by hilzoy
My thoughts are with Harry Whittington, who (as everyone probably already knows) has had a mild heart attack.
I said last night that any decent adult would stand up and take responsibility for shooting another person, rather than trying to blame his victim. You step up to the plate; you accept responsibility; and you call off the spin doctors. It’s hard, but it’s the right thing to do. It also prevents repellent juxtapositions like this (from TPM.
AP: “The White House has decided that the best way to deal with Vice President Dick Cheney’s shooting accident is to joke about it.”
Nope. Sorry. It’s not.
Update: Yikes:
“Yet two pellets lodged against his larynx, another was in his liver, and another migrated into the heart muscle, causing the heart attack. The pattern of wounds was between the lower chest and the forehead, a pretty tight zone for shot of 30 yards. If the range was considerably less than 30 yards, then it is likely that Whittington’s injuries were worse than the initial statement by Katharine Armstrong indicated.”
Is there a doctor in the house? Can a pellet travel through the blood stream?
No no no hilzoy, you’ve got it all wrong. Since it was Whittington’s fault, it is he who should apologize to Cheney for putting Cheney in this position. Sure it’s hard to do from the ICU, but Cheney is the Vice President of the United States of America, after all, and deserves better.
Brought to you by the same people who thought Fitzgerald should indict Plame and Wilson.
Compassionate conservatives are an extinct breed. Now they just flip the bird.
Kieran Healy asks the excellent question, what if W had shot C in this way?
If I shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun, will I also not be charged?
Smiley: If I shoot somebody in the face with a shotgun, will I also not be charged?
I’ve been indulging in discussion over at TalkLeft, and it seems clear that, even if Whittingdon dies – which let’s hope he doesn’t – Cheney isn’t guilty of a homicide – at worst, it would probably be involuntary manslaughter. But, it was most likely merely a careless accident. (And Cheney seems to have avoided a breathalyzer test, so he has to be assumed to have been sober at the time.)
So, basically, yes. Apparently if you’re out hunting and you accidentally shoot one of your fellow hunters in the face, even if you are clearly to blame and it was the result of appalling carelessness on your part, you won’t be charged.
Uh, hilzoy… I think this goes straight to the issue which dare not speak its name (but about which bob mcmanus and others are, justifiably or not, sensitive). What do you mean by “best?”
From the WH point of view the “best” way is most definitely to joke about it. You may find this repellent, but that’s only because you’re paying attention. People who pay attention are still a very small minority.
spartikus I’m not even an EMT, but yes, and supposedly this was pretty small (2.5mm) shot so it wouldn’t have needed a major blood vessel. And as long as I’m commenting outside my field, let me say that Mr. Whittington strikes me as a very lucky man with some high-quality medical care.
This is a 78 year old guy who had piece of steel either upstream from, or possibly actually striking, his heart, yet he got off (apparently) with most of his heart intact. And note that when you have solids running around loose in your upper circulatory system you can just as easily have a major stroke as a minor heart attack.
Jes, I bow in the general direction of Jeralyn, but here’s a counterexample via FDL.
Hi
I know you guys are interested in human rights wrt rendition, etc. If there are any Aussies reading this, this morning’s SMH says:
“Tonight the SBS Dateline program plans to broadcast about 60 previously unpublished photographs that the US Government has been fighting to keep secret in a court case with the American Civil Liberties Union.”
Also via FDL: A beer or two appears. Then disappears.
I’ve just discovered something quite remarkable, I think, and possibly important. Please see this.
Perhaps it’s all minor, and just technical, but it appears Vice-President Cheney at least technically broke the law and owes a fine for not having that $7 license stamp, but remarkably, he apparently, according to the timeline given in the fresh Washington Post story, managed to shoot Whittington — if my figures aren’t off, and I’m not mistaken, which is always possible — just one minute, precisely, after the legally allowed hunting time.
See my post.
Please note that I may have made an error in some way, and that the Washington Post timeline might be wrong.
Please let me know, anyone, ASAP, if you see any errors in anything I’ve posted, so I can correct any such ASAP.
I’d, of course, like to know where the WaPo time figure for the Whittington shooting comes from. Katherine Armstrong? The VP’s office? Elsewhere?
Gary (not commenting at your blog because of your Blogger-only comments), if sunset was at 6:19 pm CST, then half an hour after sunset would be 6:49 pm CST, right? And you’ve said the shooting was at 5:50 CST, so I think you’ve gotten confused somewhere (unless I have).
Okay, crucial Addenda I just posted:
Ah but Spartikus, that was in a different time zone, doncha know. Jesurgislac, thanks. Seems kind of odd that it’s legal to accidently shoot someone, just because they’re hunting.
What amazes me is how many conservative blogs seem to be avoiding or ignoring mentioning this situation.
I used to be a party line Democrat, until someone challenged me to be more partisian. Now I just look at the facts.
This administration reminds me of a certain other notorious regieme, in it’s early days.
KCinDC: see addenda I posted a bit ago, prior to looking again at comments here and your comment. Thanks, though, since I might not have caught it on my own.
Smiley: “Seems kind of odd that it’s legal to accidently shoot someone, just because they’re hunting.”
It would depend entirely on the circumstances. If it was “reckless endangerment,” for instance, it wouldn’t be legal.
But you’d have to have witnesses to testify to that. Don’t count on that happening here — and, of course, we simply have no way of knowing the facts. Naturally, it might be precisely as described. There’s just no way to know, and not apt to be any way to know (I kinda don’t advise counting on a crack FBI forensic team, or any other forensic team, descending on the [untouched] site to examine every scrap of evidence).
Posted on the same entry on my blog, with pointer inserted at the top of the post (it takes several minutes to post here, even if that was my first priority, given the need to reload each page three times or so to get it to fully load; at dial-up, this takes a couple of minutes, or more, each time):
So, slight embarassment on my part. Still, it does appear that according to the letter of the law, Vice-President Cheney owes a Class C fine ($25–$500) for not having carrying his Texas Migratory Game Bird Stamp Endorsement (Type 168), for what little (trivial, of course) that’s worth.
Wot the hell, I’ll take what small comfort I can in unearthing a small detail I’ve not noticed anyone else dig up. I doubt paying the fine will break the Veep, assuming it’s levied, which I won’t count on (but it does seem as if he clearly owes it, doesn’t it? Trivial as it is?).
