Curiouser and Curiouser!
by sarabeth at 12:00 pm on February 14th, 2006 in Cheney, Podium SpinThis is too important to mess around with. So we go straight to the
official transcript of Scott McClellan’s press briefing on Monday. Yes, it’s a long excerpt, but bear with me.
And in terms of here in Washington, there was information that we were continuing to learn about throughout the course of that evening and into early Sunday morning. The initial report that we received was that there had been a hunting accident. We didn’t know who all was involved, but a member of his party was involved in that hunting accident. And then additional details continued to come in overnight.
[…]
Q Scott, there’s a report coming out of a Sheriff’s deputy there who said that he was prevented from interviewing the Vice President by the Secret Service. Do you know anything about that? And is that appropriate?MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don’t know anything about that. You ought to direct that to the Secret Service. My understanding was that Secret Service took the appropriate steps to inform law enforcement. But, again, check with Secret Service.
Q Scott, what was the input of the White House? What was your input, once you learned of this? Did you just turn it over to the Vice President’s Office? Did you know they were turning it over to a private citizen to inform people?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of my involvement, first of all, Saturday night I find out that there was a hunting accident — it was late Saturday night — of a member in his party. But I did not know who was involved in that hunting accident. It wasn’t until very early Sunday morning that I found out that the Vice President was involved in this accident. And, of course, in a position like mine, I was urging that that information be made available as quickly as possible and the Vice President’s Office was working to get that information out.
Q So as of Saturday night, you didn’t know, the White House did not know that Vice President Cheney was involved?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, there were details coming in throughout that night and into the morning. There was additional information coming in at 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., and even after that.
Q But, again, Saturday night, you did not know the Vice President was involved, you just thought someone from his hunting party was —
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, personally, was informed by the Situation Room that there had been a hunting accident, and that it was a member of the Vice President’s hunting party. But I didn’t have additional information other than that at this point. Obviously, I asked questions about — is he okay, and who was involved — and they didn’t have those facts at that point.
Q So Sunday morning you first learned that it was the Vice President?
MR. McCLELLAN: Early Sunday morning, that’s correct.
[…]
Q What time on Sunday morning did you learn that Vice President Dick Cheney was the shooter?
MR. McCLELLAN: It was early. I was woken up.
Q Do you have any — was it 6:00 a.m., 5:00 a.m.? Can you give me at least just some sort of sense of how early —
MR. McCLELLAN: It was probably in the 6:00 a.m. range or so. Usually I’m up at 5:00 a.m., but it was Sunday.
Q And who woke you up and told you?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?
Q Who told you?
MR. McCLELLAN: I just had discussions with staff. I’ll leave it at that.
[…]
Q This doesn’t make any sense, though. This happens at 5:30 p.m. on Saturday, and you’re saying that until the morning, the President of the United States —
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I didn’t say that. I said there was additional information coming in later that evening and into the morning hours of Sunday.
Q You’ve got to clarify this timeline, Scott; it just doesn’t make any sense.
Q When did the President know that the Vice President was the shooter? What time?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there was additional information coming in that night. And the details continued to come in throughout the morning, into the Sunday morning time period.
Q The Vice President did not call the President to tell him he was the shooter?
MR. McCLELLAN: Suzanne, go ahead. (Interjection: McClellan didn’t respond to the previous question.)
McClellan refused to be pinned down to specific times, but it’s clear that for a long time after it happened the White House and the President didn’t even know anything had happened, and then for a significant further period of time they had no idea that Cheney was involved in the shooting. Or perhaps I better say, it’s clear that that’s the story McClellan was trying to put out on Monday. (Please stand by for Version 2.0. The release date has not yet been officially announced, but we do know that Scottie has been hard at work on it ever since the somewhat problematic launch of Version 1.0. We may see version 1.1, and even 1.2, in the next few days, as a temporary fix. But there’s bound to be a 2.0 soon.)
Suppose we believe Scottie’s labored version (just for the sake of argument). Bear with me while I try to construct a plausible script to fit those alleged facts.
A) Whoever received this information in the White House didn’t think to ask who was shot and by whom.
B) They asked and weren’t answered (Hmmm, asked and not answered? Could that have been McClellan himself calling from the ranch? Could they have flown him down? Or just beamed Scotty there?).
C) The White House was informed by leaving a voicemail message.
Yeah, sure. It could certainly have happened like that, right?
