Cheney tried to kill Harry Whittington
 

My guess is that Harry Whittington wanted a new appointment this time in the Federal Government. If you didn't know -Harry Whittington was W's appointment to the Texas Funeral Commission. This same commission then was involved in a coverup protecting a large Funeral company (SCI) in it's ability to violate federal law. His appointment is up in 2007.

So Whittington made the mistake of thinking that he could subtlely hint that he would write his "memoirs" unless a new appointment was forthcoming.

Cheney shot him on the spot.

My guess is not that he wanted to kill Whittington (pretty dumb way to do it - ineffective weapon, lots of witnesses), but rather that he was liquored up when it happened and doesn't want to be found out.

My best guess at the reason for the delayed reporting of this and the hush hush is due to alcohol being involved. Otherwise there's really no reason to be so quiet about an accident.

Latest news... CIA will assassinate Whittington:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/po...rtner=homepage

I like how he comes out of the hospital and appologizes to Cheney.

"I'm sorry for you Shooting Me" -It makes my case more clear. More like -"Please don't kill me, sir"

Whittington found out too much information. You know when someone in the government says "I could tell you, but I would have to kill you." Well, Cheney told him too much.

Whittington Kicked Cheney's dog when he was young...

Cheney didn't take kindly to Whittington's Brokeback advances after several beers...

Or maybe he didn't take Whittington's rejection well... American Beauty anyone?

lol. just lol. thanks i needed that.

brokeback excursions i guess don't always go well when eventually one of the lovers shows up on the cover of the new york post with a face full of birdshot still drunk days later.

The post trauma apology was great. "I'm sorry for stepping in the line of your birdshot."

Honestly, I think this was all done to send a message to Fidel Castro - old people wandering around with guns tend to get shot.

Oh please....Cheney was just drunk....no need for conspiracy theories when you have lots of beer.

Maybe it was beer provided by the stone cutters.

Hell you don't even have proof Cheney was drunk. Believe it or not, accidents happen while sober too :thumbsup:

It was no accident. The guy was wearing a bright orange hat and vest.

You ever been hunting?

http://12.31.13.175/healthnews/healt...13HD531014.htm

Only someone who knows NOTHING about firearms would use bird shot to kill a man at 30 yards and Cheney being the evil neo-con mastermind that he is would know how to kill a man, most likely using only a chewing gum wrapper and a breath mint.

He was out of chewing gum and breath mints. He used them all to cover up the smell of Kentucky Gentleman on his breath.

At least you HOPE thats what it was.

It may have been bootleg liquor he got from his mafia connections.

Yes, Have you "Dr."?

Aye, and I've fired the weapons in question.

You don't kill a man with birdshot from 30 yards. I'm not even sure if you COULD kill someone at that range with it without some luck. Full on in the face would be ugly, might blind you, but unless you got lucky and nailed a major artery/vein in the neck its not going to be fatal.

Wow, "Dr" that's pretty ironic that you own a Perazzi Brescia 28 Gauge. Do you go hunting with Cheney too? I suppose you go quail hunting and shoot straight at those dayglo orange quail. I always wondered why it was considered safe to wear that orange color. I guess I'll never figure it out... perhaps you can explain it to us.


And it's great that you agree that a neck shot might be lethal.

http://www.myscienceproject.org/shotgun/face.jpg
That's where Cheney shot him -in the neck.

As far as Cheney being "30 yards away" that's what Cheney's lackeys agree on. However the pattern seems like it was more like 20 yards away:

http://www.myscienceproject.org/shot...0ydsmarked.jpg

And he is not dead, in fact he seems in pretty good shape.

Look at that scatter pattern, does that look like a good chance of a fatal shot?

Keep seeing what you want to see I guess.

Not dead yet. -Your answer means nothing.


Considering that a pellet travelled to his heart -my answer is that YES there was a good chance of a fatal shot.

Here you caught me answering your questions when you haven't answered mine. Why did Cheney fire at a man wearing a dayglow orange vest and hat?

I would have thought those answers were abundently clear in the accounts (they were when I had read) and since I was not there I would just have to repeat those accounts.

