I missed "Hardball" tonight -- actually, I always miss "Hardball."  What did Matthews say, Just Karl?

 The real problem in Washington is that the administration decided to invade a foreign country with no justification beyond their own desire to do so.  Then they refuse to accept the error of having done that and insist on keeping US troops there dying a few every week, for no obvious purpose.  And, they see nothing wrong with torturing POW's in violation of the Geneva Conventions, which are part of our laws.  Then, they hold US citizens in jail, without access to legal representation, without any charges against them, for a seemingly indefinite time.  And, they capture people and ship them to other countries to be tortured.  Plus, they conduct unconstitutional wire taps of US citizens without warrants.

Am I supposed to be upset that the veep, probably drunk as a skunk, shot a fellow hunter, possibly fatally, and didn't admit it for 20 hours?  Sorry, my plate is full. I can joke about Duck Cheney, but my outrage is directed to the real crimes being committed by the administration.

Hoppy in Sacramento

He was saying how disrespectful Cheney's stonewalling was to the President.  He shot the guy on Saturday but didn't tell Bush until Monday morning.  Then he played a bunch of footage of Cheney lying to the press about Iraq, the secret energy commission, and the "bigtime" campaign comments. Matthews was saying that this is Cheney's MO with the press and wondered why Bush would allow it to become such a huge distraction.  Obviously this is no fun for Scott McClellan. If Bush is the boss, he should demand Cheney answer these questions. His guests included Dede Myers, Bob Schrum, and Bill Mahr.

I disagree.

Humans demand justice -- people should be treated equally.  We may not be able to imagine ourselves pouring over CIA intelligence estimates or being locked up as Muslim terrorists, but we sure can imagine ourselves drinking a little too much and hurting somebody.  And we wouldn't expect the local cops to say, "Sure, take it easy; we'll come back in the morning when you're all sobered up."

As Jay Leno said, tonight:  "Hey, Kevin.  Is that how the cops do it in the "hood"?

The apparent injustice of the investigation may resonate more deeply than we at first might think. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Post has seen the light and realizes that in America no man (or woman) is above the law. -  L. Johnson

Wishful thinking.  The press isn't up to the task.  They haven't been for five years.  The local paper here headlined that it was Whittington's fault; every hunter knows its the shooter's responsibility to safely acquire his target.  Therefore, it's Cheney's fault and he oughta be saying so.

Don Quixote Cheney and his sidekick Sancho Bush have demonstrated over and over again that all laws, ordinances, regulations, or rules are merely suggestions.  As they say down in Texas, "que sabe el burro del freno, cuando nunca se lo ha puesto."  (What does an ass know about a bridle when he has never worn one.) 

The sheriff says he is satisfied this was an accident.  But is that really for the sheriff to decide?  Maybe the sheriff ought to be collecting the evidence, and letting a prosecutor decide whether the case should then be presented to a grand jury.  That's what would be happening to you and me.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Hunting Accident and Incident Report Form contains this item ...

Under the apparent influence of intoxicants or drugs?

                     [_]Yes     [x]No     [_]Unknown

If the Sheriff was successfully put off until the following morning, so as to be incapable of forming an opinion on drug-taking, how was Jason Duke from Kingsville Parks & Wildlife office able to get access that evening to enable him to report [x]No rather than [x]Unknown? Or was he as unable as the Sheriff to assert, but inclined or persuaded to assert, what he could not know?  Has he been interviewed?  Is it relevant that Ms Armstrong used to be on the Texas Parks & Wildlife Board?

I read the accident report you linked to, and I don't think it says anything more than that the game warden spoke to Katherine Armstrong at some time before February 14 and that from what she told him concerning the appearances of Cheney and his victim, he concluded that neither man was, at the time of the shooting, "Under the apparent influence of intoxicants or drugs?"

Since there were likely many others who might have observed the men, a responsible investigation would, one would think, include their interviews (of course, they may have all departed for Washington before the game warden began his investigation).

In the 1960's, Cheney was arrested twice within a year on DUI charges.

PBS Online News Hour-Vote 2004
The Smoking Gun: Dick Cheney's Youthful Indiscretions

Mr. Johnson,

I typically enjoy your work. You offer an intriguing mix of insight and policy analysis.

I must object, however, to the headline/title of this particular entry. Perhaps you did not provide the headline/title. Perhaps not. Either way, it reads like one of those "all liberals hate George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, The White House, America, and apple pie" lines that comes straight from the Karl Rove crew and/or John P. Normanson/Jonah Goldberg.

You make a number of valid points. I ask only that you rename this entry. Surely, you and/or the TPM staff can find a catchy, yet tasteful headline/title without offering the veritable red meat of cheap debate to the Rove/Normanson/Goldberg crowd.

