Cheney probably wasn't even aiming right at Whittington when it happened because of the way the shot spreads.

Images on the news show the pellets hit him on the upper left shoulder, chest and face. This indicates that the shot was not level with the ground, but rather angled up.

Hey, I'll bet there are a lot of liberals who are now sorry they complained so much about Scalia spending time hunting with Dick Cheney!

I'm not an expert on guns, but my understanding is that a 28-gauge is a fairly lightweight gun, suitable for small game. In contrast, a 12-gauge would have produced quailburgers, but I've seen press reports use the wrong gauge in describing the shotgun as well.

Just as a fun mental excercise, let's close our eyes and pretend that the name of the man who accidentally shot an elderly contributor was named Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. Imagine how this story would be playing on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity now.

I was greatly amused at Scott Adams' comment on the incident: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/02/best_cheney_com.html

Just as a fun mental excercise, let's close our eyes and pretend that the name of the man who accidentally shot an elderly contributor was named Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. Imagine how this story would be playing on Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity now.

Pretty much as over the top as it's playing on CNN and MSNBC. Which just goes to show...something.

And Al Gore should be doubly happy over this, since it also knocked his awful speech in Saudi Arabia off of the radar scope, in the unlikely event that the mainstream media was going to hold him accountable for it.

I guess they'll have to change Dick Cheney's Secret Sevice code name to 'Friendly Fire.' Seriously though, if this is an example of our vice president's skill with a gun, maybe we should be thankful for all those deferrments that kept him out of Vietnam.

A hunter has a "shooting zone" of about 130 degrees in front of him. Shooting outside this zone is unsafe. It appears Cheney swung around following a bird and shot behind him. Also the hunters said you should not shoot if you cannot see sky under the bird. In other words not blindly into the brush.

As apparently one of the few hunters in this thread, basically yes - this is right. My father (Alaskan native, experienced hunter cuz, hell, how else do you get your food in the middle of nowhere Alaska) and I have been trying to figure out the logistics of this since it happened, and the only thing we can come up with is "wha?" If it is true that Wittington was behind Cheney, then Cheney basically spun around and fired blindly and unsafely when he knew his hunting companion had stayed behind to collect shot quail. You don't spin around and shoot like that when you don't have every member of your hunting party on the same line, to prevent this very thing from happening.

Additionally, Wittington has been reported wearing his hunting vest (bright bright orange) - which actually surprises me. I thought the spin doctors would make it out that he had taken it off, to more fully put the blame on him.

Anyhow, any way you cut it, from a hunting standpoint, Cheney is at fault for this, and did something stupid to boot. It's the kind of "mistake" an inexperienced hunter would make, not someone with years of experience.

Went quail hunting once, Once, and now that I think about it both of the other 'hunters' were Repubs.

Anyway, it was my first and only time to go and I got the instructions on how I was supposed to know where everyone was at all times. And to aim to the sky etc.

Well we were walking through some brush and small trees, and some birds fly up and both guys turn around and start shotting. Who was behind them? Me.

I hit the dirt and called them something or another, they both laughed and told about how they had been spotted with buck shot many times.

I guess shooting each other is par for the course in quail hunting with Repubs

I haven't been watching CNN or MSNBC lately, so maybe you can tell if they're portraying it as a massive coverup of a clumsly attempted murder by the VP, because I have zero doubt that's the way the story would be playing on Hannity and Sock Puppet if this had happened to Kerry or Gore.

I hit the dirt and called them something or another, they both laughed and told about how they had been spotted with buck shot many times.

Slate.com had an article yesterday that cited a statistic that said that while in general, hunting accidents were on the decline in Texas, there was one form of hunting in which accidents were on the rise: Quail Hunting.

BTW, how come nobody has asked where Dan Quayle was during this?

Cheney just announced that he's going to break his silence in an interview tonight at 6.

What a shocker, it's going to be aired on the Ministry of Propaganda Channel, aka, Fox "News."

I have zero doubt that's the way the story would be playing on Hannity and Sock Puppet if this had happened to Kerry or Gore.

And one of the benefits of these kinds of arguments is that you can't be proven wrong. That's also why, like creationism, they aren't of much value.

I don't quite get the level of attention this is getting, though I admit I am inclined to think the handling of it is sort of part for the course for this administration - don't say anything until you're backed into the corner with proof and then be unapologetic and non-committal where most people would be genuflecting with shame.

In fairness to them, however, opening your mouth on national tv and taking responsibility for this kind of thing is a recipe for litigation, even if it is a flat-out stupid mistake. That's a good reason to shut the hell up, however, not to have Mary Matilin stand up and repeat that no mistakes or missteps were made, at all. That's not being prudent, that's just bald-faced lying.

Yeah, no question it was poorly handled. Clinton would have immediately come out and looked so sorrowful and weepy that his ratings would have gone up.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, Bill. Is that how they're spinning it on Fox and MSNBC?

In fairness to them, however, opening your mouth on national tv and taking responsibility for this kind of thing is a recipe for litigation, even if it is a flat-out stupid mistake.

I seriously doubt that any litigation against Cheney would ever proceed. First of all, it's not like he did anything really bad, like tell Willington he wanted to have sex with him in a hotel room. Second, Willington is well known player in Texas GOP politics. Suing the VP would ruin many of his connections in that biz.

That's a good reason to shut the hell up, however, not to have Mary Matilin stand up and repeat that no mistakes or missteps were made, at all. That's not being prudent, that's just bald-faced lying.

Which is why most good PR reps advise their clients to get the facts out fast and on their terms, rather than stonewalling. If you act like you have something to hide, people will assume that you do.

While the news coverage is overkill, what else is new? If it bleeds it leads. Natalie Hollman (sp?), Jon Benet Ramsey, The "summer of the shark" etc etc. It's got marginally more news value than a couple of whales trapped in the ice.

UGH.

Should have said, "CNN and MSNBC" and Whittington, not Whillington.

I'm tired. Gonna take a nap now.

There's been quite a bit of speculation on the blogosphere as to whether Cheney had been drinking, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that allegation.

Currently on Yahoo, previously on MSNBC (but already thrown down the memory hole), more details oat Raw Story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060215/cm_thenation/160212;_ylt=A86.I1cDX_ND4h4BGQj9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Beer_quote_pulled_from_MSNBC_Cheney_0215.html

-------------------------

I'm sure a big wad of cash fell into the lap of "Pioneer" Armstrong, the owner of the ranch, so that she would support the spin, too.

$160,000 in 2004.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11920.htm

Why is this getting such big news?
THE SITTING VICE PRESIDENT SHOT SOMEONE!
This has happened, what, one other time in HISTORY?

As for press-medical spin ie "very stable"
"Minor heart attack"

Now, I'm no doctor, but I watch House...I'm not sure there is such thing as a minor heart attack...non-lethal heart attack, sure....

Two observations:

One: in an offline conversation last night, someone pointed out that the real mystery in the Cheney hunting incident is not the shooting, but the complete disappearance of the media's "body watcher" -- the pool reporter assigned to follow Cheney around on the chance that he should do something newsworthy (like, for instance, shooting somebody). The reportage so far clearly indicates that Bush had been notified of the incident within a couple of hours, and that the county sheriff had also been called by the Secret Service. Also, of course, there'll have been an ambulance (or med-evac chopper) taking Whittington to the hospital. But somehow, the pool Cheney-watcher apparently failed to notice all this activity....

Two: I am greatly bemused at the idea that you must be trying to cover something up if you don't alert the media until the morning after it happened. As I reconstruct, the shooting occurred at 5:30 or so Saturday afternoon -- whereupon in the real world, a normal person's reaction will be to concentrate on getting help for the injured person, making sure his family's been notified, and notifying the appropriate legal authorities -- all of which, in fact, Cheney and his companions did. I am utterly unsurprised that it took them till the next morning to get a sufficient handle on what had happened to be ready to contact the press -- which, in fact, Katharine Armstrong did. (Again, it's interesting to note that there apparently wasn't a pool reporter anywhere within shouting distance.)

I don't see any political scandal here; I see a classic illustration of the increasing disconnect between "media time" and "real world time".

Here's the thing though; if the press makes TOO big a deal out of this and continues to ask stupid "Would this be much more serious if the man had died?" type questions it will end up not hurting Cheney at all. Quite the opposite.

