AP Discusses VP Shooting Discrepancies
"There's a reason they call this crisis management," said corporate damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, "and that's because it's a mess."
The short list they go through:
BLAMEIn the first days after the vice president wounded attorney Harry Whittington while shooting at quail last Saturday in Texas, blame was placed on the victim for not announcing his presence to fellow hunter Cheney...
DRINKING
Although there is no evidence that beer impaired Cheney's judgment, initial denials that he had consumed alcohol were wrong...
VICTIM'S CONDITION
In the rush to assure everyone Whittington was "just fine," some important details were left out...
LICENSE
Cheney did not have all his hunting papers in order, as suggested by the White House and initially stated by Texas authorities...
DISCLOSURE
The accident raised questions about the flow of information into and out of the White House communications apparatus...
TELLING WASHINGTON
'Nuff said.
He goes to a lobbyist's ranch, shoots a man accidentally, and is not placed under the same investigative scrutiny as average Joes. Law enforcement did not meet with Cheney directly until the next morning. Seems to me that if there was nothing to hide, the authorities should have been contacted immediately and given the full cooperation of everyone involved the second Whittington was hurt.
Aren't law enforcement officials obligated by law to thoroughly investigate any accident involving a gun? Perhaps that's a state issue, and Texas just doesn't care if a man gets sprayed with birdshot.
by MG at 11:00 AM
47 Comments:
An ACCIDENT, on PRIVATE PROPERTY, involving the VP of the US, while surrounded by a half dozen LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, and the VICTIM agrees that it was an accident? That barely deserves a written report, much less some manner of "investigation." An investigation can consist of one question, or of hundreds of officers or agents inquring for years. It just depends on the situation. This situation? You guys act as if Cheney took a shot at you!
Fucking A, Robert. Are you mental?
If you and I were on private property and you shot me (even accidentally), you think for one minute the cops aren't going to show up to ask you questions?
And if a wife gets shot by her husband in their home and he calls the cops and says "everything's fine, nothing to see here..." you think they will take him at his word?
Officials talked to people by phone - they didn't even show up until the NEXT MORNING.
Stop being a sheep and stop talking stupid.
PS: What law enforcement officials were there and why did they not report the accident? And if the victim was non-responsive, how could he offer any opinion as to the matter?
Wow, you just can't let this thing go...
Actually, in Texas, alcohol and hunting do not mix. Using a firearm, or even a bow while hunting, and while under the influence of alcohol, is a felony. Unless you're corrupt and in power, then it's no big deal.
I should clarify what I said. Using alcohol while hunting is a felony offense in the state of Texas, even if you don't shoot some dude in the face while doing so.
"An ACCIDENT,"
That's the purpose of an investigation, Robert. To determine if it really was just a simple "accident". To say that there should not be an investigation because a conclusion has already been reached is rather circular logic.
"on PRIVATE PROPERTY,"
So if something happens on private property it's not the police's business? Location determines whether or not an investigation should take place? Tell that to all the meth houses, domestic abuses, and date rapes that happen on private property every day.
"involving the VP of the US,"
So the VP is above the law? Elected officials should be held to the same standards as everyone else, Robert.
"while surrounded by a half dozen LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,"
Yep, Cheney was surrounded by law enforcement personnel (the Secret Service). However, it is there sole job to protect him, not investigate his actions or even provide any information in any investigation of his actions. You'll notice that in the official report of the incident, not a single law enforcement agent was used as a witness. Not one. Actually, the only witness used was Armstrong. Not the third hunter. Not the medical personnel. Seems to me like if you have law enforcement personnel surrounding the incident, they're going to be the preferred witnesses. But the SS will not (period!) discuss details of what goes on while they are protecting their principals. They are not witnesses or investigators during that assignment . . . they are shields.
"and the VICTIM agrees that it was an accident?"
Interestingly, local authorities (the ones responsible for investigating the incident) were not able to talk with the victim until Monday morning. What the reason was for that, I don't know. However, since family members & even Cheney himself were able to talk with him on Sunday, there is no garuntee that his "agreement" wasn't coached, coerced or bribed. I'm not saying that actually happened. But let's be real here . . . if it were a couple of "Average Joes", there's no way in Hades the Sherriff's dept would have allowed both the victim & the shooter to talk together in private before being questioned about the incident.