Again, a fine piece.

Please, just find a different tag. Packaging, for good or bad, amounts to so much in our nation. Sadly, the Madison Avenue eye-grabber on this one sends, I respectfully submit, the most incorrect of messages and simply tarnishes your otherwise fine work.

Larry's title points to a famous/infamous Cheney remark, Ira.  It's witty in its way and better, says a lot about Cheney's character, his personality, and his view of just how limited the citizenry's right to know what its government is doing is.

    How long before Cheney is charged with a crime? When he got foul with Leahy did he disturb the peace? Is he familiar with obstruction of justice?
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.009.00.000042.00.htm

PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLICORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT ANDRELATED OFFENSES§ 42.01.  DISORDERLY CONDUCT.  (a)  A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
  (1)  uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance
tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
  (2)  makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;

(9)  discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

Where did the accident occur?

     § 42.062.  INTERFERENCE WITH EMERGENCY TELEPHONE
CALL.  (a)  An individual commits an offense if the individual
knowingly prevents or interferes with another individual's ability
to place an emergency telephone call or to request assistance in an
emergency from a law enforcement agency, medical facility, or other
agency or entity the primary purpose of which is to provide for the
safety of individuals.

    Guide to Texas Law http://www.weblocator.com/attorney/tx/law/c13.html#txc131700
    By itself, intoxication is not a defense to a crime. In rare cases, intoxication works like a defense, if there is proof that the person accused of the crime was unable to form the necessary intent to commit a crime. Someone who is intoxicated may not be found guilty of a crime that requires he or she acted intentionally, but the intoxicated person may be guilty of another crime that does not require intentional actions.

    Obstruction of Justice is interference in one of the three branches of government. Obstruction of justice can take many forms, including assaulting a process server, improperly influencing a juror, stealing or altering a record of process, and obstructing a criminal investigation by officers of a financial institution...... A person who intentionally aids or advises another in committing a crime may be guilty of aiding and abetting, and may be criminally liable for the acts of the other person, as well.

Aggravated Assault
    Under Texas law, assault is a misdemeanor; however, assault becomes the more serious crime of aggravated assault if the offender uses a firearm or other deadly weapon, the assault causes serious bodily injury, the assault is in retaliation against a witness or informant, or the assault is against a government employee acting in his or her official capacity. Generally, assault is defined as intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly injuring or threatening to injure a person or the person's spouse.

    Davis H. Safavian Indicted on Charges of Obstruction... former chief of staff for the General Services Administration (GSA), 

 Are Cheneys fingerprints on this case to? A serial obstructionist?

I am beginning to wonder whether the media has jumped on this story with reckless abandon because they are simply letting their natural anti-Bush bias show through, or they are upset with themselves that they got scooped by a tiny Texas newspaper.  We all know reporters regularly accompany President Bush to his Crawford, TX ranch.  Why was there nobody with Vice President Cheney on his hunting trip?  If there were, the story would have broken immediately.  Blame the press every bit as much as Cheney in this case.

There is no press pack with Cheney, unlike with the President.

The scooped bit is a joke right??

You're joking, right? 

 I respectfully submit, the most incorrect of messages and simply tarnishes your otherwise fine work.

Those were the words the vice president used on the floor of the US Senate to insult a US Senator.  The tarnishing is done; and it was Dick Cheney himself who is responsible for it.

Jan Knaus

I think that the devil is in the details and the UNREPORTED fact, that this Ms. Armstrong is a lobbyist for Iraq construction projects.

So what we have here is a lobbyist event, similiar to Abramoff, and that is what is not being covered.  Given the noise about lobbying and all the smut regarding lobbyist payoff events. That is what Cheney and his crew wanted to avoid.

The press needs to delve into the relationship between Armstrong, Whittington and Cheney regarding Haliburton contracts and monies for Iraq construction ...I believe that is the real paydirt.

Instead, we are talking about how this was not reported timely. That is a problem but the bigger issue is that this was a lobbyist event on a known lobbyist's property.  Perhaps, that is why SHE was allowed to be the initial press informant?

Republicans shooting each other?  I hope it becomes a fad...

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

"Just remember, it's the birds that's supposed to suffer, not the hunter"

President George W Bush
to NM Sen. Pete Domenici in 2004

Jan,

For what it's worth, I have no use for Dick Cheney. He's a very dangerous man and clearly someone who believes the law, not to mention that little document called the Constitution, applies to others and never to himself.

We do not need to curse, asteriks or not, to make our points and state our positions. Do that and we simply slide to a level of ill discourse that is far too easy to stereotype.

In other words, state your case without cursing, without epithets, without foul language. Certainly, that is not too much to ask.