So what was really going on? Well, your guess is as good as mine, but the more you think about what McClellan said, the less sense it makes. So why don’t we do it this way? I’ll make a guess, then you make a guess, and we’ll keep taking it in turns till we run out of ideas, okay?
I’ll go first. (Strokes her chin, and thinks aloud.) If they’re lying, maybe they’re all lying? Maybe Scottie and the White House weren’t just at the receiving end of lies. So let’s not assume the White House wasn’t told the whole truth right away. Now, what do we know for a fact? One, the press wasn’t informed till Sunday morning. Two, they didn’t inform the national press, just the docile local paper which seems to eat out of Katharine Armstrong’s hands and worship her family to boot. Pretty sobering. That’s all we know for sure! Just to simplify things, let’s go ahead and stipulate that Cheney did in fact shoot Whittington at 5:30 pm as claimed. So then the question is: what possible reasons could there be for not informing the press right away, and for keeping the national press firmly out of it?
I’ll start with the obvious one: Cheney was shooting under the influence. (Katharine Armstrong has said that no one was drinking before the shooting, but there’s no reason why she couldn’t be lying too. And if someone who was present at the ranch has to tell this lie, who better than a private citizen, especially a woman who might easily have got flustered by the shooting and the blood?) And then after he shot Whittington, Cheney broke down and blubbered like a baby for several hours. There was no question of letting anyone else on the scene till the blood alcohol level became vanishingly small, and expert makeup had neutralized all signs of the crying jag. McClellan’s pathetic “we learnt things piecemeal through the night†was just the best story they were able to come up with to “explain†the delay. Okay, your turn now!
You don’t say! Wow! That would never have occurred to me. Okay, my second try. Whittington didn’t just grin manfully, and say “I’ll be just fine, don’t worry about it!†He was plain hopping mad. “I’ll sue your dirty rotten evil heartless mean malicious ass, you cocky arrogant asshole bastard fool!†There was only one way to handle it. Sedate the old man right away, bundle him off to the hospital, keep him under wraps till he had cooled down enough. Once he did, then bribe, bully, browbeat or blackmail him into agreeing to wear “I’ll be just fine, don’t worry about it!†as his public face. Then mop your brow, and break the news. But keep the press away from Cheney as long as possible.
No shit? Okay, here goes, third try! Right after the shooting, Cheney went into a catatonic state of denial. He kept repeating two things over and over again, and wouldn’t respond to anything said to him. One was “Like hell I shot someone, it was the fucking ambassador!†The second was “Boy, she has big tits, doesn’t she?†(He was believed to be referring not to the ambassador or his hostess, but some unknown third party.) They couldn’t break the news till his doctors brought him out of it, and judged that he wasn’t likely to relapse even under press questioning. And to stay on the safe side, they kept the press away from Cheney as long as possible.
Last and final one from me, so let me make it a doozy. They couldn’t break the news till they first got hold of the President, and they couldn’t get hold of the President because he was off somewhere banging a floozy. He does that every so often, you know. Just slips away without even a phone, and without his Secret Service detail. And then he shows up only when he shows up. That night he rolled in at 2:30 am. Couldn’t break the news then, so they had to wait till morning. This is also why McClellan and Andy Card and Karl Rove were up most of the night, and looking haggard Monday morning. That’s how they thought of concocting that “we learnt things piecemeal through the night†bullshit. Naah, this one’s a little weak, I think. Doesn’t explain why they worked so hard to keep the national press away from the ranch.
Let’s cancel that one, I’ll try again. Cheney, finally overcome by the guilt of all his evil actions over the last 5 years, suddenly decided to do the honorable thing and blow his brains out. But he chickened out at the very last moment, and turned his gun away just as he was squeezing the trigger. Whittington was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, poor sod. They told Bush everything right away. This left Bush with a very difficult decision: cut Cheney loose and leave him twisting in the wind, or cover up everything and go public with the official version only when everything was safely under wraps. He did so want to do the honorable thing, but he couldn’t decide which alternative was more honorable. He finally just went to bed, saying “I’ll sleep on it.†McClellan, Card and Rove were up all night, getting all prepped up to hit the ground running in the morning, and roll out whichever scenario the President selected. That’s why they looked so haggard in the morning. And that’s what made them cook up that “we learnt things piecemeal through the night†nonsense.
Footnotes:
1) Yes, I do realize that Scottie’s briefing performance constitutes one massive extended whopper, and this one is bigger and badder than “we don’t know how Abramoff even got onto the White House groundsâ€, so I take back my previous invitation. Please don’t jam our server with comments to this effect.
