I see so because 35 yrs ago someone got drunk and had an accident because drunk driving laws and the police at that time gave the man a slapped wrist (and it was wrong), whatever happened with Cheney is ok.

(BTW Kennedy wasn't a VP either....)

I just don't see any logic there. All I see is partisan blindness.

I give up.... Cheney is fucking above the law, he can go out shoot a man and the GOP can say "it was his fault he didn't tell me he was in my line of fire.... it wasn't Cheney's responsibility to make sure his line of fire was clear."

What's next? What do the GOP want to clear their next guy for using events that happened 35 yrs ago as an excuse to give that blank check for?

Bringing up TK is DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED.

Sheesh. Haven't we been through this already?

The thread is pretty much off course. Seriously, it is.

Anyone want to try to bring it back to somthing discussable?

Like, this maybe:

For me, I'm annoyed at how it was handled. Regardless of what any other politician has done, at any time, I have a view of how somthing like this should be handled.

My view:

Cheney shoots the guy. Obviously, the Service is there, and the medics are there. They start helping the guy who has been shot.
The guy goes to the hospital for care.
The local authorities are notified. The guy's family is notified.
The family is brought to the hospital to be with the 78 year old guy who's got pellets in his face and chest.

Cheney makes a call to Bush up in DC. (This happens right after Cheney's made sure the guy's in the hospital okay and the family is informed and has had a chance to talk to him personally.)
He says somthing like:
"Hey dubya, I screwed up while hunting and shot Harry. Yeah...I know...it was stupid....I feel like absolute shite about it...yeah he's in the hospital...yeah the family knows....yeah he's being taken care of.
Man I feel awful. I want to go on TV and get this right out to the public. Let's make sure this is out there, and everyone knows. Yeah....yeah it's thier business, I think so too. Yeah, I am the VP of the US of A, the public totally should know if I shoot a guy. Yes sir, I'll get on the news with this right away."

Then Cheney has a press conference and says "Good evening America, I have to tell you somthing I personally did that was really stupid. I shot a guy while hunting. It was totally my fault, and I feel wretched about it. The gentleman in question is a buddy of mine, Harry, and he's 78 years old. I can't tell you how awful I feel about this. I'd like to ask all of America to put Harry in your hearts and prayers. He's doing okay, and for a gunshot wound it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. I'm sorry I was responsible for such an unfortunate event, and I'll be speaking more about this later. We'll have a Q&A session in three hours."

Now that, that'd have been classy.

Why can't we have that kind of honesty and dialogue with our elected leaders?

speaking of TK...

http://www.mightywombat.com/toons/kennedy.gif

Yes that would have been classy, but as long as you have partisan hatred and people standing up for someone no matter what he does and accuses the other side of a witch hunt no matter what the truth is.... you'll have politicians playing games and doing whatever they damn well please, because they know the partisan card is better than a get out of jail free card.

As demonstrated here, these people will bring up the past, talk about 35 years ago, blame the press for making it bigger than it is..... Jesus fucking Christ the VP shot a 78 yr. old man accidentally or not... HE SHOT A MAN IN THE CHEST FACE AND NECK AND IS GETTING OFF SCOT FREE.... NO CONSEQUENCES WHATSOEVER.

So the jokes are told to make it less serious, the partisans come out and make excuses and Cheney gets off.

This is one of the saddest and most pathetic events in our governments history.

How sad partisanship comes before country and justice.

just wanted to say hi.

ran out of twisted shotgun cheney jokes.

I've been holding out posting in this thread but now i'm gong to post how I feel.

Accidents happen and when an accident happens that does not involve neglegence the person who commited the accident does not deserve nor usually get punishment. However, there is an investigation into the accident to make sure no neglegence occured. Has this investegation happened? We know Cheney had a beer at lunch, maybe he had more than one. If he would have talked to the officers right away we would know if this was a problem or not. But him refusing to talk to them for 14 hours raises suspicion that perhaps he was a bit tipsy. But this is not what irks me. What pisses me off is how the story is being changed constantly. First it was a few pelets hit him from a ways away, then it was well he got hit in the face from a ways away, now it is well he took almost every pelet to the face meaning he wasn't a long ways away and instead was up close. Why don't they come out and tell the truth right away? Why spin the story and make up lies? If it is an accident nothing will happen the only reason to lie and cover things up is if you are guilty of something. What is Cheney trying to hide?