I don't think so. Not this time.

Cheney broke established hunting rules, went hunting without a proper license, and as a result a man may die as the direct result of his actions. I don't think any particular overkill on the part of the press is going to make him coming out as the sympathetic party here.

I'll agree that press overkill can have a nasty rebound effect at times -- but I don't think this is one of those times, unless you're suggesting that the result is a public "yawn, here we go again" next time it happens.

And one of the benefits of these kinds of arguments is that you can't be proven wrong. That's also why, like creationism, they aren't of much value.

Oh, come on, Bill. Stop spinning for a change and look at the history.

When Vince Foster killed himself, a large number of right-wing pundits and other assorted blowhards (Falwell, anyone?) strongly suggested that rather than suicide, it was covered-up murder.

That's not speculation on liberals' part as to what the right wing would or might do. That's documented fact about what they're previously DONE in the closest thing to a similar situation.

You're right that the prediction you were responding to can't be proven wrong, but your statement that the prediction is valueless flies in the face of recent historical evidence.

TWL

But Tim, the three separate investigations that concluded that Foster committed suicide were just further proof that he was murdered!

Two: I am greatly bemused at the idea that you must be trying to cover something up if you don't alert the media until the morning after it happened.

In all honesty, I don't think there's anything really being covered up, but the delay does generate the appearance of a cover up, which may be just as damaging.

What we really saw was a bungled attempt to "manage" the story in a way that shifts as much blame off of Dick's shoulders. Unfortunately for him, it clearly has backfired. No one bought the initial "blame the victim" spin. That also raises people's suspicions that maybe they aren't getting the whole story.

John:

>One: in an offline conversation last night, someone pointed out that the real mystery in the Cheney hunting incident is not the shooting, but the complete disappearance of the media's "body watcher" -- the pool reporter assigned to follow Cheney around on the chance that he should do something newsworthy (like, for instance, shooting somebody).

Where do you think that Cheney spent his second shell? ;)

1) I don't believe this has ever happened before. I read somewhere else that the Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton duel did not involve a *sitting* Vice President.

2)

And one of the benefits of these kinds of arguments is that you can't be proven wrong. That's also why, like creationism, they aren't of much value.

Sure they can be proven right or wrong. All you need to do is find a comparable situation and see how Hannity or other Conservative media handled it.

For example...who was that guy in the Clinton administration that committed suicide? How quickly was the conservative media suggesting it wasn't suicide and Clinton actually had him killed? Can we go back and research this?

Nit-picky liberals, ya gotta love them!!!!!

You make me laugh...

When Bush Snr's VP messed up, we got Quayle jokes. And now Bush Jnrs VP messes up - what do we still get? Quail jokes.

Tim, perfectly sane people here on this board have suggested that the mishap was due to A-drinking, B-a Cheney heart attack, C-declining mental ability, etc. Some of the crazier left wing blogs have hinted at, moo hoo hoo hwah, ever more sinister possibilities.

Partisans always try to make the most out of an event. So the idea that, were this to have happened to Gore, some mean old Republicans would have pounced on it is rather like saying the sun will rise.

But if you truly believe that Hannity or Limbaugh would be "portraying it as a massive coverup of a clumsly attempted murder by the VP" (which is what Den actually said), I have to question your own "spin". That would be illogical. Why exactly would Cheney try to kill his friend? Why not have someone else do it? Why do it with birdshot? What benefit would he get from this? What's the motive?
etc etc etc.

Now of course, the answer could be "Well, that's just how crazy Rush and Sean are!" And this is why the argument has no value to me: we are speculating that Limbaugh and Hannity would speculate something that makes no sense at all. Based on the fact that Jerry Fallwel acted like a Dailykos diarist over 10 years ago? And at least Fallwell's nutty speculation had the benefit of making sense--it would be logical to assume that one would want to coverup a murder. Cheney (or, in our bizarro universe, Gore) deliberately trying to murder a fellow perty member and friend makes no such sense.

This is sufficiantly removed from reality to make it semi useless in my eyes. Your mileage may vary. Since any arguement would come down to "yes they would, no they wouldn't" I don't see the point.

It would be like me saying that if one of the presidents friends killed himself and the news was suppressed while white house staffers went through his files and a suicide note turned up only later that there is zero doubt in my mind that you would assume something nefarious had happened based on something that Craig once said. Hard to defend yourself beyond "No I wouldn't!" but given the weakness of the argument, not worth the effort on your part.

Frankly, the suggestion that the reporting on this is evidence of how poorly liberals are treated by the media seems a stretch, to say the least. It might be interesting to compare and contrast the way the White House press corp reacted on the day the Foster suicide was announced to the way it acted over this.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, Bill. Is that how they're spinning it on Fox and MSNBC?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was a serious question and I missed the quote above until I read Tim's entry. No. No they aren't. Which either proves...well, actually, we can't prove much of anything from that, can we?

Burr served as VP from 1801-1805. He shot Alexander Hamilton in 1804.

Oddly enough, that wasn't even the most outrageous thing he did. He conspired to organize the southwest territories into a new and independent republic. This lead to him being the only VP (so far) to be tried for treason. He was acquitted.

If don't think that Hannity and Limbaugh would be all over this with whatever wild accusation they could think of, then I don't think you've been paying attention to either man for the past several years.

And yes, the nuttier elements of the leftwing blogosphere are doing the same thing and that doesn't make it right. The only difference is, nobody pays attention to anything they say anything, while Rush and Sean have millions of loyal "dittoheads" salivating at their every word.

Or so they both claim.

) I don't believe this has ever happened before. I read somewhere else that the Aaron Burr/Alexander Hamilton duel did not involve a *sitting* Vice President.

I think that is incorrect. According to Wikipedia after the duel in 1804 "He escaped to South Carolina, where his daughter lived with her family, but soon returned to Washington, D.C. to complete his term of service as Vice President." he gave his farewell address in 1805.

Still it isn't every day that a VP shoots someone.

Oh, and Bill, if I had based my judgment on Rush and Sean based on things Falwell has said, that would be ridiculous. If I meant Falwell, I would have said Falwell, but I wouldn't use him to speculate as you call it, what other people would do. I'm basing it on the practice of both Sean and Rush giving credence to whatever wild accusations they could find, so long as it involved a Democrat.

I'm reasonably sure that Burr was not a sitting vice-president when he shot Hamilton but was, in fact, standing up.

As for Dan Quayle, I don't think people are making jokes about that because, frankly, it's too obvious. The real "joke" involving Quayle is that, once upon a time, the thought of him becoming president was laughable because he was an intellectual lightweight who stumbled over words and supposedly used daddy's influence to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Interestingly, he looks like Aristotle compared to Bush.

PAD

heh. Thanks for that comment. It added a nice smile to the end of my work day.

I'm surrounded by hunters. And talking to a few, they have either been spotted with birdshot or have heard of others being splattered before. Someone mentioned quail hunting accidents are on the rise. I think they've always been subject to accidents moreso than others.

You're supposed to wait until you see sky underneath, but alot of them shoot immediately when the bird is flushed. I don't who it is, or what's going on, you have shotguns going off within the ranges of a man's height someone is going to get hurt somewhere. It was unfortunate for Capital Hill that the VP managed to be one of those unsafe yet typically common hunters.

I believe it's much more believable and unquestioned if there weren't people surrounding the two. Between fellow hunters, secret service and so on, somebody should have said hey, there's Whittington. But in my opinion they're both at fault if in fact Whittington broke away from the hunting party. He shouldn't have taken off while Cheney went ahead and Cheney should have waited until Whittington could catch up.

Oh, and Bill, if I had based my judgment on Rush and Sean based on things Falwell has said, that would be ridiculous.

I was responding to Tim. He's the one who brought up Falwell. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't listen to Limbaugh or Hannity so I don't know if your assessment that there is no chance that they would pass up the opportunity to look incredibly foolish by claiming that the VP deliberately tried to kill someone is accurate.

It would be a lot more likely, to my mind, that partisans might claim oafishness or clumsiness or stupidity. Since there is absolutely no reason to even bring up the charge of deliberate attempted murder, I have to write this off as a fantasy with no basis (Though, since I don't listen to either guy, maybe I am unaware of how totally out there they are. Any examples?)