Cheney was focusing on prey being flushed.

Lawyer walks into the line of fire.

Both were at fault.

You didn't answer my question. How did Cheney not see that he was firing his gun at another human wearing a Bright orange hat and vest.

Saying that he was "focusing on prey being flushed" is a pretty weak argument because he was supposedly pointing his weapon at what he was focusing on. In this case his weapon was pointing at a target wearing a bright orange hat and vest.

The fact you ask this makes me think you have never been hunting or fired a weapon.

Seriously.

700 hunting accidents and 75 fatalities a year hunting. My guess is many of those guy had on orange vests too.

So just to clarify -if someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint -then you question what they say as a lie... Nice -perhaps you should read the rules of this board before you post here.

Considering the glasses that guy wears, his depth of field probably isn't particularly good. When firing at a target moving at the speed of a bird that has been flushed out of a bush, a 28-gauge at full choke (probably tighter than what he was using,) with the shot measured at 20 yards is not simply going to fire a nice circle of shot, but rather leave a trail about 15 feet long in which a target may be hit.

edit: I should also mention that a shotgun is much more precise and accurate than the general population believes (you cannot simply point it in the general direction of the target.) While entertaining, the "Cheney Shotgun Experiment" neglects the fact that the gun was in motion, and does not take into account the fact that shot distribution is not uniform and is not consistent from shot to shot (multiple shots with a more accurate recreation of the circumstances of the accident/conspiracy would settle this.) I would say that the most certainty I could put behind an analysis is that it is 90% likely that the distance between the gun and Mr. Whittington was between 10 and 60 yards at the time he was shot.

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I'm saying that the official explanation is possible and that I consider it probable, while I consider your version of events to be highly unlikely. Neither is entirely implausible, and I would not rule out incompetence/drunkenness or malice based on my knowledge of Cheney. Before arriving at certainty, I think it would be wise to wait and see if any more facts or bits of information surface, that is, if the mainstream media outlets don't forget about it and move on to whatever shiny object catches their attention next.

Your whole argument seems to focus on an orange vest. I've worn those orange vests, I've hunted, and I know that mistakes can still be made. This leads me to question your veracity in this matter. You seek the most unlikely explanation.

The distance (reguardless if it were 20 or 30 yards) the type of weapon, the type of ammo, and the location of the shot would all point to Cheney either being a very dumb criminal or not guilty as you charge.

Logic pionts directly to an accident. Perhaps due to intoxication, perhaps due to simple error, but an accident.

I'm sorry if I don't grovel at certain people's self professed expertise in this field ie. that those people are experts on hunting safety. -It seems that certain people write posts proclaiming to be allround experts on anything. When someone challenges their 'authority' -the personal comments come out. I can cite example after example of this. It's one of the reasons that people don't post on the politics board -for example.

People posting on the Paranoia form shouldn't need to explain their history and be able to post without being "mocked, called names or ridiculed". By saying that I mean that calling me out as a liar is in fact a violation of this rule. Furthermore a tilted search will reveal that I have posted on this subject before -so if I am lying then I am at least consistent.

But one of the rules of the Paranioa board also asks for people to supply "some evidence" of their claims. Therefore, I will provide the names and contact information of several close personal friends of mine with whom I have been shooting and hunting. I will not provide this information to just anybody but rather to one of the moderators of this forum. This should provide evidence that I am not lying.

In this case I think that the character of Cheney should be taken into consideration. Many people (especially his supporters) are too willing to give Cheney the "benefit of the doubt". I believe the opposite. This is a man who is drunk on his own power and has the belief that anything he does -is above the law. example 1, example 2, example 3.

Maybe I am wrong on Cheney's motives. Perhaps he just wanted to know what it was like to shoot someone. Perhaps he is a little irked of the Chicken Hawk label and wanted to privately feel the power of death over life. I don't put it past him.

Certainly if he was innocent of any wrongdoing he would've filed a police report immediately.