Even if there is negligence involved (and it seems like there probably is), there needs to be a much higher level of negligence for it to be a criminal. Now, I dislike the Devil...er...Cheney as much as the next guy, but I just don't think what he did was criminal. Accidents happen.

What about making law enforcement wait 14 hours after admitting to having a beer that day as well as witnesses saying there was beer at the picnic? Is that an accident to? When I first heard the story I figured 'oh well an accident,' but making law enforcement wait that long is just weird.

I agree with Rekna, covering things up sure makes things look suspicious, otherwise I would give him total benefit of the doubt and leave it at that.

On a side note, would the possibility of him being on half a dozen heart meds that say 'don't operate machinery' make him more negligent?

I havent read all of this, so I'll just chime in with my thoughts.

Cheney pepperd some guy with bird-shot, and got away scott-free.

Yeppers, it's an accident, and in this case wasn't really a very serious one.

In my area alone this year, three hunters were shot by other hunters, with rifles. No one was arrested because, yeppers, say it with me now, it was an accident.

Actually, there were just 30 reported hunting accidents in Texas all last year. So it's pretty uncommon to begin with and when you throw in the fact that he is the Vice President of the United States and has admitted to drinking beer shortly before the accident and that he botched the handling of it afterward (to put it lightly), it's a pretty big story. Is it very important in the grand scheme of things? No, but neither is 99% of what the media normally reports on.

I thought he had one drink a few hours before?
:hmm:

Thats what *he* says. Other witnesses say he had a "few" beers. And seeing as how he put off any possibility of a sobriety test for over 14 hours we'll never know how drunk he was. Also that point about the heart meds is a good one. just how well do heart meds even mix with alcohol anyway? The mix of the two could ahve fucked him up bigtime. But as i said we'll never know cuz there was a cover-up.

It's kind of hard to believe that multiple DUI Cheney had one beer.

It should also be pointed out:
This guy is on a cocktail of drugs, some of which (like aspirin) both heighten the drunken state and lengthen it. It very well could have been two beers that could impair for 4 hours.
And I KNOW his 1.8 million dollar team of doctors that follow him around know this.

It's very irresponsible and suspicious of both him and the police to have completely foregone a blood test.

And I won't be satisfied that Cheney was sober until Wittington releases his bloodwork from the incident and it comes up negative.
(And I know that one person having alcohol in their system doesn't mean another does, but considering the circumstances and deception involved, It's now become very relevant).

It helps in a situation like this if you get the facts straight before you try to make a point.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61cheney1.html
p.s. Salinas is the Sheriff of Kennedy County

And cheney refused the police to interview him for 14 hours where? Smell ripe wiht cover-up. Maybe one day the media will focus on the real news. maybe not.

a reasonable overview of this absurd little farce brought to you courtesy of those fine exemplars of personal responsibility in the bush administration:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...713304,00.html

Hahaha is the left so devoid of substance that they want to make a big deal out of a minor hunting accident?

This would only be a fun story if it were a bipartisan hunting trip.

Hmm...From the people who brought you "it's just a goddamn piece of paper." Who knows if this story is true or not. Although I'll admit all the evidence, admissions, delayed reporting and investigation points to alcohol being the prime suspect in the shooting, however we'll probably never know.

samcol that might be a nice bit of information if you had a valid source for it.

No, prison planet and capital hill blue are anything but valid sources, I'd put more faith in the onion.

I agree. Interesting story and it sure rings true to those who suspect there is more to the story, BUT it needs a link.

Where did this story come from Samcol?

What? The Onion's not a valid news source? :confused:

I'm crushed. :(

Capitol Hill Blue, the link is in the quoted title I belive.

It has a link and it came from where I said. http://www.prisonplanet.com/Prison Planet

Sample
and

Capitol Hill Blue

Sample
At least now I know where some people GET this stuff they post.

I don't understand how speculating that alcohol was involved in this shooting is some kind of conspiracy theory. We have witnesses saying there was alcohol at the picnic, Cheney admits to drinking that day on fox news, Cheney has a history of alcohol abuse, the reporting and investigation of the shooting was convienetly delayed until the next day, the victim apologizes for getting shot by cheney, the whitehouse had no idea what was going on, and the police department was very apologetic as well. Not to mention you have a very experienced hunter making a very rookie mistake of breaking the line and nailing his friend at 30 yards.

Now we have a story come out that claims the secret service may have made a report indicating cheney was drunk.

EVERYTHING points to alcohol. The only conspiracy is Cheney keeping everything hush hush until the coast was clear.

