PDA

View Full Version : Cheney Shoots Self in Foot...


chm
February 12th, 2006, 06:20 PM
Okay, really he shot his hunting companion. Pretty much the same thing.

I had to rub my eyes when I read this story. Thought maybe I was reading The Onion.

Hunting Companion will be okay, although he was shot in the face and chest!

The story, from CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)

Carolyn

lensue
February 12th, 2006, 08:52 PM
>Thought maybe I was reading The Onion<

Carolyn, the cartoonists ought to have a field day! Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey
February 12th, 2006, 10:43 PM
I had to rub my eyes when I read this story. Thought maybe I was reading The Onion.
Yeah, I caught the tail end of that story on the evening news tonight, and I had the same reaction! (Why am I not surprised that Cheney is a little quick on the trigger?)

Moral of tale: Don't go hunting with Dick Cheney!! (Should we exclude Antonin Scalia from that advice?)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 12th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Virtual headshaking here...

Lindsey
February 13th, 2006, 12:06 AM
The story, from CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
What's not funny here is that Cheney (or at least, Cheney's defenders in the Republican establishment) seem to be trying to blame the victim for getting shot. Now I suppose there are some circumstances in which a careless action can put you in someone's line of fire with no fault on the part of the shooter, but apparently Cheney wheeled around 180 degrees following the birds they had flushed, and ended up shooting his hunting companion who was coming up behind him.

I'm not a hunter, but I was on the rifle team at summer camp for several years running, and I just don't see that the guy that got shot was the one being careless.

And the woman on whose property they were hunting (a daughter of the guy who hired Cheney at Halliburton) seems to be saying that the injury to the victim was only that it "broke the skin". But if it was just a flesh wound, why did the guy spend two days in intensive care?

--Lindsey

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 10:33 AM
>Virtual headshaking here...<

Judy, Cheney must have been SHOOTing from the hip and that may explain while he sort of SHOT himself in the foot! Regards, Len [SHOOTing his mouth off!]

RayB (France)
February 13th, 2006, 10:49 AM
>>why did the guy spend two days in intensive care?<<

Believe me, and I speak with experience, when you are in your 70's a hangnail is justification for ICU! The danger here was not the wounding itself but the danger of trauma and shock. ICU is the only place equiped for all contingencies.

It IS true that you know nothing about bird hunting protocols. Cheney had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe in doing what he did.

I am happy for you that you had someone to attempt to ridicule after a very slow news weekend. Shucks, I wish I did!

Jeff
February 13th, 2006, 04:46 PM
>>why did the guy spend two days in intensive care?<<

Believe me, and I speak with experience, when you are in your 70's a hangnail is justification for ICU! The danger here was not the wounding itself but the danger of trauma and shock. ICU is the only place equiped for all contingencies.

It IS true that you know nothing about bird hunting protocols. Cheney had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe in doing what he did.

I am happy for you that you had someone to attempt to ridicule after a very slow news weekend. Shucks, I wish I did!

I know more than something about (bird) hunting protocols; you NEVER shoot more than 45 degrees off of a straight line in front of you. Not to either 90 degree side and certainly not more than that to 180 degrees behind you. The man was a fool and did a bloody dangerous and stupid thing. He's just lucky that because of his <choke> status that he had a small hospital in attendance in that field. Even so, he could and should be charged with any number of felonies as any of us would.

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 06:08 PM
He's got a lot of experience, as a politician, in both!

RayB (France)
February 13th, 2006, 06:25 PM
I know more than something about (bird) hunting protocols; you NEVER shoot more than 45 degrees off of a straight line in front of you. Not to either 90 degree side and certainly not more than that to 180 degrees behind you. The man was a fool and did a bloody dangerous and stupid thing. He's just lucky that because of his <choke> status that he had a small hospital in attendance in that field. Even so, he could and should be charged with any number of felonies as any of us would.

Where did the 180 come from? Even if true, you must announce your presence on the firing line for obvious reasons.

ndebord
February 13th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Okay, really he shot his hunting companion. Pretty much the same thing.

I had to rub my eyes when I read this story. Thought maybe I was reading The Onion.

Hunting Companion will be okay, although he was shot in the face and chest!

The story, from CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)

Carolyn

Well, all I can say is that it is rumored that Cheney said: "I swear, he had WMD. I had to shoot him."

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 07:04 PM
>He's got a lot of experience, as a politician, in both!<

Judy, I'm sure he's been through the whole SHOOTing-match! Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 13th, 2006, 11:03 PM
I suspect he's going to be quailing over the press coverage, that's for sure.

lensue
February 13th, 2006, 11:09 PM
>I suspect he's going to be quailing over the press coverage, that's for sure.<

Judy, how do you think it will compare with the QUAYLEing over the press coverage for another vice president--the potato misspeller! Regards, Len [g]

Lindsey
February 15th, 2006, 12:09 AM
Believe me, and I speak with experience, when you are in your 70's a hangnail is justification for ICU!
My father is in his 70s, he's had a lot worse than hangnails, and he never ended up in ICU. Same with my mother, who is in her 80s. I still think there was a serious disconnect in the early reports that dismissed his wounds as little more than a break of the skin, and the guy ending up in ICU for two days, and now we know that he was penetrated by bird shot deeply enough that doctors didn't try to remove it.

It IS true that you know nothing about bird hunting protocols. Cheney had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe in doing what he did.
You are the one who appears to know little of the protocols, because I have seen postings by many bird hunters in the last two days to the effect that one of the first rules of bird hunting is that you NEVER fire your gun outside of the range of your peripheral vision. They have also said that it is dangerous to hunt with more than two guns at the time (and these guys had three), and that you should never split the hunting party, as these guys did. The other two should have waited while Whittington retrieved his bird. They should all have walked abreast of one another and made it a point to know for certain where each of the others was before firing the gun.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 15th, 2006, 02:56 AM
**My father is in his 70s, he's had a lot worse than hangnails, and he never ended up in ICU. Same with my mother, who is in her 80s.**

I am very happy for them and may they never have to be. If I'm lucky, I will be 74 next month and have had to be three separate times. Each time was a precautionary move and I was damned glad to be there under the circumstances.

I see no point in discussing bird hunting with you since you have already found someone who proves you are right per usual. In retrospect it is a shame that the hunting party wasn't a bi-partisan affair.

chm
February 15th, 2006, 03:16 PM
Well, all I can say is that it is rumored that Cheney said: "I swear, he had WMD. I had to shoot him."
LOL, ndebord.

This incident has given comedians much fodder.

What's not funny - at all - is that the condition of Whittington, the shootee, is much more serious than originally believed. Five to 200 pellets lodged inside him is what my paper said this morning. Of course, the "silent" heart attack mentioned in the news yesterday. Whittington is staying in the hospital for extra days for observation to make sure pellets don't travel to his other vital organs.

This is turning out not to be the minor mishap indicated earlier. The attitude in the Cheney camp was oh, this happens all the time, it's happened to me, etc.... as if it were not much more than a bad bruise or scratch.