2) At some point yesterday, the White House decided to clarify the question that Scottie worked so strenuously to duck throughout the briefing. They appended the following clarification to the official transcript of the briefing:
Response to a Question from the Briefing
Q So when did the President definitively know that the Vice President had shot somebody?
A Chief of Staff Andy Card called the President around 7:30pm EST to inform him that there was a hunting accident. He did not know the Vice President was involved at that time. Subsequent to the call, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with Mrs. Armstrong. He then called the President shortly before 8:00pm EST to update him and let him know the Vice President had accidentally shot Mr. Whittington.
Carefully note the following:
3) The Washington Post confirms that a Sheriff’s deputy was prevented from interviewing Cheney on Saturday:
Local law enforcement officials did not interview Cheney until Sunday morning, about 14 hours after the shooting, in an agreement worked out between the Secret Service and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III. Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said at least one deputy was turned away shortly after the shooting because security personnel at the ranch were not aware of the agreement between the sheriff and the Secret Service.
Let’s see here:
Since the Sheriff’s office takes orders from the security personnel at Katharine Armstrong’s ranch, they would obviously have no problem taking orders from the Secret Service. And right after the shooting, the Secret Service told the Sheriff’s office that they couldn’t interview Cheney till Sunday morning? (If not, when the Sheriff’s deputy got back to the Sheriff’s office on Saturday evening, he would presumably have been told: “Go back, you clown, and tell those security personnel that we have an agreement with the Secret Service!â€)
A pattern here, huh? Everyone concerned seems to have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep Cheney under wraps till Sunday morning. And then even on Sunday morning, he was carefully exposed only to the docile local paper, and the docile local Sheriff’s office. Someone obviously sent out an order: “Don’t worry about how bad it looks, just DO it!â€
This really doesn’t seem quite so funny any more, does it?
I strongly urge you to read the full briefing transcript for yourself. My excerpts don’t do much justice to the massive stonewalling performance McClellan put on from beginning to end. (They might have captured the evasions maybe, but not the dead stonewalling.)
forager wrote:
so the VP was drunk and the SS talked to the local authorities about interviewing him in the morning due to the stress of the situation or some other BS excuse?
just throwing it out there
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 1:52 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ok. Now this makes 5 posts on the Cheney accidental shooting. Why is this such a news story? Hunting accidents happen all the time. So whta is the story here? That it wasn’t reported sooner? Who cares! If a law was broken then fine, it would deserve this much scrutiny, but it was an accident, get over it. There’s no conspiracy here. The MSM has lost their freakin’ minds. One idiot acctually asked when the VP would be resigning over this….again this kind of chatter over an accident that involves two people, Dick Cheney and Harry Whittington. But you and the liberal press have spun this into some conspiracy of what did the President know and when.
It was a terrible accident, but how about Al Gore’s wreckless comments in Saudi Arbia? This had *NO* air time in the MSM that I know of. Not even a mention here, but 5 posts on Cheney’s accidental shooting of a fellow hunting buddy!!! Do you know how common such accidents happen? How often though does a former VP travel to a known haven of Islamic extremists claiming mistreatment of Arabs in the US????
This absolutely nails this site as a nothing but a partisan outlet determined to *get* Bush and friends oneway or another….bravo.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 5:32 pm ¶
matt wrote:
we’ll write about exactly whatever the fuck we want, when we want, as often as we want, period.
if you want to spew the transcripts from fox news today (as you have done), fine. but i don’t feel that we need to explain to anyone why this is an important story. the coverup alone is worthy of multiple posts.
then you are encouraged to leave. i’m not sure where you got the idea that we weren’t partisan, but we’ll add it to the bible-length list of misconceptions under which you operate.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 5:55 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
I guess the LA Times is investigating this, so we may soon know. Two things are for sure:
1. Dick had at least two DUIs in his youth. (Yes, you read that right; cars were invented prior to Dick Cheney’s youth. Shocking, I know.)
2. Unlike his “boss,” Dick has never acknowledged swapping Jesus for the bottle. So as far as we know, he’s as much of a boozer as he is a loser.
The fact that the cops weren’t allowed in to talk to Dick until the following morning means anything’s possible. He could’ve been drunk; he could’ve had a whore on each arm (with his ticker?!); hell, he could’ve been sharing needles with Osama and Oprah for all we know. Of course, I’d guess the tight-lipped atmosphere is what makes the Armstrong Ranch such a comfortable place for Dick and his pals, so we may never know the details.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 6:17 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Good for you, but I wanted to point out to all potential readers what kind of things you call important as I have done before.