I'm not saying there was a deliberate cover up. I'm not saying that there was anything to actually cover up, like alcohol. But there absolutely were major inconsistencies with how it was handled. "Exceptions" were made left and right that everyday Joes wouldn't be offered. It shouldn't matter if the person involved is the VP, or if his name is Kennedy. They need to be held to the same standards (possibly even higher standards) as the rest of us.
Phil
Echoes in a Nomad's Head
"Wow, you just can't let this thing go..."
-Brash
Oh brrrrrrother. Coming from a right winger, any right winger, that is an hilarious and majorly ironical comment. You have got to be quack-ass kidding, Brash.
"Clinton did it!" Lol.
By the way, Phil, that post you wrote in reply to Robert's post was a well put together post. Of course, Robert's post was as easy to shoot and kill as a canned quail but still, thanks for that. Well done!
Moxie: "If you and I were on private property and you shot me (even accidentally)"
I spit a little coffee on that one. XD
I wonder if the situation would have been handled differently had it happened in, let's say, Massachusetts or Vermont...?
Yes, kudos to Phil for being much more level-headed than I. My patience runs thin these days.
Nicho - sorry about your snarfing of coffee. I love coffee, and would hate to see it go to waste.
Capt. Cool - I should HOPE SO. There seems to be some sort of right-wing view that leads me to believe that if this were a Democratic White House, they shouldn't be held to the same standards as I expect the Republicans to be held to. I wish people would stop getting on high-horses and hold ALL public officials to the same legal, moral and ethical standards they SHOULD be held to.
Not letting this accident go, shows the true nature and state of the Democratic Party.
No Platform, no moving forward.
Offers nothing for this nation.
If I had workers show up everyday with an attitude like that of the Democratic Party, I'd fired their butts.
Oh, wait America DID fire your asses!
Fucking Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You get on OUR ass for "not letting this go", but you are just as bad when it comes to not letting things the Democrats do, go!!
The amount of hypocrisy in the Republican party is disgusting!
Our vice-president SHOT A MAN IN THE FUCKING FACE! I think that constitutes for a story, no?
And don't worry your little heads, I'm sure some other Republican will do something so asinine that this story will soon fade like the rest!
Diagram in Cheney's accident report wrong
Newsday: There is something wrong with this picture.
In the only publicly available, official report on last weekend's accidental shooting by Vice President Dick Cheney, a diagram of a body shows where Austin lawyer Harry Whittington was hit by pellets fired from Cheney's Italian-made shotgun....
There is just something really wrong with this whole Cheney hunting accident. I wonder if Dick didn't go running around in the minutes afterward handing out verbal IOU's for a million to every witness and a billion to Whittington. Friendship is one thing, but the level of shilling going on by Armstrong, the silence by everyone else who was there, and most curious is the apology from Whittington?
Not to mention nearly every aspect from shifting reports whether there was alcohol to the official accident reports has been full of holes.
Sorry but you don't have to be Spock to have trouble computing this one. It doesn't add up.
DicKKK Cheney really blew it. After the "accident", he spent time worrying about his friend instead of taking a poll like The Real President Wiiliam Jefferson Clinton did after the Re-Thugs tried to connect MoniKKKa LewinsKKKy to him or running away and hiding like The Monarch of Massachusetts, Edward Kopechne-Kennedy did.
Cheney = Chump.
He is sooooo politically naive.
Oh yeah moonbatman,
Cheney was "worrying about his friend" so much, that's why he went to the hospital to visit with him and sat by his bedside the night of the shooting. just like I know I would have done.
Oh my bad, I guess he didn't.
CNN today reports that Armstrong had told CNN she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house."
Dick Cheney
Armed and Hammered
lol!!