Now, I understand it, Mr. Cheney has opted to take his explaination tour not to the White House media or national press corps. Instead, Mr. Cheney will tell all (?) to Fox News and Brit Hume.

Anyone not thinking of Orwell and/or Huxley right about now, click your mouse.

Feel free, of course, to disagree with me on any or all of this.

Have a nice day.

I think those of us in the reality based community need to be looking at the possibility that Dick is being set up by the administration media shills such as Mathews to take the fall for invading Iraq at the behest of big oil and countless other unscrupulous acts of treason and corporatism. Mathews wouldn't be showing clips of Cheny lies if he had not been given the memo from the RNC/WH. It will give Bush a free pass on the dozens of impeachable offenses he has committed as they can be sloughed off on Cheny, esp now that Scooter is going to sing. Look for Condi to be promoted to VP in a cynical attempt to capture token votes from blacks and women.

I wouldn't be too offended that the VP was not particularly enthusiastic in immediately calling the press after accidentally shooting a man.  Would you be?

People in real life curse. A blog is a representation of real world conversations, in a digital form.

Therefore, we're gonna curse.

In any case, given the context, LJ's title was entirely appropriate.

Dissent Protects Democracy

lovethebomb said:

 I think those of us in the reality based community need to be looking at the possibility that Dick is being set up by the administration media shills such as Mathews...

This sounds a little unlikely. What's more interesting is what we don't yet know:

1. Was Cheney impaired in any way, as has been suggested?
2. Was Cheney actually the shooter?
3. Who were the other shooter(s) present?
4. Was Katharine Armstrong actually an eye witness?
5. Besides Armstrong, Cheney, Whittington and the Secret Service, who else was present and what did they see?

Of course not. Because he's a Republican.

Dissent Protects Democracy

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Apologies to Carole King

Smackwater Dick he bought a shotgun
Cause he was in the mood of a little confrontation
He just let it all hang loose
He didn't think about the noose
He couldn't take no more abuse,
So he shot down the congregation
You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand 
Bulldog Fitzgerald  stood for law and order
He called for the guard to come and surround the border
Now fron his bulldog mouth
As he led the posse south
Came the cry "We got to ride to clean up the street
For our wives and our daughters!"
You can't talk to a man when he don't want to understand
The account of the capture wasn't in the papers
But you know, they hanged ole Smack right then (instead of
later)
You know, the people where quite pleased
Cause the outlaw had been sized
And on the whole, it was a very good year for the undertaker
You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand

    I watched CNN yesterday and you could sure see the cover the WH is projecting. "Cheny's a liability to BUSH" this way the President projects hinself as another victim of Cheny. Cheny's strong will,  has made the President look bad. 

    Cheny has always been the power. Thats why he was put on the ticket to begin with. Getting  rid of him, you'll end up with what ? To see Republicans, taking positions apparently against the Administration. Is it really a change of heart, or the realization that they sense the people might remove the Republicans next election? Don't be fooled, the moment they dodge this bullet, they'll return to their old ways.

    It was reported that out of all the questions asked at the press briefing 65 questions were asked about this shooting, Are there no other pressing issues confronting our Nation?   

    The press looks like idiots, and are allowing themselves to be pawns. Losing all credibility, eventually no one will bother giving a damn what the press has to say. Attacking the 4th Amendment and destroying the free press all at once. Grand scheme and I suspect they'll pull it off.

    Did you see Norm Coleman? He say's Cheney's a human being and that he is suffering because of this accident. So leave him alone. Might I remind Republicans that Hillary Clinton too didn't need to be reminded that her husband had let his guard down and had succumbed to temptation, and that all the attacks kept the hurt on Hillary, minute by minute, daily,  front and center. The Republicans had no mercy when they made Hillary(the victim) suffer. Do they have no shame? Empathy?

I see now his brother is running for office in Pennsylvania under the Republican banner

Like Maureen Dowd, I have seen Matthews use his right leaning brother (and other family members) as a talking point or foil to figure out how "they," GOP supporters, think.

Personally, I find it hard to get a bead on where he personally stands on a lot of issues. I have only seen him make clear his stance on two things: he doesn't like that we went into Iraq, he mistrusted the reasons from the beginning, and he hated lBill Clinton's machinations concerning the whole Monica thing, but he still admired Clinton's skills.

My uncle is a rabid conservative who has run for local office in Wisconsin; the family gets a kick out of him, jokes about him.

Ellen

I'm not apologizing for Cheney, what I am doing is questioning the, ah, shall we say, vigor, the press is pursuing this case with.  Most new installations have documented how contentious the White House press conferences have been since the incident.  Not that the press is not doing their job, but openly lambasting press secretary Scott McClellan is perhaps not the proper avenue of approach.

