Could be, according to new blogger and New Mexico State freshman Colin Pedicini, if shooting victim Harry Whittington dies.
Personally, I’m with Jon Stewart, begging Mr. Whittington to “please, please get better.” Not only is that obviously the moral and humane thing to hope for, but it will also allow the jokes to remain funny. :)
P.S. My previous posts about “Cheneyquiddick,” as it’s been dubbed by Victoria Spurs (hey, it’s more creative than “Cheneygate” — and, as Ann Althouse notes, “it even has the ‘dick’”), can be found here and here.
P.P.S. It seems slightly odd that Cheney would be subject to a grand jury investigation only if Whittington dies. After all, his culpability in the shooting — i.e., whether or not he did anything wrong — can’t rationally be affected by whether the guy lives or dies. I mean, if he did do something wrong, obviously a death would make the consequences of that wrongdoing far more dire, and thus the punishment more severe. But if he didn’t do anything wrong, his non-culpable action doesn’t become wrong even if a hundred people die as a result! That’s just basic logic. So, the question is, why does it seem like Cheney is currently completely “in the clear,” but if Whittington dies, suddenly he’s in big trouble? My guess: the grand-jury investigation is a standard procedure in Texas in response to any death caused by another person; it doesn’t actually imply that Cheney is “in trouble,” it’s just an automatic (or virtually so) ramping up of the investigation to a more heightened status because of the higher stakes, if you will. If there’s no evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation will be over quickly. Anyone know if my guess is right?
UPDATE: The Washington Times, hardly a Bush-hating liberal rag, reports:
Experienced hunters yesterday said Vice President Dick Cheney alone bears the blame for a weekend mishap in which he accidentally shot a hunting companion in the face and chest with a shotgun.
Ouch. Read the whole thing.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
February 15th, 2006 at 8:03:24 am
You can’t question the Vice President. When he fired, he was acting on the best intelligence he had at the time!
February 15th, 2006 at 8:57:36 am
lol :)
February 15th, 2006 at 9:18:30 am
There are a lot of problems with Sticky Dick’s hunting story. First, the guy says Whittington was obscured by the sun. Cheney simply should not have shot if he could not see his target clearly. Second, Whittington was supposed to have announced himself when he came up from behind. My understanding of quail hunting is that you do not shoot behind you. If dumbass Dick spun around and shot the guy, it was Dick’s fault. Third, Whittington was apparently shot at 5:45pm but did not show up at the hospital until nearly three hours later at 8:30pm. Keep in mind that the guy was “peppered” with 200 pieces of birdshot.
This sounds to me like a made up bullshit story. I think Cheney was probably drunk. I think he spun around and hit the guy, who didn’t announce himself because he didn’t think he had to because he was behind the line. I think Cheney’s medical crew waited as long as they could to get Whittington to the hospital because they were assessing his medical state and hoping they wouldn’t need to take him to the ER because this was embarrassing to Cheney, plus they wanted Cheney to sober up.
This is my theory, anyway.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:26:04 am
at least A&A didn’t say, as North Carolina reporter Barry Saunders has, that Cheney shot Whittington intentionally to send a message to Scooter Libby. Maybe he was being satirical, but then again . . . MSM.
The New York Times on the grand jury story. What a Bastion of all the Hopeful Speculation fit to print. They’ve probably rolled out prayer rugs in the middle of the newsroom, invoking over incense for the imminent death of Whittington. . . too bad the “heart attack” story was a report on prior condition, not worsening condition.
I think given the POSSIBILITY that upon investigating Whittington’s wounds they might discover alien organs, the NYT should also report about a GJ investigation into how long Cheney has been hiding his associate with extraterrestrial texas businessmen and whether the aliens were responsible for Katrina. I mean, it COULD happen, so why not run a story about how Cheney COULD be indicted.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:35:45 am
4-7
I’ve known a lot of hunters. This kind of thing either happens out of stupidity, negligence or drunkeness. Given this Administration’s inclination to lie about basically everything, I think the truth of this situation will ultimately come out and it will fall under one of those three categories.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:36:50 am
I’m no lawyer, but I sometimes here of DA’s NOT referring a case to a Grand Jury under certain circumstances. For instance a homeowner kills a home invader, they will often not be referred for charges. May be different in Cheney’s case though what with it being a hunting accident and all. I doubt it though.