That hospital appearance by Whittington was still another in an endless string of bizarre Republican photo-ops and stage shows. It was all about Il Duce Dick, not his victim, the guy who stood there with purple bruises and pellet holes on his face, coughing frequently. The whole sorry spectacle was designed to gloss over the VP’s ineptitude and subsequent coverup. And yet the whole absurd performance was covered straight by the conventional media, as if there wasn't anything at all phoney about it. The Texas aristocracy with connections to big oil and Haliburton, meanwhile, nodded approvingly and said nothing further.
The conventional media just went along, as usual, but progressive blogs got it exactly right and so did Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno and other comedians.
I suspect that the tremendous laughter and applause that came from these guys’ jokes was a sort of psychic outpouring of relief that at least SOMEONE out there in TV land is eager to tell the plain truth about what's going on around us.
The US government has gradually descended into moral bankruptcy and criminality. Fascist swine like Karl Rove and the rest of his Republican black shirts lie by necessity, it's the only way they can herd their sheep. They have blood on their hands by lying their way into a pre-emptive, unnecessary war. They've got a leader who has achieved cult status. He’s literally adored, revered. To their subservient and ignorant followers, neither Bush nor Cheney can do any wrong.
The rest of the world looks on, and wonders. How on God's earth can this sort of thing happen again in an allegedly civilized country? Didn't anyone learn anything in the 40s? And again in the 70s?
Apparently not.
John Palcewski
http://www.palcewski.com/JP
Well guys, from what I can find out online this is a "dead" issue, unless this guy "dies" from the gun shot wound.
According to several articles (I can't find the actual law itself) that I've come across online a hunter does not have to report a shooting unless it proves fatal. Kind of messed up if you ask me but it is the law in Texas.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/02/14/bush_got_fast_word_of_cheney_incident/
My one question to the republican trolls on this board is why does it take an independant to fight your battles for you. All you had to do was look up the law. I personally still question the wait to be interviewed by authorities, my bet is the man was drinking which carries a hefty fine. Eitherway it's a done deal. Let's move on to something else. Of course Iggy never did tell me how Gore commited treason or placed my life in danger in his speech several posts back. I never did expect a reply though, his posts rarely have the substance necessary to factually state any point.
Liberal Eichmanns hope
For Whittington's death to come
Black souls, black hearts, ghouls
Gosh I'm glad I'm not a liberal eichmann or I would have to defend myself.
Is that supposed to be a haiku?
Because it's not. Too many syllables in the first line. Try again.
lib·er·al [líbbərəl]
For those who are in such as rush to be asses....and who have absolutely NO idea of what the Constitution means, let me try again.
Private Property - that means that unless there is some manner of probable cause, the police can't show up without a warrant. Probable cause would exclude the necessity of the warrant because of a crime being committed. Apparently, none of the locals believed there to be a crime committed.
I didn't say they would ignore it because it was private property. I never said there wouldn't be a local LE investigation. Local law enforcement, if told by other law enforcement that it was an accident, kinda go with the benefit of the doubt. Kinda like Massachusetts does with Ted Kennedy.
The victim said it was an accident. You wanting Cheny tossed into jail the minute it happened? There is no requirement for an immediate investigation. In cases of these kinds, there is little physical evidence to gather, so the investigation is by interviews.
Above the law? There was not even a hint that he had violated any law. The drinking? The human body absorbs and eliminates alcohol at the same rate, basically one drink per 60-90 minutes. If Cheney had consumed 4 beers between 12-100, and full absorption takes 60 minutes, then by 500 pm not only would he not have been under the influence, but his body would have elminated the alcohol.
But since he didn't frink but a beer at lunch, it is a non-issue.
but please, give the left as many microphones and newspapers and tv shows as possible....Every day helps the GOP in November.
Christ on a stick Robert you really just don't get it.
From the beginning this issue has been about the secrecy. True to form, Cheney hides in the shadows. As a public official, he should not have such a luxury. If the right-wingers wanted the right to know all about Clinton's dick, then left-wingers have the right to know what the fuck happened on that ranch. Quid pro quo.
Or do you think that shouyld only apply to Democrats and Republicans should be allowed to do whatever they want?
PS: Before you get all whiney that we already know everything, I don't call it knowing everything when reports are inaccurate and misinformation is spread.
"For those who are in such as rush to be asses....and who have absolutely NO idea of what the Constitution means, let me try again."
