« That'll show 'em | Main | It's been slow »

Cheney: One beer or two?

First of all, Harry Callahan is correct in his comment over at Ace's. Drunk drivers always admit to having had two beers when they're pulled over, not just one. Anyway, Ace seems freaked out over the revelation that Cheney may have had "one beer" before the shooting.

Look, maybe this is because I'm from the South, but I've been fascinated by the coverage of this issue. I'm simply astonished at the unfamiliarity with shotguns in particular and hunting in general. And specifically...

Of COURSE alcohol was involved!! This is some kinda freakin' revelation?!?

Look, think about it for two seconds. Traipsing through the woods with loaded guns and funny hats and a bunch of dogs is not something that grown men would do sober!



LOL. It is possible that he was drunk. If thats the case, he should be prosecuted. But we will never find out...The police never tested him. And the question is why?

Because he had the beer at lunch and had been out hunting for hours after that.

Ever have a beer at lunch and then stagger home at 5:30 because of the effects of that beer?

I didn't think so.

The thing that I marvel at with liberals is their constant attempts to cover all angles of a situation while missing every part.

In 2004, Jill, blinded by the early promise of Howard Dean, expressed excitement that he would win. She then claimed, virtually simultaneously, that Diebolt would rig the election so that Bush would be re-elected.

I reminded her of the great "Citizen Kane" scene where Welles (Kane) holds up a mock newspaper showing the potential results of his political campaign:

"Kane Triumphant!" read the first side.

"Fraud At The Polls" was on the flip side.

The obvious answer is that he wasn't drunk nor had any alcohol on his breath but you would rather, as a frustrated lib seeing another story falling away, dabble with conspiracy.

If you ever wonder why your party (and my old one of 28 years) is out of power, look no further than your nearest mirror.

Well, lack of familiarity with shotguns around here is kind of understandable, right? I mean, there aren't exactly a lot of hunting grounds in NYC. Well, as far as I know...

Re: the beer. See for me, the whole story just makes so much more sense now.

Incidentally? I don't know how to phrase this properly, but how far away from a person would you have to be for the range of shot to be about what 1' diameter in a target? Does the shot spray in a circle like form?

K, I'd guestimate about 20 to 30 yards or so.

Hm. I am liking the beer explanation more and more then, because that's really not...far.

Oh and another reason we all might not know all that much about shotguns? In the movies? They always make big booming noises and make great big holes.

K, I know it's as hard for some folks to see 20 to 30 yards as being any real distance, as it is for them to undestand the alure of hunting in the first place, but 20 to 30 yards (50 to 100 feet) in wooded, tall brush is a lot different than the same distance on a city street or in a flat, lawned suburban area.

Adding to this is that what hunters wear is dependent upon what they're hunting. The well known orange vest, bright clothing and red or orange caps are usually worn when hunting game like deer. Hunters wear camouflage when hunting some kinds of birds (turkey, for instance) as they have much keener eyesight.

I don't know what these guys should've been wearing, as I've never hunted small birds, but from the available accounts they didn't seem to be wearing any bright colors that would make them more obvious in high brush, the way deer hunters would.

I went turkey hunting a couple of times. Didn't like it much. Wearing camouflage and all out in the woods with other hunters around makes for an uneasy feeling.

And Barry's right, nothing goes better with hanging out in the woods and shooting off guns than beer. They kinda go together.

That's cute, mal. Your version doesn't even match the version that the VP is telling.

Had an interesting experience once with a bottle of whiskey and a park ranger while fishing at Lake Assunpink, but no need to get into that here. Let's just say he didn't buy the story that we had it for "medicinal purposes in case we got a hook stuck in a finger." We sounded real sincere when we told him that.

The official Cheney Shoots Old Man story is that the party had lunch, went back to the ranch for a while, took a tour of the ranch, then went out to hunt. There were a couple of hours between the alleged "one beer" at lunch and the return to hunting.

You can buy that "one beer at lunch" business if you want to. The only way the truth will ever come out is if a Secret Service Agent is deposed, but I don't expect it will ever come to that. So we won't know for certain ever. I just don't buy it though. I know the cliche is "it was just two beers", like Barry says, but that's not the reality. The reality is that it is always either one beer or two beers, but never three. Ask a cop. They'll tell you. By the way, someone who was at that ranch, and I think it was Cheney who said it actually, says he went back to the ranch after they took Whittington away and made himself a cocktail. That's where I got completely suspicious of his story. If I just shot a guy with whom I was friendly and I was sober and not afraid of anyone smelling the booze on my breath, I would be at that hospital with the guy. There was plenty of SS with him to protect him. Cheney would have gone to the hospital if he were sober, unless he just didn't care about what happened to Whittington as much as he claims. But no, I don't think he's a totally heartless shmuck. Maybe a shmuck, but not totally heartless. He stayed away from that hospital because he didn't want to be anywhere near where he could be investigated for drinking. That's my take on it. That makes sense as an explanation of why he didn't go to the hospital and stay with the man he'd just shot and whom he might have killed. He didn't want to be anywhere that he couldn't be shielded from an investigation.

yeah thems the facts: Cheney shot him (in the heart), then said fuck it and went in for a cocktail. He was scared to got to the hospital 'cuz the doctors would've smelled alcohol and arrested him. that totally makes sense, but i guess we'll never know for sure!