Curious, I've found out now that Cheney is frequently going on these hunting trips. Since Cheney seems to spend much of his time in "undisclosed locations", maybe these hunting trips are his "undisclosed locations"? ?

Carolyn

Judy G. Russell
February 15th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Curious, I've found out now that Cheney is frequently going on these hunting trips. Since Cheney seems to spend much of his time in "undisclosed locations", maybe these hunting trips are his "undisclosed locations"? ?Can't be. There'd be more victims!

rlohmann
February 15th, 2006, 07:36 PM
I'm not a hunter, but I was on the rifle team at summer camp for several years running, and I just don't see that the guy that got shot was the one being careless.There's enough blame going around for everybody. Cheney should not have pulled the trigger without knowing where every one of his companions was. Whittington, who had apparently stepped away from the group briefly, should have made sure everyone knew where he was.

It would be perhaps superfluous to point out that this kind of brouhaha never arose after Chappaquiddick.

A former member of Sam's Green-Suit Rifle Team (1st Battalion, 87th Infantry)....

Karl Semper
February 15th, 2006, 07:49 PM
I agree with Ralph and Cheney did say today that it was his fault.

ndebord
February 15th, 2006, 08:09 PM
>>why did the guy spend two days in intensive care?<<

Believe me, and I speak with experience, when you are in your 70's a hangnail is justification for ICU! The danger here was not the wounding itself but the danger of trauma and shock. ICU is the only place equiped for all contingencies.

It IS true that you know nothing about bird hunting protocols. Cheney had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe in doing what he did.

I am happy for you that you had someone to attempt to ridicule after a very slow news weekend. Shucks, I wish I did!

Ray,

From your post, I have to say I doubt you've done any kind of bird hunting. As others have said here, you don't shoot wider than your peripheral vision (aka 45 degrees). I say this as a hunter from the age of 12.

Lindsey
February 15th, 2006, 10:37 PM
I see no point in discussing bird hunting with you since you have already found someone who proves you are right per usual. In retrospect it is a shame that the hunting party wasn't a bi-partisan affair.
What was that Ralph was saying about pounding on the table? And what was that you were saying about class?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 15th, 2006, 10:42 PM
There's enough blame going around for everybody. Cheney should not have pulled the trigger without knowing where every one of his companions was. Whittington, who had apparently stepped away from the group briefly, should have made sure everyone knew where he was.
Actually, I am in complete agreement with you there. Of course, hunters to a man will tell you that the guy with the gun is the one with the primary responsibility -- as Cheney himself acknowledged, to his credit, in his interview with Brit Hume.

It would be perhaps superfluous to point out that this kind of brouhaha never arose after Chappaquiddick.
Unless you're being sarcastic, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. But hey--at least Kennedy didn't try to say it was Mary Jo Kopechne's fault for getting in the car.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 15th, 2006, 10:49 PM
Cheney had no reason to believe that he wasn't safe in doing what he did.
Nick,

It also occurs to me that "had no reason to believe that [it] wasn't safe" is not a good standard for judging when to pull the trigger when you're hunting. The NRA guidelines say that you should positively determine that it IS safe before you pull the trigger, and that includes verifying that the space in front of and behind your target is clear.

--Lindsey

Dan in Saint Louis
February 16th, 2006, 08:50 AM
Can't be. There'd be more victims!
Who was it that ppointed out that if the shotgun had been in the other set of hands, the Secret Service would have blown Whittington away before his finger ever relaxed from the trigger?

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 09:40 AM
That, as my sister-in-law would say, is a True Fact.

ndebord
February 16th, 2006, 10:04 AM
Nick,

It also occurs to me that "had no reason to believe that [it] wasn't safe" is not a good standard for judging when to pull the trigger when you're hunting. The NRA guidelines say that you should positively determine that it IS safe before you pull the trigger, and that includes verifying that the space in front of and behind your target is clear.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Making sure the space in front of you and to the edge of your peripheral vision is clear is a function of your talent and experience. Many fail that test, as evidenced by the number of deer shot that turn out to be humans every hunting season. I have more sympathey for these idiots than I do for what Dick did.

Wheeling around and shooting behind you is the act of a reckless individual.

RayB (France)
February 16th, 2006, 10:42 AM
>>And what was that you were saying about class?<<

What I said was in jest. What you said was out of hatred. B-I-G difference!

RayB (France)
February 16th, 2006, 10:46 AM
>>Wheeling around and shooting behind you is the act of a reckless individual.<<

If that were the case, I would certainly agree. Where did you see this report?

rlohmann
February 16th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Unless you're being sarcastic, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. But hey--at least Kennedy didn't try to say it was Mary Jo Kopechne's fault for getting in the car.The brouhaha--I like the German Tohuwabohu better--refers to the outrage of the news media at Cheney's failure to notify them immediately. Kennedy not only did not notify the media, but orchestrated a large coverup of the entire incident.

The media did not complain.

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 11:40 AM
The media did not complain.That's certainly not the way I remember it. There was nothing BUT coverage about the fact that he waited and didn't report it.

earler
February 16th, 2006, 12:38 PM
That took place nearly 40 years ago. Were you not just a teenager then?

Not only didn't he report it, but he made 26 phone calls from his motel room later that evening.

-er

Jeff
February 16th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Where did the 180 come from? Even if true, you must announce your presence on the firing line for obvious reasons.

You simply don't swing and shoot more than your peripheral version sideways, usually about 45 degrees, and certainly not all the way around and directly behind you. A hunter here did that this last deer season. He heard a noise and spun around and shot the hunter behind him, with a rifle. He's been charged with negligent homicide.

- Jeff

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 02:04 PM
I know he didn't report it. I also remember the outcry when the facts came out. The claim that's being made here is that there was no outcry. Humbug.

ndebord
February 16th, 2006, 02:46 PM
>>Wheeling around and shooting behind you is the act of a reckless individual.<<

If that were the case, I would certainly agree. Where did you see this report?

Ray,

Everywhere. Just go to google news and look. Here is one account, from the Mercury Press which is citing the official account:

"According to the official account, Whittington, a 78-year-old Austin attorney, had fallen out of the hunting line when the rest of the party flushed another covey of quail. As the birds flew past him, Cheney wheeled around with his 28-gauge, Italian-made Perazzi shotgun and fired, hitting Whittington in the face, neck and chest with a load of birdshot from a distance of about 30 yards."

If you ask me, Whittington is lucky Cheney was using a 28. A 12 gauge, even loaded with bird shot, would have penetrated even farther into the body.

chm
February 16th, 2006, 02:52 PM
There was outcry - it was a scandal. Big time. Likely cost Ted Kennedy a serious chance at the Presidency.

Also happened about a billion years ago. Reminds me of John Kerry's campaign. He so annoyed me when he kept going on about Vietnam this and Vietnam that. There was far too much talk about the long-ago Vietnam War in that whole 2004 campaign and who did and didn't do what in the '60s when they were kids. How relevant was it to the present?

