ok, when he is near the nuclear-shooting button, maybe they should put a cover on it so he will not slip and accidentally hit it. maybe he really is accident prone. if so, i am sure we can manage that when it comes to our military arsenal. you are pushing it with your application of personal specifics to broad political behavior.
I'm just poiting out the ridiculousness of it. We shouldn't care about this any more than we cared about who was giving Clinton blow jobs. Yet because this is a republican, Rex suddenly has an interest in it & thinks it condemns the entire administration, when I can almost guarantee he was defending Clinton the entire time.
Because it's simply not the same situation. Hunting Quail is a recreational activity amongst friends, where accidents can happen - usually because of a simple mistake on one or both parties side, not recklessness. Does recklessness cause injury? Sometimes. Do we know whether Cheney was reckless or not? Not really. Nuclear weapons & invasions of countries etc are (supposedly) well thought out, planned, discussed and put into effect over a course of time. You don't just accidently call in a nuclear bombing of a country.
I have been witness to three shooting accidents in my life. Fortunately no fatalities. 1. On a shooting range, (fired during a no fire period with people in the range) result=near miss of a guy replacing targets. 2. In a hunting camp (loaded weapon where it was supposed to be unloaded), result =accidental discharge, wounding another hunter in the leg. 3. and one in the field (fired at movement rather than a clear target), result=shot a cow, who fortunately survived. All were accidental, but the result of recklessness or carelessness by the shooter. And there were definitely people angry in each circumstance. Irresponsible shooters often find themselves excluded from future hunts. I have a cousin who discharged a shotgun trying to pull it out from behind the seat of his pickup. If he had had a passenger, it would have killed him. Many hunters can tell you a near miss story and they often involve some specific cusswork about a careless doofus with a gun.
Nice try, but it's YOUR side that wants to change the rules now, not mine. My side has always said that the public should only be told those things it has a right to know, and that holds now just as it held then. It's your side that wants to change the rules. After launching a $20-$77 million witchhunt against Bill Clinton you now want to cover up for Dick Cheney. And the truth of the matter, that makes your and martin's defense absurd, is that the public has a longstanding right to know when anybody is shot with injury, as evidenced by the simple fact that the police investigated the incident and that their report is public record. On the other hand, the police doesn't investigate blowjobs.
Comparing a 28 gauge shotgun to the US arsenal is a bit of a stretch. The personal inability to properly use a weapon is no more a disqualifier than Kerry's military service was a qualifier when it comes to global military operations. You might as well argue that no human being is capable of properly commanding our military, so let us disband and trust the good nature of our adversaries to play nice. The argument is neither sufficient, strong, or even relevant.
just because a police report is filled out and it public record, that doesnt make cheney or anyone else responsible to tell the press. if somebody stole bush's ipod video (that thing is worth like 350$) and the cops filled out a report, would you feel like they should hold a press conference? a police report does not make for a political responsibility to explain things to rex on rex's terms, even if rex is obsessed. like you said, the police report is public record. you wanna read it, go for it. you have legs and eyes, go to work. after all, you seem to think this is some big story we have a right to know. we dont want you to have to throw out any more incredibly dishonest and politically driven accusations of a coverup.
I give Rex credit for sticking to his guns and standing by what he believes, no matter how many times it makes him look like a complete jackass.
I don't have a side. I make my own decisions. I'm not trying to change any rules. Whether we have the right to know something is not relevent to what I'm saying. I'm talking about whether people should care. I'm not a Republican, quite saying it's my side. A witchhunt is something done for nothing - there obviously was something. I'm not covering up for ole' Dick - I just don't care that it happened, and don't see why you do so much. I haven't, nor has martin, said the public doesn't have the right to know this - just that it isn't really news worthy because it doesn't affect anything. And just for your notice, oral sex is illegal in many states - although I'm unsure of the laws there in DC. Besides, I didn't really care about that - just like I don't care about this.