On another note, I never understood why attempted murder carries a lesser penalty that murder. Shouldn’t the penalties be the same.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:41:52 am
First, it is ridiculous to even speculate about this going to Grand Jury given that the guy isn’t dead. Second, simply killing a guy accidentally in a hunting accident doesn’t make it a crime. Third, I think the only way this could go to a Grand Jury would be if Cheney’s account differs drastically from other witnesses. I’m just wondering what position the Secret Service would take on this if the Agents on site were asked to be interviewed.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:53:14 am
Angrier -
You do know that the other witnesses accounts match up with Cheney’s as does Whittingtons? Further, as to the delay in getting him to the hospital, could it be because Cheney has a emergency medical group with him when travelling? Was the delay reasonable? I don’t know, I’m neither a doctor, nurse, or EMT. But until a doctor comes out saying the delay caused further damage to him or unnecessarily risked his life, I’m unconcerned about it since he was receiving medical treatment.
As for your theory, my question is that other than a general dislike of the man, do you have anything to back that up? Your ignoring the statements and reports so far to shoehorn the situation into a theory that makes Cheney drunk. Here’s a theory: One of the other companions shot Whittington dead, and Cheney used his holy powers to bring back Whittington from the underworld as much as he could.
I got as much to back that up as your drunk theory.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:10:46 am
Clinton had mysterious deaths surrounding Whitewater… And Cheney …
February 15th, 2006 at 11:20:46 am
doesn’t.
On whitewater or mysterious deaths.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:23:26 am
Gah, conspiracy theory time.
Jesus, shit happens when you are stupid while out hunting. If you’re dumb, bad stuff will happen. Cheney was dumb. Bad stuff happened. No need to start talking about drunkenness or eeeeeeeevil plans to cover it all up.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:25:05 am
Lojo-
Based on your reasoning, Teddy Kennedy bumped his head and wasn’t drunk, then? Are you willing to admit that?
February 15th, 2006 at 11:33:18 am
Mike-
It becomes a conspiracy when people lie to protect Cheney. Based on the Washington Times article, it sounds like Cheney screwed up and now has people lying to cover for him.
February 15th, 2006 at 11:42:53 am
Apparently Armstrong said beer was consumed…
“Katherine Armstrong, the wealthy Republican lobbyist who is a member member of the politically-connected family that owns the ranch where Cheney blasted his hunting partner, acknowledged to a reporter for MSNBC that alcohol may have been served at a picnic which was served Saturday afternoon on the dude ranch where Cheney shot Harry Whittington.
According to an MSNBC report that appeared briefly Tuesday on the network’s website, Armstrong peddled the line that she did not believe that alcohol played a part in the shooting accident. But, she admitted, “There may be a beer or two in there, but remember not everyone in the party was shooting.”
…Keep in mind Cheney’s drinking as a youth got him kicked out of Yale. Hmmmm.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:50:26 pm
I posted this already but….
Here’s the bottom line about all this mess as a friend wrote to me in an email, quoting:
“Here’s what I’d like to know. If it was me who accidentally shot my hunting partner, then refused to allow the local sheriff to interview me, what would be the legal implications for me? I would imagine I would be in very serious trouble, since of course if I was drunk when the incident happened, I could be charged with manslaughter if the the victim happened to die. How exactly is it legally that Cheney is allowed to refuse an interview with the sheriff? Isn’t he supposed to follow the laws as does any ordinary citizen?”
February 15th, 2006 at 1:36:19 pm
Geez, Nun-
It sounds like you want a literal interpretation of the law. What would Judge Scalia say?