I have e-mailed Hume [Special@foxnews.com] and asked that he drop this diversion about the press being notified and maybe talk about something pertinent like how long it was before talking with the law [park rangers aside], and maybe asking how this might correlate with any substances in his blood stream that needed disposal during this period of time.  Just how was it determined that alcohol was not a factor [as opposed to "unknown"]?

dc

 promote the right-wing agenda to pass freely, even from you whose contributions I generally respect)

I find this silly; sorry, I just do. Well then if you believe I am pushing a right wing agenda, you should also start writing all those secret counter agent Dems and supposedly liberal congresspersons that appear on Fox and tell them they must stop supporting the right wing agenda.

Sorry, I do not see votes with the remote control as the same as votes in the booth. I don't think most Americans do either. These are all just TV shows that people watch and appear on. Just because they watch Anne Coulter doesn't mean they agree with her. I often here the comment "did you see what that witch Anne Coulter said this time?" And "know thine enemy" is not a bad way to proceed. Echo chambers lead to self-deception.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Bulldog Fitzgerald stood for law and order
He called for the guard to come and surround the border
Now fron his bulldog mouth
As he led the posse south
Came the cry "We got to ride to clean up the street
For our wives and our daughters!"

Gonzales Withholding Plame Emails



Sources close to the investigation into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson have revealed this week that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has not turned over emails to the special prosecutor's office that may incriminate Vice President Dick Cheney, his aides, and other White House officials who allegedly played an active role in unmasking Plame Wilson's identity to reporters

After listening to the local righty talker spew his daily blastfax RW talking points this morning in a flimsy attempt to "blame the messenger" and "blame the victim"

 If you can recognize these talking points in local radio, so will others, and the fact that they have had to gin up such a talking points machine means they are scared about the effects. You are right that this has scarred Cheney and Bush. It's the kind of thing that people who like to keep up with the story of the latest white kid murdered on a cruise understand. This is a classic "it's the coverup stupid, not the crime." (Couple months ago I saw a rerun of a documentary on Chappaquiddick where Pierre Salinger forthwrightly blamed the Kennedy emergency scandal machine for silencing Ted too long after the accident for hurting his reputation forever.) Had Cheney come right out immediately and made a long statement, he would simply be subject to the butt of more liberal and military chickenhawk jokes. I don't get it, because he could have made a taped statement, it wasn't a case of having to face reporters and thence having to take questions on Plame.

The only reason I can see is that makes sense is the stories of Cheney's office having free rein away from Rove's message machine are true. A little on the speculative psychobabble front: for me he has always seemed to have this "noblesse" thing about him, how even the rules of this administration don't apply to him. Also, like with lots of big CEO's, I have always sensed this 50's white two-martini-lunch guy attitude from him, that private life and private morals don't count, none of anyone's business if you say one thing and do the opposite in private. Hypocrisy is ok as long as you keep it private. It's why he doesn't like to campaign, he doesn't like the prying that candidates are subject to.

On Air America today they had an expert from some university who thought that Cheney's shooting was part of a trend in the US.  There has been an alarming increase in seemingly friends shooting each other for perceived minor insults.  Shooting his companion at close range in the face fit the pattern.  Cheney appparently fit the stereotype of the shooter.  He predicted that Cheney would shoot someone else. 

'War is a Racket." Brig. Gen. Smedley D. Butler

The anger with Scotty has been building for a LONG time and has grown very intense since McClellan assured the press that he had spoken with Rove and was assured that Rove had nothing to do with outing Valerie Plame. When that turned out to be a lie, McClellan refused to talk about it since it was an "ongoing investigation" (Scotty had been talking about it frequently even though it was, back then, ongoing...). This is only one of many tifs leading up to the current situation.

 

But, Gettysburg, how can you even THINK that the Vice-President shooting someone should be anything but a major story?  Especially given the circumstances in which he pulled a Hazelwood and didn't appear in public until the next day? I am upset that the press isn't making this THE major story. I am particularly angry as a hunter who understands the NRA safety rules which place responsibility for where you shoot squarely on the shoulders of the individual pulling the trigger. Whitworth had just stopped to pick up a quail and Cheney heard something behind him, twirled and engaged in "snap shooting" without checking the field of fire.

About Chris Matthews -- I also always enjoyed watching him, he has quite an effective TV personality.  But read the "Daily Howler" on Matthews; very convincing that Matthews is the A # 1 leader in the degeneration of US discourse to the point where right-wing talking points have become the common public standard.

About liberals on Fox:  The past 3 or 6 months have seen the dissolution of the GOP monolith.  One of the biggest turning points was the nomination of Miers.  I presume that an increase of exposure for liberal spokespeople is part of the trend.