Was that supposed to be what I wrote, ortho? Maybe you've been drinking if that's how you understand my words. I never wrote what you seem to say, so maybe you should try to respond again when you're sober.

Didn't you say "I think it was Cheney who said it actually, says he went back to the ranch after they took Whittington away and made himself a cocktail"?
"He stayed away from that hospital because he didn't want to be anywhere near where he could be investigated for drinking."

Yeah so i'm making fun of your reasoning and i'm not drunk yet.

DBK, I watched the entire interview so I know what Cheney said.

If you look at your own post it is based, not upon the facts, but on wishful supposition without a shred of verifiable proof.

Your comment about the unlikelihood that the SS agent will never be deposed is a hoary old debating trick. It allows you to insinuate that the fix was in: in with the witnesses, the secret service, Cheney's doctor, his ambulance driver, the sheriff and the victim (who is bemused about the hubbub) without fear of being disproved.

As to why he didn't go to the hospital, he explained the reason, i.e. that there was not enough room in the ambulance. Understand that for Cheney to enter that ambulance, at least one secret service man would be needed as well.

Understand as well that the entrance of a vice-president into a hospital is a bit different that when you or I stop in. The entire hospital, including the ER, would need to be secured by the agents which would slow the treatment to the victim.

Finally, you should be aware that the public overwhelmingly believes this was one of those things. This is noteworthy as the percentage of those who say this is fully 20% higher than his job approval rating.

You're spitting into the wind.

Hope you brought along an umbrella.

Were there police at the hospital? Yes. They were investigating the shooting. One officer spoke to Whittington. You can read the police report on The Smoking Gun. Oh, no, better not do that. ou might get a fact out of that. Your version has me saying the doctors would arrest Cheney. Did I ever say that? Did I not say, very clearly, that I thought his claim to not have been drinking was bogus?...I don't need to repeat everything I wrote. I wrote it already and anyone who is sober can read it and see how different it is from the nonsense you concocted. Don't worry, ortho, you can enjoy as many cocktails as you please. I am sure you wouldn't handle firearms when you are drunk, and there's no law that says you can't make stuff up and put words in other people's mouths when you are three sheets to the wind. Just don't be too surprised if someone corrects your twaddle.

dbk all i did was quote you supposedly quoting Cheney!

I get it.... you think he was drunk and avoiding the cops.

There's no way i could disprove that. But it doesn't make it true. Hell anything's possible. I think it's funny that you assume that's the story outright and any lack of a huge investigation will prove to you that it's a coverup...ad nauseum.

and please don't refer to the secret service as the ss.

Please stop lying ina thread where what you said appears directly above your lies about what you said. Here, I'll help prove you a liar. You wrote about my remarks: "hen said fuck it and went in for a cocktail. He was scared to got to the hospital 'cuz the doctors would've smelled alcohol and arrested him"

Where did I say Cheney "said fuck it" or even that he was casual about what he had just done? The answer is "nowhere". I don't know how you can peddle such foolishness and pretend you are quoting me. You claim that I was saying he was afraid "the doctors would've smelled alcohol and arrested him." When did I say the doctors would have done anything to him or arrested him?

You can drink as heavily as you want and then post comments while under the influence. Thejre are no laws against that. Just stop trying to pretend you did anything but falsify my statements and stop pretending you quoted me. You didn't quote a single thin gI said in that comment and made no sensible use of quotes in your subsequent comments. Sober up, come back, and try to discuss this without falsifying my position and maybe you will comprehend my position a little more clearly. And please, unless you are sober, do not operate any heavy machinery or firearms.

By the way, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here by saying you are drunk. I assume you wouldn't say these ridiculous things I you were sober.

Oh, and that business where you wrote "dbk all i did was quote you supposedly quoting Cheney!"

What I actually wrote was (you know, all of this is in this very thread and if you weren't so full of crap I wouldn't have to repeat all of this):
"By the way, someone who was at that ranch, and I think it was Cheney who said it actually, says he went back to the ranch after they took Whittington away and made himself a cocktail." Does that sound like I was "quoting" Cheney? An honest person would call that a paraphrase at best, and would acknowledge that I wasn't certain of who said it.