Anyway, I feel better about Cheney today. I like it when someone steps up, admits their bad, accepts responsibility, and does not try to shift the blame to everyone else. Not that I like Cheney's politics any more than I did yesterday, but I appreciate him more as a person today.

Carolyn

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 04:59 PM
Glad to see someone else remembers things the way I do!

lensue
February 16th, 2006, 08:33 PM
>The claim that's being made here is that there was no outcry. Humbug.<

Judy, have to disagree--what happened there was not that widely known in America--somehow Ted Kennedy got off very easy and somehow imo large amounts of the American public never quite understood just how badly he had acted--to this date I have never heard him fully own up to how dastardly he behaved and have never seen a true account from him of what actually transpired--could you point me to where he gave a full truthful explanation to america of what he did. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 09:08 PM
what happened there was not that widely known in AmericaI couldn't disagree more. It wasn't widely known immediately thereafter, but certainly was as the days went by. From Wikipedia:

The next morning (July 19, 1969) the police recovered Kennedy's car. Kopechne's body was discovered by diver John Farrar, who observed that a large amount of air was released from the car when it was righted in the water, and that the trunk, when opened, was remarkably dry. These observations and others have led some to believe that Kopechne had not drowned, but suffocated in an air pocket within the car.

The incident quickly blossomed into a scandal. Kennedy was criticized for allegedly driving drunk, for failing to save Kopechne, for failing to summon help immediately and for contacting not the police but rather his lawyer first.

Kennedy entered a plea of guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a sentence of two months in jail, which was suspended. An Edgartown grand jury later reopened the investigation but did not return an indictment.

Kennedy's critics and political opponents question whether justice was served in this case. The case resulted in much satire directed against Kennedy, including a National Lampoon page showing a floating Volkswagen Beetle with the remark that Kennedy would have been elected President had he been driving a Beetle that night; this satire allegedly resulted in legal action by Volkswagen complaining of unauthorized use of their trademark.

lensue
February 16th, 2006, 09:55 PM
>It wasn't widely known immediately thereafter, but certainly was as the days went by. <

Judy, we'll have to agree to disagree--years after I spoke to people about it they didn't quite know what happened--Kennedy got off really easy IMO. Regards, Len

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Many fail that test, as evidenced by the number of deer shot that turn out to be humans every hunting season.
The hunting equivalent of the C&E Christian: the "hunters" that only go out on the opening day of deer hunting season and Thanksgiving Day. The hunters in my family studiously avoid the popular hunting days because there are so many idiots out there with expensive guns and not a clue about hunting safety.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 10:45 PM
What I said was in jest. What you said was out of hatred. B-I-G difference!
Hatred? No. Disgust, yes. But pardon me if I don't see the difference you say is so huge.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 10:46 PM
The media did not complain.
I think your memory is faulty. I remember quite a large brouhaha about that.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 16th, 2006, 11:04 PM
If you ask me, Whittington is lucky Cheney was using a 28. A 12 gauge, even loaded with bird shot, would have penetrated even farther into the body.
Umm, well, as one veteran quail hunter put it: "On the notion that a 28 gauge 'shoots fewer pellets and has a smaller shot pattern than a 12 gauge,' as the Washington Post reports: That's true. But no one hunts quail with a 12 gauge. A 12 gauge is used for high-flying, large birds like geese, ducks and pheasants. If you brought a 12 gauge to a quail hunt you'd be laughed off the ranch...and if you hit a bird there'd be nothing left but feathers and feet."

And it's hard to see how shot could penetrate further into a man's body than coming to rest next to his heart.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 16th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Anybody who didn't know that Teddy Kennedy killed a woman in his car at Chappaquiddick is someone who also probably believes the US bombed Pearl Harbor and the Civil War is where we won our independence from Great Britain...

Lindsey
February 17th, 2006, 12:10 AM
I couldn't disagree more. It wasn't widely known immediately thereafter, but certainly was as the days went by.
I was at summer camp at the time it happened, and you can imagine how isolated you are when you don't see television or newspapers for more than a month -- but news of the incident at Chappaquiddick certainly penetrated through that isolation. The basic circumstances were widely known among the campers -- and we were just kids!

--Lindsey

ktinkel
February 17th, 2006, 08:40 AM
I know he didn't report it. I also remember the outcry when the facts came out. The claim that's being made here is that there was no outcry. Humbug.I agree, and I was an adult at the time. Kennedy’s behavior at Chappaquiddick was a story that wouldn’t die. Waves of disclosures, accompanied by endless articles in newspapers and on TV.

Today that sort of media reaction is routine. But back then, public officials were given a pass on many aspects of their private lives. John Kennedy’s health problems (which were potentially a greater threat to national well-being) and womanizing went with no more than an occasional hint in a gossip column, for example. But Ted’s behavior was headline material for months.

I am not, by the way, suggesting that it should not have been. His behavior was exploitative and cowardly, and he attempted to use family power to engineer a cover-up. But it sure wasn’t ignored.

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 09:20 AM
And, of course, the fact that it has been and is still being used as a political issue today ("you think Dick Cheney / Tom DeLay / Trent Lott / Spiro Agnew / etc. ad infinitum is bad? What about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick??") speaks for itself...

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 09:21 AM
Ted’s behavior was headline material for months. I am not, by the way, suggesting that it should not have been. His behavior was exploitative and cowardly, and he attempted to use family power to engineer a cover-up. But it sure wasn’t ignored.That is precisely my recollection as well.

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 11:09 AM
>Anybody who didn't know that Teddy Kennedy killed a woman in his car at Chappaquiddick <

Judy, unfortunately there seemed to be so many people I met who were sketchy on the details. Interesting that you used the word "killed." There's a new opera which I saw last month at the Met--American Tragedy based on the Dreiser book. The matter of the ambitious hero not saving his wife when she slips into the lake--btw he had brought her to the lake to kill her because he found someone new--is made into opera and there's a dynamic court scene where they discuss whether he's a killer or not.

Anyway back to your use of the word killer--the guy in the opera gets the electric chair for murder--if Kennedy "killed" someone what penalty did he suffer. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 12:01 PM
My recollection of the events is that the incident that put Kennedy's car into the water was an accident. It was what he did afterwards that was -- to put it mildly -- problematic. However, in the end, it appears that how and when the young woman died could not be proven (that is, whether she died quickly in the immediate aftermath of the accident, or slowly as the air gave out in the car). In the years since then, the laws as to vehicular homicide have been changed almost everywhere in the US. Today, setting the events in motion that result in a death will usually be considered vehicular homicide. It wasn't so then. But that doesn't make what he did right, not by a long shot. It wasn't, in any way shape or form.

earler
February 17th, 2006, 02:02 PM
When I was living in italy in the late 1950s there was the case of a milanese lawyer who was in his car with his mother, his wife and his mother-in-law for a sunday drive. He ended up in a lake outside of milan and was the sole survivor. Naturally, everyone said he was 'furbo' (means very clever), to get rid of his wife, mother and mother-in-law so easily.