Smiley: “Seems kind of odd that it’s legal to accidently shoot someone, just because they’re hunting.”
Don’t mean to beat a dead horse. Guess I’m just being dense, because I cannot imagine a situation where you can shoot someone in the face and not be charged with something, anything, even if those charges result in nothing more than a heavy fine and community service.
If shooting someone accidentally is not illegal (no charges filed), then it must be legal.
“because I cannot imagine a situation”
unless you’re the vice president of the united states, of course.
Gary Farber – must call you Sherlock from now on!
It would depend entirely on the circumstances. If it was “reckless endangerment,” for instance, it wouldn’t be legal.
A news story from Texas and the verdict
(insert Halliburton reference here)
I cannot imagine a situation where you can shoot someone in the face and not be charged with something
Doesn’t seem so odd to me — when you enter an arena where shooting is expected, the rules change. It’s like, if I swerve and tailgate and drive 100+MPH on the freeway, that’s reckless driving, but if I do that on a racetrack, that’s expected behavior.
“…because I cannot imagine a situation where you can shoot someone in the face and not be charged with something, anything….”
Possible situations: Self-defense. Wartime. You’re a law enforcement officer, acting properly in the course of your duties. Mechanical flaw in the weapon you couldn’t know of. You trip and fall down the stairs through no fault of your own (say, the floor was faulty) and the gun goes off without your pulling the trigger, or with you having no control over your trigger finger.
Those are just a few possibilities for your imagination to consider.
Beyond that, in a hunting situation, how about: you’re aiming at a bird, and someone, due to insanity, intoxication, mistake, whatever, hurls themself in front of your weapon?
You didn’t say you wanted circumstances liable to come up in Cheney’s situation; you said you “cannot imagine a situation,” unmodified, any situation. So, there you go.
In this situation, if we accept the Cheney/Armstrong/Whittington verson arguendo as absolutely accurate and truthful — please note “arguendo” — then it might need not be reckless endangerment (IANAL, and certainly do not know know Texas law on this in the slightest unless or until I look it up, and then I’d just be a lay person reading the letter of the law, which isn’t as important as Texas case law, anyway), and no liability need necessarily attach.
IANAL, but I certainly have no problem understanding this possibility. The law is not, and should not be, intended to punish people involved in innocent accidents.
LJ: “A news story from Texas and the verdict….”
Yeah, I read that and other cites on it earlier today; it seems to clearly be wildly different circumstances. The only things in common seem to be that a human being was shot on a ranch in Texas, with accident claimed. That doesn’t remotely begin to mean it’s necessarily a precedent (nor that it isn’t — again, IANAL, and certainly don’t know Texas law). It might be, but on the plain face of it, it certainly seems to me (IANAL, etc.) not unreasonable that it might not remotely be a precedent, due to the long list of dissimilarities. Or it might be a relevant precedent, and liability might be similar; I simply don’t know.
Naturally, a view from a Texas criminal lawyer would be far more relevant than mine, of course. Preferably as non-partisan (ha!) as one as might be findable. Better, a multitude of knowledgeable legal opinions, and I repeat, specifically from lawyers experience in Texas criminal law, not in other Texas law or other states’ criminal law.
Beyond that, in a hunting situation, how about: you’re aiming at a bird, and someone, due to insanity, intoxication, mistake, whatever, hurls themself in front of your weapon?
I was taught to ONLY aim at what I intend to kill. My gun, my bullet, my aim, my responsiblity.
I’m having trouble finding a good online law library for texas. Findlaw.com or whatever it is, is awful.
I used to hunt a little, mainly for the camaraderie. Two of my brothers never quit loving it, even though they don’t hunt so much any more. During hunting season, that’s all they’d do, every weekend, even planning vacations around it. All their friends too.
Nobody ever fucking shot their buddy. Ever.
I’m no doctor but I am a 1st year med student so I can comment on the anatomy. In my mind, if the pellet really was 2.5mm there aren’t many ways it could have gotten INTO the heart. The internal jugular vein in your neck is one (the external is much less protected by muscle but is pretty small).
The IJV would lead directly to the right heart and then to the lungs where it would have lodged and caused some tissue death. That is actually a designed in function, the lungs can filter out big stuff from our venous side before it gets back to our systemic side. In any case, it seeme unlikely to me this would have caused an atrial heart attack several days after the fact.
Forget the carotid artery in the neck, he would have had a stroke.
The only thing that makes sense to me would be the pellet entering the thorax and working its way towards the heart. This would place the pellet OUTSIDE his heart. There are a few problems w/ this…
One – your lungs and their pleura cover almost all of the front aspect of your heart.
Two – your sternum covers most of what’s left.
Either a lung was punctured, in which case I think we would have heard of a collapsed lung, or the shot was at an oblique angle and the guy got very unlucky. I mean really unlucky. The pellet would have had to pass through several layers of muscle and tissue between the ribs and then work its way near his pericardium… Once there it could cause an atrial fibrillation. Interestingly, another cause of fibrillation is blocking of a coronary artery but the doctors already said his coronaries are clear.
Now, take this all with a grain of salt… A real ER doc who has seen this stuff could comment much more authoritatively.
Especially not in the face.
Jesus.
Do you know what kind of a moron it takes to do that?
First: the posting rules forbid profanity, both because we try to maintain civility (not that the post in question was uncivil, just that that’s why there’s the rule) and to allow people with filters to read this at work.
Second, I saw a cardiologist on the NewsHour, and he seemed to think it had gotten into the pericardium.
Among some points I just added in a new addendum to my recent post:
There’s more.
One other bit from McClellan’s afternoon briefing:
Gosh, I love Scotty’s briefings. I wonder why the transcript of this mornings is missing?
So it entered his pericardium? The angle required for that, directly penetrating pericardium without going through lung, is pretty tough. He is an unlucky man. Another possibility is he did injure a lung and we aren’t being told.
Gary — video here.
[Added in proof: and the Daily Show clips ought to have a bit more…]
“Gary — video here.”
Thanks. However, on dial-up, I pretty rarely do video. I’m sure lots of other folks will appreciate it, though.
“…and the Daily Show clips….”
Oh, and ditto re cable tv, which would be nice, though I’m probably also one of the few or only folks here for whom it is not presently an option.
heet: I’ve seen some reports — well, gesticulations by cable anchors, but whatever — that the shot wasn’t just confined to Whittington’s face but in fact impacted from his ribcage up through his face. That could potentially explain the shot in the pericardium, I think?
anarch,
Yeah, it would pretty much have to hit his chest to get in to the pericardium. The best location for entry into the pericardium is near the bottom of the sternum. The space between the lungs is largest there.