Ah. Found it. CNN.com: "Armstrong, a longtime friend of the Cheney family, told CNN before the vice president's interview that 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.""
Here's the URL: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/cheney/index.html

Now I am terribly sorry you feel the need to mock and dispute accurate accounts of things, but I would call that a personal problem, ortho, and you ought to keep it to yourself.

Did any of you stop to consider the fact that Cheney is all all sorts of meds for his heart? What happens when you mix that with beer?

oh mama mia!

That's your response, ortho? You had an awful lot to say when your were making stuff up. I guess this is the best you can do now, utter meaningless phrases. What you said before was meaningless too, but at least nobody can come back at you and prove you are full of crap for this one.

By the way, as statements about the "accident" emerge, the inconsistencies between the statements and the verifiable facts make Cheney look worse and worse. It's looking more and more like Cheney was drinking a lot more than "one beer at lunch". Cheney has a drinking problem, which explains much of our foreign policy a lot better than "9/11 changed everything" does.

Oh, and mal, one small point while we're having so much fun. You said that Cheney claimed he didn't go to the hospital because there was no room in the ambulance.

Cheney has spent a lot of time in hospitals. I'm sure he knows by now that it is not required that you arrive at the hospital in an ambulance, even if that is how he is accustomed to arriving. Are you saying that the Vice President of the United States couldn't somehow promote himself a ride to the hospital? You're buying that one?

dbk you so totally win. i'm meaningless and full of crap, but at least i'm not totally cranked-out about somebody on a blog comment. I admit thinking a lot of the 'facts' like the ones you cited about the shooting are probably inaccurate at this point (maybe not, who knows?) and i that's why i was being deliberately facetious. Sorry to get you so pissy by "lying". Have a cocktail and calm the f down. i was never trying to engage in a serious debate on the incident, i just make fun of what i consider inanity.

Don't start something you can't finish. You challenged me and I responded. Now you're all "gee, I was just having some fun," with some gratuitous snideness thrown in for facepsaving purposes. Stop being such a loser and try admitting you are wrong with some class next time. Even Elmer J. Cheney took responsibility for his drunken gunplay with more class than you.

DBK, perhaps you should have a drink yourself. ;-)

Ferocity of response doesn't indicate accuracy of argument, DBK.

I assume you do not choose to watch FoxNews so I will point out that Cheney added beyond that that his friend was first taken to a local hospital and then was flown by copter to another hospital about an hour away. You can surmise whatever you will.

Having police at a hospital, if indeed there were any, is not sufficient for the secret service. Ask Lee Harvey Oswald about the efficiency of local police in providing protection. You chose not to comment on my posit regarding the need to secure any area where the VP may go so I have to assume that the local police were your answer.

"Even Elmer J. Cheney took responsibility for his drunken gunplay with more class than you."

And here we are back at the extrapolation that the admission of one beer hours before an accident was, in fact, really the result of 'drunken gunplay' (note: cocktail, if accurate, came after the incident). Hence, we return as well to the idea of a massive coverup by all involved including the sheriff's office.

And that is why I say that the arguments from your side defy all conventional fact, preferring to dwell upon 'what REALLY happened!' if all the facts could just be allowed to come out.

And if, by some chance they did and they corroborated the original story, you would never believe it.

We both know that, don't we, DBK?

That's my last on this thread so make your comments to the wind as I have no further interest in continuing to indulge your conspiratorial concerns.

It's pointless to go over "what MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED," as it all comes down to unfounded (since none of us was there) speculation.

The accident happened. Hunting accidents DO happen, many much worse than this one.

The problem isn't with the accident itself, it's with Cheney's not reporting it for 18 hours and his allowing Ms. Armstrong to give the scoop to a local paper.

The MSM, as expected hates this. They feel "one-upped" and embarassed.

Those who despise the Bush adsministration see, in the Press frenzy, more proof of this administration's secrecy and mistrust of the MSM Press...and, by extension, "the people."

Certainly there is mistrust of the Press, by this admistration. The Press hates this administration and this administration in general, and Cheney in particular, hate the Press, going back to the campaign days of 2000.

Many Conservatives and even more diehard Republicans will love this, as they tend to distrust the MSM Press too.

The really terrible thing about this incident was that it overshadowed two very vital stories, (1) the Dubai Ports Int'l taking control over the security of America's ports (a terrible decision by the current administration) and (2) Gore's INSANE remarks in Saudi Arabia, in which, in the wake of Islamic riots, deliberately fueled more anti-American hate by charging that the extremely effective and well-run, targeted round-up of Arabic & Muslm illegal/"undocumented" aliens post-9/11 was somehow "criminal."