Dick Cheney involved in hunting accident and doesn’t follow proper protocol *after accidently shooting a friend while hunting* = big cover up and news fodder for the ravenous left radicals. Check!
Al Gore bascially stoking the Islamic fire in the middle of the hornets nest = no comment by 1115.org. Check!
Tell me, how does Dick Cheney shooting his hunting buddy and while he understandably may not have thought or remembered to “follow protocol” affect you? Now how does Al Gore inflaming more Islamic hatred towards us affect all of us? hmmm…..
I know, I know, its your site and you can push whatever theory you want…
What cover up??? You are making up a story along with everyone else. Making up news where none exists. If ever there was a moment in my short time here of radical partisanship, this is it. There is no cover up, there was a hunting accident. You are making this story up in your collective delusions. Unbelievable…
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 7:32 pm ¶
matt wrote:
before, during and after. something stinks.
i’m not making anything up. please explain to me why the local police were barred from speaking with cheney until the next morning. please explain why cheney vetoed the idea of releasing the details for 24 hours. please explain why the property owner spoke to the press before cheney or any administration officials. please explain why mccllelan said there was no news to report today even though he had been briefed on the victims heart attack.
don’t say another damn thing until you answer these questions.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 7:47 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Ask the secret service.
Where is there a record that says Cheney vetoed releasing the details? And if he chose to not release it to the press maybe it is none of our business, maybe he was more worried having shot his friend, speculate all you want, it is just another talking head opinion.
Well, if Cheney hadn’t released it yet and the property owner did, I guess temporal mechanics? Who cares!!! Did the Cheney have any legal obligation to tell the press within X number of hours? Why do you care? What do you think happened in those 24 hours?
At least Cheney didn’t load him up in his car and drive off a bridge into a river…
Maybe it was not his place to report that information. Ask Harry if he wanted the White house press secretary releasing that information, not the proper forum….
Again, this bottom feeding if there ever was….but glad to see you don’t care about Al Quida Gore’s recruiting efforts…
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 8:03 pm ¶
matt wrote:
Time Magazine:
none of our business? oh how quickly they forget.
getting a hummer: everyone’s business
shooting someone: none of our business
what is it that you think we do here?
we’re not talking about the law, although it seems cheney broke it by not having the appropriate endorsement stamp. we’re talking about keeping the media and the country in the dark about something.
then his answer is “no comment” not “there is no news to report”
can you not see the difference?
so our questions are bottom feeding, but your defense isn’t? off set of standards you have there. but then again, you are defending a completely indefensible group of people. guess that comes with the territory…
and this post wasn’t about al gore. should you feel the need to discuss him, do so elsewhere
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 8:27 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
One was a choice, the other an accident, one chose to lie under oath, the other failed to meet protocol and chose not tell reporters about it in time for Sunday news cycle…
Time Magazine, tell me, was that a editorial? Who were these “Republican sources”, if this info is based on secrets about secrets, good luck with that…
I was hoping you would mention that. This is a new law only in effect for 5 months and the enforcment of it is currently only issuing warnings. BTW – Harry didn’t have one either…
Ummm yeah, one is probably the right choice, the other is a humanistic response to the circus freak show in front of him.
Yes bottom feeding, what exactly do you think is in this story? Obviously its not clear what you think is going on, so yes bottom feeding. I love the lofty standards you hold these people to. If you had accidently shot someone while hunting would you call your local news station to tell them?
No, just wondering why DC peppering his hunting buddy is more newsworthy than Crazy Al’s terrorist recruitment tour 2006….
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 8:54 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i’m done reading stories to you. your laziness isn’t my concern except as it degrades the quality of discussion here.
so now the age of laws and their enforcement is germane to whether or not someone violated them? man…
what does humanistic have to do with anything? this is the big leagues. citizens have a right to know or at the very least not be lied to. but i guess as far as you are concerned, it’s ok depending on whose side is doing it.
haha. yeah, i guess the most powerful people in the world should be held to lower standards.
i’m pretty sure that i would have been dragged into the station for questioning, not allowed half a day to get my story straight.