“I’ve seen some reports — well, gesticulations by cable anchors, but whatever — that the shot wasn’t just confined to Whittington’s face but in fact impacted from his ribcage up through his face.”
From the very first report, all reports have consistently said “face” and “neck” and “side” or “chest.” Never has any report (of the many dozens and dozens I’ve seen, at least) referred to shot only hitting his face. If you prefer not to check my posts from Sunday, simply review the first story Hilzoy linked to here to confirm this.
“…from his ribcage up through his face.”
Though I’ve not seen that; it’s perfectly and absolutely possible I’m just not keeping up at this point.
Anarch, are you saying that you believe you heard (or saw/heard on tv, as I take you to be indicating) that birdshot entered his chest, then exited and then re-entered his face? Or are you saying that you understood them to say that that shot traveled through his chest, up through his neck, and into his face? Or something yet different?
“…that the shot wasn’t just confined to Whittington’s face but in fact impacted from his ribcage up through his face.”
Actually, my re-read would interpret you as, perhaps, merely saying that he was, as always reported, struck in both ribcage and face. That’s probably what you meant?
Gary, the stories all had ‘face, neck and upper chest’. I think that it is a general communication principle that the first named object is the most prominent, so it always came off as ‘upper chest’ would be the top part of the pectoral muscles. Which I am sure is no accident.
what the heck are you talking about? I think he’s referring to Armstrong’s statement about “face and neck”.
First AP story, as linked by Hilzoy, and innumerable others:
You got it right, the report said “chest”. Not everyone has read every article. Does that warrant the breathless posts? My point is you come off as overly agressive for such an obvious mistake. Relax.
The NY Times gets around to the point on the lack of communication between Cheney’s office and McLellan’s that I blogged about on my blog earlier. Various inside detail I didn’t have, of course.
Former GOP White House Press Secretaries And PR Experts Blast Cheney Shooting Handling
Vice President Dick Cheney and the White House are now coming under intense criticism from several prominent former Republican White House press secretaries and public relations experts for the way the press and public learned that Cheney had accident…
Former GOP White House Press Secretaries And PR Experts Blast Cheney Shooting Handling
Vice President Dick Cheney and the White House are now coming under intense criticism from several prominent former Republican White House press secretaries and public relations experts for the way the press and public learned that Cheney had accident…
Apologies if I sounded hot-headed before.
People’s reaction to this story is quite interesting, including my own. Finding more info has only made me even more curious. There seems to be many questions regarding the damage vs. velocity/distance, as claimed by the news reports.
I would love to see a picture of this guy Whittington. If only to see for myself what birdshot to the face looks like.
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/
has more questions than answers, but very very curious indeed.
Have you posted a link to your blog, Gary?
Not that this site isn’t fabulous, of course!
Coming late to this part of the discussion but re: non-criminality the rules change in certain situations. Generally speaking, it isn’t criminal to level some one in a football game, even if a similar action would be assualt on the street. Similarly, one normally does not expect one’s house to be pelted with small objects from across the street, but if you live next to a golf course, the rules change.
There’s probably a good deal of “risk-assuming” that goes into hunting (and I wouldn’t be shocked if there was some ‘waiver’ involved in getting the appropriate license, but that is pure speculation on my part.) And the level of recklessness required to raise an incident from civilly tortious to criminal is a significant quantum. ‘Wanton disregard’ is the formulation I believe. Hope that clarifies to a degree.
Ooops, Sorry hilzoy. At first, I thought, “Why am I being spanked for saying jesus?” 🙂
Sorry again for my bad language.
Goodnight, I’ll be back to read you again tomorrow. And I found your blog link, Gary.
I see hilzoy’s thoughts are with Mr. Whittington. Kind of like support the troops but oppose our government. Of course, I support most union workers, but oppose the union bosses.
Here’s a point of view that some might miss.I am dumber for having read the first paragraph of your link.
My thoughts exactly, cerpeicthus. Skimming the piece, it looks like Blankley makes a few salient observations about the press core and their bloated egos, but it’s buried under a mountain of the author’s own inflated self-regard. The opening snipe at Al Gore goes to show that Blankley just prefers an ideologically correct form of journalistic stupidity.
Ahhh, Tony’s pretty level headed. I guess the Gore factor tips the scales here. Understood. And carpeicthus, thank a teacher for your ability to read the first paragraph. That you were able to read it in English, thank a soldier.
Blogbuds, do you happen to recall when Al Gore was running for President how many “news” stories were devoted to the trashy stories invented about him to make him look like a liar? You know, back when Al Gore, like Dick Cheney, was Vice President? Why do you suppose that so much time and effort was spent on stories that were based on mis-statements of what Gore had actually said, rather than on anything that Gore had actually done?
Well, partly because the media has a right-wing bias and Gore was the Democratic candidate for President, but partly because Gore was Vice President and these stories, while fake, were “news”.
Cheney shooting a hunting companion is news. And, unlike the stories about Gore, it’s news about something that Cheney actually did – both the shooting and the cover-up.
I don’t imagine any of the Republicans now complaining that there’s far too much focus on Cheney shooting someone – not even if Whittington dies – were complaining about the “news” about Al Gore.
jes, so that’s why you say the things you do about President Bush, retaliation for the politics played with Gore. Fair enough, although Al tends to reinforce my concerns about him then, not dispel them. You use the word coverup. I can’t imagine you can support that. I would offer up though, that Mr. Cheney may have been concerned both about Mr. Whittington, maybe not as much as hilzoy is, but also his own legal position. Had Mr. Whittington died, or even if this 78 year old man’s physical condition doesn’t fully recover from this trauma, I see Mr. Cheney in a bit of a pickle, politically and legally. You and I might both be thinking this isn’t quite over with yet. Hell, Cheney could keel over from the stress. Truly an unfortunate tragedy.
Blogbudsman: so that’s why you say the things you do about President Bush, retaliation for the politics played with Gore.
Good grief, no. I say the things I do about Bush because they’re true and they need saying, as often as possible.
You use the word coverup. I can’t imagine you can support that.