-er

RayB (France)
February 17th, 2006, 03:16 PM
And, of course, the fact that it has been and is still being used as a political issue today ("you think Dick Cheney / Tom DeLay / Trent Lott / Spiro Agnew / etc. ad infinitum is bad? What about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick??") speaks for itself...

I THINK I agree with that. Not sure???

BTW - I find this to be real compassion and class.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/cheney/index.html

RayB (France)
February 17th, 2006, 03:19 PM
Hatred? No. Disgust, yes. But pardon me if I don't see the difference you say is so huge.

--Lindsey

Pardon hereby issued.

Karl Semper
February 17th, 2006, 03:38 PM
What is even worse is the people who are only out into the woods once a or twice a year and have not only the high pwered rifle, but also the high wiskey to go with it. While I love to hunt I refuse to hunt on public land because of people like that. Too many close calls.

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 03:40 PM
You betcha. Total class act. I cannot imagine being a victim... and apologizing to the shooter. A better man than I am, Gunga Din.

RayB (France)
February 17th, 2006, 06:23 PM
You betcha. Total class act. I cannot imagine being a victim... and apologizing to the shooter. A better man than I am, Gunga Din.

Apparently so.

RayB (France)
February 17th, 2006, 06:25 PM
What is even worse is the people who are only out into the woods once a or twice a year and have not only the high pwered rifle, but also the high wiskey to go with it. While I love to hunt I refuse to hunt on public land because of people like that. Too many close calls.

Yep!

RayB (France)
February 17th, 2006, 06:31 PM
>Anybody who didn't know that Teddy Kennedy killed a woman in his car at Chappaquiddick <

Judy, unfortunately there seemed to be so many people I met who were sketchy on the details. Interesting that you used the word "killed." There's a new opera which I saw last month at the Met--American Tragedy based on the Dreiser book. The matter of the ambitious hero not saving his wife when she slips into the lake--btw he had brought her to the lake to kill her because he found someone new--is made into opera and there's a dynamic court scene where they discuss whether he's a killer or not.

Anyway back to your use of the word killer--the guy in the opera gets the electric chair for murder--if Kennedy "killed" someone what penalty did he suffer. Regards, Len

That is a very big "IF', Len. Can't be proven one way or the other. His following actions, however, shows this lack of one iota of integrity or compassion. I have absolutely no respect for the man and has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 06:52 PM
>That is a very big "IF', Len. Can't be proven one way or the other. His following actions, however, shows this lack of one iota of integrity or compassion. I have absolutely no respect for the man and has nothing whatsoever to do with politics.<

Ray, I'm in agreement with you--thanks for expressing it so well! Regards, Len

lensue
February 17th, 2006, 06:56 PM
>Today, setting the events in motion that result in a death will usually be considered vehicular homicide.<

Judy, thanks, very interesting material. Regards, Len

Lindsey
February 17th, 2006, 09:31 PM
You betcha. Total class act. I cannot imagine being a victim... and apologizing to the shooter. A better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Everything I have heard about Whittington on the news suggests that he is very well though of for that very reason. (So how on earth did he get mixed up with the likes of Cheney and Bush?)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 17th, 2006, 09:56 PM
However it happened, he's certainly a more gracious man than I could possibly be under those circumstances. I hope I'd be able to say, as he did, that we all accept certain risks depending on the activities in which we engage. But to apologize to the guy who shot me? That's probably not in my abilities...

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 08:13 AM
That's certainly not the way I remember it. There was nothing BUT coverage about the fact that he waited and didn't report it.Kennedy failed to report the accident to the police. The uproar about Cheney resulted from his failure to report the accident to the news media. There's a difference.

(The Left went bonkers again when Cheney selected Fox News and Brit Hume for his media appearance, instead of, say, CBS and Dan Rather.)

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 08:36 AM
There was outcry - it was a scandal. Big time. Likely cost Ted Kennedy a serious chance at the Presidency.But it didn't cost him his Senate seat. (Pity poor Teddy. Locked away on Hillary's plantation groaning under the lash. How much do US senators make these days?)

Also happened about a billion years ago. Reminds me of John Kerry's campaign. He so annoyed me when he kept going on about Vietnam this and Vietnam that. There was far too much talk about the long-ago Vietnam War in that whole 2004 campaign and who did and didn't do what in the '60s when they were kids. How relevant was it to the present?Interesting thought.

You might want to go back to George Santayana's observation to the effect that those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 09:42 AM
You might want to go back to George Santayana's observation to the effect that those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.Oh yes... those who don't remember that putting American military into a country where we're not wanted and where there's an active insurgency can be big trouble are condemning us all...

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 09:44 AM
You seem now to be changing the issue from one of whether there was an outcry over Teddy Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick (there was, and nobody who was around here at the time can suggest otherwise) to who's more morally blameworthy. Let's deal with one thing at a time. Do you now concede that you are wrong to suggest that there was no outcry over Chappaquiddick?

lensue
February 18th, 2006, 10:47 AM
>nobody who was around here at the time can suggest otherwise<

Judy, I know your reply is to Ralph but I still contend that among alot of people who maybe should have paid more attention to what the press coverage was there was confusion of the sordid details of what Ted Kennedy actually did. I seem to recall Kennedy dealing with the Kopechne family privately and there being no autopsy. Regards, Len

earler
February 18th, 2006, 10:49 AM
Yeah, we had that problem in germany back in the 1940s.

-er

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 11:55 AM
By the time we made it into Germany, there wasn't much of an insurgency... and a lot of Germans (many of my relatives included) were very glad to see the allies.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 11:57 AM
The point is not whether every American knew the details. The point is whether there was substantial press coverage. There was. And the press was Not Amused by what had happened.

lensue
February 18th, 2006, 12:18 PM
>The point is whether there was substantial press coverage. <

Judy, well I tried to go back over the thread--I may have missed some stuff--but who said there wasn't adequate press coverage in the Kennedy case--I don't think I said that--did anybody else.

What I questioned was this statment of yours which came early in the thread: "I know he didn't report it. I also remember the outcry when the facts came out. The claim that's being made here is that there was no outcry. Humbug."

It's not the press's outcry I was talking about--it's what I though was the public's confusion on exactly what Kennedy did. But again I'd like to know who you feel said the press didn't come out with an outcry.

BTW I'm just sorry there was no outcry from those voters in Ma.! Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 12:47 PM
From Ralph, earlier: "It would be perhaps superfluous to point out that this kind of brouhaha never arose after Chappaquiddick."

As I said, humbug. There was far more of a brouhaha then than now.

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 05:20 PM
IIRC, we put American military personnel into two countries in 1944 and 1945, countries in which we weren't wanted.