-robert
May I rest my case now Robert, based on your above quote, as I wrote in another post, that you like to believe that you are dealing with morons?
You apparently like to be thought of as a constitutional scholar. You like to believe yourself to be so much more knowlegeable about the constitution than the peons you are affording your time for, and stooping to deal with. Perhaps you could clarify for us what it is that Bush and Gonzalez, and the others in Bush's adminstration, have failed to understand about the ammendment to the Constituion of the United States posted below? The ammendment makes clear, to me at least, that Bush either doesn't understand the constitution of the United States, or he is in the process of null and voiding it. I base that assumption on his penchant for ignoring the FISA Court, and then declaring himself above the law and above and beyond being held to the United States Constitution--as I read that constitution to mean.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
First, what happened with Cheney had nothing to do with government or politics. Sure, there is freedom of the press to report it, but there is no constitutional right for anyone to be GIVEN information that does not affect government or actions in an official capacity. You may not like the fact that the info wasn't released as early as you would have liked, but there was no legal duty to release anything. A PR nightmare if nothing was released? Sure. But not illegal.
Moxie, I don't think anyone should be able to do anything he wants. What I want is for people to spend their time on the important stuff, and not on things that have absolutely no bearing on conducting the business of the country. I think I have been consistent in my remarks about things applying to both parties, and all Presidents. I could care less what happened at the ranch in Texas with Cheney, and have even less interest in whether Clinton had an affair. Other than the perjury, I wish the GOP had not even mentioned it. They wasted alot of time, effort, and money over things that had nothing to do with the running of the country. That also was a non-issue to me.
What they understand about the 4th amendment is the word "unreasonable", and of course, the stare decisis that rules what government can do. There is no absolute right in the US Constitution. NONE. We are secure against UNREASONABLE searches, not against ALL searches and seizures. The NSA surveillance falls in the category of at least two of the exemptions to the warrant requirement. (exigent circumstances and imminent discovery).
What I get is that the left has no desire for real national security, and has no idea as to the level of threat against the country.
What I get is that the left has no desire for real national security, and has no idea as to the level of threat against the country.
Really? That's funny, because that's the idea I get from the neocons. Since they've done exactly nothing to make us safer, and in fact have put is in more danger during their corrupt regime, I'd have sort of thought they had no desires for real national security (except for saving the white millionaires and protecting corporations, of course.)
What they understand about the 4th amendment is the word "unreasonable", and of course, the stare decisis that rules what government can do. There is no absolute right in the US Constitution. NONE. We are secure against UNREASONABLE searches, not against ALL searches and seizures. The NSA surveillance falls in the category of at least two of the exemptions to the warrant requirement. (exigent circumstances and imminent discovery).
That's hogwash, Robert. There is no way in hell that the Bush adminstration has performed thousands of wire taps and searches and had not one of them be unreasonable or without the necessary Probable Cause!
Before Bush pulled this bullshit undermining of the constitution the FISA court had been presented with more than 1,800 requests for warrants. A handful of them were turned down. That's a 999 Plus percent batting average. There is absolutely no excuse for the Bush administration to have broken the law. They could legally perform wire taps, searches, what have you without a warrant for a period of 3 days. So, the only possible reason that I can see for it that they don't want to account for wire taps on, lets say, their political enemies. We've been her before.
I cannot consider anyone who understands all of what I have just written about the facts of the FISA court and law (which is indeed facts, not opinions) who would then continue to defend Bush's actions on the basis of quivering in fear of terroism to be anything other than wantonly ignorant, a liar, a scared pathetic person, or all three.
There is no excuse whatsoever to undermine the constitution or the FISA laws under the guise of 'protecting the country'. I'm sick of being lied to. Why aren't you?
What I get is that the left has no desire for real national security, and has no idea as to the level of threat against the country.
Robert
What has the right done to increase our national security? What? Can you name one thing?
They created the bureaucratic nightmare in the DHS which was made painfully by Katrina that it is not an improvement in anything. What a complete waste of money.
They got a cummulative 'F' from the 9-11 commission for what steps they have taken to thwart the terrorist threat.