i’m starting to understand. our readers and 2 of our writers all but demand that we ban you. you see that jason and i are loathe to do that. so you mistake that for carte blanche. it’s funny, by flouting my tolerance of your bullshit, you pretty much leave me no choice. i’m not even going to give it a second thought the next time, and while huffington post may have missed your re-reg, i assure you i will not.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 9:11 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Then ban me. I ask a legitimate question about how you consider this story more important than Al Gore’s comments that could actually affect the whole country by inciting more radicalism from Saudi Arabia, and you threaten to ban me, why? Don’t be ashamed, yes you will have banned me for having hacked you off by pointing out the idiocy of this and other stories but hey, it’s your site, do what you want. You let the other little kiddies make stupid comments but you hold me to some unjustified higher standard, its no secret, opposing views don’t sit well with the left. That’s fine. In fact I would wear being banned from 1115.org for my political views like a badge of honor and make it the first post and banner of my blog. So please give me the honor of being banned for my views. Intolerance abounds but I thought that was the domain of the right??? All men are created equal until you tork off the head lib. I am not going to apologize or temper my comments when they are legitimate questions and challenges whether you think so or not. I feel very strongly that this whole Cheney story is distasteful and complete partisan hack job.
So, if you ban me, let it be known that it was done so not because I did anything different than any other commentator here except for being at odds with your political vision…if you are ok with that, then ban me…
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 10:53 pm ¶
Nailed Saviour wrote:
I look at it this way. Gore said something that “MAY”, possibly, in some distant land, offend some religous zealots to the point where they “may” react in a negative fashion.
OTOH Cheney actually SHOT someone.
Now can you understand? My guess is that you don’t, not because you can’t, just because you don’t want too.
Posted 14 Feb 2006 at 11:52 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, there’s room for you in the club too, any time you want in…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 4:01 am ¶
jamie beth wrote:
i take back my request for a ban. we now KNOW that’s EXACTLY what he wants. in fact, it finally gives some sort of logic to a man without logic. i reiterate my request that there is some stock answer that goes up in response to his blather so that readers are aware we are not ignoring him because we can’t respond, but we that we chose not to. I admit “JimC, go to hell” isn’t going to win the contest. anyone have any better suggestions?
I personally like: “Now can you understand? My guess is that you don’t, not because you can’t, just because you don’t want too.”
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 4:10 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
What was wrong with “Yeah, right!”
Or ‘Get real!”
Or “A mind is a terrible thing to waste!”
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 4:34 am ¶
JimC wrote:
How has this affected you personnaly? Where you injured? Could you possibly be injured? Do you know Harry Whittington personally? My point is, to the avg American, this story does not involve us except on some sick obsession with trying to nail Dick Cheney on *anything*.
He accidentally shot his friend. His friend yet may die from this accident. Is that not enough torment that the media needs to know how many craps he took before telling them about the accident?
But on the other hand, inciting our enemies and I think we can all agree that Saudi Arabia has a lot of our enemies within their borders, is just fanning the flames on an already volatile situation. One story affects two people and the other affects our National Security.
Yes, I see the difference….
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 5:33 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
Jim, your martyr complex is quite typical for mid-west and southern churchies such as yourself. Your delusions may make you feel closer to god or whatever, but they are actually rather self-destructive. You are not Jim of Arc persecuted for his political beliefs. You are not the Ohio GOP messiah, dying for the sins of coastal liberals. You should seek help and get over yourself.
If you cannot understand why the VP almost killing someone and then covering it up for 24 hours is multi-post-worthy, then there is no hope for you. If I were you, I would jump off a bridge.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 5:34 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>covering it up for 24 hours
The local law enforcement knew about right away so how is that covering it up? Like I said, he didn’t load Harry into his car and conveniently drive off a bridge…
From the time line posted on msnbc, it looks like the local law enforcement scheduled a interview with Dick Cheney for early Sunday morning, now tell me, is holding a press conference before talking to the police a good idea?
Again, this is a media made story, being driven by a lust of nailing him on something…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 6:02 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Are we not ignoring Jim now? Okay, fine.
I think this is an incredibly valid point that you’re not addressing, Jim.
Come to think of it, these all pretty fucking valid too:
Do you trust Dick Cheney, Jim? If so, why?