February 15th, 2006 at 1:51:25 pm
Just a thought, D-list lynch mob …
Could it be, perhaps, that the local Sheriff was able to interview a whole bunch of trained observant secret service folk, and, as such, may not have perceived any conflict in not flexing legal yet discourteous muscle ?
Of course, one suspects that a new subject just got added to the course load for secret service folk … “How to comport yourself when the guy you are guarding goes a’huntin’ 301″ sounds about right … a bit beyond absolute basics, but not too involved …
I admit to being surprised that no-one yet seems to have picked up on Brendan’s Cheneyquiddick to take it the next logical step to the creation of a new semi-political game - American Rules CheneyQuidditch - which would add Byrdshot and Quayles to the existing Quaffles and Bludgers - and, of course, the Golden Snitch would have to be renamed to the Golden WhistleBlower …
February 15th, 2006 at 1:57:19 pm
You mean a bunch of guys are out hunting and someone brought alcohol. Oh no. I’ll bet that it was the first time that ever happened.
Come on people. I kow you think Cheney is the anti-christ and all, but for Pete’s sake.
The guy that got shot was a campaign contributor as well as a friend of Cheney’s. And getting shot with birdshot happens from time to time. Unless you are within 50 or so feet about the worst that’s going to happen is you’ll get peppered pretty good.Maybe lose an eye.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:05:04 pm
Angrier -
So the case then is that Kennedy was of sound mind when he took that car off the bridge and forgot to tell anyone there was still someone in the car hours later?
There are more facts to back up Chappaquick theories then there is for Cheney’s Got a Gun. Hell, the ONLY thing you have here is a delay in notifying the press.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:19:28 pm
Nun -
From AP:
Saturday:
The sheriff asks to speak to Cheney, and they schedule an interview for 9 a.m. Sunday.
At some point, sheriffÃs 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.
Sunday Morning:
6 a.m.: White House press secretary Scott McClellan is awakened by a phone call from the White House situation room, informing him Cheney was the shooter. McClellan contacts the vice presidentÃs office and urges that the information be made public quickly.
9 a.m.: Kenedy County sheriffÃs deputies interview Cheney. Armstrong begins calling a reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times and leaving messages. Armstrong says she told Cheney she wanted to tell the local paper what happened, and he agreed.
Your friend say, “…if I refused to allow the local sheriff to interview me, what would be the legal implications for me? I would imagine I would be in very serious trouble, since of course if I was drunk when the incident happened, I could be charged with manslaughter if the the victim happened to die.”
No refusal of interview. No evidence of being drunk. No dead victim. Some strawman your friend built there.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:24:49 pm
“Hell, the ONLY thing you have here is a delay in notifying the press.”
And avoiding the police for 15 hours. Don’t forget that.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:30:11 pm
Geez, Lojo. The friggin’ sheriff’s office said they were not allowed to interview Cheney on Saturday night. The only “strawman” here is your bullshit attempts to change reality. Are you sure you aren’t an employee of the White House?
February 15th, 2006 at 2:53:53 pm
Man, all this bullsh*t is comical. Cheney’s approval ratings will likely go up after all this due to the utter unreasonableness of his hyperventilating critics (my prediction). Where was all this sniffing and whining when OVER 30 HOURS passed before the Clinton WH released info on Vince Foster’s suicide (at least as curious as a hunting accident if not more, and concerning a WH far more duplicitous than the current one), or when Harry Reid waited 3 DAYS before telling the world about his stroke?
February 15th, 2006 at 2:54:59 pm
A&A, YOU could be an employee of the White House with how good your nonsense makes them look in comparison!
February 15th, 2006 at 3:08:23 pm
Angrier -
Some avoidance since the sheriff office says they agreed to see him at 9 the next morning. Boy, talk about a massive coverup.
Where do we see he refused to interview with the sheriff? Would not the sheriff note that in his report, or even tell the press that there was a refusal to interview?