About Cheney's 14 hours:  The general assumption among friend and foe is that Cheney was drink.  Most consider it a tragedy for Whittington but no big deal for Cheney.

It occurred to me that Cheney's persona of bottling up all emotion (until it oozes out in the form of sneering rage) may have serious cosequences for him.

Cheney never admits making mistakes, and this one is horrendous. Whittington will live with the consequences and so will Cheney. And unlike all of the other mistakes we hold him responsible for, Cheney can't pretend that this is somehow good for the victim. Given the VP's access to firearms, I have to wonder if he is now on some kind of suicide watch.

-Dave Adams-

Dave

Let's face it, when the President of the United States, aka The Leader of the Free World, receives fellatio in the Oval Office from a young intern (and stains her dress), that is NEWS to me and everyone else.  The Cheney story is news also, but he is not LEGALLY required to inform the press, therefore no laws were broken.  These two instances are simply not comparable.

Perhaps that portion of the liberal blogosphere that likes to complain about few liberals ever appearing on TV are mistaken in their judgment because they refuse to watch the programs where they are appearing?

It ain't necessarily so...

In addition to the documented imbalance, there's this observation:

Though there has been some marginal improvement in the past year, it has been a frequent practice for a roundtable to consist of a right-wing columnist or two supposedly "balanced" by journalists from major newspapers. While these newspaper journalists may also be columnists, they don't operate with the same expectation of—or license for—partisanship that their conservative counterparts do. If David Broder or Ronald Brownstein express an openly partisan opinion, they know that their editors are likely to call them to task for it. By the same token, if Fred Barnes doesn't use his time to spout talking points, he knows his editors will be disappointed.

My own impressions on the whole t.v. wars thing: while there are indeed people who have an "extreme obsession" with the talking heads,  there are also people who "just don't get the anger" because they're missing some crucial aspects of this stuff.  I'm not sure that I can quite put my finger on it myself, but let's see...

Some people have excellent media literacy tools at their disposal.  They approach tv news from a critical perspective; they supplement tv with online and offline reading; and perhaps most importantly, they are confident of their ability to track down the kernel of truth at the center of all the bloviating.  Often these people are surrounded (as most of us are) by people with similar backgrounds/perspectives, who possess similar levels of media literacy... and they tend to live in media capitals, where they're surrounded by a wide range of print media that other people have to actively seek out.  As a result, media savvy people sometimes think that everyone has the same tools that they have.

But they do not.  Some people, smart people -- my mother, one of the smartest people I know, is an example -- do not have these tools.  I could go on for pages about why and who  is responsible for that, and still probably not get it right.  But anyway, people like my mom, first of all, just don't have access to some of the resources that other more media savvy folks have: she doesn't have cable tv; she has limited internet access, and no idea how to navigate political websites.  Her local newspaper is very informative on local matters, but a useless abomination when it comes to national and international issues.  Not being all that interested in politics and not being a big reader in the first place, she will never pick up Time magazine.  In some weird way that I can't even explain to myself, it's like reading Time magazine is just not culturally possible for her.  We can say that's her own fault, but we overlook something right in our faces: TV is powerful, and wishing otherwise won't change that.  Even radio, I think, is more powerful than any text-based source in the contemporary media landscape.  

There's PBS, but the weird thing about PBS, and actually most television, I've come to notice, is that its political shows also make assumptions about the media environment its viewership operates within.   And let's put PBS in context.  My political news universe consists of a wide range of online blogs and newspapers, magazines, radio, and tv.  Most of the hard core information I get is online, where I can read all the major papers and a wide range of political opinions; the other stuff mostly gives me info about how the political game is being played .  My mom's political news universe consists of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, WB, UPN, radio (virtually all of the political radio in her area is right wing), her local newspaper... and PBS. 

Often she has no idea who to believe about anything, since most of the issues of the day are presented via he said/she said round tables -- when they are presented at all.  And lots of basic facts necessary to figuring out the truth of what's going on are completely missing from the discussion. 

I'm still not really articulating this very well... I feel it in my bones, and will have to think some more about what exactly the issue is here.  Maybe some other people out there can get at it better than I can.  But stuff like the imbalances on the Sunday morning talk shows ... they matter, a lot, and in ways that I think a lot of us -- us being the sort of people who hang around on TPM Cafe -- have trouble getting. 

bluebell

Hardball took a clear turn to the right after the 2004 election.  Mathews must be auditioning for FOX or a book deal.

For example, on Friday's Mathews has a roundtable with Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson and Rita Cosby.  Do you think he's trying to replace that guy in the chair by Hannity?

Gettysburg wrote:

Let's face it, when the President of the United States, aka The Leader of the Free World, receives fellatio in the Oval Office from a young intern (and stains her dress), that is NEWS to me and everyone else. 