Isn’t that the point of a cover-up? 🙂
I would offer up though, that Mr. Cheney may have been concerned both about Mr. Whittington, maybe not as much as hilzoy is, but also his own legal position. Had Mr. Whittington died, or even if this 78 year old man’s physical condition doesn’t fully recover from this trauma, I see Mr. Cheney in a bit of a pickle, politically and legally.
Well, yes. I think we can all see that, and all sensible and decent people will be hoping that Whittington recovers fully and it’s not an issue. I certainly do.
That doesn’t actually explain why Cheney failed to do the sensible, decent thing – assuming, that is, that the story Armstrong told the local newspaper represented something like what actually happened.
Hell, Cheney could keel over from the stress. Truly an unfortunate tragedy.
Absolutely. It would be a truly unfortunate tragedy if Cheney were to die of a heart-attack before he could be tried for war crimes.
blogbudsman: I guess the Gore factor tips the scales here.
Not the “Gore factor”. The “any criticism of U.S. policies is sedition” factor. It seems that with each new revelation of failure on the part of the Republican-dominated government to protect Americans, the traitor-rhetoric directed at Democrats gets ratcheted up. Now it’s not just Jimmy Carter, but Clinton and Gore who are on the other side, just because they aren’t willing to endorse the increasingly disturbing anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from the right.
As Belle Waring points out (via Kevin Drum) whether or not there is anything to cover up, it does appear unlikely that anyone to deal with this situation as badly as Cheney has done unless he had something even worse to hide.
Then again, this is what I say to myself when I look at Iraq (well, when I think about the current mess it’s in): They couldn’t possibly be that incompetent about invading/occupying another country unless their motivation were something other than [whatever the current story of the week is].
But who knows? Maybe the secret is that they really are that incompetent. That they believe everything can be managed with the right spin. Even when there are actual, physical, unavoidable facts that destroy the spin.
I think we have the makings of a Natural Law here: if it’s your political opponent, there’s a coverup if you can’t prove there was. If you can prove there was, it’s a failed coverup.
If it’s your political ally, it’s either a timely disclosure or an unavoidably, an explicably delayed disclosure, or a leak your opponents have seized upon for political advantage.
I’m not sure if I’m being overly cynical, or not cynical enough.
I think it is a sign of the hyped up expectations of media culture that disclosure in less than 24 hours can be thought of as indicative of a coverup.
That doesn’t mean that Cheney has handled this well. He hasn’t. But he hasn’t engaged in a coverup, he and his aides have just been reacting in a way that doesn’t acknowledge responsibility properly.
I also don’t think there has been a cover-up. Although I tend to agree with there being a Natural Law of politics involved here.
I do think it has been handled very ineptly, and I think that is primarily due to the ingrained arrogance that Cheney has.
I believe he thinks its nobody’s business what he does, how he does it, or when he does it.
I think it is a sign of the hyped up expectations of media culture that disclosure in less than 24 hours can be thought of as indicative of a coverup.
Of course, we’re talking about the Vice-President shooting a man in the face.
Sebastian: I think it is a sign of the hyped up expectations of media culture that disclosure in less than 24 hours can be thought of as indicative of a coverup.
And presumably, a sign of the hyped-up expectations of a county sheriff that he expected to be able to interview the hunter who had shot a man the same day as the shooting – even though the hunter was the Vice President of the US. Tuh. That’s what the Secret Service is for, right?
Reading the link Jesurgislac thoughtfully supplied:
Bold mine.
Of course, that’s probably contrived narrative that’s part of the coverup.
Yes, Slarti, I read that part. Sorry, did I confuse matters by conflating the deputy who assumed he’d be interviewing the hunter the same day as the shooting, with the sheriff who evidently decided not to try?
Sebastian’s got a point: it’s not really important that no one in the media heard about the shooting till the next day. It makes Cheney look bad, but Cheney evidently doesn’t care.
The element of “cover-up”, by me, is introduced by the fact that no one from law enforcement got to talk to anyone involved in the shooting till the day after the shooting. Not the eyewitnesses and not Cheney himself. Karl Rove got to talk to Karen Armstrong before Armstrong got to talk to the sheriff.
Now if everything happened just the way Armstrong says it did (plus or minus the disappearance of a few beers) why not interview the same day as the shooting took place?
On the other hand, if there’s a coverup, why believe any of what’s in the papers? Me, I think Cheney went on a drunken rampage that’s been carefully morphed to resemble a chance hunting accident, myself. And ineptly morphed, too, because this administration is all about incompetence. It’s got to fit, you see.
And, just to be clear: this is just me being silly in a way that’s more cynical than the usual silliness. Pay me no nevermind.
Slarti, if Whittington dies will you stop being silly about Cheney shooting him?
Jes, note that it’s not clear Armstrong was an eyewitness – she was well away from the party.
Slart:”why believe any of what’s in the papers?”
So the options are to believe everything Armstrong says or disbelieve the date beside the masthead? This from the patenter of “Slartibartfastian pause”?
“Pay me no nevermind.” Oops.
No, to be clear, silly times call for even sillier measures. I’m not being silly about Cheney shooting Whittington, I’m responding to some of the extraordinarily silly things being said and done afterward with an even larger measure of silliness.
If I were being serious, the Slartibartfastian pause might be the way to go. I see rilkefan got the message, on preview, so my work here is probably [over-Ed.]done.
I don’t think it is all that odd that the police didn’t talk to Cheney the next day for an accident where the victim of the accident was concious, alive, and not accusing anyone of it being anything other than an accident. Now if he were dead at that point and the police didn’t interview Cheney right away I would be more suspicious. But when all indications point to ‘accident’ it isn’t shocking to schedule for the next day.
Wasn’t the victim effectively in Cheney’s control, then in an ER and an ICU – hardly in a position to assert himself one way or the other? Did the police even talk to him that evening? Did they know he had a pellet in his liver and one near (in?) his heart?
And of course if you’re investigating an incident you want to talk to witnesses before they sober up or get their stories consistent.
And if you’re in the VP’s entourage, the above should be clear.
And of course, if it were me, I’d probably think to myself first off: as distressing as this is to me personally, this is a matter of grave import to the American press^H^H^H^H^Hpeople, and I should let the press^H^H^H^H^Hpeople know all of the tiniest details straightaway. But maybe that’s just me.