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 05:22 PM
Does his behavior at the time, regardless of the state of the criminal law at the time, justify his frequent and pompous moralizing?

Shame is apparently not a Kennedy virtue.

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 05:29 PM
By the time we made it into Germany, there wasn't much of an insurgency... and a lot of Germans (many of my relatives included) were very glad to see the allies.There was the Werwolf, the Nazi terrorist group that, among other things, murdered the Mayor the Americans had appointed to pull Aachen out of the rubble.

The Werwölfe pretty much gave up, but Eisenhower was concerned about them until well into the summer of 1945.

But that's largely beside the point, which you miss in ascribing some significance to the fact that some Iraqis (perhaps most, but by no means all) don't want us there. Iraq--in fact, most of the Arab-Muslim world--is a snakepit. Left to themselves, they'd simply kill each other.

Is that what you want?

rlohmann
February 18th, 2006, 05:46 PM
That is precisely my recollection as well.The issue isn't whether it was ignored; the issue is whether he was given a free pass by the United States Senate and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

(Incidentally, with respect to the criminal laws at the time, regardless of whether the sequence of events at Chappaquiddick would have made out a criminal offense, I suspect that obstruction of justice was on the books.)

Peter Creasey
February 18th, 2006, 06:44 PM
It would be perhaps superfluous to point out that this kind of brouhaha never arose after Chappaquiddick.



http://static.flickr.com/30/101342200_6d9757ef4d.jpg

Lindsey
February 18th, 2006, 10:28 PM
As I said, humbug. There was far more of a brouhaha then than now.
And I can guarantee you that Democrats are not going to be talking about Cheney's hunting accident 40 years from now.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 18th, 2006, 10:31 PM
I don't see Bush's past bad acts stopping him from frequent and pompous moralizing.

Yeah, I know: According to you, only conservative Republicans have any right to speak in public.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 18th, 2006, 10:34 PM
Ralph, I will give to you a piece of advice that was recently so graciously given to me by Dick Kahane:

Get over it!

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 11:22 PM
Iraq--in fact, most of the Arab-Muslim world--is a snakepit. Left to themselves, they'd simply kill each other. Is that what you want?I would vastly prefer that they kill each other than kill us. And I do not see our involvement there as making the latter any less likely but rather far more likely.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 11:23 PM
We were completely and legitimately at war with those countries, yes? It wasn't a matter of faulty intelligence or suspected bad acts or anything of the sort, but rather all-out no-fooling us-or-them war.

Judy G. Russell
February 18th, 2006, 11:25 PM
Again, I repeat: let's get back to where this all started. You sought to defend Dick Cheney on the basis that there was no brouhaha over Chappaquiddick. Do you care to amend your clearly inaccurate statement about Chappaquiddick or would you prefer to simply withdraw from the field altogether?

lensue
February 19th, 2006, 12:27 AM
>There was far more of a brouhaha then than now.<

Judy, well for me Kennedy's offense is much greater than Cheney's so I'm glad there was a brouhaha and I'm sorry that Kennedy didn't recieve a stiffer penalty for his reprehensible actions. Regards, Len

earler
February 19th, 2006, 03:42 AM
There are at least 2 reasons why democrats won't be flogging cheney 40 years from now. First of all, he will no longer occupy any public office and will probably be dead by then. Second, cheney was not guilty of a serious felony and no one died. Mr. kennedy is still alive 40 years later, occupies public office and did commit an egregious felony. I'm sure that no one will speak of all this 40 years from now. He will probably be dead and won't be occupying a public office.

-er

rlohmann
February 19th, 2006, 08:22 AM
I don't see Bush's past bad acts stopping him from frequent and pompous moralizing.Bush has publicly come clean about his bad acts. Kennedy stonewalls to this day.

Do you see a difference?

Yeah, I know: According to you, only conservative Republicans have any right to speak in public.I challenge you to come up with any quote from me suggesting that.

If the Left were muzzled, the world would be a duller place. Look at all the Hollywood personages, for example, who promised publicly to leave the Country if Bush were reelected. I hope you didn't put any money on their credibility. (I certainly didn't. :->)

Then there are people like Hillary, whining about a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy and plantation life in the Senate, and Barbra Streisand and Noam Chomsky, who provide amusement for much of the world when they open their mouths.

And Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, and ....

As long as I live and breathe, the Left shall not be muzzled!

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Again, it amuses me enormously that every time a Republican does something stupid, the response from the right is: "But it wasn't as bad as [fill in Democrat of choice]!"

lensue
February 19th, 2006, 11:33 AM
>Again, it amuses me enormously that every time a Republican does something stupid, the response from the right is: "But it wasn't as bad as [fill in Democrat of choice]!"<

Judy, I do think that's kind of a big generalization. Again I say Cheney did mess up and took responsibility but did speak out too late. However, IMO for people to make such a fuss about it and be so unforgiving and equate it with what Killer Kennedy did just doesn't hold up. I do believe you gave at least some credit to Cheney for finally admitting his responsibility. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Find me a single instance lately (within the past, say, five years) when any Republican has done anything really stupid, and the immediate response of the GOP apologists here hasn't been to say that the conduct wasn't as bad as that of [fill in the blank Democrat].

lensue
February 19th, 2006, 10:10 PM
>Find me a single instance lately (within the past, say, five years)<

Judy, with this new cumbersome forum we have here, forget it! I ain't going back! Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 19th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Yeah, well, nothing will ever be as easy as Tapcis was... snurf...

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 12:51 AM
And what egregious felony would that be?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 20th, 2006, 12:59 AM
Bush has publicly come clean about his bad acts.
Bush has come clean? News to me. When was that?

I challenge you to come up with any quote from me suggesting that.
Check here (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14443&postcount=33).

If you didn't actually mean that Gore and other administration critics should just sit down and shut up, as you suggested, I'm glad to hear it.

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 20th, 2006, 02:57 AM
[QUOTE=rlohmann]As long as I live and breathe, the Left shall not be muzzled![/QUOTE

Oh, no fear . . . . it provides too much entertainment for voters.

earler
February 20th, 2006, 04:24 AM
Surely you jest! The egregious felony was the killing of mary jo kopecne. What isn't known is if it was premeditated or the result of his being drunk. Add the non-assistance to the damsel in the car, that the authorities weren't informed until the next day.

-er

Lindsey
February 21st, 2006, 12:06 AM
Surely you jest! The egregious felony was the killing of mary jo kopecne.
No, I don't jest. At what point was he found guilty of that felony?

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
February 21st, 2006, 03:15 AM
No, I don't jest. At what point was he found guilty of that felony?

--Lindsey

In the hearts and minds of millions and millions of people all over the world, I think. Involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, at least.

earler
February 21st, 2006, 03:42 AM
There was no autopsy and it was impossible to determine how much alcohol was in his blood since he fled the scene and hid in a hotel until the following afternoon (or evening). With the recent assassination of his older brother fresh in mind, and the assassination of john kennedy a few years prior to that, teddy kennedy was the great white hope of old joe kennedy (he was never indicted either for his many felonies). The chappaquidik matter was hushed up as quickly as money could buy.