They forced a war based on lies in Iraq that our own CIA now says is the largest ever training ground for terrorists that has fueled an increase in terrorist recruitment worldwide.
As Moxie points out in the post above this one, "Under the Clinton administration, the bureau's antiterrorism budget has soared from $78 million to $609 million, while the number of agents devoted to counterterrorism has jumped from 550 to nearly 1,400. Twenty percent of the FBI's budget now goes to fight terrorism, up from just four percent in 1993..."
What has the right done?
oh, and there's a lot more...
They are trying to outsource our ports to the UAE?
The Right sent 13,000 troops to find bin Laden, Zawhiri, and Omar but caught or killed none of them before they sent 130,000 troops to Iraq to get Saddam.
Now the Pentagon admits our troops are stretched to their breaking point because of it.
The Whitehouse has been pushing qualified weapons experts out the door at the State Dept in favor of political cronies.
Why do you think the Left doesn't understand the threat? What has the right done to make us safer?
Do you feel safer? I don't.
First, wiretap is the wrong term. Thee were no wiretaps involved here. It is an important distinction. No one was individually targeted, as there first had to be something that made the NSA catch the conversation. So no big, bad man in black went to your home in a cable tv uniform and installed a listening device on your phone.
The FISA court is slow and ridiculous. Not to mention that the FISA court doesn't trump the U.S. Constitution. I know you guys live and die by court rulings.
I know that the US is much safer than before 9/11. There is an operations center that has 24/7 liaison with ever intel organization and every other org who is involved in homeland security. Agencies talk more.
Not to mention, there haven't been any domestic attacks in 4.5 years. Surely you don't believe that to be coincidence?
We have killed thousands of terrorists in three other countries. I think it is a great start.
The left opposes, without an alternative: The Patriot Act, War in Iraq, War in Iran, Surveillance, Border Security,Interrogations of the enemy, Holding the enemy in miltary prisons, national security secrets, and U.S. sovereignty. I would think it would be pretty clear. Why don't you guys just admit you don't like America and wish we were french?
Robert,
No one knows how the system really works. the whistleblowers so far allege it is a system of wiretaps that begin by some type of speech datamining program. As they explain it in James risen's book, which must have been pretty damn accurate to have gotten all of this uproar about it, once a datamined call is picked up and deemed to have useful info, they begin a full time wiretapping not only of that # but of all incoming and outgoing #s to that #, and it isn't limited to intl calls either. acc'd to the book, the program involves "wiretapping" of millions of #s, most of which have only a tangential connection to the call that first aroused suspicion.
This has apparently snowballed into full time wiretapping of "millions" of #'s, or as the Whitehouse admitted, an average of 500 or so active conversations at any given second. Think about that for a second. "average" that means 100 or so in the middle of the night and thousands of simultaneous conversations during peak hours, and again, that's the whitehouse admission. With no oversight by anyone, we don't know wtf it really is but it's a safe bet it's more than they say.
This apparently has generated mostly false leads and useless info and everyday conversations between people with no involvement with terrorism except they were somehow connected to a number that was called by or called to a number that itself may have only been called by a number by someone who spoke in farsi, and so on.
I'm sure Kevin Bacon's been wiretapped by this program by now several times.
Everyone wants wiretaps to continue, but not in such a way that only the Whitehouse has control over it. The whistleblowers have alleged misuses of the system, without elaborating, but it is inferred that they have targetted conversations for other criteria other than terrorism. Political opponents?
How would we know?
The left opposes, without an alternative: The Patriot Act,
As should all people who don't like the constitution being trampled.
War in Iraq
Most people think we should go after our actual enemies instead of creating new ones.
War in Iran
Iran has done nothing. They have the right according to the nuclear prolieferation treaty to develop nuclear energy sources.
Survelliance
No, only unauthorised, unconstiutional surveilliance of private citizens.
Border Security
Really? This is news to me. Have some proof of this or just talking out of your ass again?
Interrogations of the Enemy
No, just torture. The anti-torture legislation was sponsored by two Republicans, in case you might not have been aware of this. You don't seem aware of much.