Fwiw: I don’t think it’s a coverup etc. (except, possibly, on the topic of beer.) I just think Cheney is one of those churlish, secretive people whose instinctive response to completely normal requests for information is, basically, “go *** yourself” — the sort of person one would be tempted to ask: so why did you go into public life again? This is his normal response; it’s just more than usually inappropriate and stupid.
I don’t even get to fix open tags any more.
My garage door sticks open from time to time; could you have a look at it?
Sure, send me a picutre.
It use to be said that when something repeated itself over and over, it was like a ‘broken record’. Is there a modern technological equivelent these days?
Hey, rilkefan, I punched in picutre into Google, and of course got ‘Did you mean: picture? Well, of course, of course. But also got 656,000 hits on ‘picutre’. I am not alone – take that Farber!
“something repeated itself over and over”
spammer?
Dang, my one snappy comeback of the month, and I mispell it.
I thought that just added an extra dimension to the humor, rilke: we could laugh with you AND at you.
BBM, “like a Philip Glass piece”? Okay, not very modern.
I don’t know about a “coverup” but there was certainly some liberty taken with facts. Armstrong’s original statement didn’t mention the severity of the injuries and the risk associated w/ the injuries. Sure, she isn’t a doctor but pithy statements by a Republican fundraiser don’t exactly count much towards an official statement.
The tight control of information is no accident, and is designed to tell the American people (not just those ugly journalists) as little as possible without actually informing them of the situation.
My question is – why go through all the damn trouble? Why not just have the treating physician make a statement about the extent of the injuries right after the incident? Why let the hospital beauracrat get it wrong? Why let Armstrong use cute euphemisms to describe what sounds like a pretty serious injury? Why would she blame Whittington?
All this points to the fact that Cheney feels no responsibility to actually tell the truth about the matter, damn the consequences. I mean, did it never occur to them that dribbling out (false) information would make this thing blow up in their face?
“added an extra dimension”
[puts on high-energy-experimentalist hat]
*shudder*
So, we’re up to what…twelve, now? Of course, about eight are all twisted up so’s they’re not doing much, right?*
*IANAP
I don’t think it is all that odd that the police didn’t talk to Cheney the next day for an accident where the victim of the accident was concious, alive, and not accusing anyone of it being anything other than an accident.
i do.
That doesn’t mean that Cheney has handled this well. He hasn’t. But he hasn’t engaged in a coverup, he and his aides have just been reacting in a way that doesn’t acknowledge responsibility properly.
Not to pick on you Sebastian, but I thought I’d highlight this to make a point.
Unfortunately for Cheney and the righties uncomfortable with the media focus on this episode, “doesn’t acknowledge responsibility properly” also happens to include making up baloney in order to absolve Cheney of blame. That, my dear friend, also happens to be a cover-up.
It seems clear that there has been considerable disinformation spread by Cheney, et al. — the apparent reason is to deflect a meaningful analysis of the extent to which this accident was the result of carelessness or recklessness by Cheney. A key fact in this is that there is no way that Cheney was 30 yards from the victim as has been claimed, but probably more like 15 to 30 feet at most. And it also seems clear that Cheney shot him because he recklessly wheeled around in order to shoot blindly to his rear — nailing Whittington who had to be in plain view. And finally, the initial reports kept downplaying the significance of the injuries inflicted — unfortunately, as much as he may have wanted to, Whittington has not been able to cooperate with that one.
The secretiveness has also fairly fueled the speculation that some alcohol was involved — a reasonable one given Cheney’s history of alcohol problems. That is why he should have allowed (heck — encouraged) an early meeting with the local sheriff. The excuse that “a meeting had already been scheduled for the next day” as justification for refusing to meet on Saturday just doesn’t cut it — unless you believe that high Republican officials should be immune from the normal investigatory processes of the law.
Ironically, this episode is akin to Chappiquidick (which was worse because alcohol was clearly involved, resulting in death). Hopefully, Whittington survives and the analogy does not become more apt.
From the overall interests of the nation, it doesn’t amount to anything other than a giant window into the shocking lack of decent character in the Veep. That is also a partial reason why this story has some gas — it mirrors the trend of misbehavior of the Bushies in general, for which Cheney is a key player. But it has gas primarily because its easy and sensational — and has been horribly mishandled by Cheney, et al.
Righties who are unhappy with the temporary media frenzy over this are thinking like Cheney — wondering why the usual lying crap doesn’t make it go away. The link to Blankley really proves that point.
It use to be said that when something repeated itself over and over, it was like a ‘broken record’. Is there a modern technological equivelent these days?
See: “right-wing blog”
double-mindreading penalty.
I’d say it’d be much closer if Cheney had left him lying there bleeding and gone home to sleep it off.
And then, somehow, managed to get reelected for the next four decades or so.
Double cheap-shot penalty, Slarti.
Back at ya.
Actually I think it is shocking to interview Cheney the next day. I’m surprised that there is controversy about this. Accidents are investigated promptly, not when it is convenient for the person who caused the accident to be interviewed. The police did in fact follow the proper protocol and trie to interview Cheney that evening. They were turned away by the Secret Service. There is only one reason that I can think of why the Secret Service would do that–to let the alcohol out of Cheney’s system. I suppose Cheney might have said he wasn’t in the mood to be interviewed, but that shouldn’t have gotten him a special break. Vice-Presidents aren’t supposed to be above the law or above legitimate, normal law enforcement protocols.
heet: I mean, did it never occur to them that dribbling out (false) information would make this thing blow up in their face?
Why should it have occurred to them? Dribbling out false information is SOP, and thus far, it’s worked for them perfectly well.
Ok, Cheney’s interview with Hume sounds ok enough to me, assuming no one can prove he’s lying about the 30 yards. I can imagine the Secret Service (couldn’t they have picked a name that doesn’t acronymate so badly?) turning a guy claiming to be a deputy sheriff away just out of procedure. The whole thing smells bad but that’s par for the course with the VP’s modus op. Still a ridiculous screw-up, but maybe it’s time to get back to Medicare part D and what Muqtada al-Sadr’s up to and all the rest.
Bottom line: the first stories that people saw were “Cheney involved in minor hunting accident,” not “Cheney shoots and seriously wounds hunting companion.” That’s worth a lot, because it then allows Republicans to push the idea that Democrats are trying to make political hay by exaggerating the seriousness of the guy’s injuries. But before this week, would anyone have seriously argued that a guy in the ICU with shotgun pellets in his chest cavity wasn’t seriously hurt?