-er

Lindsey
February 21st, 2006, 11:15 PM
In the hearts and minds of millions and millions of people all over the world, I think. Involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide, at least.
Tsk, tsk. Now you're substituting your opinion for fact. You may think he is guilty, but he cannot be deemed guilty until a court of law finds him so.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 21st, 2006, 11:17 PM
In other words: He wasn't found guilty of killing Mary Joe Kopechne.

--Lindsey

earler
February 22nd, 2006, 04:43 AM
Ah, so stalin, hitler, among others, weren't guilty of any crimes because they weren't "deemed guilty" by a court of law. Interesting.

-er

ndebord
February 22nd, 2006, 12:43 PM
Ah, so stalin, hitler, among others, weren't guilty of any crimes because they weren't "deemed guilty" by a court of law. Interesting.

-er

Earle,

Cheney, by law, should have been charged, but Republicans walk in Texas these days, as did Democrats when LBJ was in charge in the old days.

As for Ted Kennedy, that's quite a stretch -- putting him in the same breath as Hitler and Stalin. Then to assert that neither Hitler nor Stalin were deemed guilty by a court of law. Please, this goes beyond or rather beneath reason itself. No they were not convicted in a U.S. court of law, but they were convicted by other means.

http://www.trussel.com/hf/stalin.htm

Special Report to the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by Nikita Khrushchev, February 24-25, 1956.

The title of the report was "Crimes of the Stalin Era"

As for Hitler, he would have been the centerpiece of the Nuremberg Trials, if he had been alive.

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 01:21 PM
No, but by your reasoning, Kennedy wasn't guilty of anything at all since, whatever he did, it was so much less than Stalin or Hitler.

earler
February 22nd, 2006, 05:55 PM
Kennedy only killed one innocent person. Hitler and stalin killed many millions. Of course, they are worse. But, if we decide to let someone off because he only kills one person, isn't that a major change in our jurisprudence?

-er

earler
February 22nd, 2006, 05:56 PM
No, that isn't my reasoning and it isn't our jurisprudence either.

-er

ndebord
February 22nd, 2006, 07:24 PM
Earle,

E>>>Kennedy only killed one innocent person.

Crass insinuations are at best, in bad taste, and at worst, unprincipled defamation.

If you are going to state, as a matter of fact, that Kennedy killed the girl, you are required to meet the burden of proof that the law demands.

Fact. Two people went into the drink and one came out. Are you alleging that Kennedy deliberately drove that car into the stream? Now that is actionable. Otherwise, going into the water was an accident. We can't say what happened under water. Not the easiest thing for one person to get out of, much less two people. Having almost drowned 3 times, once in white water, I can tell you from personal experience that getting up to the surface is not an easy feat under the best of circumstances. I went under a logjam in white water and almost didn't make it to the surface. My girl friend and the canoe kept on going down the river sans me. When I did get to the surface, I was 9 parts dead and had to stumble along a rocky bank in waterlogged gear to try and catch up to her, which I did because the river went round a bend and she floated into an eddy. If she had not, she might well have drowned and I would have been unable to save her.

Did Kennedy try and save her that night and fail? Was he half dead (and possibly half drunk, although we will never know) and unable to get back to the car? Did he stumble off thinking she was dead? Did he run away in a fit of shame? Or did he, as unprincipled conspiracy theorists claim, say something like, "Die, bitch, die," and walk away a smug murderer.

So the long and short of it is, you are indulging in character assassination out of either a political or a personal antipathy and that ain't noble, in fact that is as ignoble as it gets in my book.

lensue
February 22nd, 2006, 07:37 PM
>Did Kennedy try and save her that night and fail? Was he half dead (and possibly half drunk, although we will never know) and unable to get back to the car? Did he stumble off thinking she was dead? Did he run away in a fit of shame? Or did he, as unprincipled conspiracy theorists claim, say something like, "Die, bitch, die," and walk away a smug murderer.<

Nick, he's still alive--what does he say? BTW your choices seemed to leave out what Earle said--pregnancy and premeditated murder--couldn't that have happened? Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 22nd, 2006, 09:07 PM
It sure sounds like what you're saying. You've gone on and on and on about Teddy Kennedy this and Teddy Kennedy that... but poooooooor Dick Cheney, who shot a 78-year-old man in the face...

ndebord
February 23rd, 2006, 12:49 AM
>Did Kennedy try and save her that night and fail? Was he half dead (and possibly half drunk, although we will never know) and unable to get back to the car? Did he stumble off thinking she was dead? Did he run away in a fit of shame? Or did he, as unprincipled conspiracy theorists claim, say something like, "Die, bitch, die," and walk away a smug murderer.<

Nick, he's still alive--what does he say? BTW your choices seemed to leave out what Earle said--pregnancy and premeditated murder--couldn't that have happened? Regards, Len

Len,

Go back and reread what I posted. I think I covered that angle, although I have to say that pregnancy and premeditated murder is more than a stretch, it is downright looneytunes imo. Anybody with Kennedy's money and family could have it done for them in a nice, slick professional way.

Of course, if this kind of theory really rings your bell, then I've got a bridge or two to sell you and I expect a good price.

earler
February 23rd, 2006, 02:05 AM
If you drove a car off a bridge into the water and your passenger died as a result you would have killed that passenger. It's as simple as that. Note I didn't say he murdered her. He did kill her, either through his negligence or because he wished to get rid of her. If you drove your car off the bridge, I will admit it would probably be negligence, not premeditated. Remember the transitive verb, to kill, means "to deprive of life".

-er

lensue
February 23rd, 2006, 08:39 AM
>if this kind of theory really rings your bell<

Nick, well I think I've said elsewhere I don't think that's the most likely thing to have happened--however I feel much stronger that there was a cover up and that what Kennedy did was reprehensible. I believe he cold-bloodedly planned his political future while the woman he was having an extra marital encounter with was lying in a car underwater--he let hours go by before a call was made to authorities. What kind of penalty should be institued for someone like that in your opinion. Regards, Len

ndebord
February 23rd, 2006, 11:58 PM
If you drove a car off a bridge into the water and your passenger died as a result you would have killed that passenger. It's as simple as that. Note I didn't say he murdered her. He did kill her, either through his negligence or because he wished to get rid of her. If you drove your car off the bridge, I will admit it would probably be negligence, not premeditated. Remember the transitive verb, to kill, means "to deprive of life".

-er

Earle,

Killed is one of those words that generally, when used in the active sense, means you freakin' murdered someone. When I was running around the streets of southside Chicago in middle school, when the mob guys got rid of someone we said, "Joey killed Vinnie."