If I accidentally shot a friend while drunk, I don't think I would be rushing to file a police report. I certainly don't think that what he did was the right thing, though. I stand by my position that this is what happened, but I understand where you're coming from, and agree that if your version of events is correct, that it fits perfectly. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I also think we need to see more concrete evidence (which I don't think we will) if either of us is going to budge.

As for your point that Cheney believes that he is above the law, I completely agree. He is not ethical or trustworthy, and has no regard for the law. I think that this might also be a factor in neglecting to file a report.

OK...first off....lets all remember this is the "Paranoia Forum"....if this thread were anywhere else..well..we would have moved it in here by now...heh. Secondly, it seems people are taking things a bit too seriously for the good of this thread, and maybe it would benefit everyone if I passed out a round of Chill Pills....thin skin is one thing, going off half cocked (pun intended) is another.

Yeah Yeah....it was a bad joke

If I accidentally shot a friend while sober, my first thoughts wouldn't be on the police report either.

Perazzi Brescia 28 Gauge... way too sweet a gun to whack a guy with. Even if he was a conservative attorney. Wheres the parnoia in this thread? Anyone afraid that Cheney will continue the shooting?

i can see shotgun cheney on the white house roof drunkenly shooting at airplanes and crying because no one will hunt with him anymore. Wearing orange of course.

Interesting Article:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140016

the only thing this story, the hunting accident has shown me, is how bad a lot of people would like to take down this vice president, or if possible, the entire administration if possible, over an accident like this.

the entire thing has gotten my twisted sense of humor going more than anything in a long time and i've had a lot of fun with it and i'm glad it happened. But political fallout is going to be nothing, no matter how they handled it, its still a ridiculous accident.

Still i'd like cheney to wear orange at all times as a reminder not to accidently shoot himself in general or while hunting something. just as a somewhat attempt to keep that wreckage that is him alive. I think it would be good for him, the orange man.

Whittington: "Hey, Dick, have you read that facinating thread on TFP about 9/11?"
*BAM*

Hunting accedent + irresponsible asshat = not a consipracy, but perhaps a failed coverup

I just had an interesting thought, what would have happended if Whittington had 'accidentaly' shot Cheney? Would the secret service shot back at Whittington? Would we be saying that Whittington was a sleper agent for al-Qa'ida? Would he have blamed Cheney for getting in the way? How long would it have taken for the White House to hear about it?

None of the above.

Since Cheney has worn out any assumption of innocence -it should be automatically assumed that Whittington would be acting in self defense.

Well lets reverse the rolls. Cheney stupidly gets in the way and in the one injured. Logic would say if this was a friendly hunting trip the end result would be the same only with Cheney in the hospital saying he made a mistake. There of course would be a whole slew of conspiracy theories going the other way which would even be more entertaining than this one, and many left wing web sites would joking say Whittington should get a medal.

Sorry to bring up bad blood, but I too would question whether you had been QUAIL hunting before Astro.
Not simply 'hunting'. I won't argue that.

If you have, you as well as the others here would know that whilst leading the bird, you are still focusing on it's flight pattern waiting for one of the more common ways that the bird will break in flight and hit them at the most critical part of that flight.

Therefore, your weapon is always pointed slightly AHEAD of the animal, where you expect them to fly, whilst your vision is focussed behind it's aimpoint. Unlike deer hunting where your aimpoint is the same as your point of focus. With this in mind I could easily imagine the accident taking place. Someone also mentioned his glasses, if Whittington was at the edge of the optics as he followed the target it would also make seeing him more difficult.
Also in a walking quail shoot there is much more chance of extending your arc to where it becomes dangerous, unlike a static shoot where the game is beaten toward you and you stand at a safe spot with flags marking the limit of your permitted firing arc.

That said, I believe people could still cast doubts on your claim to be hunting, but only in the aspect of type of hunting. I think the statements made were too general.
'Hunting' as a term is too braod and contains too many different disciplines to simply say that someone has once been hunting and can relate to the situation in hand. Just as I could not claim to ever understand what could cause a formula one racer to crash when I can claim to also have 'driven'.
It's not an attack on you, I just think some things needed to be clarified as to the way they appeared to me upon reading them. If I also got the meaning of the other folks wrong, I also apologise for putting words in their mouth.