One beer is one beer too many. There must be some NRA statement to that effect for safe gun handling somewhere.
Controversy Swirls Around Cheney
Critics say the delay in getting information out after Dick Cheney’s accidental shooting of a huntin
Back to conspiratorial thoughts:
See Digby.
Deputy sheriff shows up, VP has had a double martini, …
when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house
I don’t know about you filkefan, but if I had just accidentally shot someone, there would be no need to “fix” a cocktail, it would be straight liquor, no mixer, hell I probably wouldn’t even use a glass.
err, rilkefan
I recall an episode of I think _The Practice_ where a guy gets in an car accident after a drink or two and his lawyer tells him to publicly grab a bottle and take a swig so he can say that’s why he failed the breath test.
Not saying that’s what happened, just another fact which works both ways.
Let’s see…it seems I recalled Cheney saying something about having a beer at lunch (Hume interview). Shooting was at 5:30. Is it your contention that one beer several hours prior to hunting is dangerous, somehow? I’m talking a regular-sized beer, here, not the Grolsch mini-tapper.
Arguing over the statements is pointless since we have differing accounts. Cheney says he had a beer at lunch and Armstrong told people that she had not seen any drinking. She says that she only saw Cheney drink after the shooting. It could be that both are telling the truth and that she did not see Cheney have that beer. Alcohol may not have been a factor in the shooting. And if Cheney did indeed fix himself a double after the incident it might explain why he did not want the investigators to show up that night since there would be no way to establish his sobriety at the time of the shooting.
There again, those all may be spin designed to provide a plausible narrative for explaining the inconsistencies. There is no way to tell. The reporting gap is the cat in the box.
Slart – I finished lunch at 1:30 today (no beer, sadly, at national labs these days). I think the party went back out hunting at 3 or so. Ok, so it was more likely Busch Lite than Doppelbock, and I guess hunter eat lunch earlier than physicists, but still…
Quote of the day, as far as I’m concerned:
I thought you were at SLAC, rilke. Is that a national lab, or was my initial thought incorrect?
Actually, I like the name ‘filkefan’. It sounds vaguely Swedish.
Also vaguely reminiscent of “filksong”.
There. That ought to get Farber’s antennae up.
Umm, yeah, SLAC, as long as I can keep finding excuses for them to pay me. The lab’s operated by Stanford for DOE. This says it’s a national lab despite the name (15/17 of the national labs by that accounting are “NL”s).
Ah, I thought you’d perhaps moved on to LLNL or LANL.
The latter of course would be an even larger commute.
Is it your contention that one beer several hours prior to hunting is dangerous, somehow?
First, in my experience as a committed drinker (if not alcoholic) and lawyer, it depends. I’ve had days where having a single beer at noon (when I’m not working) has absolutely no affect on me for the rest of the day. OTOH, I’ve had days where having a single beer at noon makes me sluggish, tired, and dehydrated for the rest of the day, even if all I do is sit around the house and watch football. Cheney had a beer at noon and went out hunting. Could be that it didn’t matter, could be a “but for” cause, in either case, not a good idea for a sitting Vice President. And the handling of the incident does not inspire confidence on the forthrightness front.
Second, what rilkefan said on timing.
Third, I’m totally jealous of rilkefan’s location (lived in the bay area for 11 years before leaving).
Ok, Cheney’s interview with Hume sounds ok enough to me, assuming no one can prove he’s lying about the 30 yards.
I doubt that its “lying,” but it certainly seems untrue. I imagine he is exaggerating his perception of the distance to lessen his culpability. The number of pellets that apparently struck Whittington (i.e., most of them), plus the fairly tight radius of the injury (12 to 18 inches?) means that there is no way it was as far as 30 yards. We don’t have much info on the precise scope of the injury, so its hard to estimate the hitting power of the pellets. But nothing seems consistent with 30 yards, as opposed to much closer.
I hope that Cheney’s claim of “one beer” around five hours before the incident is more accurate than the “30 yards” claim.
Ugh, guessing you moved due to housing prices? We saw an small ugly 2bdrm in our neighborhood for $1.25 mil the other day. If you want a half acre and a tear-down it’s well over 3.
Well, it’s probably worth it to those who can afford it. We’re touring Austin in two weeks.
“The number of pellets that apparently struck Whittington”
hasn’t been disclosed – I’ve seen “more than 10” and “less than 200”.
The number of pellets that hit Whittington ought to be easily established via a scan: solid objects stand out like crazy. “More than 10 but less than 200” is an absurd number; an estimate one could make knowing very little more than what kind of shot Cheney was using.
Ascertaining the number of pellets, and their spread, would provide solid evidence by which to determine how close the gun was to Whittington when it went off, and at what angle.
This is information we’ll never get, though. Along with information about whether, how much, and how soon before the shooting, Cheney was drinking; or how Armstrong could be an “eye witness” to an incident she was the length of a football field away from; or how a set of injuries which include pellets lodged in the liver and near the heart, and require more than a week in the hospital (much of it in ICU) can be described as “not serious.”
And why should the WH give out any information it doesn’t want to? It’s stonewalled everything else, from Cheney’s secret energy policy meetings to the NSA wiretaps, and has never paid any penalty for doing so.
I have to disagree with you, Hilzoy. For the most part, the “White House” is as uninvolved in the matter as the Daily Show.
Even in tragedy, sometimes humor is appropriate. Whether it be at wakes, dark comedies, humor is a convenient coping mechanism. (President Bush’s much ballyhooed jokes about searchign for WMDs is another one that I think was appropriate; everybody else in the country was making the joke, why couldn’t Bush? The thing to be angry about is how little effort was spent searching for them (before or after the invasion), not the little window dressing).
Casey is right… A simple Xray would give you a much better estimate than more than 10 and less than 200. Plus, I can almost guarantee you the guy has been Xrayed. This is another aspect of the story that is being managed tightly. As such, I’d suggest the worst and lean towards the high number.
Also, I’d also amend my previous post about probable paths for the shot to get to his heart.
It could conceivably have gone into his neck and migrated down… BUT, from my understanding, most of the physical space in the neck and thorax does not directly communicate… There is only one non-vessel, direct pathway. Otherwise there are various tissues in the way.
The direct plane of movement lies pretty deep in the neck. Like between the trachea and spine. The lateral pathway to this plane, where the pellet would have to traverse to get there, goes through lots of tissue.
