Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Cheney Scheduled To "Shoot From The Hip" - Authorities Notified
That's right. Cheney will be breaking his long silence on the subject of his shooting of a 78-year old man.
Guess who gets the nod for the interview? NPR? The New York Times? Countdown with Keith Olbermann? Of course not.
Faux News, of course. Wow. There's an edgy choice. That'll convince the American public that there isn't a political reason for keeping the story silent for as long as he did.
And speaking of that... let me ask this honest question. And I'd LOVE to hear from supporters of the Vice President, in particular. Forget the "spin answers," too... If the Veep has medical staff that travels with the man, and it wasn't a big deal (initially... that, of course, BEFORE the 78-year old man suffers a herat attack as a result of the shooting), can't you clearly assess the situation and report it out within an hour or two? And if not, then is this REALLY the man that needs to be in the #2 Spot in our government?
So, what purpose does it HONESTLY serve to not talk about this accident... IMMEDIATELY!! Why would the Bush Administration give ANYONE the ability to make a bigger deal out of this story than it actually was? If it was such an honest accident, rather common in the sport of hunting, then what's the big deal? Why wouldn't the Bush Administration turn this into a slightly embarrassing, but short-lived story?
Unless there WAS something more to the story? And I'm not even saying that there is, but why let me ask the question?
Instead, in HUGE part due to the Cheney silence, there are phrases being thrown around like "possible resignation" and "involuntary manslaughter." Way to manage a news story.
But no one has EVER accused anyone in the Bush Adminstration of effectively managing anything, other than a dirty campaign.
Posted by FleshPresser at 2:58 PM /
Opinionnation posted at 3:01 PM
So instead of doing an interview with a far-left NY Times he goes to the number one cable news channel on TV and you whine about it.
You need to curb your phony outrage...it looks bad
FleshPresser posted at 12:34 AM
No, I think you need to take off your GOP issued Dumbo ears and trunk and stop being a cheerleader for just a moment... and look at the issues objectively.
I was obviously being sarcastic about the NY Times and NPR, but it's not that outlandish. He's done just as many interviews for "liberal" leaning papers as he has for "conservative" media outlets, and had he done so in this circumstance, rather than suckling at the teat of Brit Hume, what would Dems have to complain about then? Or, better yet, what about a simple press conference, taking questions from everyone?
But no... he can't be a big boy, and has to hide behind the skirts of Brit Hume.
Maybe he should learn something from his boss, as reported on Countdown earlier in the week:
As the Web site Slate first noted 12 years ago, then-Governor George W. Bush inadvertently killed a deer during a dove shoot. “Karen Hughes and I looked at each other,” he wrote in his 1999 autobiography. “What now? We confess, we both said, almost simultaneously.”
The future president then described himself calling every reporter who had been with him on the hunting trip, giving the details at a news conference. The lesson he gleaned from this event? “People watch the way you handle things. They get a feeling they like and trust you, or they don‘t.”
Compare that event with what happened this past weekend, and tell me which was handled better.
Phony outrage, indeed. I appreciate you stopping by, but wish you had a better answer than the standard spin that comes from every cheerleader - God forbid we actually find fault with someone... even for a brief moment.
FleshPresser posted at 12:50 AM
And one more note... just so you don't accuse me of quoting a partisan source by using Ketih Olbermann's lead-in on Countdown, I thought I would show you what Joe Scarborough said:
But there are a lot of people, I can guarantee you right now, who are very angry, saying, how could you all even talk about—or, Scarborough, how could you allow anybody to come on your show and suggest that the vice president may have been drinking too much when he fired the shot?
And to those people, I say, had the vice president stepped forward immediately, had people been able to come in and investigate it right up front, we wouldn‘t be having this discussion, because we would know. And when you‘re vice president of the United States, whether you are a conservative or a liberal or a Republican or a Democrat, it really doesn‘t matter whether Tucker Carlson says, which Tucker says this—God bless him he says, if you are vice president and you shoot somebody on your property, that‘s your own business. I respectfully disagree.