And let us not forget that Dick is a Killer.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 6:54 am ¶
marc wrote:
He would wear dogshit like a badge of honor if it came from a Republican’s dog.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:02 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
JimC: blah, blah, blah, proving my point about liberals being dumb and me being awesome, blah, blah, blah, Dick Cheney is the second coming, blah, blah, blah, happy day after valentines day, I love you all and think you’re actually my friends, blah, blah, blah…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:14 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Or if a Republican had stepped in it?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:18 am ¶
sac wrote:
Regardless if whether it’s our business or not, Cheney knew this would get out to the press, obviously, there’s no way it wouldn’t. With that in mind, the proper way of handling it was to give a police report, then immediately, either through McClellen or the VP office or even in a quick press conference himself, give a rundown of what happened and take full responsibility for the accident. That’s the thing, of course it was an accident, nobody is faulting him for that. What we are faulting him and his office for is the absolutely incompetent and cowardly manner in which they’re handling this. The spin, before Whittington had a heart attack, was that Whittington got in the way and it was his fault! I know hunters, my dad and most of his friends still hunt. It doesn’t matter if Whittington came up behind Cheney and tickled him in the belly, the responsibility always lies with the shooter. It’s a hunter’s code.
This administration continuously puts forth a hawkish persona, clearing brush, hunting, etc. Part of that persona (and in their case, that’s all it is) is to be manly and take responsibility for their actions. I’m still waiting for Cheney to live up to that part of the persona.
btw, I think what Gore said in Saudi Arabia is not exactly helpful, but I don’t see how that is germane to this issue.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>Cheney knew this would get out to the press, obviously, there’s no way it wouldn’t.
Again from the timeline on msnbc.com, the police requested to have an interview sunday morning. The land owner asked if she could talk to the press sunday moring, Dick agreed, would it be responsible for Dick Cheney to hold a press conference before giving his statement to the police?
I think a lot of fuss over 12 hours passing before anyone in the media was alerted is really stretching this “cover up” story. And can it rally be deemed a “cover up” if the law enforcement already knew about it?
Essentially what I am hearing is that Dick Cheney should have held a press conference before giving his statement to the police, is that correct?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:45 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
What is your point here? You keep bringing up something that happened over 35 years ago. Exactly how does this exonerate deadeye dick? If that was news, how is this not? Or are you just throwing it out there to be a douche bag? Something repugs fall back on frequently these days is “well (some democatic official/liberal supporter) did it too”, as if two wrongs make a right. And you guys have the gall to claim yourselves morally superior.
It has nothing to do with lust. This is news. It is not the non-story you would like it to be.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:51 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
I agree. Frankly, there wouldn’t be much of a story if they had been upfront about it and had McClellan in the loop when he hit the podium on Sunday. They’ve done this to themselves.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 7:58 am ¶
Ken wrote:
Jim, just curious – has there been *anything* that members of this Administration have done that you have found troubling?
I accept that reasonable, well-meaning people can disagree about the proper role of government, but I don’t understand why so many on the right (yourself included) are so willing to serve as apologists for the Administration, no matter what they do.
It just undercuts your position when you later try to argue for the principles that they flaunt so regularly (e.g., personal and fiscal responsibility).
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:00 am ¶
sac wrote:
JimC, please read the sentence right after the one you quoted from me, the one where I say Cheney FIRST give the police report, THEN immediately gives…oh hell, I’ll just quote it for you. Again:
“With that in mind, the proper way of handling it was to give a police report, then immediately, either through McClellen or the VP office or even in a quick press conference himself, give a rundown of what happened and take full responsibility for the accident.”
How can you argue against? And forgetting timelines, how can you say that Cheney is acting admirably, or even properly, by not taking full responsibility for the accident, like a man? He’s actually blaming Whittington. It’s despicable.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:13 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>What is your point here?
My point is there’s no cover up conspiracy, no illegal activity other than not having the proper tags…which he has since been fined for…
>This is news. It is not the non-story you would like it to be.
Never said it wasn’t, but the *news* you are refering to is not that he shot someone but why did he take so long to let the poor press know about it and I ahve give na very reasonable explantion, that the police requested an early sunday morning interview to take his statement and thus it wuld have been inappropriate to give a press statement beforehand. Notice from the timeline that sunday morning he agreed to let the land owner talk to the press about it. At this point, yes maybe he should have held his own press converence, but big deal, so he didn’t hold one, does that mean he has something to hide or just wasn’t feeling like talking to the circus at that time…seriously what is the story then????
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Yes I have listed some here before…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:15 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So let me get this straight, the problem is that it took too long to let the press get their scoops and miss the sunday news cycle? The shooting isn’t the story, the time it took for a statement to te press is….so look at the timeline and tell me when was the appropriate time to hold a press conference. Keep in mind he was to give a statement to the police on sunday morning.