Holding the enemy in military prisons
No, just illegal detainment of people who have not been charged with anything.
national security secrets
Wow. You mean like disclosing the name of an undercover operative as political payback for her husband trying to debunk the administration's false claims?
U.S. sovereignty
Here's an alternative. Peaceful, diplomatic solutions with war as a last resort? Oh wait, that would make America "soft" wouldn't it?
I have thoroughly enjoyed debunking your BS. Please provide me with more.
So you think that Congress is more trustworthy than the White House? Since Congress was informed during the Bush Administration from the first surveillance, they have apparently let you down. I didn't hear a peep out of the left when it was done by Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
Nothing has been refuted. Some left wing rhetoric in an attempt to justify the refusal to accept the threats against this coutnry, and your unwillingness to take a stand. Diplomatic solutions from people who fly aircraft into buildings and use 12 year old girls as suicide bombers? I don;t think that sounds like a reasonable approach from people who are unrreasonable.
Iran? You think we should allow Iran to go nuclear? You believe them to have peaceful intentions when they say that Israel should be wiped off the map?
Border security? Who continues to espouse the welfare state? Who opposes preventing illegals from accepting government services? Who mollycoddles those who are here illegally? Not me. I say mine the border, erect electric fences with lethal amounts of juice, refuse ANY service for illegals, and see what happens then.
But I guess their feelings are more important than the security of the US.
Why don't you guys just admit you don't like America
-Robert
Robert, why do you hate America?
Nothing has been refuted. Some left wing rhetoric in an attempt to justify the refusal to accept the threats against this coutnry, and your unwillingness to take a stand.
Robert
I'll ignore most all of your list of bullshit strawmen that you religiously post about the left everytime you post, and go on to just one of your fucked up strawmen, Robert.
I think we would do well to take a stand against real threats to this country not made up ones. Taking a stand against trumped up threats like the trumped up threat the administration BS'd us into Iraq with has been a horrendous waste. Aside from the horrible toll on life and limb, that has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars. It is projected to eventually cost us 2.6 Trillion Dollars. That cost will include tending to the veterans who have been wounded, physiclally and mentaly, from our misadventure in Iraq. That is a cost we can not afford if we are to competently take on the real threats posed to this country.
Oh, and yes, Sans did debunk all of your previous crap quite convincingly. For example, Robert, could you explain to us how you could possibly know who the administration is spying on and why? And how it is that the FISA court, according to your comments, is cumberson but yet they have mangaged to take on a huge number of warrant requests over the years? You just talk out of your ass Robert. You are grossly illinformed. Not to mention, a prevaricator. And that crap about the list of presidents... more debunked nonsense, Robert. None of them did what Bush has done, and none of them broke the law. Only the current president, the object of your affection, George Bush, has broken the law.
Are you secretly in love with George Bush, Robert, or what? It's a mystery how else you could justify your mind bogglingly blind devotion to him.
Did terrorists fly planes into buildings?
I dare you to watch this video all the way through. I've been ripping it to dvd and handing them out. It'll blow your mind. I've even gotten 3 professors, conservative political science profs at W&M mind you, to watch it. Every single person who has watched this, without exception, now questions what did really happen on 9-11. I won't say it proves what really did happen, but it raises valid questions.
Loose Change II
Sit at your computer and pause it when it uses an article as a referrence, and google it. The documentation, and video evidence is solid. I don't like first hand accounts so much, because they are flimsy, but there is a lot of holy craps in this video.
Another good one
Hijacking Catastrophe
Robert, you are an unbelievable piece of work. You accuse me of "rhetoric" when you post nothing but neocon rhetoric. I'm still waiting for you to answer how we are safer as a result of your Fuhrer's foreign policy or lack thereof creating new terrorist cels in places they were not previously. Oh wait, much easier to throw up a strawman than address the facts. Is your last name Novak?
Americans have given up attempting to dialogue with the Sunni Arab Resistance, preferring instead to deal with the tribes. This attempt has not gone well. The Americans paid $20 million to set up something called "tribal militias," money that appears to have simply been embezzled.