Sorry Ustwo, nothing about this hunting accident indicates that it was just an ordinary hunting accident.

except for the police report.

The police report that allowed time for sobering up before declaring no alchol was involved.

The same police report that doesn't alledge a delay by cheney or anyone else. The same police report where the Sheriff decided it wasn't necessary to question until the following morning.

Then the Sheiff was derelict. He either conciously chose to, or was coerced into, not doing his job. Although, it would be a tough spot to be in...no doubt.

Look...the simple fact is, that whether the Vice President was drunk or not, at the time that he accidently shot a hunting companion, is now rendered irrelevent. The reason, that I say that it's irrelevent, is because we now have the appearance of wrong doing; whether there was any or not. Richard Cheney is not that naive. He's been around the block long enough to know that it would be a major media circus. Therefore, why would he not try to eliminate as much speculation, about the incident, as he possibly could? It just doesn't add up.

It very well could be that there really is nothing more to this than what's on the surface. In fact, I hope that's the case. However...it smells as fishy as last weeks tuna cassarole. And that...could easily have been avoided.

Maybe cause he just shot his friend and was more worried about his well being than looking good to a leftist press who would cruicify him for it anyways.

As you said Cheney is not naive.

Possible. Very possible. I know that I would be. Yet...that still doesn't negate the fact that the sheriff was derelict. Drawing from my previous law enforcement experience, you always get statements, and gather evidence, as soon as possible. The purpose is to preclude colaboration of "stories", and to prevent contamination of evidence. The sooner that you get the "facts" pieced together, the sooner that a real picture of the actual events becomes clear. The longer you wait, the murkier that picture becomes. Of course...just watching any episode of CSI would tell you that.
Point is Sheriff Whatisname botched it. Bad.

I'm not implying that Cheney did anything wrong, other than experience a moment of carelessness, when he should have been his most carefull. It happens.
I am, however, implying-no, I'm outright saying-that it's the appearance of a cover up, that's going to leave a foul taste.

I agree and I have a lot of sympathy for the guy. You are joe Sherrif, you get a call that the Vice President of the United States of America just shot someone in a hunting accident. There are secret service all over the place, you are speaking to the V.P., he says it was an accident. Do you go into Colombo mode or do you say 'yes Sir, I understand Sir, no problem Sir.' He was out of his league and for that I don't really blame him for not following the book to the letter under the circumstances.

Its only the apperance of a cover up if you want to see one. Lots of people would love to see one, so they will pick apart every detail, including a Sherrif who should have gotten a statement right away but didn't and therefore it must be a coverup where they can put all their juicey bits of hersay wrap them lovingly in tinfoil and wear them on their head proudly. Some have cliamed already that Cheney was trying to kill the guy for some wacky nutjob reason or other.

oh...no doubt. This guy didn't know whether to shit, or to cry. All he sees is the smoulding hulk of what used to be his career. I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes.
Here's where we part company. Sheriff Roscoe P. Coletrane had a job to do. Distastefull as it was, he had a job to do. He didn't do it. He failed.
Here's where I think that you're wrong. I think that it already is the "appearance" of a cover up. It IS a true cover up when either you want to see one, or it's proven.

You know I never even caught the guys name. Roscoe? :lol: Anyone else having visions of the Dukes of Hazard?

Yes he fucked up, should we tar and feather Roscoe or should boss Hog deal with it? I don't think we part ways, I'm just seeing where Roscoe was intimidated by the circumstances. This isn't dealing with them pesky Duke boys, its the VP, I'm sure Roscoe looked at it, thought it could wait, and didn't expect the Left Wing version of the Spanish Inquisition. Shame on Roscoe. (That is his name?)

Roscoe's deputy is Captain Kirk :lol: no, really.

No, Ustwo...I made that up. :rolleyes:
I don't know what the hell his name is, either. I just used it as kind of a..."placeholder". :D

The last time I used "quotes from people who have read the report" kinds of references, I got crucified for it.

Not to mention that any Secret Service agent who opened his mouth about it would be looking for a new job within hours.

Wasn't there some kind of legal brouhaha during the (yes, I'm saying it) Clinton administration regarding the Secret Service? Pertaining to making it illegal to force them to testify regarding what they had observed, because of the kind of atmosphere it would create for the president?

Well...since you brought it up...yes, there was a legal brouhaha, regarding the Secret Service. And, justifiably so. That argument, I believe, is just as valid now as it was then. There are, however, other methods of investigation, that do not involve the U.S. Treasury Department.