I have to laugh at this, out of all the stuff going on in the world, the fact that Dick Cheney shot someone accidentally isn’t the problem, it is that the press was not told quick enough. Fine, you got him. Man, it has been a long tough fight but you nailed him this time, he really should have talk about it sooner to the press. So now what?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:25 am ¶
forager wrote:
the coverup is better than the story… the coverup is the story.
I’d say any time the head or “vice head”, in this case, of my country is involved in an incident, it affects me. I’d like to know about it.
It’s troublesome that it also took until almost 8pm for the president himself to find out. That was after the police found out, and I’d say there is a difference between “knowing about it” and “investigating”. I guess I watch too many cop shows where an incident occurs and it is investigated upon discovery, I guess in ‘real life’ there is a 24 hour wait. It’s like going to the DMV…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:26 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I disagree with Bush on Israel-Palestine issues. I disagree on gun background checks. I think Bush dropped the ball on border patrol. I think government should have been full force on alternative fuels (but this goes back to Carter, but after 911 Bush should have championed that harder). I think Bush should put the Saudi government on notice to either deal with the internal terrorists or they’re *next*….is that enough?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:29 am ¶
JimC wrote:
But the local law enforcement knew about it right away and because it was a hunting accident and Whittington was not killed, they didn’t think it was a pressing issue to get Dick Cheney’s statement right away. They have since ruled it a hunting accident, case closed.
So again, where is the cover up? How can there be a cover up if after giving his statement to the police sunday morning he agreed to let Armstrong give a statement to the local newspaper…if there was a cover up, Armstrong would not be talking to anyone right now….
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:33 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Like forager said, its the cover-up. Also, his birdshot-peppered friend is back in the hospital. Clearly, this thing hasn’t completely played-out.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:38 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
what if the geezer croaks?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:47 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Then it was a tragic accident and we should all shed a tear for poor, poor Dick. After all, he’s the real victim in this whole thing. The nerve of you people holding the number 2 public servant to higher standards than Jayson Williams. I mean, when you shoot someone in the face with a shotgun, it’s not like the police should investigate right away. That’s a waste of valuable man-power and man-hours. Those cops surely had something better to do than do an immediate and thorough investigation of a dude getting shot in the motherfucking face by a motherfucking shotgun.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
forager wrote:
That’s the part that doesn’t sit well with me. How many accidents, once discovered, go without investigation until the next day? The fact that they waited is an issue.
As for the coverup, I’d say waiting until the next morning, with the VP potentially having access to the all the parties involved in the incident and the owner of the property prior to the police getting their statements, is noteworthy. How’s that? Less accussing and possibly, but not definitely, more accurate than coverup? (my intent there is not sarcasm, seriously)
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:53 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
Dare I say involuntary manslaughter?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 8:55 am ¶
JimC wrote:
>what if the geezer croaks?
I agree if Whittington dies, Cheney should resign immediately.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 9:02 am ¶
JimC wrote:
If it is unprecedented for a non-fatal hunting accident to be allowed to wait until the nxt morning for a statement, then you may have something there. Ask the local law enforcement why they waited so long to require his statement.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 9:06 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
How does kennedy’s accident have anything to do with or support this point? I will interpret a non-answer as an admission of douche baggery.
Imagine you are in their shoes and the VP or SS tells you to come back later. What are you going to do, arrest them? They have the weight of the oval office. They out-man and out-gun your rural sheriff department and that doesn’t even get into training. It sounds a little like an offer they could not refuse.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 9:37 am ¶
JimC wrote:
My point was that one was an obvious illegal activity followed by a real coverup and one is an accident who the law knew who did it right away. Any yes, using Kennedy is also a jab at the druken fool.
But rather than ask the police if they were intimidated, you assume so…ok.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 10:13 am ¶
sac wrote:
Jim, do you think the VP and his office handled this situation honorably? Or even correctly? Never mind legally, that will be determined.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 10:26 am ¶
screwtape wrote:
I would not say they are straight up comparisons, apples to apples as it were. And it still does not make your point that there was not cover-up. But it is good to see that you admit to at least some douche baggery. Say what you will about Kennedy, he has been an excellent public servant for most of his life.
do you think they would admit it if it were true?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 11:00 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Honorably, that’s relative, I see him acting like a human, flaws and all, having concerns for his friend and possibly even shaken up himself.
Did he handle it correctly? no, he should have known that this would be cannon fodder for the media and his political opponents would sieze on the opportunity. After his interview with the local authorities, he *should* have held a open press conference. Does this warrant such a media frenzy, no.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 11:29 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Excellent at what? Nevermind, this is off topic…
So, then we just not even ask them and then speculate and formulate conspiracy theories? Sounds like the SOP for the media….