Again, you are giving Cheney the benefit of the doubt. He deserves no benefit -especially when there is an obvious coverup.

Obvious is in the eye of the beholder.

It's already been well documented that they did not report the crime in a timely fashion. It's also been well documented that "Turd Blossom" was involved making sure everyone got their story straight.

Well then obvioiusly it HAD to be a murder plot gone wrong. How could anyone doubt it with such evidence? No other rational explanation will suffice. You have won me over.

I'm thinking they just wanted to make the story as simple as possible so that it would pass as 'clean' in all the papers.

If their testimonies DIDN'T match perfectly, you'd still be asking the same questions.

You've never screwed up?
Never been in or caused an accident?
Your story will change each time you try and analyse what happened. It's inevitable.
Eye witnesses are the most useless forms of evidence ever.

They probably got onto their lawyers and spin doctors before the cops. The people on the other side of the phone would have been the reason you have doubts.

The argument that Ustwo is trying to make is valid... but I think he's going about it the wrong way. Perhaps instead of trying to apply Ockham's Razor, it'd be better to apply Hanlon's Razor:

Ockham's Razor (and yes, it is ACTUALLY spelled that way, and Occum/Occam is a phonetic corruption of the correct spelling) states: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

Hanlon's Razor (possibly from Heinlein and the story "Logic of Empire") states: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

I think perhaps the latter is more applicable here?

Stupidity and Malice are not mutually exclusive.

Since I will not actually read anything that UsTwo wrote I will refrain from commenting on it.

And yet...you just did. :confused:

With regards to the legitimacy of these claims... Why not probe further?

http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/28931536/364739

It was an accident unlike Chappaquiddick where someone died.

Sorry but that's rather naive.

People die in accidents all that time.

Unless you're accusing Kennedy of premeditated murder at Chappaquiddick.

A. Are you implying that Chappaquiddick was not an accident?

B. The days of "Yeah, but your guy did..." are over around here. Find another argument.

Of course the outcome of Chappaquiddick was far worse, and there are far more questions in terms of sealed and missing documents there, but your statement itself is kinda pointless.

Driving your car off a bridge into a river is almost as stupid as trying to kill someone with light bird shot in terms of a murder weapon.

Its a shame the outcome wasn't reversed as Cheney's 'target' was a lawyer :p

The title of this thread is "Cheney tried to kill Harry Whittington"
What do either of these two have to do with Chappaquiddick? Can we get off of it, now?

Or...oh, wait...I get it, now. It wasn't Kennedy driving that car at all...was it? It was Cheney. That's why Kennedy couldn't remember anything...he was never there! Whittington found out and was going to go public with it. Cheney couldn't allow that to happen. Now it all makes sense. Of course...

Thanks. I was wondering if no one else here had been quail hunting.

Timely fashion? You mean they didn't tell the Washington press corps as fast as you'd like?

According to this,

Link

The accident happened at 5:30 p.m., and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas contacted Chief Deputy Gilberto San Miguel Jr. "at approximately 1830 hrs" (that's 6:30 pm). Considering the time spent administering to Mr. Whittington, and the time spent calling Sheriff Salinas, both of which had to take place before Salinas could call San Miguel, your conspiracy theory has more holes in it than Whittington.

As I said before -Certain people love Dick Cheney and they have their nose firmly planted between his buttocks. They are constantly making excuses for him. It really doesn't matter what he does.

Gee, Dick -why'd you let Enron rip off California?
http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/cheney.jpg
'Thats none of your buisness'

Dick, why do you let Halliburton steal from the government
http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/sed...ges/Cheney.jpg
'The rules are different in a time of war'

Dick, why can't you shoot straight.
http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/na...1206cheney.jpg
'It's the liberal medias fault'


As far as "my theory" goes:

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...ballistics.htm

Gee it doesn't take much hunting experience to realize that you don't shoot your buddy who is 10 feet away.

http://www.infowars.com/images2/us/1...hot_energy.jpg