As an aside--apparently Hamilton had no intention of killing Burr and deliberately missed. Burr had no such plan. There is probably a lesson there.

(Or maybe Hamilton DID intend to kill Burr but, as a far less desireable Plan B, drew up a letter climing that he didn't want to kill Burr, knowing that if the letter became public it would be because Burr had killed him, thus ensuring that Burr would go down in history as the cowardly dickweed who shot a guy who had no intention of harming him. If so...way to go, good sir.)

Tim, perfectly sane people here on this board have suggested that the mishap was due to A-drinking, B-a Cheney heart attack, C-declining mental ability, etc.

Actually, they've suggested it could be due to one of those possibilities. There is a definite difference there -- one implies having omniscience about the event, and one does not.

Strike one.

(And frankly, given that Cheney does drink and does have heart problems, two out of those three options are not only non-crazy but downright reasonable speculations to raise.)

Partisans always try to make the most out of an event. So the idea that, were this to have happened to Gore, some mean old Republicans would have pounced on it is rather like saying the sun will rise.

Straw man, as that's not what the claim was.

Strike two.

Your next four paragraphs basically imply that anyone suggesting oddities about the Cheney incident is deranged, while implicitly reviving speculation about Foster.

Give. Me. A. Break. That's hackery you used to be way, way above.

Strike three. Done here for now.

TWL

"But if you truly believe that Hannity or Limbaugh would be "portraying it as a massive coverup of a clumsly attempted murder by the VP" (which is what Den actually said), I have to question your own "spin". That would be illogical. Why exactly would Cheney try to kill his friend?"

"Now of course, the answer could be "Well, that's just how crazy Rush and Sean are!" And this is why the argument has no value to me: we are speculating that Limbaugh and Hannity would speculate something that makes no sense at all."

Well, Rush did claim for years that the Foster thing was murder and that the Clintons knew all about it. He even floated his own "facts" on the issue (I heard the broadcast myself) one time about how the FBI had proof that Foster was moved to the park he was found in after having been killed in an apertment owned by Hillary. Hannity just repeated whatever Rush said in those days.

As for the other points? Any time I heard those two talking about the Clintons, they said the things that you're saying made no sense. Bill and Hillary had a giant pile of bodies in their closets, some even close friends, because of all the cover ups from land deals, kickbacks, drugs and other evil things that were S.O.P. for people like Bill and Hill. Friends were something that didn't matter to Billary in their mad quest for power and they would let people fall on their swords for them if not push them themselves. Even if it meant death for those friends. They would always let friends die if they had something on them that could hurt their future plans as well.

Sean and Rush have a huge History of saying just what they're being accused of here. Yeah, they would have made up those stories in a heartbeat.

Now, what do I think of the whole Cheney thing this go round? It's a bit too over the top. Cheney did a dumb thing and he is about 90% to blame here. His buddy should have made some sort of sign to the rest of them that he was back up with them so he gets about 5%. The rest of the crew and the secret service need to share the other 5% because at least one of them should have seen the guy coming back. It falls under that whole "communication" issue when you're in the bush.
(How the hell did the secret service let a man with a gun sneak up on them?)

People make mistakes. If all parties come out of this 10-4 and feeling no ill will about it then they should be the ones to say it should be dropped. This would only be a major issue to me if there was a death that came from this or if the man was screwed up really bad for the rest of his life.

I hear that cheney is going to claim that it was indeed his fault and that he's sorry. If true, then let it drop.

I'm sorry, I don't see how--if he says he's sorry--an argument can be made to "let it drop." If it were any other two guys hunting--or even, God forbid, a black man shooting a white man--would an apology be good enough to just "let it drop?" For crying out loud, the Secret Service blocked attempts by the local law to talk to Cheney. On what grounds? What POSSIBLE grounds could there be to stop a lawful investigation of an unlawful act?

I'm sorry, but until this matter is investigated and vetted in the process that would be required of ANY OTHER CITIZEN, there's no way this can or should be allowed to drop.

PAD

PAD, I think it already has gone through the proper process. This is the report that was filed by local authorities.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney1.html

It's the Magic Pellet theory!

I think we need to be asking ourselves three questions: Who wanted Whittington dead, who benefited, and who had the power to cover it up? Cheney's just a patsy!

Cheney's just a patsy!

This may be true, but what has it got to do with him shooting someone? :-)

May I just say, I have dozens of family and friends who hunt, and getting shot is not that common, hell you usually get in trouble just pointing a gun the wrong direction.

Actually, they've suggested it could be due to one of those possibilities. There is a definite difference there -- one implies having omniscience about the event, and one does not.

I could quibble--when I say that people "suggest" that the mishap was due to whatever I thought it was implicit that they were not claiming it as a definite fact--but I'll conceded the point. Me culpa.

(And frankly, given that Cheney does drink and does have heart problems, two out of those three options are not only non-crazy but downright reasonable speculations to raise.)

Ooookay. And I said they were crazy when? I even specifically said that the people who said it were sane. Am I being too subtle? I'm used to you not getting what I mean and I'm willing to chalk up a lot of it to my own fault but gimme a break here.

Me: Partisans always try to make the most out of an event. So the idea that, were this to have happened to Gore, some mean old Republicans would have pounced on it is rather like saying the sun will rise.

Tim Straw man, as that's not what the claim was.

Ok, so I guess I didn't understand your point. What exactly was the claim?

Your next four paragraphs basically imply that anyone suggesting oddities about the Cheney incident is deranged, while implicitly reviving speculation about Foster.

Ah, NOW who is spinning and constructing strawmen? I specifically and explicitly was addressing the idea that, quote, "Hannity or Limbaugh would be "portraying it as a massive coverup of a clumsily attempted murder by the VP". Not "oddities".

And I called Falwells speculation on Foster's suicide "nutty". Again, too subtle?

Give. Me. A. Break. That's hackery you used to be way, way above.
Strike three. Done here for now.

Given the weakness of the argument, good strategy. I've come to accept that you will often assume the worst interpretation of anything I say. Keeps me on my toes. But for future reference; when I say sane I don't mean crazy, when I say nutty I don't mean rational.

I don't believe that the media is biased against liberals. I don't expect to convince either you or Eric Alterman otherwise...but I will probably still rise to the bait on occasion.

And I've never liked the speculative alternate future argument, even when I agree with the speculation. "If Clinton had these economic numbers we'd be hearing more about it." conservative bleat. Yeah, probably, so what? Waste of time to argue the point. "If Al Gore had been president during 9/11 the republicans would have impeached him." Roll the eyes, sigh, point out how unlikely that is but resign myself to never being able to convince the person otherwise. It's their universe after all, for all I know the law of gravity doesn't function either.

Given the real issues in the real world, the problems of Earth-Den, Earth-Tim and Earth-Bill (It's just like this Earth except that Kennedy lived. And we all have robots!) just seem to me to be pointless. But that's just me.

So, to tie it all up: Vince Foster shot himself, Cheney screwed up, robots are cool. And I am in no way implying that Dick Cheney screwed up by using robots to murder Vince Foster.

here is zero doubt in my mind that you would assume something nefarious had happened based on something that Craig once said

Crap, and I really thought I hid the body better this time.

Is there a conspiracy here? No.

Is this more of the usual outright ridiculous incompetence and complete disregard for the law shown by members of the Bush Administration? Of course.

I could quibble--when I say that people "suggest" that the mishap was due to whatever I thought it was implicit that they were not claiming it as a definite fact--but I'll conceded the point. Me culpa.

My thanks.

(And frankly, given that Cheney does drink and does have heart problems, two out of those three options are not only non-crazy but downright reasonable speculations to raise.)

Ooookay. And I said they were crazy when? I even specifically said that the people who said it were sane. Am I being too subtle? I'm used to you not getting what I mean and I'm willing to chalk up a lot of it to my own fault but gimme a break here.

Yes, you called the people sane. You didn't call the suggestions sane -- and if you're agreeing that those are reasonable speculation, then I'll frankly admit that I've absolutely no idea what point you were trying to make with the paragraph in the first place. Your overall gist seemed to be that the far-out partisans will try to make wacky conspiracy theories out of anything -- if the paragraph above isn't meant to bolster that, then what was it for? That's not snideness; it's an honest question.