Again, I’m not a physician and so on and so forth.
Oh how far the mighty intellects have fallen!
If posts like this is the best that Hilzoy can muster why bother? Doesn’t it make everyone sad that so much talent is being wasted on this topic.
BMS has certainly taken root…
My sources tell me it could have entered, coming from the right, w/o puncturing a lung.
The accident report is at The smoking Gun and it has a drawing of where the victim was struck, though the drawing is difficult to make out.
If posts like this is
Not meaning to bust anyone on grammatical mistakes, but I have to take this as more evidence that the army of trolls is on the verge of breaking.
Hil, you wrote: “You step up to the plate; you accept responsibility; and you call off the spin doctors.”
Fair enough.
Cheney went on Brit Hume today and accepted responsibility. Quote:
We can quibble about where Cheney decided to tell his story, and whether Whittington is a friend of acquaintance. Nevertheless, the responsible thing for you to do is to update your post accordingly. Otherwise, your post falls under the category of “cheap shot”, because as of right now, that’s what it is.
That would be friend or acquaintance, not friend of acquaintance.
Charles,
I agree that Hilzoy should update her post, but I would hope that such exhortation would be enough to get her to update her post. Give her a chance to respond before accusing her lack of update as representing a cheap shot.
(Let’s face it, ObWi hasn’t been a “to-the-minute” blog for a couple of months. I suspect that most people are too busy/wary.)
Charles,
Isn’t the point of the post a focus on the White house’s spin attempts? Given that McClellen hasn’t taken responsibility for his presentations (I am tempted to say disinformation), isn’t it a bit early to press for an update?
Also, I pass on this link to Alan Dershowitz’s Huffblog post
ouch…
Charles: I’m in the process of updating it — though I’m going to put it on the other post, where I think it fits better. (Today has been hectic.) Unfortunately, Typepad isn’t letting me in.
Annoying, I actually had time and inclination to post today, but I can’t get in either. Naughty typepad, no biscuit.
Sebastian: perseverence paid off for me 😉
I find it interesting that all of the law and order “lock ’em up” Republicans are so silent about Cheney having “one beer” at lunch, and then being so worried he goes back to the ranch and makes himself a cocktail. Then, the secret service dont allow the sheriff’s to get to Cheney until the next day.
Why were is the law & order “presumed guilty” crowd?
Redact the name “Cheney” and present that fact pattern to a republican running for office or to a prosecutor. They are gong to conclude: drunk and hiding it.
I suggest you catch up on What Has Gone Before, will, before you give ’em both barrels. So to speak. In other words, actually read some of the linky-things referred to in this thread.
Sorry Slart!
It was just a 28 and I didnt look before firing. Sorry about that.
Those comments should have presented themselves to me before I posted.
We’ll dress em up in blaze orange next time, ok?
…if, of course, you promise not to arrive drunk to the party.
8P
Thanks! I would appreciate that.
In all seriousness, which links did I miss? Where some law and order types making the same conclusions? Or just the normal innocent until proven guilty types presuming guilty?
It gets so confusing remembering which one I believe in.
In general, it’s a good idea to scan a thread before commenting in case the point you want to bring up has been beaten to mush already. Maybe you have something new, but it looks like well-trodden ground to me.
For starters, you could investigate the link in this comment, and maybe check out the ensuing discussion.
I wouldn’t presume to instruct you in this, of course. Take all of this as suggestion, and even then with an Indiana Highway Maintenance truckload of salt.
I’m wondering if Larry O’Donnell was drunk when he wrote this.
Not saying he was, mind you, just living in the question.
Slarti, much as I really dislike the VP, I tend to agree with you that comments like that are over the top.
Playing the assumption of cover-up game may be fun at times, but it can get out of hand really quickly.
Although, come to think of it, the Republicans have been doing it for years.
Still, I want to believe the left is better than that. But then again, I have been accused of being naive.
Yes, certainly. A contest of this nature, though, is not what I, personally, would choose for this country. Especially if things of this nature are grouped in with the various attributes that make your opponents the evil bastards that they are.
Me, too. I continue to pray for the emergence of a viable third party, though.
I don’t get it, Slart. He had a drink after noon, he had a drink before dinner, and in between he shot a guy. Is your point that because we can’t know we shouldn’t speculate? Will you cease to object if we get some sense of the likelihood, and it’s high?
It’s supposedly common for hunters to hit the hip flask before doing something dumb. It’s not I think common for bloggers to do so before writing something that annoys you.
If the last ten people Cheney has hunted with say he never has more than one beer, and his doctors say there aren’t any issues given his heart medicine, then that’s another thing.
I didn’t think the Lawrence O’Donnell piece was particularly outrageous. Cheney doesn’t deserve the benefit of a doubt. Maybe the incident happened just as he described it (which was bad enough–shooting into the sun doesn’t seem like sensible behavior to this non-hunter), but there’s a reasonably good chance something is being covered up.
Speculate away. I speculate that O’Donnell was drunk when he wrote that. Certainly people have written stupid things while sober, but I asked five bloggers if they’d have been wasted had they been a position to write such an article, and every single one of them said yes: commode-hugging drunk.
Correlation, causation, etc.
I did, but I was sober when I read it. Not suggesting anything, just to be clear, just living in the question. After all, it certainly is unknown in the strictest sense whether any of us is writing while drunk, stoned, or otherwise impeded.
I have no more idea than any one else on the possiblity of intoxication. However, I dothink that Cheney got special treatment and I do think it is important and that an issue should be made of the special treatment.
The police investigate promptly, not when it suits the convenience of the target of the investigation. It really is not intellectually honest to argue that the police normally wait until the next day to question the person who caused an accident that resulted in the hospitalization of the victim. Anyway the proof of this is in the actions of the police: they DID try to investigate promptly and were turned away by the Secret Service.
As to why Cheney got special treatment, who knows? But the fact remains that if he hadn’t got special treatment there woulld be no discussion. He created the suspicions by behaving suspiciously.
No one is supposed to be above the law or above investigation of violations of the law. To me, that’s the issue.
“He created the suspicions by behaving suspiciously.”
Exactly. If he had handled it differently, there wouldnt have been any question.
Here‘s some speculation for Slart.
Also would be interested in your take on the VP’s unilateral declassification power.
You’re thinking a cheek-by-jowl sort of association, maybe?