So what you're saying is that its more common in the United States for a Politician to shoot someone in the face with a firearm that it is for them to get "serviced"? Do you have any statistics on that? It seems to me that I've heard a number of stories about Chief Executives having extramarital affairs (sans the vivid detail afforded by Ken Starr's $60M Investigation) starting wth Thomas Jefferson. OTOH it seems that Cheney stands alone  in the "accidentally shot someone in the face" category.

The Cheney story is news also, but he is not LEGALLY required to inform the press, therefore no laws were broken.  These two instances are simply not comparable.

So then its not about character then? Its only about what laws were broken?

Is there some sort of a law on the books about sex in the Oval Office?

Oh, by the way, can you explain why Cheney refused to see a Sherriff's deputy on the night of the shooting? If you like, you  can tie your answer in with the explanation of why Cheney has a better character than Clinton.

-Dave Adams-

Dave

I believe Cheney's "character" has been well established by this point.  To be honest, I'm not sure there is much more to say about him.  He's a brilliant man, very dry, and extraordinarily dull.  I'll grant you the Bush Administration is ridiculously "closed" as many have noted since 2000.  Personally I think that is a horrible strategy on the part of the president, but that's just me.  The GOP, after all, is the Party of Lincoln (Abe, of course, was easily the most accessable president in U.S. history.  Indeed, if you arrived at the White House early enough in the day the odds were very good that you could gain an audience with the man himself--as many old ladies did).  Bush is Bush.  There's no changing at this point.

Dude, this is goofy (for lack of a better word) even for you:

• it is okay for the White House to pick and choose which laws they will abide by (ignore FISA and the Fourth Amendment);

• it is okay to pick and choose which intelligence secrets should be leaked (Valerie Plame, good but NSA domestic spying and secret prisons, bad); and

• it is okay to pick and choose which intelligence to accept (ignore the intelligence community when it tells you there is no link between Saddam and Bin Laden or that Iraq is not trying to get uranium in Niger);

• so what's so wrong with "peppering" a 78 year old man with a shotgun?

 what does any of those questions have to do with whether or not Dick Cheney holds a press conference immediately after he shoots his friend in a hunting accident? How does him accidently shooting his friend effect me or any other American (except his pal with the chest full of bird shot). Once again a liberal (what do you guys call them) "wingnut" is falling all over himself trying to come up with a scandal where there isn't one. Cheney didn't tell America to F**k yourself, he told the Mainstream Media to do it, and they can't stand it! I'm surprised you haven't accused him of intentionally shooting the guy to cover up the "Neocon/PNAC/Haliburton" connection.

When you watch Fox you get what you expect.  They do not at all try or make any attempts to portray themselves as anything but what they are.  I have to admit it must be great for this administration to have a network at their disposal and to spin their policies.

This is the key to understanding the news. Everyone knows you get a conservetive perspective at FNC. Well guess what? There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Everyone comes to the table with prejudices, reporters writers editors, the key is to know where they're coming from while they are talking (or you're reading).FNC is tilted right, ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NPR/PBS/MSNBC/BBC...left. 

Did Cheney shoot Whittington in the DARK?

Around 6:30 PM when Cheney shot Harry Whittington

Report of Timeline from Forbes.com at
http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturing/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2526738.html

6:30 p.m.: Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter Harry Whittington while aiming for a bird. Secret Service agents and medical personnel with Cheney tend to wounds on Whittington's face, neck and chest.

7:20 p.m.: An ambulance takes Whittington to a Christus Spohn Hospital Kleburg.

And from the Transcript of the interview on FOX News
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/13881510.htm
Cheney says...

A: He was dressed in orange, he was dressed properly, but he was also ... There was a little bit of a gully there, so he was down a little ways before land level, although I could see the upper part of his body when ... I didn't see it at the time I shot, until after I'd fired. And the sun was directly behind him -- that affected the vision, too, I'm sure.

However... from the Sunset Tables for that area.

Sunset on Feb 11, 2006 in Corpus Christi
Actual Sunset 6:18 PM
Civil Twilight 6:42 PM

So about 6:30 PM when Whittington was shot, it was getting rather dark,
but Cheney said that the sun was in his eyes as he shot.

 What Sun? It had gone below the horizon 12 minutes before that. 
 I suspect that all he saw was a faint glow on the horizon.

 There was NO sun directly behind him.

 ==========

Minds are like Diapers.  When they're full of it, they need to be changed.

Gettysburg wrote:

I believe Cheney's "character" has been well established by this point.  To be honest, I'm not sure there is much more to say about him.  He's a brilliant man, very dry, and extraordinarily dull. 

 Oh I do disagree.