Ok, so I guess I didn't understand your point. What exactly was the claim?

I believe the original claim was that various members of the right wing with substantial audiences would be creating all sorts of conspiracy theories. Since I'm not the one who made it, though, others who did should feel free to correct me.

Ah, NOW who is spinning and constructing strawmen?

Not I, so far as I can tell -- but I'll let other people be the judge there.

I don't believe that the media is biased against liberals.

A bit of a strawman here, though probably an unintentional one. (It seems like more of a non sequitur to me than a strawman, though.) In general, I don't think they're consciously biased against liberals (with certain exceptions such as Fox News). Inclined not to rock the boat too strongly, yes; way too lapdog-ish when it comes to questioning (or not) those in power, yes; consciously biased, not usually.

However, I certainly do not think the media as a whole is biased in favor of liberals, and that's something I don't ever expect to convince you of either.

That seems a somewhat friendlier way to tie off the discussion. I do wonder what happened to the days when you and I used to have remarkably constructive conversations, though.

TWL

Cheney was drinkin'.

Well, it helps when we agree. When we're picking on creationists we can't be stopped. :)

Ok, I think I see where this went off the tracks. Den said he had no doubt that Hannity and Limbaugh would have reported what, to me, was a completely implausible, embarrassingly illogical theory. You (if I read this right) defended this by pointing out that some right wing pundits had similar kooky ideas about Foster.

To me, that wasn't a good argument because there will always be such speculation and while (and I can't emphasize this enough) I DON'T think that Foster was murdered and the murder covered up, at least that nutty idea has a logical consistency to it, as opposed to the one we were speculating about Cheney (Or, more accurately, the Al Gore of Earth-X).

Jeeze. Now even I'M confused.

So in answer to the question, I didn't think that the two had anything to do with each other. Nothing I know about Hannity or Limbaugh leads me to believe they would be so far out there in Art Bell land to make such an insane claim. Then again, Rush HAS been known to take drugs.

Just to be clear, I have no doubt that Limbaugh et al would have great merry fun with this if it were "Quickdraw McGore" who did the shooting. They might even show up on TV dressed in a hunter's outfit. That doesn't surprise me. Now, when Dana Milbank does it...(Does anyone seriously think Milbank would have pulled that stunt if it had been Gore? But now it's me playing the pretend game...)

I just got a little ticked when the first thing you say is that I'm spinning as usual. Hell, I'd be HAPPY to see Cheney resign and get replaced by one of several choices I'd be more than happy to share with the president when he calls for advice. But I don't believe that the treatment he's getting is significantly better than what Gore or Kerry would have received. Thankfully (from my admittedly biased point of view) we will probably never know.

Oh, I don't think it's significantly better than what Gore or Kerry (or perhaps as more of a parallel, LIeberman or Edwards) would have gotten in that situation -- in fact, I think the media had very nearly as much fun with Kerry's duck-hunting trip, and that one didn't even shoot any people.

I also don't think it's significantly WORSE, though, and that seems to be something of a point of contention.

'Night.

TWL

I agree with that.

take care.

Well, firstly, regarding Rush and Hannity - did you miss Jerry C.'s above post regarding their nutty garbage about the Foster situation, Bill? I can't personally corraborate their actions in that specific case, since I haven't been able to stomach seeing THAT much of them; but what I have seen of, and heard about, them suggests to me that they're a little too similar to Pat Robertson, in both disconnect from reality and a loyal following of lemmings (at least in Limbaugh's case - does Sean Hannity really have followers?)

Also, I don't think you can really classify either of them as "the media" anymore than you can Nancy Grace or Al Franken. How they would treat a Demo VP vs. a Repub is, to me, a separate issue altogether from the "liberal media" debate.

And I can see a possible scenario in which Cheney could have motive to murder Whittington. Whittington is based in Texas ... home of Republican fund-raising scandals, questionable re-districing, etc. Say Whittington was either threatening to or seen as a threat to spill more info about dirty deals ... maybe some even closer to the administration. There certainly has been very little questioning of this shooting as an accident, hasn't there? (Just kidding ... I think ... ;)

What kind of a man steps out of a car to shoot clip-winged, range-raised quail, anyway?

Luke, I saw the post. I just can't find any compelling evidence that it's accurate. I know that Limbaugh reported that there was going to be a big report that Foster had been murdered and that to this day he cracks jokes about Fort Marcy Park. That's not quite enough to convince me that he would make such an easily dismissed claim as we are talking about here. (one web site claims that Limbaugh is part of the coverup because he still calls it a "suicide": http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html)

But again, this is a pointless argument--we are arguing about what someone would or wouldn't say in a situation that will never happen. If I'm going to do that I'd rather it be about something like who would win in a fight, Submariner or Aquaman, which is also pointless but fun, at least for the 2 seconds it takes to say "Submariner, duh."

I haven't read all the comments, but a couple points --

Quail fly. Maybe not high, not far, but fast and twisty. Wild turkeys are a harder shot, but not much. (Or so my hunting friends have told me)

If you flush a covey of quail (at least eastern quail -- i have read indications that western or prairie quail may act differently) without expecting it (especially the first time) you might well die of a heart attack at the amount of noise and confusion a bunck of birds that small can cause.

Secndly, i would suspect that yu'd use a gun with more or less choke to keep the shot semi-bunched rather than spreading widely, because one birdshot is not going to being down even something as small as a quail; you want to hit it with the majority of the charge (or, conversely, to avoid merely wounding without a clean kill, to NOT hit the bird with only one or two pellets.)

There's a great story about Buffalo Bill's sixguns i could tell, if someonbe e-mailed me and saked me to...

Look guys, this is very simple.

Every so often, Cheney needs to shoot a man. Sometimes he has the urge to shoot a friend. It's just one of those things.

The only problem here is that some civillain with no sense of perspective couldn't keep her mouth shut.

What are the odds that the first time there was a hunting accident in the entire history of the human race, that it would involve the VP?!?

BIRDSHOT AT 30 YARDS

Tucker Carlson on MSNBC's THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON (not to be confused with CNN's THE SITUATION ROOM, hosted by Wolf Blitzer) raised an interesting question that cityfolk (such as myself) wouldn't likely think of:

How could birdshot do that much damage to a person, thru protective clothing--at 30 yards?

Tucker and some of his friends are avid hunters and use birdshot-loaded rifles to hunt birds and don't see how that much damage could be done from a distance of 30 yards. A perspective that not a lot of reporters in the LME (Liberal / Media Elite) seem to share.

-- Ken from Chicago (born and raised cityboy)

P.S. How could a 78-year old guy sneak up on a veep surrounded by Secret Service, what were they doing? That's like the FBI losing notebook computers with top secret data or the CIA not realizing the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse.

I knew PAD wouldn't be able to pass this up.

EVERY piece of real evidence so far points to it being an accident. Sure, you can play make believe with the facts, but that only works in comics and the world of fairy tales.

If it were me and I was shot, I wouldn't want a press conference called 5 minutes later and my face plastered all over the news. It really doesn't matter to me if this was Cheney, Gore, or Peter David. There is no reason to suspect it was anything other than an accident. Unless, of course, you assume Cheney is evil (or a liar, or fill in the blank liberal nonsense), in which case calling a press conference 5 minutes or 5 hours later would change nothing.

The Washington media moaning about their not being informed before everyone else was annoying at first, but now it is just pathetic. If the liberal segment of the media and the internet blogosphere want to turn this in to another indictment against Cheney and the White House, they really are grasping for straws. I suspect the Republicans could run Mickey Mouse against any Democrat and win the White House in the next election. (Of course, since some of you think Bush is Mickey Mouse, perhaps that was never in question.)

With so many things to be truly worried about (potential nukes in Iran anyone?), the focus on an accidental shooting and a delay in its reporting is ridiculous. But go ahead if it makes you feel better. (Sorry, that sarcasm just slipped out somehow. I will try to behave myslef better next time.)

Iowa Jim

I'm sorry, but until this matter is investigated and vetted in the process that would be required of ANY OTHER CITIZEN, there's no way this can or should be allowed to drop.