Iraqi Accord Front member Shaikh Khalaf al-`Ulyan called on the US government to direct its efforts toward the Iraqi resistance groups, saying that it had been a huge error to focuse in Ramadi on tribal chieftains who in fact have no influence, and some of whom had not even been in Anbar province for years. Shaikh Farhan al-Sadid also emphasized that the Americans would get nowhere with security in Anbar until they talked directly to the armed resistance.
http://www.juancole.com/
Another example of the incompetence and ignorance of the Bush administration?
Cheney, an avid hunter, usually visits the 50,000-acre Armstrong Ranch, settled in 1882, once a year. He also hunts regularly at sites in Georgia and South Dakota.
Lurching back to the original subject of this thread for a moment: I got that quote from one of the first reports put out about the "avid hunter's", Cheney's, blasting an old man in the face with birshot story. What I'm wondering about is how driving around in a car, stepping out of said car, and then walking a few yards into an open field to shoot canned quail could be referred to as hunting. Very macho indeed. Wouldn't you all agree?
Robert: "Why don't you guys just admit you don't like America and wish we were french?"
Words to the wise:
"{Conservatives] love America like a four year-old loves her mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4 year-old everything mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That's why we liberals was America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good.
When liberals look back on history, we see thing we're very proud of. And we also see some things which might have seemed good ideas at the time but turned out to be mistakes. And some things we did, well, they were just bad. That doesn’t keep us from loving our country, it's part of loving our country - it's called honesty. What do you think is more important to a loving relationship: Honesty or lies?"
Robert, to be completely honest with you, I don't think you're a stupid person. Unlike the trolls like Iggy, you actually will take the time to explain your side of things and that's something I respect you for. But when you fall back to the old talking points which lose relevency which each repeating, you lose that credibility with me as converstaions turn into name-calling episodes.
Stick to what works - facts, not increasingly insipid rheoric.
I say mine the border, erect electric fences with lethal amounts of juice
--Robert
Gosh, Robert, what a swell idea. Halliburton has been contracted - once again, no bid contracted - to build "Immigrant Detention Centers" in the U.S. Maybe they should include in their blueprints something like what the Confederate Andersonville Prison had during the civil war.
In January of 1864, slaves from local farms were impressed to fell trees and dig ditches for construction of the prison stockade. The stockade enclosure was approximately 1010 feet long and 780 feet wide. The walls of the stockade were constructed of pine logs cut on site, hewn square, and set vertically in a wall trench dug roughly five feet deep. According to historical accounts, the poles were hewn to a thickness of eight to 12 inches and "matched so well on the inner line of the palisades as to give no glimpse of the outer world" (Hamlin 1866:48-49). A light fence known as the deadline was erected approximately 19-25 feet inside the stockade wall to demarkate a no-man's land keeping the prisoners away from the stockade wall. Anyone crossing this line was immediately shot by sentries posted at intervals around the stockade wall.
As an aside, I have been to Andersonville. About 8 or 9 years ago there was a TNT(?) original movie about it, and it was filmed on location. Horrible conditions, horrible atrocities.
Nicho, be careful or your liberal card will be pulled! I appreciate the remarks, and if there was something personally offensive, as opposed to politically offensive, then I apologize.
More than likely, no one here will change my mind without a logical argument. All of the Bush hatred and evil Haliburton, etc. isn't logical argument. I am well aware that I will probaly not change anyone's mind here either. We start at diverse points on the spectrum, and have different goals and objectives. What confounds me is the objectives of the left. I hear nothing but obstructionsism and ill will towards everything not left leaning.
I do not drink the GOP Kool-Aid. I am angry about the lack of permanent tax cuts. I am angry that social security isn't reformed. I am disappointed that the GOP controls the government and doesn't know how to capitalize on the opportunity. I don't like the Bush Administration's lack of effort on illegal immigration and controlling the border. Anyone like Tom Delay who is guilty of coruption should be prosecuted. I am not a GOP hack, and I converse with my representatives when the party fails to work toward making things happen.
I do engage in hyperbole from time to time, and on occasion, ask wildly thetorical questions to make a point.
