Cheney shoots hunting buddy (multiple threads merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Specialized said:
I finally got to see the recorded interview Cheney did with FauxNews this morning, and I have to say I'm gratified that he set the record straight. There is no room for equivocation in his declaration of culpability, and I'm very glad to hear that come from him. As an aside, it was also the most heartfelt words I've ever heard him speak. It was a very good interview, and he scored big points with me -- I have more respect for him now because of what he said. I'm happy that the shooter's commandments that we all work hard to live by have been vindicated, too, and not sullied by White House, VP, and press spin that blames the victim.

Upon reflection, I've come to realize that the big issues in this incident for me personally were the lack of personal responsibility (which Cheney admirably rectified), and the fact that others were running roughshod over the cardinal rules that earnest and responsible shooters live by and take very seriously. I'd like to see someone in the press challenge Spin-Boy on the latter in the next WHPB, but I'll bet it doesn't happen.

Another aside -- anybody else notice that the NRA hasn't made a peep throughout this little episode? I would have expected some sort of missive from them by now. I know it's a big supporter that's involved, but still...

Whoops, The phone rang when I was about to type something and when closing the browser I accidently it the Post button. Now I forgot what I was going to type. Oh well.
 
Last edited:
Please forgive me... I must have missed something.
Yet, our pro-RKBA VP does not adhere to this principle of responsibility when it counted and essentially blames the victim directly or indirectly.
Other than some early "news report", I have heard nothing from Cheney or his troops that he (Cheney) blamed anyone but himself. By his comments he shows that he, as the launcher of those innumerable bird shot, knows he is responsible for where/what they hit.

Many here have hunted, many haven't. May I suggest that swinging onto a bird - even clay pigeon - a shooter is usually concentrating on the various aspects of the firing solution. Pick up your long gun, baseball bat or broom and in a fair effort dry fire on some birds. Now, at the moment of trigger press, did you see (and recognize) all those other details around you - even in front of you?

Accident!

And as has been stated herein, if you haven't had one... standby.

Thanks for your ears... er - eyes.

-AndyB
 
Forgive me if I am repeating what anyone else is saying but I havent went back to read all 17 previous pages. :D

I like the way Cheney snubbed the reporters on the story. Many media people today are the most inflated self-engrandizing people I have ever seen. Whether you like the current administration or not you should be able to see how most of the media has it out for Bush and Cheney. They seem to selectivly cover anything anti-conservative while giving liberals and leftists a free ride. For example, during the time this haas happened Al Gore has given a speech in Saudia Arabia funded by family members of Bin Ladin where he denounced Bushes treatment of arabs. Whether or not you like Gore and whether or not you can reason away the importance of his being funded by Bin Ladens (i.e. Bin Laden's family doen't like him and is pro west, Bush had dealings with the as well, etc.) it is still more news worthy than a minor hunting accident.
 
I like the way Cheney snubbed the reporters on the story. Many media people today are the most inflated self-engrandizing people I have ever seen. Whether you like the current administration or not you should be able to see how most of the media has it out for Bush and Cheney.

While your characterization of the press has some truth in it, it's still not an astute political move to make an enemy of the press. Many insiders believe that the GHW Bush presidency was doomed to failure the minute that John H. Sununu went into a tirade and called Washington Post publisher Kathryn Graham a "C" word that refers to a woman's genitals. In that instant the press turned against Bush 1 and he became a lame-duck president. The press is filled with petty, despicable characters, but so is the Whitehouse and Congress. Poke the press with a stick at your own peril.

If a free press really bothers you that much, I recommend moving to China or Cuba, both of which are good examples of the alternative.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
Poke the press with a stick at your own peril.
Perhaps strangely, I would "Poke the press" long, hard, wide, deep - and often; they could use it and the more they moan and groan the more they show their colors. As stated before me, for the most part they are self-motivated to stir the pot anyway they can and for whatever their agenda.

Oh - for those media folks who [truly] don't fit in the national ruckus, I don't mean you. For the others, you know who you are.