I would agree it should be investigated and vetted -- by the appropriate authorities, not in the media. Talk about being assumed guilty from the start. So far there has been no hint of any true cover-up. (Not talking to the media is NOT automatically a sign of anything other than intelligence, whatever party you might belong to.) Assuming current facts remain true, Cheney made a mistake, as he admits. What normally happens in this situation? Not the media circus we currently are faced with.

Yes, you are right. It shouldn't go away just because he said he was sorry (although a strong argument could be made that past politicians and actors and talk show hosts have all expected this very thing). The thing is, Cheney did more than just say he was sorry. He did take full blame and responsibility. While it was not as fast as some might want, that really doesn't matter. We are talking a matter of days, not 2 years later.

Iowa Jim

"How could birdshot do that much damage to a person, thru protective clothing--at 30 yards?"

Isn't that what birdshot is designed to do? Hunters generally don't wear bullet proof vests.

The only difference this time is that the person involved happened to be the VP.

Now I've got Monty Python on the brain, when the surgeon was being asked about his operation to graft a pederast onto an Anglican bishop.

"Well, that's the ignorance of the press, if I may say so. We've done dozens of similar operations, it's just that this time there was a bishop involved."

Oh, I do love to stir the pot sometimes.

Bill, if it's such a pointless argument, why are spending so much effort to refute it? :)

Oh, and Aquaman would kick Subby's ass, because only a pansy has wings on his ankles. :P

I just want to check something:

A-hem.

"The vice president of the United States of America shot a 78-year old lawyer in the face."

Yeah, it's still funny.

I've been thinking about the role of the media in this story, and I've decided that the White House Press Corps isn't coming off too good here either. Instead of questioning why Dick first sent Mary Matalin out with her blame the victim spin, they're harping on why they didn't get told sooner. Instead of asking why the Secret Service blocked the local authorities from investigating, they're acting like the whole thing is an affront to their ego.

Someone needs to tell these bozos that it's not all about them.

Anyone see this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060214/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleusattacks_060214163702

Well, at least somebody is going after bin Laden!

Maybe if bin Laden dressed up in feathers Dick would take a shot at him.

Bill, if it's such a pointless argument, why are spending so much effort to refute it? :)

I'm a comic book fan! Pointless arguments are my life!

Oh, and Aquaman would kick Subby's ass, because only a pansy has wings on his ankles. :P

That's "Mr. Pansy" to you, sir. While Aquaman was busy making small concentric circles pour out of his head in an effort to call for help from any nearby herring, Namor would...well, let's just say it would NOT be pretty. C'mon! Namor took on the Fnatastic 4. Aquaman would have trouble with Stiltman.

(Note--I'm talking about the Aquaman of my youth here--the guy who rode around on a giant Sea Horse while Ted Baxter intoned "MEANWHILE, AQUAMAN RIDES AROUND ON HIS GIANT SEAHORSE!". The PAD version of Aquaman would do much better and, if he were fighting the Byrne version of Namor, probably win. Handily.)

I'm AMAZED no one's posted this yet:

http://dickhunt.ytmnd.com/

"I would agree it should be investigated and vetted -- by the appropriate authorities, not in the media. "

Yes, thank you, Jim, for seizing an argument that I never made and taking a firm stand on something that no one has advocated.

I was responding to someone who said, "Cheney apologized, so we should let it go." That's nice. And if I ram my car into a pedestrian, step out and say, "Dude, my bad, I'm so sorry," that should insulate me from everything from criminal charges to civil suits, right?

What infuriates me is that from my understanding, the Secret Service made damned sure that the sheriff's department got nowhere near Cheney directly after the accident. You, of course, will put your Dick-supporting spin on it, but me, I see that as using the powers of the office of VP to obstruct an investigation (White House SOP). For all we know, Cheney's blood alcohol level was through the roof. But by all means, rather than depend upon a legit investigation of the law, let's rely on the word of people who have every reason to cover Cheney's ass.

Does NOTHING these people do outrage you?

PAD

"EVERY piece of real evidence so far points to it being an accident. Sure, you can play make believe with the facts, but that only works in comics and the world of fairy tales. "

Who was putting forth the idea that it was NOT accidental??? I mean, I have seen jokes, but I have not seen it put forth seriously by Peter or anyone else.

As for the debate over how Hannity or Limbaugh would handle a similiar situation...nowadays, Hannity would go with the official story, while hinting at something more ominous...and then bring on guest who would really present outrageous claims where Sean could nod and suggest the theories are valid-giving them the boost for his listeners, but then if he was called on it, he could claim HE did not say it-his guest did.

I've seen some comments saying that this sort of hunting accident happens with enough frequency that we're supposed to shrug and ignore it.

If that's the case, I really have to question the IQ level and mental state of hunters in general.

I'm a comic book fan! Pointless arguments are my life!

And I still think past history supports my prediction.

That's "Mr. Pansy" to you, sir.

Eat it, elf-boy.

While Aquaman was busy making small concentric circles pour out of his head in an effort to call for help from any nearby herring, Namor would...

Be getting rammed by a whale. You don't get it. The reason why Aquaman would summon fish to fight for him is because 1) Namor isn't worth it and 2) Would you let a guy wearing nothing but a Speedo tackle you? That might turn into some kind of Brokeback Atlantis thing.

"I wish I knew how to quit you, Arthur!"

Okay, I'll stop now.

Hannity would go with the official story, while hinting at something more ominous...and then bring on guest who would really present outrageous claims where Sean could nod and suggest the theories are valid-giving them the boost for his listeners, but then if he was called on it, he could claim HE did not say it-his guest did.

Exactly. And then he'd bring on a token liberal guest and read a blind quote that he greatly implied -but did not say- came from someone like Cheny or Rummy. Then he'd harp on the liberal guest's case until he got the guest to say they disagreed with the quote. Then he'd say, "AHA! That was said by John Kerry 20 years ago! Now what do you have to say for yourself!"

Be getting rammed by a whale. You don't get it. The reason why Aquaman would summon fish to fight for him is because

Ha! A whale is not a fish! You must be feeling mighty foolish right now...

Would you let a guy wearing nothing but a Speedo tackle you?

Oh right, because Aquaman's outfit was so macho! The whole color scheme is almost as bad as Daredevil's first costume and, in all fairness, Matt Murdock was blind when he made it.

And if we are going to play the gay card here...Aqualad. Nuff said!

Oh right, the semantics card is about one step above the Hitler card in any debate.

Utterly worthless.

At least Aquaman knows how to wear pants.

If this were not the VP would anyone care? Of course not, so why does this accident take on such immense importance?

If you accidentally shot your friend while hunting would you expect to be crucified by the press and have your job threatened? I doubt it.

Let the lawyer press charges if he wants to. I'm sure he knows how. It seems most of the issues coming up with this incident have more to do with past vendettas against the administration than with anything relating to the actual event.

If this were not the VP would anyone care? Of course not, so why does this accident take on such immense importance?

But it is the VP and that makes it news, so your entire point is moot.

What seems to be forgotten over the past five years is that the politicians in Washington work for us. They are are responsible to US. Not the other way around. His handling of it is also indicative of his judgment and his penchent for keeping everything a secret from the public.

Openness in government is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of democracy. But I guess that idea has been forgotten, too.

>If you accidentally shot your friend while hunting would you expect to be crucified by the press and have your job threatened? I doubt it.

While, the lack of a legal hunting license would cause a regular joe who just shot a hunting buddy some serious headaches. In this instance, it has barely been mentioned and has been all but forgotten. Let's remember, this is the guy who has screamed about ending the lawlessness in the Middle East and supposedly takes a firm stance on the law in this country. It appears that is only the case when his own inconvenience isn't an issue.

[B]But it is the VP and that makes it news, so your entire point is moot.[/B]

Yeah news, but not a full blown scandal with unfounded talk of attempted murder and reckless drunken abandon.

[B]What seems to be forgotten over the past five years is that the politicians in Washington work for us. They are are responsible to US. Not the other way around.[/B]

I find this statement to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, but if it has been forgotten it has been for a lot longer than 5 years.

[B]His handling of it is also indicative of his judgment and his penchent for keeping everything a secret from the public.[/B]

Your eagerness to lay blame based on conjecture and your obvious bias would severely undermine your argument if you were making one.