The REALITY is the sheriff has declared this an accident and everyone THERE AT THE SCENE says it was a tragic mistake/accident. No matter who much you theorizing drunkedness or decry a stonewalling of interview which both the sheriff office and Cheney’s office says didn’t happen, those are the facts.
Your the one trying to twist reality into one where Whittington is dead and Cheney facing criminal charges.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:41:16 pm
Getting shot while bird hunting is not uncommon. Greg Lemond was shot by a relative on a Turkey hunting trip a few years ago and this ended his career.
All parties are responsible for safety on a hunting trip, not just the shooter. You need to maintain eye contact with all hunters next to you. If you lose contact, then you need to call their names and get linked up.
For someone to “sneak up” on a hunting party is asking for trouble - especially in quail hunting as the bird can go anywhere in an instant.
If you have moved into a lane which the hunter thought was his, then you run the risk of being shot.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:42:48 pm
“If you have moved into a lane which the hunter thought was his, then you run the risk of being shot.”
Same thing if the hunter is a drunk, arrogant prick who doesn’t give a f-k about anyone but himself and Halliburton.
February 15th, 2006 at 3:53:19 pm
Red River -
See, now Angrier is trying to make it seem like a forgone conclusion that Cheney was drunk and that he has a disregard of human life, so he didn’t care that Whittington was in his way.
Way to go with the vitriol Angry. Living up the moniker today.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:30:28 pm
“Unless you are within 50 or so feet about the worst that’s going to happen is you’ll get peppered pretty good.Maybe lose an eye.”
Texican,
I understand pellets have lodged/migrated into or near Whittington’s heart. In your judgement, how consistent is this with 28 caliber shot at 75-100 feet?
The police report indicated Whittington was wearing an orange protective vest and,I presume, at least one shirt.
February 15th, 2006 at 5:32:00 pm
Lojo - do you think that A&A is actually Hillary blogcommenting under a pseudonym ?
February 15th, 2006 at 5:45:25 pm
Looks like Cheney had a single beer at lunch hours before the accident that day. Although that’s probably enough to get A&A gassed before going off on some rant that shouldn’t be taken seriously, I doubt that was enough to inebriate Cheney.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:26:53 pm
(Drudge) FLASHBACK: Dem Leader Reid Hid Stroke News For 3 days…
AP, via Fox News ^ | 2/15/06, 8/19/05 | Drudge, AP
Drudge links to a 8/19/05 AP article, via Fox News:
http://www.drudgereport.com/
WASHINGTON ó The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid (search) of Nevada, suffered a brief mini-stroke Tuesday, but doctors found no complications and he feels fine, aides said Friday….
Asked why announcement of the event was delayed for three days, Hafen said, “The reason was the tests and the evaluations that they were doing. We wanted to make sure we knew what we were announcing. You need conclusive information.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com …
February 15th, 2006 at 6:49:12 pm
Matt,
I would think that it would have migrated there from somewhere else if it got stuck in the mans heart. Especially at that distance. I’m not saying getting shot with birdshot is not serious. It is, it’s just not ususally life threatening.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:44:20 pm
Yeah. A Senate Minority leader having a minor stroke is exactly the same as the VP of the USA shooting a guy. Whatever.
I like Cheney’s spiel. Uh, I just had a beer. You know what the most common excuse is for DUI drivers when they are pulled over? Uh, I just had a beer or two.
Yesterday, there were no beers. Today, there is one. How many will there be tomorrow?
You Cheney defenders make me sick. The guy is an evil fuck who was tanked and shot a guy because he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone but himself. He has no respect for the institution of the Vice Presidency, the Senate (go fuck yourself) or the American people. That’s okay, though. You all can hold on tight to this bastard as he continues to sink.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:46:30 pm
MM, E
Just the fact that he makes you so upset leads me to believe he is probably alright.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:59:26 pm
Texican-
I used to be a fan of John Wayne, too. Then I realized it was all an act.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:44:21 pm
Max -
Tell me that whole post is a joke. Because as that, is pretty funny.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:40:49 pm
Alright, I’ve changed my mind. Impeach Cheney. Give us Condi!