Also, when you say he did kill her and then follow that in the same sentence with "because he wished to get rid of her," shows which meaning you meant in your original post, so you are just dissembling now.

ndebord
February 24th, 2006, 12:04 AM
>if this kind of theory really rings your bell<

Nick, well I think I've said elsewhere I don't think that's the most likely thing to have happened--however I feel much stronger that there was a cover up and that what Kennedy did was reprehensible. I believe he cold-bloodedly planned his political future while the woman he was having an extra marital encounter with was lying in a car underwater--he let hours go by before a call was made to authorities. What kind of penalty should be institued for someone like that in your opinion. Regards, Len

Len,

You're letting your personal antipathy cloud your reason. It is just as likely that Ted Kennedy was in a panic and didn't know what to do, as is the case with so many of our elites, he did the right thing when his handlers told him too. That is reprehensible behavior, but not what you allege which is really just conspiracy-style gossip.

earler
February 24th, 2006, 04:18 AM
No, kill is not a synonym of murder nor vice versa. You might kill someone accidentally.

-er

lensue
February 24th, 2006, 09:07 AM
>It is just as likely that Ted Kennedy was in a panic and didn't know what to do,<

Nick, I have to disagree--a short panic state I could see but here's what happened over many hours:

"Kennedy claims he dove down several times attempting to free her. After exhausting himself, he rested for twenty minutes, then walked back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. At the Lawrence Cottage, summoned his cousin, Joe Gargan, and another friend, Phil Markham, to return to the scene of the accident. Though there was a working telephone at this location, none of the group phoned for police or rescue help. Kennedy then returned to the submerged car with Gargan and Markham who then resumed trying to reach her. The group claimed that the tidal current prevented them from reaching her. Kennedy did not report the accident to authorities until the following morning. He had, in the meantime, discussed the accident with several people, including his attorney and Kopechne's parents." Regards, Len

ndebord
February 24th, 2006, 09:49 AM
>It is just as likely that Ted Kennedy was in a panic and didn't know what to do,<

Nick, I have to disagree--a short panic state I could see but here's what happened over many hours:

"Kennedy claims he dove down several times attempting to free her. After exhausting himself, he rested for twenty minutes, then walked back to the Lawrence Cottage where the party had been held. At the Lawrence Cottage, summoned his cousin, Joe Gargan, and another friend, Phil Markham, to return to the scene of the accident. Though there was a working telephone at this location, none of the group phoned for police or rescue help. Kennedy then returned to the submerged car with Gargan and Markham who then resumed trying to reach her. The group claimed that the tidal current prevented them from reaching her. Kennedy did not report the accident to authorities until the following morning. He had, in the meantime, discussed the accident with several people, including his attorney and Kopechne's parents." Regards, Len


Len,

Fine. He shoulda, coulda called the cops. Lapse of judgment. Went to his friends instead. Finally called the cops. And he talked to a lawyer (gasp) and the girl's parents. (Hi. I'm Ted Bundy, I just "killed" your daughter, wanna talk about it?).

I just don't get your obsession here.

Back to Cheney. It was a hunting accident. He did everything wrong that you can do and didn't pay any price at all for his reckless accident. It would be one thing if he was a novice hunter, but he has been doing it probably as long as I and screwed the pooch bigtime.

Did he walk? Yes. Did Kennedy walk? Yes. Is it the same thing? No. Apples and Oranges. You can't fit all things into the same shoebox.

FWIW, I have never shoehorned other people's cases into discussions about one person's screwup. But hey, distracting attention from the case at hand is an old and beloved tool of all politicians, even though it seems to be a particular favorite of the hard right wing at this moment in our nation's history.

lensue
February 24th, 2006, 01:40 PM
>Back to Cheney. It was a hunting accident. He did everything wrong that you can do and didn't pay any price at all for his reckless accident.<

Nick, I agree he made some serious mistakes for which he took responsibility--I admit to knowing very little about hunting. What penalties would you say would be fair to impose on him. What penalties would be imposed on other hunters-- a fine--I'm sure he could pay it--what else. Regards, Len

ndebord
February 24th, 2006, 06:53 PM
>Back to Cheney. It was a hunting accident. He did everything wrong that you can do and didn't pay any price at all for his reckless accident.<

Nick, I agree he made some serious mistakes for which he took responsibility--I admit to knowing very little about hunting. What penalties would you say would be fair to impose on him. What penalties would be imposed on other hunters-- a fine--I'm sure he could pay it--what else. Regards, Len

Len,

Cheney managed to keep the whole thing quiet for 21 hours which puts him way up on Kennedy. As for the penalties. Reckless endangerment is what you or I would have been charged with in a similar situation, don't you think? Not to mention failing to report a shooting.

Cheney shot the guy around about 5:30 pm on Saturday. Bush knew by 8pm and the world knew 17 hours later at 11:00 am Sunday. The local sheriff at that time said he didn't know a thing, so it seems that no local or state officials were told there was a shooting incident, much less one where the victim ended up in ICU.

So Cheney kept it quiet for 21 hours and Bush 17. Teddy was a piker at only 9 hours.

And FWIW, Cheney admitted to drinking one beer. Nobody has come forward to confirm or deny his account and with much time elapsing, no way to test physically. I'd sure like that kind of leniency if I shot someone or ran them over with a car or whatever. Don't tell the cops. Don't submit to blood or breathalyzer tests. Nice pass, if you can get it.

(By the way, all this took place in Kenedy County.) Is this the same thing? No, as I said before: Apples and Oranges. But since youse guys wanted to bring Kennedy into this story about Cheney's recklessness and ability to avoid the law, I guess I have to play this hand.

lensue
February 24th, 2006, 11:15 PM
>The local sheriff at that time said he didn't know a thing, so it seems that no local or state officials were told there was a shooting incident<

Nick, are you sure of your facts here--I found this: ""No one in the federal government has told Sheriff Ramon Salinas III[Kenedy County] and his deputies how to do their job...He was the one who decided not to go to the ranch to investigate until Sunday, the day after Vice President Cheney shot and wounded Austin, Texas, lawyer Harry Whittington on a quail hunt. Salinas based the decision on witness accounts and advice from people on the ranch he knows and trusts, including a former sheriff...Salinas said he was barbecuing with his family at 5:30 p.m. Saturday when he received a call from sheriff's Capt. Charles Kirk...Minutes later, Salinas got a call from a U.S. Secret Service agent...Salinas called Ramiro Medellin Jr., a former sheriff who lives on Armstrong Ranch and works as a ranch hand. Medellin called Salinas back and confirmed the incident was an accident. It was at this point that Salinas decided to wait until the next morning to send an officer to investigate the incident." Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 25th, 2006, 10:59 AM
I can just imagine a sheriff with an ordinary shooter saying, "Oh gee... they said it was an accident, so I don't have to bother even investigating for 18 hours..."

lensue
February 25th, 2006, 12:01 PM
>I can just imagine a sheriff with an ordinary shooter saying, "Oh gee... they said it was an accident, so I don't have to bother even investigating for 18 hours..."<