Its been evident that the man is a veritable ticking time bomb- certainly medically (heart attacks) and  emotionally (foul-mouth outburst on the Senate Floor). Information surfaced recently that he may have directed Scooter Libby to leak Valerie Wilson's CIA cover. Sneaky, (and potentially traitorous) but crazy like a fox I suppose.

Now it seems that he may have finally revealed the reckless nutcase within. Oh no Gettysburg, on the contrary, I think Cheney's beginning to get very interesting, in a rather Spiro Angew-ish sense. I am quite sure we haven't read the last chapter of the Cheney Tragedy. Its too bad Deadeye Dick is going to drag the rest of the country along for the ride, but I suppose it will make for some great books someday.

I'll grant you the Bush Administration is ridiculously "closed" as many have noted since 2000.  Personally I think that is a horrible strategy on the part of the president, but that's just me. 

Its more than a strategy Gettysburg, it a way of life for these people. Too bad you see it as nothing more than a political faux pas. I'm not the historian you are, but as a native Illinoisian, (with Lincoln Electors in the family tree) I confidant that Lincoln would agree.

-Dave Adams-

That might be 6:30pm Washington time.

The Washington Post timeline is all east coast time. 

Now, I'm not a hunter, but does one really have to be to know that shooting low, to the side, into the sun (even if it wasn't still there), with one of the hunting party not located exactly, isn't acceptable? In fact it is totally irresponsible.

I have been puzzled by that low flying quail for a couple of days now. In every other picture you see of Cheney out hunting, the gun is pointed up. Did this bird not know which way to fly and thus caused Cheney's friend to get in the way of the pellets?
It's the quail's fault.

Linking to Media Matters to support thr " Underrepresentat ion of the progressive point of view on tv..."is like me linking to the NRA to support my "conceal carry" statistics.

Just because Bill O'Reilly says it does not make it true.  In fact the opposite is almost invariably the case.

The right-wing slime machine has done their best to discredit Media Matters, and MM makes no attempt to pretend it is non-partisan.  What they do however is present carefully documented factual evidence. 

If you want to attack the MM findings on television representation and have that view accorded a modicum of respect why don't you actually read the findings and then post a reasoned rebuttal. 

But if all you can offer is this kind of snide O'Reilly-esque dismissal by innuendo, we will be entitled to draw the obvious conclusion about the merits of your position.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Go F**K Yourself [Dick "Buckshot" Cheney - Dickie and the Birdie Killers - all rights reserved']

Seashell

He is brilliant if you are a Neocon--which, if you ask any radical Muslim, all Americans certainly are.

His Arrogance, Dick Cheney is not so bright and not so tough, but as a gas bag he has some stature.  Too bad that can't be used as a fuel source.

Personally, Hoppy, I'm waiting for the White House to announce that Cheney was really shooting at the number 2 guy in Al-Queda.

You remember him, don't you. We have heard about him so much, he's almost eligible for adoption.

Larry,

Sorry to see all these off-topic replies to your post. Why do these people have it out for you? Nevermind. You blasphemed against the Church Of Bush. It's trolliness in my mind. Good grief, how much Chris Matthews 'love' can one person stand? If I was a paranoid person I'd say Matthews' child-Rovebot producers were here to virtually fellate their piggy 'star'.

Back on topic.

If there is a Hell, Cheney will be in the innermost ring. Cheney is Darth Vader. George Lucas agrees. See The NYDaily News today. I lived in Wyoming during the oil boom years of the 1970s and early 1980s. My uncle ran a big oil refinery there and was a friend of Dick. Even he says the current Mr. Cheney is unrecognizable from what he knew and that the man is not fit for service.

I say Mr. Cheney should have behind bars a long time ago. Now I see that he's touting his "RIGHT" as VP to declassify top security info. WTF! AKA, he is framing his Valerie Plame defense...since his boy Scooter rolled on him. How many more people have to get killed, hurt, loose their jobs, have their kids scared to hell and have the commandment of Not Bearing False Witness repeatedly broken and ignored. Blashphemy. The lies this man endlessly explicates to justify his phony patriotism only to line his own pockets defies the greed and narcissism of the Gilded Age. Does Cheney think he's Pharaoh and will live forever?

Cheney is a traitor.

Damn, I love Al Gore!

on edit:  Edit for clarity. 

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

It is not entirely honest nor fair to put all the blame for the dishonest, incompetent, corrupt governance we have on Dick Cheney or Bush or even the Republican Congress.

Chris Bowers at MyDD was complaining the other day about Blue Dogs. He didn't mention names and would be hard pressed to do so cause there aren't many left. 

