Cheney Accidentally Shoots Hunter in Texas

This Cheney issue is much more important to the Republicans than it is to the Democrats. It's why they've launched loud, rancorous attacks against people with an understandable curiosity over a vice-president shooting a man, and against the news agencies that demanded some explanations.

You see, the Republican Party bills itself as responsible with weapons. Aside from championing unabashed greed, they see their "We will take care of you even if you won't take care of yourselves" attitude as the biggest element of their appeal. That whole "we're strong on defense" mantra is a major portion of their raison d'etre... it's the item that won them the last election (if indeed you believe they actually won). It's their professed reason for being in Iraq. It's what gets all those poor people to vote against their own economic interests. They have weapons, they know how to use them, it makes them mighty, and, by God, it makes them right.

So, when their leader, himself, proves negligent with a weapon the implications are clear. If he's negligent with his own personal weapon, how can we trust him with the nation's entire stockpile? That's the question that Republicans don't want people asking themselves. When the rest of us assert that Mr. Cheney was irresponsible it's as though we're questioning their manhood, itself. We have attacked their reason for being. We could have called them all gay and gotten similar nasty responses.

I saw an LSU conservative fan confess recently "A conservative must never allow himself to be seen as less than perfect." To that end every shortcoming must be denied, and every accuser destroyed. For the time being, the guns they love are still outlawed as devices to settle controversies, so they're forced to resort to the weapon that's available to them: cheap, nasty lies and denials.

For my part I won't let them forget this incident. Cheney was irresponsible with a weapon, and doesn't deserve to have his finger on the big button.

 

The only people who are angry are the news media and a few Democrats. I believe Chaney should have gotten the news out earlier, but he had reasons for not doing so. Primarily he wanted to wait until he was certain the information was correct. The initial word was that the injury was superficial. If he had gone public as soon as he heard that, then he would have been wrong. So I understand his position. But I still believe he would have been better off going ahead and getting the word out - at least to the White House press corps.

 

As the shooter, Chaney must take the lion's share of the blame. To his credit, he said he is entirely to blame. But the attorney has to take at least a part of it. He should have communicated better.

And as far as you blanket condemnation of conservatives, boy do you have a short memory of Democratic sins. You can disagree with decisions Bush has made, but he never lied under oath (Clinton) and never drove a car off a bridge and departed the scene, leaving his girlfriend in the car to drown Kennedy). In addition, Bush has never denied responsibilities for the decisions he has made, and in case you haven't noticed, government itself - whether Democratic or Republican - tends to be a bit secretive during wartime.

 

You didn't really fall for that, did you?

That makes no sense, whatsoever. All information that came out was from his hunting party and his designated newbreaker, Mrs. Armstrong. So we're supposed to excuse Cheney from speaking because the news he, himself, fed us was wrong? Not only that, if it was so important to get things right, he could have said on SUNDAY that the "superficial" news was inaccurate.

No, I don't think you do.

That depends on whether he was drunk or not.

 

As opposed to the "We will take care of you even if you can take care of yourself and don't need our help, and you will learn to like it" attitude?

My suggested reading for the day is Friedrich A. Hayek's, "The Road to Serfdom". An online, condensed version of this great work can be found at:

http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf

The cartoon version for those looking for an even quicker read than the condensed version is at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1311807/posts

 

I'm sure the White House staff is losing a lot of sleep over that.

 

How are coming with your personal battle against Karl Rove? I've noticed you haven't been around much lately...you must have dug up all sorts of incriminating evidence by now.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

who cares? don't you think you are a little too obsessed with other people's lives? it doesnt affect us. it doesnt matter at all. if cheney and his pals decided to never tell anyone and deal with their thing themselves, that would be fine. stop buying into this media-fed obsession with famous people.

i think he was on crack and was screaming pro-nazi slogans when he shot the guy. and afterwards, he drowned a couple kittens. he is evil and out to get me and you and everything precious.

 

First of all, don't tell me what I do and don't understand. Secondly, it is not unreasonable to wait until the information is correct before making an announcement. Early information is often incorrect. The initial information that the injury was superficial was information he was getting from the hospital - not what had gone out to or from the press. Finally, no one was drunk. Chaney stated he had had a beer two hours before. That hardly constitutes intoxication.

 

Your nonsense is not in any way rescued by repeating it.

You care so little for actual details that you haven't even caught on to the fact that his name is CHENEY, not Chaney.

As if Mr. Cheney would tell the police that he was drinking while shooting! Are you really that naive?

Not unreasonable to wait for an announcement to get the story straight? Once again, that makes NO SENSE, because when Mrs. Armstrong made the announcement it was SHE who described the incident as a mere "peppering" and the wounds merely "superficial."