Judy, well is this to be blamed on Cheney? And am I right in saying that Nick came up with incorrect information--he spoke of no county official being made aware of the accident until the following day but that appears to be wrong. Regards, Len

Judy G. Russell
February 25th, 2006, 04:43 PM
I don't know who was notified when; I do know nobody frol local law enforcement did any investigaton or interviews until the next day. And in a sense, yes, Cheney is responsible for allowing himself to be treated differently from others. I think of a NJ Supreme Court justice who was pulled over for speeding and given a warning. He didn't realize it was a warning, rather than a ticket, until the State Trooper was pulling away. He chased the trooper down and made him give him a ticket instead of the warning. That's the kind of conduct I hope for in our highest officials.

lensue
February 25th, 2006, 07:22 PM
>I don't know who was notified when; I do know nobody frol local law enforcement did any investigaton or interviews until the next day<

Judy, but that's different then what Nick said-right? It's all out there on the internet--I gave you the basic info--there was an unfortunate accident--it was called in timely--that's contrary to the material Nick provided--they got the unfortunate to the hospital as quickly as possible and he's alive and well--this all seems a lot different that what happened with you-know-who! I think there's alot of partisan politics out here and it's not all coming from Republicans. Regards, Len [g]

Judy G. Russell
February 25th, 2006, 11:48 PM
Why do you care about you-know-who, and why is it necessary to consider the one against the other? Why is it necessary to go back THIRTY FIVE YEARS to say "well, it can't be THAT bad what Chenery did, because it's still better than..."???

lensue
February 26th, 2006, 09:19 AM
>Why do you care about you-know-who<

Judy, well you're right--I'm going to Costa Rica tomorrow--maybe I can forget the guy while I'm there! Regards, Len [obsessed!] [r,d,g]

ndebord
February 26th, 2006, 09:43 AM
>The local sheriff at that time said he didn't know a thing, so it seems that no local or state officials were told there was a shooting incident<

Nick, are you sure of your facts here--I found this: ""No one in the federal government has told Sheriff Ramon Salinas III[Kenedy County] and his deputies how to do their job...He was the one who decided not to go to the ranch to investigate until Sunday, the day after Vice President Cheney shot and wounded Austin, Texas, lawyer Harry Whittington on a quail hunt. Salinas based the decision on witness accounts and advice from people on the ranch he knows and trusts, including a former sheriff...Salinas said he was barbecuing with his family at 5:30 p.m. Saturday when he received a call from sheriff's Capt. Charles Kirk...Minutes later, Salinas got a call from a U.S. Secret Service agent...Salinas called Ramiro Medellin Jr., a former sheriff who lives on Armstrong Ranch and works as a ranch hand. Medellin called Salinas back and confirmed the incident was an accident. It was at this point that Salinas decided to wait until the next morning to send an officer to investigate the incident." Regards, Len

When did Salinas provide this reasoning as to why he didn't investigate a high-profile shooting until the next day? The press, at the time, didn't know of this claim, as evidenced by this piece.

That bastion of liberal reporting, the Salt Lake Tribune said:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3523533

"On Monday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan had one of the toughest jobs in the country. He had to defend the administration's handling of the disclosure, amid hostile questioning and rising tempers. But it seemed all too clear he had reservations of his own about it.
Poor Scott. It took 43 minutes of questions, follow-ups and artful dodges posing as answers before he revealed in a straightforward manner that President Bush knew by 8 p.m. Saturday night, Washington time, that the vice president had shot someone.
Seventeen hours later, at 11 a.m. Sunday, Central time, rancher Katharine Armstrong told a reporter for the Corpus Christi (Texas) Caller-Times about the shooting. The newspaper's reporters confirmed the shooting, although the local sheriff's office claimed no knowledge of it, and had the first news account on its Web site by 1:48 p.m."

lensue
February 26th, 2006, 11:10 AM
>When did Salinas provide this reasoning... although the local sheriff's office claimed no knowledge of it, and had the first news account on its Web site by 1:48 p.m."<

Nick, I won't have time to research all this because of a trip to Costa Rica coming up tomorrow but according to Newsweek the call to Salinas came in as I reported it--I think the newpaper you site got something wrong. There are probably loads of other places that could provide this info on Salinas. I would say this--if it can be shown that no officials were told of the accident until the following day as you stated then Cheney and his people did something terrible. Regards, Len

Mike Landi
February 27th, 2006, 01:09 PM
I guess he needed this (http://www.quailhuntingschool.com/flash.php) type of training.

Judy G. Russell
February 27th, 2006, 03:04 PM
ROFL and LOL and ROFL some more!

ndebord
February 27th, 2006, 03:27 PM
>When did Salinas provide this reasoning... although the local sheriff's office claimed no knowledge of it, and had the first news account on its Web site by 1:48 p.m."<

Nick, I won't have time to research all this because of a trip to Costa Rica coming up tomorrow but according to Newsweek the call to Salinas came in as I reported it--I think the newpaper you site got something wrong. There are probably loads of other places that could provide this info on Salinas. I would say this--if it can be shown that no officials were told of the accident until the following day as you stated then Cheney and his people did something terrible. Regards, Len

Len,

Neither of us got it quite right. This from MSNBC on the timeline:

"Saturday evening: Cheney and the rest of the hunting party sit down for dinner at the ranch. At some point, sheriff's deputies who heard reports of the ambulance responding to an accident at the ranch stop at the front gate to see if anyone needs help, but are told no one needs assistance. The Secret Service earlier had said the deputies were seeking to interview Cheney, but on Tuesday they said that was not the case."

The Sheriff came to interview Cheney on Sunday morning at 9a.m.

As for the Secret Service, I rather believe their first statement.

Mike Landi
February 27th, 2006, 03:41 PM
ROFL and LOL and ROFL some more!

I had a lot of fun with that one. <g>

Judy G. Russell
February 27th, 2006, 04:07 PM
The part I like best is the disclaimer: "This game is a parody and meant for entertainment purposes only. We do not endorse the shooting of people or lawyers."

RayB (France)
February 27th, 2006, 06:22 PM
The part I like best is the disclaimer: "This game is a parody and meant for entertainment purposes only. We do not endorse the shooting of people or lawyers."

When I read THAT the site lost ALL its credibility.

Judy G. Russell
February 27th, 2006, 08:14 PM
Pffffffffft!!!

Mike Landi
February 27th, 2006, 09:25 PM
"We do not endorse the shooting of people or lawyers."

Unless, of course, you are part of this admin^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

Judy G. Russell
February 27th, 2006, 11:54 PM
ROFL!!! And mostly if the lawyers are elderly Texans...

Lindsey
February 28th, 2006, 09:54 PM
I guess he needed this (http://www.quailhuntingschool.com/flash.php) type of training.
Now that is fun!!

--Lindsey

Lindsey
February 28th, 2006, 09:56 PM
ROFL!!! And mostly if the lawyers are elderly Texans...
And especially if they are moderate Republicans!

--LIndsey