[B]Openness in government is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of democracy. But I guess that idea has been forgotten, too.[/B]

I imagine you are waiting for full disclosure on how Cheney wipes his ___ and if that doesn't meet with your approval you can hate him even more. What does quail hunting have to do with government? Politicians are people not god-like perfect beings.

While, the lack of a legal hunting license would cause a regular joe who just shot a hunting buddy some serious headaches. In this instance, it has barely been mentioned and has been all but forgotten. Let's remember, this is the guy who has screamed about ending the lawlessness in the Middle East and supposedly takes a firm stance on the law in this country. It appears that is only the case when his own inconvenience isn't an issue.

I guess I understand that you have to draw the line somewhere, but do you really equate the lawlessness in the Middle East to a $7 hunting license?

Yeah news, but not a full blown scandal with unfounded talk of attempted murder and reckless drunken abandon.

And where did someone here accuse the VP of attempted murder?

I find this statement to be irrelevant to the topic at hand, but if it has been forgotten it has been for a lot longer than 5 years.

So was you initial "If this were not the VP would anyone care?" statement. What's your point?

Your eagerness to lay blame based on conjecture and your obvious bias would severely undermine your argument if you were making one.

Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot.

What does quail hunting have to do with government?

Nothing, but then nobody said it did. The VP shooting a guy, however, does relate to government.

I could say more, but in just two posts on this forum, you've already exposed yourself as an absolute freaking moron, so why bother?

"I imagine you are waiting for full disclosure on how Cheney wipes his ___ and if that doesn't meet with your approval you can hate him even more."

I just figured the Secret Service did it for him...

"Politicians are people not god-like perfect beings."

Yeah, that's kind of the point. "People" involved in this sort of thing would be grilled by the police (quite possibly down at the police station), have their blood alcohol level being checked, and might well be facing criminal prosecution and civil action. Politicians might well be facing, at the very least, a press conference where a battery of reporters asks them tough questions.

Cheney on the other hand talks to the law on his own schedule (giving his body plenty of time to metabolize whatever booze might have been in his system) and gets hand-held by a single journalist who already has stated that he thinks the entire matter have been blown out of proportion.

If the argument is that Cheney "is people," not unlike Soylent Green, then he should be treated AS people, and not like someone in his own special class.

PAD

First, an answer to Mark above--the man who doesn't want to be accused of taking part in a drive-by quailing!

And second, it's not the shooting in itself that's the big deal, here. It's the fact that Dick's people waited so long to break the story. You know, because it's SOOOO interesting. Now, before half the people here cheer for me while the other half want my head, lemme explain. No, no, there's too much. Lemme sum up. First, does shooting this guy affect Cheney's job performance in anything other than a few hospital visits and maybe talking to some authorities? Second, people hunting ANYTHING occasionally get shot. My ex-girlfriend's father once shot himself in the foot while hunting deer. I guess he wanted to, you know, get off the front line of the Deer War but didn't wanna look like a coward. Moron, yes, coward, no. Third, WHY is this a huge-o story? Because right now, with 24-hour news channels, they need SOMETHING to fill the air. Hunt for Bin Laden? Yeah, nothing happening there. Medical research? Nada, at least nada interisante. But Cheney shoots a guy? BIG NEWS, baby!

Now, the fact that I think this executive branch is really subscribing to the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" plan is beside the point. The less people know, the happier they are. Information bad!!

"I just figured the Secret Service did it for him..."

I really like that one. :)

"Yeah, that's kind of the point. "People" involved in this sort of thing would be grilled by the police (quite possibly down at the police station), have their blood alcohol level being checked, and might well be facing criminal prosecution and civil action. Politicians might well be facing, at the very least, a press conference where a battery of reporters asks them tough questions.

Cheney on the other hand talks to the law on his own schedule (giving his body plenty of time to metabolize whatever booze might have been in his system) and gets hand-held by a single journalist who already has stated that he thinks the entire matter have been blown out of proportion.

If the argument is that Cheney "is people," not unlike Soylent Green, then he should be treated AS people, and not like someone in his own special class."

Your right. It works both ways. They can't act like gods and we can't treat them like gods. I guess reality falls somewhere in the middle and the debate comes in as opinions differ on where that balance should be.

Why must we assume that ordinary people would have been handled so much more stringently? Where is the crime here that warrants the expectation of such an extreme response? And I am not looking for a missing hunting license. I used to fish without a license in the lake near my house when I was a kid. Should I lose my job?

I might have missed some info. Are there indications that Cheney was drunk? Or are we able to assume he was because he allegedly prevented a test from being done?

And Den, sorry that we disagree. I honestly feel the same way as you. Your a moron. :)

"While, the lack of a legal hunting license"

He had a legal hunting license. He just didn't have a $7 sticket, which is a new thing they are doing. It's sort of like having a fishing license, and fishing in the same lake for years, and then suddenly they want you to get a "catfish" sticker, which costs $7, in addition to your license. It's a fairly new regulation that most hunters down there weren't familiar with, so they are giving all the hunters warning on this. It's not a criminal affair, as much as people want it to be.

"Yeah, that's kind of the point. "People" involved in this sort of thing would be grilled by the police (quite possibly down at the police station), have their blood alcohol level being checked, and might well be facing criminal prosecution and civil action. Politicians might well be facing, at the very least, a press conference where a battery of reporters asks them tough questions."

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Sorry. Got to call bullshit. Lifelong hunter here. Resident Oklahoman. Been peppered once myself. My father got shot in the leg with a rifle. My uncle was shot by another hunter while hunting deer. He was also shot once by a bow while hunting deer.

In none of these cases were the shooters ever grilled by the police. Why? Because in areas where hunting is common, hunting accidents are also common.

I'm so amazed at either the naivety of people, or the strong desire to make something out of nothing. If two friends where playing basketball, and one friend got elbowed in the face, and his nose broken, the police wouldn't investigate it as assault. But if I punched someone in the face and broke their nose, it would be assault, and I would go to jail.

"Why must we assume that ordinary people would have been handled so much more stringently?"

I think it a VERY safe assumption that such extended delays and obstruction would have been red flags to the police and resulted in far greater scrutiny and even repercussions.

"Where is the crime here that warrants the expectation of such an extreme response?"

Assault with a deadly weapon? Reckless endangerment? Firing a gun while under the influence? Obstruction of justice?

"And I am not looking for a missing hunting license. I used to fish without a license in the lake near my house when I was a kid. Should I lose my job?"

Personally I don't give a damn about that. From what I've read, the "license" in question is the fairly recent development of hunters requiring a $7 stamp to hunt quail, something that many people besides Cheney didn't know was a requirement. A minor infraction at best and not worth the ink the story was printed with.

"I might have missed some info. Are there indications that Cheney was drunk? Or are we able to assume he was because he allegedly prevented a test from being done?"

I assume nothing. I'm saying that delaying the police for as long as possible is an indicator that something is being covered up, and that if you or I tried it, it wouldn't be tolerated. I'm saying Cheney gets a free pass because of who he is, and that's what I object to.

PAD

"Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Sorry. Got to call bullshit. Lifelong hunter here. Resident Oklahoman. Been peppered once myself. My father got shot in the leg with a rifle. My uncle was shot by another hunter while hunting deer. He was also shot once by a bow while hunting deer.

In none of these cases were the shooters ever grilled by the police. Why? Because in areas where hunting is common, hunting accidents are also common."

Then Oklahoma is a bullshit state and the cops are bullshit cops. Slapdash chickenshit lack of police procedure in one place doesn't justify it elsewhere, although it is comforting to know that if I'm really pissed off with someone, I can just go hunting with them in Oklahoma, shoot the crap out of them, claim, "Accident, my bad sorry," and walk away from it with no investigation.

And furthermore, from my understanding, the police WERE trying to investigate and WERE stonewalled by the Secret Service. So your entire point is pointless.

PAD

"Then Oklahoma is a bullshit state and the cops are bullshit cops. Slapdash chickenshit lack of police procedure in one place doesn't justify it elsewhere, although it is comforting to know that if I'm really pissed off with someone, I can just go hunting with them in Oklahoma, shoot the crap out of them, claim, "Accident, my bad sorry," and walk away from it with no investigation. "

If the person you shot says the same thing, then yes, this would be the case anywhere in the country, unless the cops were total morons. And there is a big difference between an investigation, and a grilling. A police report is filed in every case. But unless they have legit reason to believe intent, they don't grill anyone. Gosh, a big liberal like you sure wants a police state, where people are presumed guilty? Or is this just anti-Cheney slipping in.