February 16th, 2006 at 6:32:19 am
A&A
I am sure that you also think that Cheney was behind Monica getting that job as the White House intern?
Now we see were that Right wing conspiracy was coming from!
Hunting accidents happen nothing more nothing less.
February 16th, 2006 at 6:42:56 am
qoute from Hillary Clinton:
“The former first lady continued: “The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy … is supposed to work.”
LOL, This has to be the funniest thing I have read in the past few days I wonder how many journalist looked at one another when she uttered this B.S. and asked themselves where was all of this forth coming with information when YOU were in the White House?
A&A, neither you nor the Dems should be throwing stones at this administration after the 8 years of cover ups and lies that you all put this country thru!
Bill Clinton:
“[I]t depends on how you define “alone” … there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.”
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”
- excerpts from Bill Clinton’s grand jury testimony
HOW FORTH COMING
February 16th, 2006 at 9:08:07 am
Andrew -
Ooooooh, now there’s a thought. Think it could work? Its all contingent though on convincing Condi to run in ‘08, yet her saying she is deadset against it.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:11:26 am
You can tell a lot about people by who their enemies are, and you, Max, are Cheney’s strongest character witness.
February 16th, 2006 at 9:31:10 am
A+A,
I want a literal interpretation and rigid application of the law only when the potential defendants are members of the “party of personal responsibility.”
February 16th, 2006 at 9:49:43 am
On this Cheney-was-drunk red herring, check out this Hugh Hewitt interview with Lawrence O’Donnell, whose got his head further up his a*s than usual:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001390
O’Donnell asserts that “every lawyer [he’s] talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting.” O’Donnell first said he “must have talked to a dozen lawyers”, then the number was down to 5 or 6, and he of course wouldn’t identify any of them. O’Donnell also claimed he didn’t suggest that Cheney was drunk, while at the same time saying that the likelihood was that Cheney was drunk. Brilliant.
So A&A and Max, your idiotic, unsubstantiated drivel won’t stop you from rising at least to the level of MSNBC pundit or primetime tv consultant.
February 16th, 2006 at 10:24:59 am
Good point Nebraska. Of course, don’t forget about Hillary’s secretive health care task force, the Rose Law Firm billing records, and the 900+ FBI files on political opponents, just to name a few. Hillary, who is supposed to be one of the “smartest women in America”, can’t possibly want to get in a tit-for-tat on secretive admininstrations.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:42:11 am
Funny. There was no alcohol involved on Sunday. On Wednesday there was. Imagine that. Seems like Cheney was being deceptive from the start. What would you say if Clinton was in a similar circumstance?
February 16th, 2006 at 11:49:40 am
Who previously denied that alcohol was served that day?
February 16th, 2006 at 12:14:17 pm
A question …
When does the Sheriff’s Report on the incident become publicly available ?
Until something like that is available, all this speculation about possible drinking and malicious cover-up is just spraying secreted metabolic byproducts into the wind !
Then again, that *is* Mr BS’s forte, is it not ?
February 16th, 2006 at 12:27:43 pm
Hmmm. Mrs. Armstrong and the sheriff intially said there was no alcohol involved. Now there is alcohol involved. Besides, the drinking isn’t “possible.” It happened. Cheney admitted to it (one at least). The real question is, how much did Cheney mean when he said “one.” Given the guy can’t handle the truth, does anyone really believe he had one beer.
Maybe you clueless types who still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11, but not people who have been skeptical of this lying Administration for any amount of time.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:53:32 pm
Alasdair, here’s the accident report:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/images/02/14/CheneyAccidentReport.ap.pdf
Katherine Armstrong said that Cheney fixed himself a cocktail that evening, sometime AFTER the shooting. What time did Cheney fix his cocktail and what time was his police interview postponed til morning?
