Joining the Cheney spec-fest
I was over at firedoglake (for Koufax-related research - really!) and came upon Cheney's interview with Brit Hume as reported by ReddHedd. One of Cheney's statements puzzled me (Redd's paraphrasing):
Struck on the right side of his face, his neck, and the right torso. Ran over to Whittington who was laying on his back, bleeding, could see where the shot had struck him. Fortunately, had medical team with him -- always have one wherever Cheney goes -- and his physician's assistant was there to administer treatment. Cheney spoke with Whittington, and Harry did not respond.
See, I kinda remember the original story being reported on Sunday as such:
Katharine Armstrong, the ranch's owner, told The Associated Press that the accident occurred after Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of a car to shoot at a covey of quail.She said Whittington went to retrieve a bird he shot. Cheney and the third hunter, whom she would not identify, walked to another spot and discovered a second covey of quail.
Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," said Armstrong, who was in the car.
"The vice president didn't see him," she said. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."
Armstrong said the shotgun pellets broke the skin.
"It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn't get in his eyes or anything like that," she said.
Well, those stories don't jibe, do they?
And then I read this somewhat more detailed account of the day's events:
Cheney and another hunter, Pamela Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland, moved onto another covey of quail, which Armstrong estimated was 100 to 150 yards away.Cheney fired at a bird just as Whittington rejoined them. Armstrong said Whittington was in tall grass and thick brush about 30 yards away, which made it difficult for Cheney to see him, although both men were wearing bright-orange safety vests.
So I returned to Sunday's original NYTimes article:
The Associated Press reported that Mrs. Armstrong was watching from a car as the vice president, Mr. Whittington and another unidentified hunter got out of the vehicle to close in on a covey of quail. She said Mr. Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, as his hunting companions walked to another spot where they found a second covey of quail.
Has anyone asked, how did Katherine Armstrong see this entire incident in such detail? Dick Cheney couldn't see Harry Whittington and he was supposedly only 30 yards away, due, according to Armstrong, the tall grass and thick brush. So how did Armstrong, who now admits that she was between 100 and 150 yards away (more than a football field) and sitting in a car at dusk, see through the same tall grass and thick brush to give such a detailed account? And how did she know that Whittington did not announce himself from that thich brush and tall grass when she was sitting in a car at least 100 yards away?
(Eric wants to know how they saw the damn second covey of quail when they were 100 to 150 yards away, in tall grass and thick brush, but I'll leave that for the hunters to squabble over.)
Update: Dang, I see from an earlier update by Redd that she already reported on a DailyKos diary speculating on the distance thang. This Koufax stuff really cuts into my cutting edge reporting....Back to compiling....
Update: Honest truth - Last night, as I lay falling asleep, I thought to myself, "We'll never know if Cheney was drinking... But what about Whittington? He was in the hospital and they must have done some bloodwork which would indicate his blood alcohol level." Well, just a minute ago on NPR, it was reported that hospital officials where Whittington was confined were unwilling to discuss his blood alcohol level. "No Comment." I though Mr. Whittington waived his right to patient privacy.
Comments
Cheney also admitted to drinking alcohol before shooting his friend. He says "one beer."
Posted by: dwight Meredith | February 15, 2006 06:39 PM
Seems like they gave themselves plenty of time to get their stories straight. But that's what happens with conspiracies. They bog down in the facts occassionally.
Posted by: Neil Shakespeare | February 16, 2006 01:20 AM
My take? For whatever reason, he shot the 'liberal lawyer/lobbyist' (Ivins description), at almost point blank range. Harry's lucky to be alive, and he knows it. They briefly showed the shot dispersal pattern on a vic sheet, describing the injury. There hardly was any dispersal of the shot on that document. Most of the shot showing in the chest area, probably 50-100 accounted for right there, with lesser impacts to the face& neck. I don't know if Cheney was drunk, but I do know that most of the 'cover story' by way of his explanation is just pure BS. I'd say that if he had any sort of motive, it'd certainly look deliberate.
Now, think of hunting at or around dusk after downing a few brews and some of the 1,200 birds you would finish off by the end of the hunt. Trying to finish up on the day. A bit harried, possibly a bit tipsy. Running 2 simultaneous hunts with 2 separate teams. Always dangerous even in good light. Probably most of the party w/o all the proper stamps, all drinking or at least tired. Doing 'drive by' hunting in a aristocratic drive & go manner. As Paul Begala puts it, an accident waiting to happen thru arrogant negligence. Sounds familiar somehow. The lies, the cover-ups, the successful media manipulation thru limited exposure. Again. And again. Until they kill someone imporant. On TV. In living color. Only then will it matter to our preening millionaries in the press. Harry W. came damn close to being killed. Only his clothing will be able to tell the tale. They've got powder burns on them, and the remains of the shot wad in them. They've probably been well disposed of or at the very least cleaned by now. They would be able to tell the tale. Cheers, 'VJ'
Posted by: VJ | February 16, 2006 06:25 AM
We get a lot of practice reading between the lines with this crowd, don't we? First, it's obvious Cheney was drunk or they'd have done a blood test to prove he wasn't, and they'd have let the Sheriff interview him right away. Then, the only penalty that has been discussed is the fine for hunting without the Upland Bird stamp. What about reckless endangerment? You shoot somebody under those circumstances around here, you're going to jail. "Just a hunting accident" is bullshit - accident or no, there should be consequences for careless use of a firearm. If poor Mr. Whittington dies, it becomes manslaughter.
Why wasn't he at the hospital with the man? Could you go have dinner with your pals if a guy you shot was being flown to a hospital? I wouldn't be able to leave him, let along eat.
And I must ask, why is a man who is obviously running this country, albeit into the ground, spending so much time with guns? Doesn't it seem something one would defer until after their terms in office were complete? I have trouble believing that the Secret Service allows this. It's a completely unnecessary risk. What would happen if the person who got shot had been Cheney?
Posted by: Morgaine Swann | February 16, 2006 06:30 AM
[More of same, cross posted]
Between them Cheney & Bush have 4 or 5 DUI arrests. Cheney has at least 3 DUI convictions. All this was covered up by the MSM, as was Bush's desertion of the TX Air National Guard during wartime [See here: http://awolbush.com/]. Alberto Gonzales is the AG today only because he prevented Bush from testifying to his DUI arrests Under oath during a trial where he was called as a juror while Gov. Gonzales lied & covered up for him, a prerequisite for any high ranking job in the Bush administration. So undoubtedly Cheney Lied about what happened, and there was another of a long series of successful Bush coverups. Where are Harry's clothing? Shouldn't they be part of any investigation here? Does anyone actually watch CSI? Ever see a program where a big mucky muck was TOTALLY EXEMPT FROM *ANY* SERIOUS QUESTIONING?? Think about it guys. This says coverup. It practically screams it. It was a news distraction to get Cheney's Treason off the front pages. Hey, sacrifices must be made, right? This is the most criminally corrupt, venally incompetent administration in our history. They started a war on a raft of obvious lies that were known at the time, but went unreported by the media establishment. The 2nd VP to ever shoot another man DID nearly kill him at point blank range. And very few people are seriously asking 'Why' beyond accepting at face value something Cheney claims with little or no real evidence to back him up. He's an untrustworthy source, and most American's agree with that fair assessment. If this had been Al Gore in say 1997, he would have been tried & convicted for assault, and the right wing would still be screaming for his pelt. Make no mistake about it, this IS the Republican Chappaquiddick. Cheers, 'VJ'
Posted by: VJ | February 16, 2006 10:51 PM