In fact, Al Gore's statements were treasonous, as they opposed America and supported an enemy (radical Islamicists/Islamo-nazis) during wartime.

The purchase of a British Security Company by a UAE based conglomerate is also troubling, as it would put our port security in the hands of a nation, that despite its government's pro-U.S. positions, still has a large number of radical Islamicists/Islamo-cultists among its population.

I say - let's give that contract to Haliburton.

While I wish that more important stories that took place this week, like the massive taxpayer giveaway to oil companies and the fact that a company owned by the United Arab Emirates is going to be running US port security (fox, meet henhouse), had received the same amount of attention as Cheney's shooting incident, his ever-changing explanations just don't pass the smell test.

Cheney has a couple of DUI's under his belt, and is on a cocktail of heart meds with which alcohol is contraindicated.

Now Cheney may think that real men, even those on heart meds, drink beer and then go out and shoot caged animals, but it's still irresponsible behavior.

I'm heartened by the fact that organizations dedicated to safe hunting have come out against Cheney's half-assed explanations.

The VP's hunting accident was more a source of amusment, well, for everybody except Mr. Whittington of course, then anything representative of the current WH.

An embarassment to be sure. All accidents are embarassing, as all of them involve some degree of human error and Cheney certainly compounded the error and embarassment by mishandling the reporting of that incident.

None the less, the Dubai Ports World controversy is being led by Conservatves, though I'll give props to Charles Schumer (senior Senator from NY) for a rare display of common sense here.

A number of other Democrats have said things like, "We need to see more of the details, but keep in mind Dubai is an Ally of America's in the global war on terrorism." Yes, so are Kuwait, Qutar and Saudi Arabia...at least THEIR GOVERNMENTS are, but there are many, many radical Islamicists/Islamo-nazis living in those countries and that's why we can't let our port security fall into those hands.

Now, on the cutting of royalties paid to the government by American based energy companies for taking oil and gas from American controlled, or public/federally owned properties, including from the Gulf of Mexico, IS certainly another big story, but I'm surprised you'd be hyping it, since those royalties were cut by the PREVIOUS administration!


"Some of the leases issued under the program supposedly have caps requiring royalties when oil prices are high, as they are today. But the Clinton administration was so eager to offer incentives to the industry that, in 1998 and 1999, leases were issued with all royalties waived. Now, several oil companies are claiming that the royalty caps on other leases are not valid and that they're entitled to an open-ended raid on this public resource. The cost to the Treasury could be $35 billion or more, almost enough to pay for the federal government's law enforcement activities this year.

From 1989 to 1996, the oil and gas industry showered nearly $75 million in campaign contributions on candidates for the White House and Congress. That sounds like a lot of money, but $35 billion, or even $7 billion, is a whopping return on its investment.

Now, embarrassed politicians are scrambling to undo the deal. Congress can't do much about the giveaways in contracts already signed, so the public is stuck giving away its wealth while the Treasury runs dry."

Alright, alright, so the American public got butt reemed by good'ol Bubba once again...but, you've got to admit, that guy sure has a winning smile, don't he?

Good old Bill! He sure is a rascal ain't he?

Far worse, in my eyes, was Al Gore's selling the Navy's strategic oil reserves to Occidental Petroleum, a company his Dad had a major stake in...a company founded by that rat-bastard commie Armand Hammer (seriously, he was a real-life communist), founder and titular leader of the CPUSA during the 50's, 60's & into the 70's.

Seriously, I never could hate Bill Clinton. He was pretty much a pro-business, welfare cutting, preference ending, budget balancing "Friend of Newt's" (Gingrich, that is) BUT Al Gore....yeah, I sure do despise that sumbitch! And I don't even want to think about the insane comments he made in Jiddah over that same weekend - treason.

At any rate, those royalties should be re-instated and the port security contract re-evaluated forthwith.

Hey! We may be on the same side on those two issues Jill.

WoW! That would be an exciting first!

Let me clarify that last point on the Clinton cutting the oil and gas royalties on oil & gas taken from U.S. owned lands, as I was being at least partly facetious. That wasn't really a "butt reeming," at all. In fact, it was a sound policy and should be viewed as even more sound right now. In fact, I applaud Clinton for doing so.

There, that's another good thing I've said about America's last Democratic President.

Those royalties make taking those energy reserves from American lands more expensive than purchasing those from foreign sources. So, the cutting of those oil & gas royalties helps make American sources more cost efficient (affordable) and thus ourselves more energy independent, at least in a small measure.

Clinton's cutting those royalties wasn't a scam or abuse. Al Gore's selling off the Navy's strategic oil reserves to Occidental Petroleum, however, WAS.

Post a comment