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 11:31 am ¶
sac wrote:
OK Jim, we agree. Not only did the Vice President of the United States and his staff not handle this even remotely correctly (incompetence), the VP himself did not act like a man and own up to his mistake (dishonorable).
The media frenzy was inevitable, but it would not be as big as it now is if Cheney would have just acted like a normal guy and taken full responsibility for what happened.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 11:46 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Not quite, I said he didn’t handle it correctly by having poor judgement in this matter, not incompetence, there’s a difference. Incompetence implies that he should have known and been ready for when he shot a hunting buddy. Having poor judgement means, in reaction to the event of shooting his hunting buddy, he made poor judgements not because he obligated to do do a certain course for the press but because it would have difused this feeding frenzy.
Own up to who? Who cares if he owns up to anyone other than the police and the person he shot. He *did* own up to the shooting to the local police and to his Harry Whittington. Beyond that it is a matter of when and if he wanted to tell you. Don’t get me wrong, I think he should but what I think he should do and what he has to do are different things….some have that confused.
What do normal guys do if they have a hunting accident, do they call the local newspaper to inform the community that he shot his buddy or do they own up to the police and to the wounded buddy?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 12:09 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Isn’t part of being a responsible gunowner, being prepared for the worst? (Always assume any gun is loaded, etc.) Doesn’t the likelihood of such an accident (Cunningham says it happens all the time) mean Cheney should’ve “known and been ready”?
Who’s talking about normal guys? This is the Vice President of the United States of America.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 12:27 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’;t care how many times you practice in the case of a accidental shooting, I can pretty much gurantee you that if this is the first time you nearly blew away a friend on accident, you’re going to be affected and perhaps not do what you should.
Sac said
and taken full responsibility for what happened.
Are Vice Presidents trained on how to handle nearly blowing away a buddy with a shotgun more than the average hunter?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Did he nearly blow him away with a shotgun or did he pepper him with birdshot? Either way, I don’t know the answer to your question. However, I do know that Vice Presidents are supposed to be held to far higher standards than normal guys.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 12:54 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I would agree on things that are job related but during a hunting accident, he is still human…
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:16 pm ¶
matt wrote:
umm…do i need to point out the irony, or is it self-evident?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:21 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Being in a leadership position and demonstrating poor judgement is the very defintion of incompetence.
Because he’s a public person and hired to represent the people of this country, he should make a public statement of accountability. Of course he’s not legally bound to, but it sure gives this country a black eye when the 2nd highest office holder in the land keeps quiet about something like this. Part of his job is being one of the public faces of the people of the US.
I meant that the average guy who hunts knows that the shooter is always responsible. Also, if Cheney had any integrity, he would have not allowed any talk about Whittington being at fault by getting in the way.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:24 pm ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
Sorry, I meant to say Armstrong. Who the hell is Cunningham?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:30 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So what further action needs to occur? Apparently Cheney did an interview today to take responsibility for the accident officially and personally for the press. So, what now? Do we need a congressional inquiry? Independent counsel? Wait to see if Whittington worsens?
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:35 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Let’s see what he actually says in that interview, first. I’m giving 50-50 odds as to whether he says he accepts full responsibility, but I’m hoping he does. After that, let’s hope Whittington recovers and then let’s move on. There is nothing to be “done.” This situation was handled incredibly badly, chalk it up as another misstep for this administration. To argue otherwise, as you and many people are doing, only makes this thing worse. There is no good way to spin it. Cheney fucked up, not in the hunting accident, but in the response.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 1:46 pm ¶
sac wrote:
OK, read the story, he takes full responsibility, I accept that. Still think it was handled horribly, but it is time to move on. See, if he would have done this immediately, it would have been less of a deal.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 2:09 pm ¶
matt wrote:
not until our questions are answered. no way. responsibility is just a part of this.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 2:12 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Nice, sac! (Just forgive me, I have never been able to resist being a wiseass!)
I’m afraid I feel a new post on the shooting thing coming on. In addition to the questions I raised before, there’s a whole new one now rattling around in my head.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 2:35 pm ¶
sac wrote:
What, move on as in moveon? Didn’t mean it that way, but yeah, I’m a genius, I won’t argue with you there.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 2:45 pm ¶
Mags wrote:
I would hope someone who potentially has the power to launch nuclear weapons would be a little more in control in a much more minor crisis.
Posted 15 Feb 2006 at 3:29 pm ¶