And furthermore, from my understanding, the police WERE trying to investigate and WERE stonewalled by the Secret Service. So your entire point is pointless.

Is there any link to this? If true, then yeah, no argument, Cheney deserves some harsh questions. I didn't like it when Clinton assumed he was abopve the law and lied in court and I won't like it any more if Cheney is allowed to blow off legitimate questions from police officers. But I haven't read anything like that from actual policemen so if there are quotes out there I'd like to see them.

"Is there any link to this? If true, then yeah, no argument, Cheney deserves some harsh questions. "

There's as much evidence of this, as there was that he was drunk. None. Just implication and innuendo. Course, since when do facts matter. The police investigate, gave and report, and were satisfied. But evidently, the report wasn't filed though PAD, so it's not official yet.

"If the person you shot says the same thing, then yes, this would be the case anywhere in the country, unless the cops were total morons."

And if the person in question is dead or in a coma? Or if he is unaware of the enmity the shooter bears for him.

"And there is a big difference between an investigation, and a grilling."

Yes, the difference would be the same as between "potato" and "po-TAH-to."

"A police report is filed in every case. But unless they have legit reason to believe intent, they don't grill anyone."

Then that's chickenshit. It's prejudging a case and is just begging for abuses of the law.

"Gosh, a big liberal like you sure wants a police state, where people are presumed guilty? Or is this just anti-Cheney slipping in."

No, it's the anti-gun wielding, anti-hunting, anti-police obstructionist slipping in, as opposed to the pro-Cheney, pro-Bush, spin-the-GOP-position-no-matter-what, knee-jerk Conservative-lockstep-party-line,gun-loving, liberal-hating hypocritical, suck-our-Dick-Cheney, would-be-demanding-impeachment-if-it-were-Clinton bullshit that so informs the opposing view.

And by the way, people ARE presumed guilty, all the time. If they weren't, it would be impossible to lock them up while they were awaiting trial, because there would be no constitutional basis to hold an "innocent" man against his will. "Innocent until proven guilty" only refers to the trial procedure and on whom the burden of proof lies.

And the bottom line is that our highest officials should endeavor to be above reproach. They should be the models for cooperation with law enforcement at all levels. THe problem is that the Bush White House has made stonewalling and refusal to cooperate so much a part of their MO that it's difficult to see this as anything other than more of the same.

PAD

And furthermore, from my understanding, the police WERE trying to investigate and WERE stonewalled by the Secret Service. So your entire point is pointless.

Is there any link to this?

After a little digging, I found this chronology on msnbc.com:

6:30 p.m.: Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter Harry Whittington while aiming for a bird.

7:50 p.m.: The head of the Secret Service office in McAllen, Texas, calls the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. The sheriff asks to speak to Cheney, and they schedule an interview for 9 a.m. At the White House, presidential aide Karl Rove tells Bush that Cheney was the shooter, after talking to ranch owner Katharine Armstrong. Cheney and the rest of the hunting party sit down for dinner at the ranch.

At some point, sheriff’s deputies who heard reports of the ambulance responding to an accident at the ranch stop at the front gate to see if anyone needs help, but are told no one needs assistance. The Secret Service earlier had said the deputies were seeking to interview Cheney, but on Tuesday they said that was not the case.

9 a.m.: Kenedy County sheriff’s deputies interview Cheney.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11386566/

So, if I read this right, the Secret Service called the sheriff's office an hour and 20 minutes after the shooting and told them that they could interview Cheney the next morning, which right there, is not something I think I could have gotten away with.

There seems to be some dispute over whether the deputies who arrived at the ranch that evening wanted to interview Cheney that night or not.

So, if I read this right, the Secret Service called the sheriff's office an hour and 20 minutes after the shooting and told them that they could interview Cheney the next morning, which right there, is not something I think I could have gotten away with.

I think, before we jump the gun here (bada bing!), we would have to clarify that "they schedule an interview for 9 a.m." is the same thing as "told them that they could interview Cheney the next morning".

Did the Sheriff really want to interview him and they told him no, wait until morning? Yeah, that would be abuse of power.

Peter, you asked "Does NOTHING these people do outrage you?"

Sure. Borders and Budget are big on my list of "Things That Need Fixin'."

And I'll be the first to say that I disagreed with just about everything that Bill Clinton did. But not everything. I mean, 8 years, and there were SOME things that the guy did that was fine by me. Granted, I could probably count those instances on one hand...

My question is, Peter, Does NOTHING these people do please you?

RLR

Den, I also wanted to say thanks for the info.

>>While, the lack of a legal hunting license would cause a regular joe who just shot a hunting buddy some serious headaches. In this instance, it has barely been mentioned and has been all but forgotten. Let's remember, this is the guy who has screamed about ending the lawlessness in the Middle East and supposedly takes a firm stance on the law in this country. It appears that is only the case when his own inconvenience isn't an issue.

>I guess I understand that you have to draw the line somewhere, but do you really equate the lawlessness in the Middle East to a $7 hunting license?

I was responding to the following statement:

>If you accidentally shot your friend while hunting would you expect to be crucified by the press and have your job threatened? I doubt it.

If the "Cheney shouldn't be treated any differently than a regular guy" defense is going to be touted out, certainly a very quick reminder that he isn't and sees this as an entitlement should be pointed out. Treat him like a regular guy. Fine him the huge fine that goes along with hunting without a licence and make it public record.

my bad, I was under the impression that he didn't have a hunting sticker. Though it is kind of funny that he ir his assistants didn't ensure that he had all of his ducks (or quails) in a row before going out. It may be a small infraction, but ut is still an infraction.

Bill, the timeline says as much as I've been able to uncover: The sheriff asked to speak to Cheney and then an interview was scheduled for the following morning. Whether he wanted speak to him that night or not isn't clear. The apparent change in the statement about whether the deputies who arrived onsight wanted to speak to him that night, does however, raise some questions that should also be clarified.

As I said before, I don't really believe that there was a cover up because he was drunk. I still think a decision was made on Saturday that no one was going to give a statement to the press or the local authorities until they had worked out the proper "spin" on the events. And I'm going to continue with that belief unless a witness comes forward to same that Cheney was totally knockin' 'em back and was completely ripped that night.

And if the you look at their responses so far, it's followed the administration's SOP for any crises: First, deflect all blame onto someone else (Have Matalin say that the VP did nothing wrong and it was Whittington's fault for not announcing his location). Second, minimize the signifigance of the event (He was just "peppered" and now he's "very stable". These accidents happen all the time). Third, unleash the punditry and blogosphere to attack anyone questioning the official line as effete liberals. And fourth, issue a belated mea culpa before a sympathetic audience -but only as a last resort.

Peter David: No, it's the anti-gun wielding, anti-hunting...
Luigi Novi: You're against hunting? Just out of curiosity, Peter, are you a vegetarian?

Treat him like a regular guy. Fine him the huge fine that goes along with hunting without a licence and make it public record.

As PAD said, this $7 sticker thing is a new development and does not seem to have been treated as a major infraction. I'm not sure anyone has gotten a major fine over it so Cheney should not either (if that is indeed the case).

Slapdash chickenshit lack of police procedure in one place doesn't justify it elsewhere, although it is comforting to know that if I'm really pissed off with someone, I can just go hunting with them in Oklahoma, shoot the crap out of them, claim, "Accident, my bad sorry," and walk away from it with no investigation.

Of course, it helps when, as is apparently the case here, the victim is alive and well enough to speak. Had Cheney killed him there would have had to have been a different kind of investigation.

It's not much different from a car accident. I haven't had the experience, thank God, but I know people who have run into other humans and caused them injury and the amount of police investigation was minimal (In both cases the victim was well enough to corroborate the story.)

And if the you look at their responses so far, it's followed the administration's SOP for any crises: First, deflect all blame onto someone else (Have Matalin say that the VP did nothing wrong and it was Whittington's fault for not announcing his location). Second, minimize the signifigance of the event (He was just "peppered" and now he's "very stable". These accidents happen all the time). Third, unleash the punditry and blogosphere to attack anyone questioning the official line as effete liberals. And fourth, issue a belated mea culpa before a sympathetic audience -but only as a last resort.