Jon posted at 6:40 AM
I think these Anti-Bush people are so funny they think unless you look at everything their way you aren't objective. The authorities were notified within the hour by his secret service detail. So all these Bush bashers have is that he didn't schedule a press conference for the Washington Press Corp immediately and they are pissed.
FleshPresser posted at 1:45 PM
OK... for the record... Cheerleader Wingnuts for Veep - 0 for 2.
It's not that there wasn't a press conference scheduled immediately... it's that there NEVER was a press conference scheduled for ANYONE.
The "Authorities" of which you speak were told by the Secret Service not to arrive until the next day, at which point they would be instructed what to do.
As I pointed out, Bush had a similar situation and according to his OWN autobiography, he immediately started talking to as many people as he could... for shooting a FRIGGIN' DEER!
For five days, the Veep cowered, in silence. Not a word. Nothing. Zilch.
You realize, if only for the sake of a future Trivial Pursuit question, that there have only been TWO Vice Presidents ever involved in a firearms incident like this... the other? Alexander Hamilton, who was in a duel with Aaron Burr!! Doesn't that merit at least a tiny bit of attention?
Again, trying to be objective here, this is NOT about BASHING the President, as you want to try and re-direct. (We do enough Bush-bashing here at PTF for MUCH bigger and more important stories)
The question here, which has yet to be answered with anything but partisan pablum, is why the story was mismanaged so grossly - why it was allowed to become as big a story as it was. Was it Cheney who made the call to take the action that he did, or was it someone within his staff who recommended the silence.
My ONLY point here is that the events as they unfolded were incredibly poorly handled. And that mismanagement is emblematic of much larger problems within the Administration, which are often handled in exactly the same way.
Tell ya what... consider it an opportunity to convert someone to your point of view... make me understand. I defy you to, because you're too busy thinking of how to continually defend the indefensible - it must be a hard life for you.
But don't worry. Change is on its way.
Silent posted at 3:41 PM
My only guess is they were waiting to see if he would die. Then they have to make it disappear all together or have someone else take the fall.
The question nobody is asking is how does this make Dubya feel?
His wife killed a guy when she was 17 and Cheney shot a guy in the face as a senior citizen what’s wrong with W?
All he can do is order the killing of innocent Iraqi’s? What he can’t strangle a kid or two to show us he’s a real man?
Maybe he can take-out a hobo or kill a hooker?
Just a thought.
BTW, Cheney wants to know if the guy dies does it still count as a kill?
If any of us commit a crime (poaching) while possibly drunk or with our mistresses can we tell the cops to come back tomorrow when we’re sober or have our stories straight?
And for the record I support Cheney on this. I think all right-wingers should be shot in the face. That or used for medical experiments or organ donations. They need to offers something to society.
Jon posted at 6:10 AM
You have your number backwards; its right thinking 2-0 and that makes you the zero. As I said to your comment on my blog, give me the facts as your left thinking mind sees them.
The fact is the secret service called the local authorities within an hour and you spin that to mean he was hiding something because they have to setup a time for them to arrive the next morning. Where is the fact in what your spin says?
Another fact; the landowner called the local media and informed them or the incident (simple hunting accident) and just because he didn't schedule a Washington Press Conference is because he didn't have any with him (it was a private hunting party). It wasn't some lurid rendevous that I have heard being suggested by some crazy liberals.
So give me some facts as you think you know them.
FleshPresser posted at 11:23 AM
For someone who thought this was a "non-story" you sure do seem to be leaving a lot of comments on it. And while I was going to move on to a few other things that I thought were beginning to become a bit more interesting, I'm going to write a new post, specifically designed to explain what all the "fuss" is about, factually, and in small words, so you'll be sure to understand.
Be sure to keep an eye out for it at the top of the week.