So I pointed out pointedly that Blue Dogs aren't the problem
The problem is cowardly backstabbing triangulators - Lieberman, Biden, Schumer, Bill's Hill. These people do you in the back and in public for all the world to see

Case in Point -

Jane "I like the Spying Let's Do Americans Legally" Harman another Democratic Party "leader" who aided and abetted another Bush scam with hre prevarications, vascillation, and duplicitous cowardice 

Senate Rejects Wiretap Probe

Jane and her ilk at least merit a dishonorable mention in America's  War Pary Hall of Shame

I feel a Dan Ackroyd/Jane Curtain moment coming on

Jane you ignorant Sl-t. Dickie and George couldn't do us without you.

Which is worse: shooting buckshot accidentally in the face of a loyal contributor or shooting one's load intentionally in the face of the hired help in the Oval office?

Which is worse: shooting buckshot accidentally in the face of a loyal contributor or shooting one's load intentionally in the face of the hired help in the Oval office?

Well gee Aubrey, that would have to be the one that sent its target to the hospital and triggered a freaking heart attack.

-Dave Adams-

Which is worse: shooting buckshot accidentally in the face of a loyal contributor or shooting one's load intentionally in the face of the hired help in the Oval office?

False dictomy? yes Off topic? yes Tasteless and juvinile? yes

Funny enough to make me spit coffee on my monitor? Heck yeah!!! 

This sounds a little unlikely. What's more interesting is what we don't yet know:

1. Was Cheney impaired in any way, as has been suggested? Suggested by who exactlly, Al Franken? (you want to talk impaired)
   
2. Was Cheney actually the shooter? No it was the guy on the grassy knoll (you guys kill me with your conspiracies).
   
3. Who were the other shooter(s) present? Well there was the guy that got the face full of bird shot...
   
4. Was Katharine Armstrong actually an eye witness? No, but luckily Amiel Zappruder had his camera running and we will be able to clear up everything to the satisfaction of all.
   
5. Besides Armstrong, Cheney, Whittington and the Secret Service, who else was present and what did they see? Yeah there was the guy dressed like a cop standing behind the fence on the grassy knoll, he should be easy to locate and interview.(you guys really do crack me up though)
   

Thanks for chiming in, George Wallace.  But, I think you are just a little too confident here.  While this branch does have a few wackos, maybe 1 for every 100 on your side of the world, most people are just wondering whether Cheney managed to use his wealth and position to duck (pardon the pun) a shooting-while-drunk charge.  It appears that even in Texas, shooting a person "by accident" while drunk is a felony.

If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica

I grew up in the south in the 60s.  When a liberal Republican beat a conservative Democrat in Virginia in 1969, the Democratic and Republican parties exchanged members.  This same pattern happened in every state in the south in the 60s, 70s, or 80s.  So, George, when you say you were a "Democrat," you are really saying you were a closet "Republican." 

If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica

Sporting cheeky headgear the Cheney defenders recall his 2 DUIs and 5 deferments.

Cheney should be deferred from investigation as usual. Had drinks before and after the shotting. Get sobered up you louse, you just shot a friend in the face.

By the way, nothing in the Constitution prohibits consensual sex in Oval office, and the Document contains no Sodomy Statutes. DC is a territory not a State and as such is arguably even more vague in terms of such applications.

See also the Marianna Islands, Tom DeLay's sweatships for child labor.

By the way, the Lawyer Cheney shot runs the Texas Funeral Service Commission. Whittington and the TFSC are very close to bush through SCI the company that was george Bush's number four career donor going into the '04 election cycle.

SCI provided the boss to FEMA who left when Jebland's state of FLorida had desecrated Jewish cemetaries and bodies make media news. The successor to the SCI former CEO at FEMA was Mike Drownie. 

Karma's a mofo, glad he got shot in the face. The gutting of FEMA occurred at the hands of people Whittington, Bush and Cheney had direct involvement with.

This is a bigger story than people care to admit, the lobbyist shared the scandalous Abramoff interests and Iraq war profiteering and probably profiteered greatly off Katina-Rove wake funding.

Whittington's interests did.

BTW, forgot to ask.

Do you take yourself seriously, very seriously, or extremely seriously?

Thanks again.

Disagree on "There is no such thing as unbiased reporting". Agree everyone may have some percentage of bias in them. However, there are news organizations that are able to handle their biases and report the news unbiased. Unlike Fox. As I stated however, believe everyone knows Fox for what it is so when a Fox poll comes out you can expect where it is going to be. If there is a negative situation concerning a dem, it is going to get prime coverage; negative situation with a republican, scant coverage.

Jon

You can disagree, but it's true. Switch Dem and Republican and insert "ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/NPR/PBS/MSNBC/BBC" for Fox into your paragraph and it's just as acurate.

Thinking you are unbiased doesn't make you unbiased. Just like believing a story is true doesn't make it true, no matter how many phoney documents you produce to support it.