And - I wonder at the term "free press". Free to tell the truth? YES! Free to manipulate events and slant the story? NO! Maybe what's needed is to bust up some of these comglomerates where one party or a few tend to control what reported and how.

-AndyB
 
Perhaps strangely, I would "Poke the press" long, hard, wide, deep - and often; they could use it and the more they moan and groan the more they show their colors. As stated before me, for the most part they are self-motivated to stir the pot anyway they can and for whatever their agenda.

All of what you say is true--these are the warts of a system that combines a free market with a free press. If you don't like it, the options are places like China and Cuba.

The reality is that if an elected official follows your advice he or she will be destroyed, whether you like it or not. If you are an elected official, try the technique suggested in the above quote and let us know how that works out for you.
 
But if we could somehow get all of the elected officials to poke the press then maybe they'd move to Cuba or China or one of your other favorite countries. Well, you do mention them a lot. ;)

John
 
I'm perfectly happy here. It's because I don't want you socialists turning our country into another totalitarian state that I will not tolerate you messing with the Constitution.;)
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
socialists)
You did mean the socialists, right? Else it tends to get personal.

And if it was meant as personal, I'll have you know that I am a retired socialist. I have socialized in many a watering hole in much of this country and in many other nations' ports-of-call.

Now here's my (;))

-AndyB
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
While your characterization of the press has some truth in it, it's still not an astute political move to make an enemy of the press. Many insiders believe that the GHW Bush presidency was doomed to failure the minute that John H. Sununu went into a tirade and called Washington Post publisher Kathryn Graham a "C" word that refers to a woman's genitals. In that instant the press turned against Bush 1 and he became a lame-duck president. The press is filled with petty, despicable characters, but so is the Whitehouse and Congress. Poke the press with a stick at your own peril.

If a free press really bothers you that much, I recommend moving to China or Cuba, both of which are good examples of the alternative.

As for Bushes "lameness" I don't want to get into such a debate. I'll just say that I think that he has tried to be too accomodating to the other side and that has alienated many on his own side.

With that said, let me comment on your "poke the press" comment. First off no matter what the current administation does they will continue to be trampled by the media. Just because most of the media is out to get you doesn't mean that you should simply pander to them and make their job easier. There is no appeasing them so why even bother trying. In fact, pandering to the media would only further undermine the administation's ability to govern "on their own". Everything they do would be seen as being done "for the press".

What you can do with an element like the media that ruthlessly dislikes you is give them just enough rope to hang themselves. I think that is what Cheney did. First off, he didn't wait a day to inform the "media" he waited a day to inform the network big wigs. The story was first released to a small local paper. Listening to radio stations I have heard many Democrats call in to various shows and agree that the media is grandizing itself, the story is being over blown, and even that Cheney had every right to wait for his buddy's family to be notified before making the unfortunate situation a media circus. They also mentioned the press attacks against Scott Meclellan and how they are uncalled for.

I agree with you that you shouldn't intentionally lash out at the media when it despises you. But, you can shift public opinion if you get the media to step over that imaginary line of decency.
 
As for Bushes "lameness" I don't want to get into such a debate. I'll just say that I think that he has tried to be too accomodating to the other side and that has alienated many on his own side.

Dude, take a little more time when reading a post before responding. I was talking about George Herbert Walker Bush, our current president's father. Why do you think there is a reference to John H. Sununu, the first President Bush's chief of staff?
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
Dude, take a little more time when reading a post before responding. I was talking about George Herbert Walker Bush, our current president's father. Why do you think there is a reference to John H. Sununu, the first President Bush's chief of staff?

Sorry. I appologize for skimming over your reading. I was trying to do too many things at one. :banghead:

I must be too young to member the problem in that former administation. :D
 
A lot of people seem to think I'm picking on the administration, but for the most part I'm just trying to keep history from repeating itself. Remember, those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
It appears the only people who took the low road of blaming the victim were the spin doctors in the Whitehouse and here on THR.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Officials were quoted in the Dallas Morning News saying that the shooter and the shootee shared the blame for the accident.

