Decision ‘08

Cheney Shooting Update

Here’s the latest on the Dick Cheney shooting incident:

(sound of crickets chirping)

(a tumbleweed blows across your computer screen)

THERE IS NO NEWS!

This story is dead! Dead! Dead! Two weeks, and gone without a trace. No meltdown, no resignation, no trial, nothing! Nada! Zilch!

BWWWWAAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAHAAAAAA!

Sorry, Huff’n'Puffers, sorry, Jane, sorry Kos Kidz! You lose again….!

Excuse me while I try to regain my composure…

13 Responses to “Cheney Shooting Update”

1 Muffin the Cat Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Still see a cartoon here and there. They are funny. He does deserve to be ridiculed for his breach of hunting safety. In five years they will still make fun of this event.

I used the Cheney hunting accident at work this week. We have a lawyer that is being a pain right now. I suggested to my supervisor that we tell the lawyer that Cheney is looking for a new hunting partner. My supervisor just about fell out of her chair laughing.
2 AcademicElephant Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
I don’t know, Mark, do you think it’s REALLY dead?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45572
3 ordi Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 2:46 am
It ain’t dead, it now is another talking point for the Dems. They are so secretive, incompetence blah - blah - blah - blah
4 Clint Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Sadly, Ordi’s right.

This nonsense will live on as a line in the leftist Litany of Faith.

You know it: Bush Lied (16 Words!!) — People Died (Lancet Study!!)
He stole one election (Selected not Elected!!!) — then stole another (Diebold!!)
This administration is the most corrupt (DeLay!! Abramoff!!), cronyish (Michael Brown!! Harriet Miers!!) and incompetent (Iraq!! Katrina!!) ever.
They practice the politics of personal destruction (Max Cleland!! John McCain!! Valerie Plame!!).

and so on, and so on, and so on.

It’s effective because each point can be argued in its entirety in less than ten syllables (”Selected not Elected!!”), and to refute any of them requires a detailed discussion of each point — points short enough to insert in the time it takes your opponent to draw breath. (”Actually, an independent media consortium spent months looking at the ballots in Florida, and found that…” “Diebold!!” “… under any reasonable counting scheme… What? Look, even Senator Kerry didn’t find those accusations…”)
5 peter Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 11:55 am
The story died down because there is no new news to report. Since there was no investigation, we have to accept the word of Cheney and his friends at the ranch. However, you can’t deny that it’s news when the VP shoots someone in the face. It’s also newsworthy when the VP and his entourage keep everything secret for nearly a day. Maybe Pravda would have placed the item between the crossword puzzle and the shipping notices. Luckily, we have a free press which can scrutinize and examine what happened.
6 Mark Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Well, there was an investigation, peter, and it was closed as all the participants agreed on the basic facts…maybe Pravda would get the basic facts right, as well (not sure where you’re going with this one - you sound a bit bitter)…
7 peter Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Not bitter at all — just questioning the reflexive attack on the press, as though the story is about the media and not about Cheney –

And as for the left: given the wealth of things to be outraged against, I think that most (if not all) would agree that this is fairly low on the scale.

As for an investigation: if you or I shot someone in the face, and didn’t notify the police until the next morning, do you think the local authorities would leave it at that?
8 Mark Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I guess I just dreamed all those hysterics…
9 megapotamus Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
“if you or I shot someone in the face, and didn’t notify the police until the next morning, do you think the local authorities would leave it at that? ”

If the guy in question is walking around and telling the same story as everyone else, the circumstances as we know them, yes. Sure. Why not? Just what nefarious doings are being secreted here? Was Whittington about to spill some beans? If he had beans before he’s still got ‘em today. Was he actually escaping from that Compound? Was Cheney really in a guard tower manning a 28 gauge? I’m dying to know. But the press treatment IS the more important element. Don’t think so? Cool. Because this is far from the last time the reflexively hostile (to Reps) media will humiliate themselves. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet on this front what with elections in the offing, nor have the MSMers seen the worst of their financial destruction as the credibility of their product evaporates yet faster. Thank you Dan Rather.
10 peter Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
I don’t think it was hysterical at all – the media were doing their job, trying to get information from a recalcitrant administration. Had the information surfaced quickly and accurately, the reaction would have been very different (although a sitting VP shooting someone in the face is a big story, regardless of how it is handled).

As for the delay: let’s suppose that Cheney was driving a car, got into a wreck, and sent someone to the hospital, without notifying the police until the next morning. The guy who was hit doesn’t press charges. No press announcement until nearly a day after the event. Would that sound fishy to you?

As for “reflexively hostile (to Reps) media:” then why is it that Bush (I and II) had a much easier time with the press than Clinton?
11 megapotamus Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
David Gregory and the majority of the press corps were not hysterical? Dana Milbank with his orange hat? The weeklong obsession with an event that was no crime and in which there was no deviation among the stories of those present? M’kay. I wouldn’t want to see what IS hysteria in your book.

Your auto analogy… well, yes that certainly would be “fishy” in addition to being illegal. And regardless of the wishes of the person struck, Cheney would be chargeable under criminal auto laws (assuming he was at fault and fled the scene). But “nearly a day” before a press announcement? I don’t seem to remember such scrupulous regard for the public’s right to know under Clinton. Not hardly. Which brings us to…

As for “reflexively hostile (to Reps) media:” then why is it that Bush (I and II) had a much easier time with the press than Clinton?

That is to laugh. Certainly the Clintons didn’t like it much when their transgressions, illegal and immoral were brought to light but they were both committing both sorts of acts with tedious regularity and used that very tedium as a shield from any prying eyes, which were not so prying. Don’t think so? We will have to go wayback Sherman but it is nothing you do not already know if you were paying attention ‘92-’00. The sad fact is that the press covered up rampant criminality with the Clintons. The Billy Dale affair was the first, in office depravity but the list is long and growing still. The latest thing was this discovery that Able Danger, the data mining operation that had intel on the 911ers was disabled and disbanded because the same operations had uncovered illegal money transfers from China to the Clinton campaign coffers. But that is only the latest cherry on a loathesome, rotten sundae. More to come, no doubt.
12 peter Says:
February 27th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
What defines media hysteria? Well, the media coverage of Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp is a pretty good example. Also Whitewater.

Regarding the hypothetical car crash: what’s the difference between a car accident and a hunting accident? In both cases, someone was injured and it was accidental. However, the normal chain of events after a car accident is to notify the police immediately, who (among other things) check for the presence of alcohol. Had Cheney sent another driver to the hospital without telling the police until the next day, would you say this was fishy? If not, what’s the difference between this and what happened at the ranch?

Rampant criminality by the Clintons? Huh?
13 megapotamus Says:
March 1st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
‘Rampant criminality by the Clintons? Huh? ”

Huh? Huh yourself. You need to inform yourself a bit there, hoss. I notice you have no response to the examples provided. Ever heard of Billy Dale? Juanita Broaderick? I thought so. What a shocker. Sorry pal, get used to being wrong.