It would be odd behavior indeed for a sober shooter to fix a drink, pending a potential evening police interview, whether scheduled or by “surprise”. But if Cheney was already impaired, fixing a subsequent cocktail, in clear view of witnesses, could potentially muddy an investigation into the initial source of that evening’s impairment. The notion that he was merely calming his nerves after a traumatic day is plausible, but only if he was sure that no police would confront him that night. This is, after all, Dick Cheney.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:45:52 pm
Laundramatt - the main thing I see in the report is that it looks (to this non-hunter) like a fairly standard report of something locally considered to be no big deal … serious, but not unheard of nor unlikely …
Ask yourself this … do you have any reason to believe that this is not an accurate report ?
For those whose tinfoil hat is too tight, perhaps they should make attempts to obtain copies of the report(s) as prepared by the secret service personnel, supposedly present, who, I suspect, would have been percipient witnesses …
Of course, even a clean report from secret service folk probably isn’t enough for the more rabid conspiracy faithful …
February 16th, 2006 at 2:03:47 pm
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney1.html
Final Police Report on the matter.
February 16th, 2006 at 2:49:13 pm
OK - who wants to take part in a pool for how long it takes Mendacious Mouse, A&A, and Mr BS, to apologise for their even-for-them over-the-top hysterical outburst(s) ?
Who wants 30 seconds ?
Who wants 3 hours ?
Who wants 3 days ?
Cummon - we can’t ALL take ‘When Hell freezes over’ !
(grin)
February 16th, 2006 at 3:16:30 pm
That CNN accident report is useless.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:18:12 pm
Except, of course, where the “No” box is checked for “Under the apparent influence of intoxicants or drugs?”
February 16th, 2006 at 3:36:54 pm
I expect them to apologize about as soon as I expect you to for any of a number of outrageous or just plain asinine things you have said Alasdair.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:48:19 pm
No one’s saying this wasn’t an accident and the report dismisses impairment, but who’s to say how accurate this report is? Those vouching for Cheney’s sobriety, including Mr Whittington, were a) there and b) politically connected friends and shrewd, successful, experienced managers of people and information, fully vested in the image of a sober Vice President. The rest are Cheney’s employees.
The question isn’t, “Was it an accident?” It’s a) “Are the sobriety claims reliable?” and b) “Why wasn’t Cheney evaluated in person immediately after the incident?”
If I accidently shot anyone at 2 in the morning, regardless of where I lived in the continental US, I suspect law enforcement would have a notebook up MY nose by 2:45AM sharp to fully “appreciate the situation”. That the sherriff would “agree” to interview an experienced hunter the morning after he shot a man before suppertime strikes me as extraordinarily deferential towards the Vice President.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:01:54 pm
LaundraMatt -
But there is a context here, one of hunting. I know some people will say here it doesn’t matter, but it does. Because otherwise, their argument is similar to the police screaming to the scene of an accident on the racetrack of the Indy 500.
You point out valid possibilities for motive to lie for the VP for the witnesses, problem is that all the witnesses agree with one another. So now, your trying to prove or investigate something there is no proof of in the contrary except the breathless cries of people who weren’t there at the time.
As for the sheriff agreeing to the interview the next morning, that was his decision. Despite numerous people stating otherwise here, there has NOT been ANY refusal for an interview or postponement made public by anybody. Until the sheriff comes out saying, “I tried to see him right then, but he wouldn’t let us,” then the whole ducking the police is completely bogus.
February 16th, 2006 at 4:46:09 pm
David - OK …
Let’s see …
I apologise, unreservedly, for any “number of outrageous or just plain asinine things” I may have said.
(tapping foot)
February 16th, 2006 at 5:06:55 pm
Apologize? For what? Are you going to apologize for accusing Ted Kennedy of being drunk when he drove off of the bridge?