I do not know, nor should I, who the NSA is listening to. Should we publish it in the paper? Maybe have an internet site where everyone can check to see if they have been monitored. I don't care if they listen to me. They can sit in my house anytime I am on the phone. i made the comment before that I would be happy for them to, as long as they report who my teenage daughter is talking to at 1100 pm. Talk about state secrets....I can't crack that code yet...lol.
I am staunchly conservative, and proudly so. Do I often accept the GOP points of a position? Of course. Do I agree with every one? Of course not. I do, however, take national security seriously. When an American citizen is convicted of a crime because of illegal conduct on the part of government, I will stand up and oppose it. Until then, I hope they listen to every phone call that could possible even be the third cousin of someone's wife's best friend if there is some connection to terrorist threats.
I do not know, nor should I, who the NSA is listening to. Should we publish it in the paper? Maybe have an internet site where everyone can check to see if they have been monitored. I don't care if they listen to me. They can sit in my house anytime I am on the phone.
--Robert
Nicho tried to give you some credit by saying that he thinks you're not stupid. I don't know if you are or not. That's why I think, as I have always told you, that you are deceitful in your comments. The above comment is a very good example of how I can not be sure if you are either being deceitful or stupid.
You see, the issue isn't about if you care if the NSA listens in on your converstations. Although, whether or not you care about your personal privacy is of no concequence to what others might care about their own. It's like you might say "I don't care if we torture all brown people because I know it won't effect me because I'm not a brown person". It's an incredibly selfish and self serving attitude to hold, Robert. For you to think that your own personal privacy druthers are any part of the issue as to whether or not it should matter to Americans in general if Bush supercedes the laws of the land is a grossly self-centered attitude. But more importantly, it completely misses the point of the issue at hand. Accountablity...oversight of the executive branch is the point. The FISA court, the congress of the United States and the people of the United States have a say in upholding the laws of the land and holding accountable the executive branch for their actions. And, as I have told you before, and as you would easily know yourself if you are not stupid, the court overseeing the adminstration in this matter would have no negative consequence (beyond privacy matters) on your wife's best friend unless your wife's best freind is in cahoots with terroism or involved in the planning of terroist threats.
Also, on the issue of deceit, you acted as though I was literally asking you if you know who the Bush administration was spying on. Obviously I wasn't asking you that. Which you either know and are now being deceitful, or, if you didn't know, you are being stupid. I was calling you on the fact that you had already implied in your previous post that you did know something of who NSA has been spying on, and that was how you concluded what you had concluded in your post. I, of course, knew that you were talking out of your ass.
So, in a possibly too late attempt not to run on here, I'll just remind you that I can't tell if stupidy or deceit is the main factor in how you post. I know without a doubt that you are misleading and flat out deceitful in many of your posts, as I believe you repeatedly were once again in your last post. You have to have been or I can only conclude that you aren't working with all of your marbles. For you to, for example, have honestly thought that I asked you if you might know who the NSA is listening to, and for you to think that I would suggest that we publish it in the paper...well, WTF. Pretty stupid remark, if it wasn't deceitful, strawman-rhetoric, no? You might claim that all of that was rhetorical. If so, it just adds to how your decietfulness causes you to come off as abhorent.
When the Democrats take back the Presidency in 08 or 12 or whenever, will it be OK then if they wiretap and read the emails all of the Republican officials and party leaders? And while they are at it, do the same to all of the Right leaning blog operators and any other party strategists? Shit why not do the same things to all of the College Republican leadership too?
If the program will have no other oversight then the Executive branch could use it anyway they want, and don't think they won't. Of course they will.
Especially if Sen Pat Roberts passes the new version of the state secrets act he just proposed, it will become illegal not just to whistleblow on the President for any such abuses, but to even report it in the media. No one will be able to bring a case against abuses of the power because they will get thrown in jail, the leaker, the reporter and the editor, will all be guilty, even the guy who ran the printing presses and whoever delivered the paper to your door. What's more, as the law is proposed, it will be against the law to read it or watch it on TV. And if someone publishes something on a blog about it, straight to jail too.
So when the Dems get that power, and they will one day, just remember which side of this issue you were on when it mattered.
Post a Comment
<< Home