Did the White House cover up the Cheney hunting incident?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I understand these "cover-up" allegations. Cheney's staff notified the local sherrif's department within just a few minutes of the incident, and everyone was interviewed by deputies. Local reporters immediately picked up on the story and reported it on a local newspaper's web site within 18 hours of the incident.

 

Where exactly is the cover-up here?

[silkworm]

I heard the deal is they sat on it for 24 hours to avoid it being the number 1 topic on the Sunday talk shows. They probably tried to cover it up completely but them being who they are, they didn't execute that well (no pun intended (maybe just a little)).

 

The "cover up" is that Dick didn't call the media to tell them, and the media had no idea anything happened for 24 hours.

[swansont]

"cover-up" is, of course, spin from the left. I don't think anyone involved imagined that this would be kept out of the media. But there are certainly some appearances of impropriety.

 

The 18 hours would be one part, and that the initial report came from a private citizen calling the local paper, not the VP's staff briefing the press. Denying entry to a deputy that evening, and waiting until the next day to let them interview Cheney, making alcohol tests moot, would be another. I know that the statement has been made that alcohol was not involved, but the standard procedure (as I understand it) was not followed, and so there are no lab tests that can either confirm or refute this.

 

There is also the ridiculous statement that Cheney didn't violate any hunting protocols, with the 'blame the victim' stance. You don't shoot at birds at ground level, because of circumstances just like this.

[Pangloss]

Yes I think that's a fair point (or several of them). (Minor addendum: In fact I believe Cheney has been issued a warning for not having the proper paperwork.)

 

What do you guys think about the suggestion by the mainstream media that (essentially, to summarize this) the White House had an obligation to report this in the Saturday or Sunday daily briefs to the press?

 

I guess I could see that point, so long as it's not twisted in such a way as to suggest that it equates to a conspiracy or cover-up. The press seems to sometimes demand that everyone do their homework for them (the lazy bums!), but I guess there might be a point to be made there.

 

It just irked me with Elizabeth Vargas asked George Stephanopoulis on ABC News last night if the public had a right to know. Of course we have a right to know, but I really have a problem with the "because you didn't tell us you must think the public doesn't have a right to know" premise of that question. It just... gets under my skin somehow.

 

On the other hand, even if it's all perfectly innocuous, then it means that the White House simply elected not to bring it up because it's not good press, and I wonder is that a good thing. I don't *like* that we're demanding 100% personal exposure from public figures (what's next, 24/7 video surveillance via the web?), but the White House already has a track record of spin when it comes to communications and I would prefer to see things heading the other way.

[Sisyphus]

I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call it a cover-up. They couldn't honestly have thought they could keep it a secret for very long, and it doesn't appear that they tried. I'm sure they would have covered it up if they thought they could have, but that's neither here nor there. That they delayed disclosure for the time they did to keep it out of the Sunday talkshows seems the most likely explanation, and I don't think it's a terrible crime, even if it wasn't really the right thing to do.

 

As for whether we have a "right" to know, I'd say in this case we do. When the Vice President shoots somebody, it pretty clearly has moved beyond what could be defended as a purely private matter, and there ought to be no secrets about the incident or the circumstances thereof, even if it's perfectly innocent. (For how else would we know it's innocent?) I don't think demanding that is at all unreasonable, and I don't think it's akin to demanding 100% personal exposure about all things.

[pcs]

But there are certainly some appearances of impropriety.

 

What impropriety would that be? Obstruction of tabloid journalism?

 

The 18 hours would be one part, and that the initial report came from a private citizen calling the local paper, not the VP's staff briefing the press.

 

The initial report came from Karen Armstrong, the owner of the grounds and VP Cheney and Mr. Whittington's host and mutual friend. Since no one has any reason to believe anything criminal occurred other than VP Cheney's failure to get a seven buck stamp, this has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely related, connected or otherwise relevant to the VP's job, what duty does the VP's office have to inform anyone of the matter?

 

Denying entry to a deputy that evening, and waiting until the next day to let them interview Cheney, making alcohol tests moot, would be another.

 

Secret Service could determine that, and arguably they had jurisdiction. What's improper about letting the appropriate law enforcement body take first shot at the investigation?

 

I know that the statement has been made that alcohol was not involved, but the standard procedure (as I understand it) was not followed, and so there are no lab tests that can either confirm or refute this.

 

Standard procedure was followed. Secret Service took the lead. Whether or not that bothers conspiracy theorists out there doesn't change the fact.

 

There is also the ridiculous statement that Cheney didn't violate any hunting protocols, with the 'blame the victim' stance.

 

That's the conclusion of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

 

You don't shoot at birds at ground level, because of circumstances just like this.

 

Sure you do. Try it sometime.

 

In the end, VP Cheney and his friend had a hunting mishap. None of the parties actually involved seem to make a big a deal of it as the media and the Bush critics, which probably says more about them than anything else.

[swansont]

...

 

I have absolutely no interest in your take on the matter.

[bascule]

Did the White House downplay Cheney's stupidity and the injuries the guy received? Yes.

 

Does it matter? No.

 

Does it count as a cover-up? No.

 

Would you expect Scott McClellan to get out there and talk about how the dude's body was ravaged by bird shot to the point that some wound up in his heart? It's kind of silly for them to get out there and talk about how he only received flesh wounds, but that doesn't count as a coverup.

[pcs]

I have absolutely no interest in your take on the matter.

 

Sure you do. Come on, there was no reason to go all half cocked on the VP over a hunting accident.