Dunno about the classification/declassification thing. In my (IANAL) opinion, classification authority and declassification authority go hand-in-hand. What’s less clear (to me) is what when acting in executive capacity means. I’d translate this as follows: what the executive can classify, the executive can also declassify. Whether Cheney was properly acting in executive capacity is one for the lawyers, which: have I mentioned I am not one?
If Cheney were an agency head, this would be less unclear, because then he’d clearly have both classification and declassification authority.
Can I just say that I think any further prying into possible sexual indiscretions on the part of Dick Cheney are way, WAY out of bounds? If turns out he was wielding a firearm while intoxicated, that’s potentially a crime. Cheating on his wife is not, and is, quite frankly, none of our business (not that I give any weight to such rumors in the first place). If, by some remote chance, these folks are right, they should let Lynn Cheney deal with that situation as she sees fit. (And this isn’t directed at you, rilkefan — I think I understand the spirit in which you linked that rumor.)
I think rilkefan may have been both drunk AND engaged in adulterous activities when he linked that.
Smilies. Smilies. Imagine lots and lots of them.
The comments on the HuffPost are pretty atrocious. Some folks object, to their credit, but there’s a pretty strong “an eye for an eye” attitude out there. Someone even calls Lynne Cheney a lesbian (I think the commenter is serious, too). Talk about becoming the dragon!
Exactly.
Yeah, just indicating a case I thought Slart could reasonably grouch at, since he seems to be in the mood. (Hope that visual field whatever etc is better, btw.)
Actually I think Slarti is in an exceptionally good mood today.
john, I keed, I keed. You know, “Talk to Slart, but tell him slant” and so forth.
Speaking of which, I’m seriously considering having key parts of my corneas lasered off. Hopefully the guy doing it won’t be absolutely plastered, although you never know.
Let me guess, the left halves.
That actually made me chuckle out loud, that did.
You must be in a good mood to laugh at my “wit”.
By the way, “plucking out” is the traditionally recommended method, not “lazing”.
Charles: I’m in the process of updating it…
OK, Hil, and thanks. Fie on Typepad.
Whether Cheney was properly acting in executive capacity is one for the lawyers, which: have I mentioned I am not one?
I assume that “acting in an executive capacity” means when he’s not wearing his President of the Senate hat.
That being the case, DaveL, it looks as if the VP has the same declassification powers as does the President. Firedoglake links the executive orders that plainly say so, so one of us is lacking in reading comprehension. I’d pick me, certainly, because the law puts me to sleep more often than not.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Josh Marshall has a link to the Executive Order. The section on declassification authority basically says that you can declassify anything that you or your subordinates classified. Everybody else in the Executive Branch is the President’s subordinate, but I don’t think it’s clear whether the same is true of the VP. Constitutionally, he’s basically the spare tire, so I’m not sure he has any supervisory authority beyond what the President expressly delegates to him.
As I said, DaveL, IANAL. But: the VP can clearly declassify anything that he himself has classified. What’s unclear is whether the VP can declassify that which the Chief Executive has classified. I think we agree that neither of us knows the answer to that one. I’d rather doubt that it means that, but I think the answer perhaps lies in the palimpsest of Executive Orders in this regard.
Also part of the recent EOs is that the VP can now delegate classification authority at the TS level. Whether that means he can order his delegate to declassify as if the delegate were a subordinate, I have no idea. For this reason, I’m all for scrapping all of the EOs that exist on classification authority and replacing them with one that’s more clearly worded. Whether that’s a possibility or not, well, IANAL for very good reasons.
Slarti, are we arguing? If so, I’m going to have to get more confrontational about it. I thought all I was doing was trying to answer your question and note where the issues seem to be. I think you’re more or less agreeing, but it’s a little hard to tell from your tone.
No, not arguing. And my tone is, on this side of your screen at least, completely devoid of anger. I am a bit more distracted today than usual, if that’s possible. I think the nature of this problem I’ve been working on for the last several months is at last becoming clear; what do do about it is an open question, and at this stage of the analysis, not yet an urgent one. If you have to convince people for a living, though, part of convincing people that you know what you’re doing is showing them; i.e. you’ve got to demonstrate your process. There’s a great deal of work left for me to do in the demonstration phase, but again, it’s less problematic than actually understanding the problem. I’ve made some vague references to this thing that’s been plagueing me over the last few months; this is the same beastie.
Although I too was starting to suspect that if we were arguing, I was going to have to start holding up my end of it…
Hil,
Five new posts yet no update here? What gives? Again, you wrote: “I said last night that any decent adult would stand up and take responsibility for shooting another person, rather than trying to blame his victim. You step up to the plate; you accept responsibility; and you call off the spin doctors. It’s hard, but it’s the right thing to do.”
The right thing was done two days ago, albeit late and with lame excuses for delaying. I have no problem with the criticisms, but I do with unfair ones. Without acknowledgement that the circumstances have changed, this post is now unfair and I maintain that it is a cheap shot as unamended.
Charles: I put it on the other one, which was actually about accepting responsibility, as opposed to this one, which was about the heart attack and the White House’s “joke” strategy.
Charles: which is what I said I’d do last time this came up. — I did the update whenever that was.
The irony is so delicious…
matt,
Which irony? I can think of at least 3, but am not sure if specifying would be a posting violation.
I would have put the update here, myself, and perhaps top-posted it – DeLong does that.
Check out this sizzling update.
Dantheman:
I think I’ll remain cryptic, as I wish to keep my vow to refrain from heaping petty scorn upon Charles.
Let’s just say there’s a cheap shot in there somewhere; I just don’t believe Hilzoy’s the one hitting below the belt in this particular instance.
On topic irony – Harry Whittington released from hospital, issues statement apologizing for causing Cheney untold grief by, er, allowing the Veep to carelessly shoot him in the face.
Reuters:
Yes, our thoughts should most certainly be with poor, poor Dicky C. and clan during this difficult time of tribulation and woe.
More from Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr:
But at least Cheney has (finally) accepted responsibility for his actions, despite Whittington’s apparently sincerely expressed regret for preventing Cheney from bagging a kill (does anyone know if any of the birdshot managed to hit the actual bird Cheney was trying to shoot?)
Nothing to see here, move along, folks–but don’t forget to bash the lib’rul media on the way out.
Priceless.
rilkefan: truly, a screenshot for the ages. Thanks for linking to it.
Is there some iconic quote from the Moscow show trials? I want to say something more specific here.