What times we live in--all that can be achieved in just 5 days! It used to take weeks for something like this to play out. George Carlin had it right: "this next song hasn't even been released yet; at 10 this morning it was number one, and by tonight it'll be a golden oldie."

Of course, it helps when, as is apparently the case here, the victim is alive and well enough to speak. Had Cheney killed him there would have had to have been a different kind of investigation.

True, and there were other witnesses on the scene as well. If Dick and Harry had been out in the woods by themselves and only one came back alive, then there would be cause for a full rectal probe into the matter. As it is, the timeline just suggests questions that should be clarified, which is why I lean towards the "Oh shit, we need to do some damage control" explanation rather then an actual cover up.

"My question is......Does NOTHING these people do please you?"

For me, the only thing I can think of that this administration has done that's pleased me is pursuing Al Queada and their Taliban supporters in Afghanistan. That's it. There's not a single other accomplishment of this administration's that I can think of that I can view in a positive light.

What times we live in--all that can be achieved in just 5 days! It used to take weeks for something like this to play out. George Carlin had it right: "this next song hasn't even been released yet; at 10 this morning it was number one, and by tonight it'll be a golden oldie."

The wonderful world of the information superhighway is great, isn't it? Of course, that also means that by next week, it'll be old news and we can go back to talking about rich white girls who disappear while on a Carribean vacation.

Oh, and you're welcome, Bill. I know we've butted heads before, but I'm willing to let bygones go if you are.

Oh yeah, we cool. When you came back with the samurai sword to take care of the two hillbilly rapists it settled all accounts. Your LA privilages are still revoked, however.

"Luigi Novi: You're against hunting? Just out of curiosity, Peter, are you a vegetarian?"

No, and that's pretty much irrelevant. I have no objection to people who hunt in order to eat. For that matter, fishermen who catch fish and then cook them up and eat them, I'm also not going to have an objection to.

People who go out and slaughter animals for fun is something I object to. Killing as recreation is vomitous.

PAD

PAD, I'm not sure that isn't a pretty slippery slope. I don't hunt but I fish. I eat the fish. That isn't, however, why I fish. Obviously, I could go and buy a fish and eat it, for no doubt less than the cost of the license and gear. It's the recreation. Which involves killing.

I'm also not sure that hunting, even the fairly unexciting type done by Cheney and co can be described fairly as "slaughter animals for fun". There is a degree of skill and, as it turns out, risk involved. If one gets off just on slaughter there are far easier and more effective ways to go about it.

And while you may think it's pretty much irrelevant, one of the things that would prevent me from being too critical of a hunter is the knowledge that the chicken I eat tonight had a far more miserable life and painful end than the quail that Cheney shot. I saw stuff at the Tyson Chicken Plant that would make Vlad the Impaler go vegan.

In other news:
Man Shot In Accident After Laughing At Cheney
My God! He's gone on a rampage!
LAFAYETTE, Colo. Hours after laughing about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting mishap, Josh Kayser was himself shot by a friend during a hunting expedition.

The 21-year-old Lafayette man was taken to the hospital Monday night after his girlfriend accidentally shot him while they were trailing a raccoon that had been preying on chickens on his family's property.

"I read that thing about the vice president and said to myself 'how can you shoot your friend with your gun?' And look what happened," he said Tuesday.

Oh. Well, ok then.

Eh, I hate LA anyway.

And if you think the chickens had a painful end, you should see how they lived. I once had the pleasure of seeing what one of those factory farms look like. The chicken manure in the basement was about five feet deep!

Still, I have a hard time seeing hunting these quailtards (thank you, Rob Cordry) as all that sporting. Maybe they're a step above the pidgeon shoots that were once practiced in PA, but not by much.

Just for the record (since everyone's just got to be panting for my opinion on the matter :-) --

If you hunt (or fish) because you need to in order to eat, more power to you.

If you eat what you catch, that seems reasonable, even if you don't have to do so in order to survive.

If you hunt for pleasure, I don't understand it. I particularly don't understand those people who say "it's for sport" and then have such incredibly lopsided odds that the hunt becomes almost literally a turkey shoot.

You want sport? Hunt mountain lions and wear clothes that rattle loudly. But hunting deer with armor-piercing bullets strikes me as carnage, not sport.

(Fishing seems a different type of thing to me, for some reason. I'm not sure why -- maybe it's on the order of "hey, if the fish are dumb enough to bite, you're just taking advantage" or something.)

TWL

The ugliness of the animal matters. It shouldn't but it does. Even if, by some miracle, the world was suddenly knee deep in panda bears I wouldn't want to eat them.

Unless, of course, they tasted really really good.

I've often called that the "cute animal theory." I formulated that theory when I was in college and everyone was campaigning to boycott tuna (which I hate, so I was already boycotting it) because dolphins were getting killed in the nets. Not one person ever told me to boycott tuna because tuna were getting killed in the nets!

Other cultures eat horses and dogs. We don't because we think they're cute. Cows, pigs, chickens are all ugly.

"Hours after laughing about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting mishap, Josh Kayser was himself shot by a friend during a hunting expedition.

The 21-year-old Lafayette man was taken to the hospital Monday night after his girlfriend accidentally shot him while they were trailing a raccoon that had been preying on chickens on his family's property."

Uh oh! Did she call a press release? Who knew what when? Are they gonna GRILL her?! Maybe she was drinking...

Maybe she was. Maybe she was pissed off at her boyfriend. Maybe he was cheating on her. Maybe they'd just had an argument.

Into all these maybes can be added the non-maybe that a staggering number of homicides are committed, not by strangers, but by friends and acquaintances.

So maybe every smug hunter out there who shrugs off such things as "Oh, well it's just an accident" should allow into his gray matter the notion that ALL such incidents should be subjected to close scrutiny.

PAD

I see alot of people are missing the point about why this situation is bringing up so much debate. It's NOT that we THINK Cheney did something most average citizens would get in serious trouble for, and used his influence to stop immediate investigation. It's that as more facts come out, it's obvious that he did indeed use his taxpayer funded little posse to skirt around immediate investgation that would normally result in any reguler person being fined and losing their hunting license for not having all the proper permits (or seals in this case), and obvious recklessness while using a deadly weapon.

Im more than confident if this situation happened to any one of us, our lives wouldn't be buisness as usual. Im also disturbed that Hunting Accidents resulting in someone being wounded (hunting penned animals at that!) is being mentioned as being commonplace. It is not that common to shoot a buddy while hunting.

Far as I'm concerned, Cheney reaps what he sews--he gets to be the butt of ridicule of every late night host, sketch group, political commentator adn cartoonist in this country and others (folks have got to admit....he DID do a dumb thing)(and compounded it with his try to "spin" the events).

Leave it there. I just hope he feels as guilty as he should be....

Ok, more has come out now.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney1.html

One thing--apparently the MSNBC folks got the early part really wrong (color me unsurprised). The accident happened at around 5:30, not 6:30. The police were contacted within minutes, not hours later.

According to the actual Sheriff, it was his decision to wait until the next morning to have the interview. The victim has testified that alcohol was not involved.

Needless to say, none of these facts will dissuade those who are unwilling to be dissuaded. Witnesses can be threatened and paid off, right?

Meanwhile, the Patriot act--declared dead by Harry Reid just a few weeks ago--is about to be extended by what looks like a big margin. The secret wiretapping controversy is being allowed to die by Democrats who didn't like how the polls were shaping up on public opinion. Nobody even speculates any more about Karl Rove being indicted, much less expects it. On the big issues, this is not shaping up to be a good week for Democrats. But at least they got a few days worth of good jokes.

And back in Europe...
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=77773&d=14&m=2&y=2006

Solana Seeks to Quell Cartoon Rage

In what can only be described as the first confidence-building measure between Europe and the Muslim world, one of the highest ranking leaders of the European Union paid a visit to the secretary-general of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) here yesterday.

Solana agreed with Ihsanoglu’s suggestion that the EU and the OIC should jointly make efforts to adopt a UN resolution on the lines of the existing Resolution No. 60/150, which calls for combating defamation of religions.

“The new UN res