Rabbit Season! Dick Season! Rabbit Season!

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

After years of a political landscape that considered it open season on Democrats, apparently things have taken a lethal and possibly fatal turn.

As the White House attempts to claim that they intentionally waited for a public citizen to report the story to the press–as convincing an argument as Pee Wee Herman announcing that he “meant to” take a header over his bike handlebars–Harry Whittington is (let’s face it) fighting for his life as pellets are apparently making a bee-line for his ticker.

Here’s what I don’t get:

Today’s newspaper ran a picture of Cheney from an earlier quail hunting incident. As one would expect, the rifle was tilted at what appeared to be an angle of about, oh, fifty degrees or so, as Cheney prepared to blow helpless birds out of the sky with his WMD–weapon of mass defowling.

Now the reports claim that Whittington wandered “into the line of fire.” Which I would believe if Cheney were trying to kill, say, Bambi’s mother. But he was trying to kill birds that were–unless I missed something–in flight.

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

It should be interesting if, in addition to stonewalling Congress whenever investigations are launched, the White House attempts to stonewall the Texas sheriff.

PAD

176 comments on “Rabbit Season! Dick Season! Rabbit Season!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or so they both claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PAD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Strike one.

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

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

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

    Strike two.

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

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

    Strike three. Done here for now.

    TWL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PAD

  18. It’s the Magic Pellet theory!

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

  19. Cheney’s just a patsy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And I called Falwells speculation on Foster’s suicide “nutty”. Again, too subtle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Is there a conspiracy here? No.

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

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

    My thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

    Ah, NOW who is spinning and constructing strawmen?

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

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

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

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

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

    TWL

  25. Well, it helps when we agree. When we’re picking on creationists we can’t be stopped. 🙂

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

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

    Jeeze. Now even I’M confused.

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Night.

    TWL

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

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

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

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

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

  31. I haven’t read all the comments, but a couple points —

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

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

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

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

  32. Look guys, this is very simple.

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

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

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

  34. BIRDSHOT AT 30 YARDS

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

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

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

    — Ken from Chicago (born and raised cityboy)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Iowa Jim

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

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

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

    Iowa Jim

  37. “How could birdshot do that much damage to a person, thru protective clothing–at 30 yards?”

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

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

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

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

  39. Oh, I do love to stir the pot sometimes.

    Bill, if it’s such a pointless argument, why are spending so much effort to refute it? 🙂

    Oh, and Aquaman would kick Subby’s ášš, because only a pansy has wings on his ankles. 😛

    I just want to check something:

    A-hem.

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

    Yeah, it’s still funny.

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

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

  41. Bill, if it’s such a pointless argument, why are spending so much effort to refute it? 🙂

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

    Oh, and Aquaman would kick Subby’s ášš, because only a pansy has wings on his ankles. 😛

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

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

  43. “I would agree it should be investigated and vetted — by the appropriate authorities, not in the media. “

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

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

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

    Does NOTHING these people do outrage you?

    PAD

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

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

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

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

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

  46. I’m a comic book fan! Pointless arguments are my life!

    And I still think past history supports my prediction.

    That’s “Mr. Pansy” to you, sir.

    Eat it, elf-boy.

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

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

    “I wish I knew how to quit you, Arthur!”

    Okay, I’ll stop now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Utterly worthless.

    At least Aquaman knows how to wear pants.

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

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

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

Comments are closed.