[pcs]

Did the White House downplay Cheney's stupidity and the injuries the guy received? Yes.

 

What? Isn't there enough news out there to keep us from making it up? Exactly what did VP Cheney do stupidly and when did the White House downplay Whittington's injuries?

[padren]

Well, there will be all the "I wouldn't trust Cheney at a turkey shoot, much less to help run a long protracted major war" sorta statements, but its really not much different than ditching a car bad and injuring the passenger.

 

Still, if the white house wants to talk about everytime Bush has trouble swallowing a pretzel or gets a colonoscopy...I mean if we have to sit through that stuff they could atleast report the other stuff too.

 

 

Cheney isn't in the white house based on his quail hunting skills, so I really don't think it has any relevance.

The points about proper proceedure though are definately sound IMO, and his conduct during a potential crime (which any shooting should be investigated as at least to establish the facts) investigatation is relevant to his job.

[john5746]

The press just wants to be the first too a story and will try to spin anything to get people interested. Their agenda is to sell the story, but I think there is just too much media and too much stress on getting it out there fast. Quality has gone out the door. A man has been shot and had a heart attack. Get a statement from Cheney, a statement from the victim and perhaps talk about gun safety. That is the real story.

[pcs]

The points about proper proceedure though are definately sound IMO, and his conduct during a potential[/i'] crime (which any shooting should be investigated as at least to establish the facts) investigatation is relevant to his job.

 

They might be, if swansont hadn't cut them out of whole cloth. It's easy to find anyone in the wrong on something if you impose made-up rules as willy nilly as he did. Now I'm sure he honestly believes he was thought the sheriff's office had proper jurisdiction , or that it's obvious you never take the game on unless its in the air. Of course, neither point has any foundation in fact.

[JustStuit]

How exactly do you shoot someone while hunting birds? I think he might have been drunk. I guess they could have been behind a tree or hidden or something.

[Sisyphus]

How exactly do you shoot someone while hunting birds? I think he might have been drunk. I guess they could have been behind a tree or hidden or something.

 

Hey, those slow-moving, pen-raised birds happen to be highly dangerous. You see a movement out of the corner of your eye, you turn and shoot, or IT might get YOU!

 

Another Cheney hunting story that while fairly irrelevant, is also fairly hilarious:

http://www.billingsnews.com/story?storyid=8452&issue=188

[swansont]

FYI, in case anybody else thinks I was making this up. It's hard to find a gun-safety list that does not include "Be sure of your target and what is beyond."

 

From other bird-hunting safety sites, after a quick Google:

 

"Do not shoot at low-flying birds. Always shoot skyward."

 

"Low-flying birds, for example, can be all too tempting. “That’s probably our No. 1 injury around dove season — people taking a shot at low-flying birds,” Everhart said."

 

"Do Not Shoot low flying birds."

 

"Always know the position of the other hunters or blockers, shots at low-flying birds may endanger another hunter or a dog."

[pcs]

FYI...

 

You managed to look up dove hunting.

 

The two hunters should approach the dogs' date=' one on either side, and in a straight line with one another. This straight line is very important for the safety of each hunter....[a']dditionally, a quail hunter should never take a shot at a low flying quail that would cause him to lower the muzzle of his shotgun below a horizontal plane with the ground. Taking a shot at a low-flying quail has ended the life of many fine pointing dogs since the inception of this great

sport.[1]

 

Quail don't flush very high very fast, which is the reason the line is the most important precaution beyond standard firearm safety.

[bascule]

How exactly do you shoot someone while hunting birds?

 

Ignoring the First Rule of Hunting is a good start.

[starbug1]

Were Cheney and Whittington wearing the bright orange hunting jackets and caps you're supposed to wear? If they were...I think it's very hard for accidents like that to happen unless you are a) drunk b)colorblind c)with an idiot friend.

[Saryctos]

Has it been illustrated as to whether it was a point blank shot? bird shot has quite a large spread at a distance. Figuring that I've heard he has wounds on his face, neck and chest(shoulder?) I assume it wasn't very close, or he should be ownated. Plus Cheney is old, if he has good vision reguardless, then disgregaurd this sentance. I must say however, to anyone in a hunting accident like this..."Dumbass!" as I would to anyone else, and would not give him a reprieve* due to his vice presidential status.

 

p.s.

<3 pcs in multiple topics I've read today

Edit: Praise revoked due to change in argumentative posture

[pcs]

Ignoring the First Rule of Hunting[/url'] is a good start.

 

So now we're just linking to other people's fantasies? Has anyone here bashing the VP even read anything on quail hunting?

[JustStuit]

Maybe you would care to enlighten us (sigh).

[bascule]

Let's have a look at the NRA's gun safety rules!

 

http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

 

When using or storing a gun, always follow these NRA rules:

 

Know your target and what is beyond.

Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

[pcs]

Let's have a look at the NRA's gun safety rules!

 

Or, let's see you admit that you have no idea what went down on that hunting trip. How are you going to accuse the VP of acting irresponsibly when you have absolutely no factual basis to make such a claim? It's all well and good that you've developed a sudden interest in firearm and hunting safety. It'd be equally appreciated if you developed an interest in the facts as well.

 

As for the truly tonedeaf comment about alcohol: "This department is fully satisfied that this was no more than a hunting accident." [1]

 

So the weekend is over in Texas.

[bascule]

For the record I own a .308 rifle and a single-shot shotgun... I went shooting last weekend, and am going to go again this weekend. Maybe I'll even post photos!