In this case, as with many accidents, more than one person's actions made critical contributions to the final outcome.
#shooter said:
Why did Cheney have to go and get the story straight with the rancher before reporting it to the police?
Given that there were multiple witnesses to the shooting, "getting it straight" would simply consist of telling the truth--anything else would be ludicrous given the fact that it has to agree with what the other witnesses have said, are saying and will say. Your implication that he had to get his story straight doesn't really make logical sense.
 
Lobotomy Boy said "A lot of people seem to think I'm picking on the administration, but for the most part I'm just trying to keep history from repeating itself. Remember, those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it."

I have no idea what history you are talking about? Maybe George W pushed th Iraq war BECAUSE he didn't want to see history repeat itself. For this reason, Iran needs to pay attention to the talk and the do.

James Carval made the comment this morning that Cheney just lied during his interview. You see, truth can't win. Those that hate Dick Cheney will look for ANY excuse to try to crucify him and those that like him try to speak rationally and they are criticized for being rational. Speaking rationally is seen as a weakness. VP Cheney is one rational person!
 
I have no idea what history you are talking about? Maybe George W pushed th Iraq war BECAUSE he didn't want to see history repeat itself. For this reason, Iran needs to pay attention to the talk and the do.

James Carval made the comment this morning that Cheney just lied during his interview. You see, truth can't win. Those that hate Dick Cheney will look for ANY excuse to try to crucify him and those that like him try to speak rationally and they are criticized for being rational. Speaking rationally is seen as a weakness. VP Cheney is one rational person!

Not to but in to you conversation with LB, but what history are you talking about. The only history that repeated itself was that of Vietnam.

And where did you hear Carval say Cheney lied in his interview on Faux News? I seriously don't believe Carvel would say something like that without proof. And how do you know that Cheney did not lie? I bet Carvel knows something you don't.
 
cbsbyte said:
Not to but in to you conversation with LB, but what history are you talking about. The only history that repeated itself was that of Vietnam.

And where did you hear Carval say Cheney lied in his interview on Faux News? I seriously don't believe Carvel would say something like that without proof. And how do you know that Cheney did not lie? I bet Carvel knows something you don't.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238

While appearing on ABC's "Good Morning America," James Carville challenged the White House to release Mr. Whittington's blood alcohol level and the Secret Service's incident report. In an effort to tie the hunting accident into a broader narrative, he said, "they haven't told the truth about Iraq, they haven't told the truth about the deficit, why would anyone expect them to tell the truth about this?"

That sure sounds like Carville is accusing Cheney of lying to me (and it's not based on some special top secret info that Carville knows).
 
22-rimfire
Cheney followed the law as best he understood it
This is simply not true - unless Cheney is himself an actual simpleton.

Cheney would know good and well that such an incident falls under the primary and immediate jurisdiction of the local police agency - and that he had an obligation to contact them and make himself available immediately - and not obstructing the local police in their investigation when they arrived.
-----------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Why did Cheney have to go and get the story straight with the rancher before reporting it to the police?

I don't think he had to get his story straight. I think too many people were around when it happened, and I don't doubt that the shooting happened the way Cheney described it.

I do think there is a chance he and others may have been legally drunk at the time of the shooting, and his delay in reporting was just to allow him time to sober up some.

That is admittedly speculation, but he has admitted to drinking at lunch. And my experience is that people wildly underestimate the amount of alcohol they have consumed when an authority figure questions them about it.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
I don't think he had to get his story straight. I think too many people were around when it happened, and I don't doubt that the shooting happened the way Cheney described it.

I do think there is a chance he and others may have been legally drunk at the time of the shooting, and his delay in reporting was just to allow him time to sober up some.

That is admittedly speculation, but he has admitted to drinking at lunch. And my experience is that people wildly underestimate the amount of alcohol they have consumed when an authority figure questions them about it.
Apparently Katharine Armstrong's account of the incident has changed.

As well as alcohol; what prescription drugs was Cheney on for his heart condition? Specifically I wonder. And what are the effects of those drugs alone - and with alcohol?

I'll bet the farm that typical side effects and alcohol warnings apply - in addition to "operating machinery" or vehicles etc.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top