February 16th, 2006 at 5:16:26 pm
Lojo,
I didnt say Cheney refused to be interviewed. Why would he refuse an interview when he can more effectively “duck” the police and manage the crisis by negotiating a later, mutually agreeable time with the local sherriff? If Dick Cheney can snow the cynical WH press corps that his heart attack was a painless “sensation”, wrapping a local sherriff around his finger shouldn’t be too taxing. Your standard of evidence for “ducking” the police, for an accomplished manipulator like Cheney, may have legal merit, but, practically speaking, is way too high.
What do all the witnesses agree on? That it was an accident? OK. They agreed there was no alcohol. Until there was some. I found out about the beer from the Brit Hume piece, not from Whittington, not from Kathy Armstrong. A guy gets shot in the face by an experienced hunter and the subject of alcohol NEVER EVEN CAME UP(sorry, not yelling but I dont have italics) in the Cheney/sherriff interview.
I’m not trying to paint a picture that Cheney was some visibly drunk, wantonly reckless shooter; its not in his friends’ interests to hunt with such a partner. But impairment is a continuum, and now Cheney has acknowledged having “a beer”. Later that evening, he “fixed a cocktail”. He had two DWI/DUI’s in his twenties. The man had a drinking problem and he drinks to this day.
Yes, I lack evidence that he had more than one beer. I can entertain that possibility. But to dismiss the possibility that Cheney wasn’t at least mildly inebriated without a timely face to face chat, as the police have done, lacks rudimentary imagination and initiative.
February 16th, 2006 at 6:32:56 pm
LaundraMatt - replace the {i}text{/i} format such that you replace the { with the less than sign and the } with the greater than sign, and, Lo and Behold, you *can* have italics !
With that said - were you present when the Sheriff’s Deputy asked whatever questions he asked ? If not, then is it not entirely conceivable that the Deputy asked sufficient questions in ways sufficient to establish that alcohol was not a factor …
Technically, VP tho Cheney may be, he is just as entitled to the Presumption of Innocence as the rest of us legal residents of this Representational Republic …
February 16th, 2006 at 6:34:25 pm
I almost forgot - did anyone else break out into full Tom Lehrer upon hearing the initial reports of the hunting accident ?
(only slightly embarrassed grin)
February 16th, 2006 at 7:57:00 pm
Alasdair,
1. Thanks for the italics.
Woo hoo!
2. I sure dont know the law, but I figure you’re legally presumed innocent, until you have a beer and shoot someone in the head…followed by a cocktail.
3.To which Tom Lehrer ditty do you refer? (I had an album way back but cant place the song?)
4. Help! Runaway italics! Help! :)
February 16th, 2006 at 8:44:17 pm
LaundraMatt
1. You are welcome - but you gotta to the /i too …
2. So you have done 2 of the three, then you started to comment today ?
3. Hunting Song lyrics
4. See 1. …
February 16th, 2006 at 10:19:35 pm
Alasdair,
1. I did type {i/}, substituting the < and the > signs,but cant seem to close the italics tag.
2. If I cant fix this tag tail, I may,indeed, fix myself a cocktail.
3,4. Thanks again :)
February 16th, 2006 at 10:23:38 pm
LaundraMatt -
My apologies if I made it sound like you were saying that. My sentence was not ascribing it to you.
And Armstrong actually did say that one or two beers may have been drank by the group during lunch. I read that early yesterday, way before the interview Cheney gave to Brit.
February 16th, 2006 at 11:32:07 pm
Lojo,
I didnt think you were putting words in my mouth; you’re too gracious for that. I am just not as strict a constructionist, when it comes to police “ducks” :)
You’re correct on Armstrong’s general observation, but she also said she never saw Cheney specifically take a drink before the shooting. I scanned the report pretty quick so I could be wrong, but I believe the “outing” of Cheney’s brew was in the Hume interview.
Anyway, it’s an interesting sequence of events with many unanswered questions.
February 17th, 2006 at 12:05:14 am
laundramatt its /i not i/, that might be your issue
February 17th, 2006 at 2:22:14 am
David,
You’re clearly a much better teacher than Alasdair :)
Thanks