Dick Cheney has given an interview to Brit Hume, which will air momentarily on FoxNews. I'll watch and post.
UPDATE: Cheney: "It's not Harry's fault. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
MORE: Anyone who's inclined to complain about the choice of FoxNews should know that the interview was interspersed with commentary from Fred Barnes who was quite critical of Cheney. He repeatedly said there wasn't enough of an explanation for the delay, that it was wrong to have called only a local press outlet, and so forth.
१५ फेब्रुवारी, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२९ टिप्पण्या:
- be sure to tell us if Dick plans to invite Scalia duck hunting again, ok??
Hi, John. I think it's interesting because he is doing it. He's made a decision to appear on TV. That decision is political. I'm interested in that.
hard to walk away humanized from a situation where 1) you participated in some grotesque mockery of hunting involving driving in a vehicle from covey to covey to shoot tame birds like sitting ducks, and 2) after shooting a friend in the face and chest you choose not to accompany that friend to the hospital but instead to have dinner as if nothing happened, and 3) you refuse to talk to the local police until the next day.
hard to see any humanization indeed.
He chose them hoping they would be soft, right?
Or maybe he chose them hoping they would be fair. I don't think he has any reason to believe that another outlet would be fair.
So it looks like the exalted in unconvinced. Why do I get the feeling that no matter what Cheney did or does, the exalted won't be pleased.
Sigh.
Haven't seen it yet but I side with those who think Cheney chose Fox because they'd be fair. I've yet to see a Fox interview where they give the Conservative the kind of softballs Liberals get thrown at them on the other networks. Yeah, I know, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I just haven't seen it.
Good for Cheney, I say. He didn't have to do it but, like Ann says, it was a political move. So what?
If he plays his cards right, Cheney can turn this whole story on its head. Headlines tomorrow: "Stony VP Shows Soft Side". He takes responsibilty, shows he's emotionally effected by it all and he walks away from this humanized.
I seriously doubt that is going to be the way it plays out. I don't know what Fox's reach is, but I doubt it's large enough that any initial positive impression (of which, mind, I am dubious) formed by the interview can overwhelm the effect of subsequent pundit bloviation on the moment. And I do not think those pundits are in the mood to construct a narrative of "pleasantly surprising." More likely, it will be the narrative "FLAILING VP FAILS TO JUSTIFY UNFATHOMABLE 18 HOUR DELAY IN TALKING TO NATIONAL PRESS ABOUT SHOOTING HIS FRIEND IN THE HEAD." And that will not work to his advantage at all.
I did not wach it bu t have read the report on it. Cheney took full responsibility.
Exalted -
I was starting to think you were making some sense about how Cheney should've tagged along to the hospital, and then I started wondering how disruptive it would be if the second-highest-value target on Earth showed up unexpectedly with his security detail and hung around waiting for word from the doctors.
Maybe it wouldn't be prohibitively disruptive; does anybody know what that kind of thing would involve? Is it just a few bullnecked guys in dark suits with wires in their ears, or is there more to it than that these days?
I received my first shotgun on my 11th birthday. Until my 18th birthday, I hunted every weekend during each hunting season. I never shot anyone.
Cheney took full responsibility.
What otherwise did you think he could possible do?
Cheney: You don't need to ask me questions.
Hume: I don't need to ask you questions.
Cheney: I am not the heartless corrupt incompetent you are looking for.
Hume: You are not the heartless corrupt incompetent I am looking for.
Cheney: Go to break now
Hume: We'll be right back after this word from our sponsors.
I haven't kept up with this on a close basis (except for chance to ridicule Cheney). Did the hospital report this to the police? Did any local newspaper check police ledgers?
I would think that any gunshot accidents would be reported as a matter of course (maybe it's common enough in Texas they figure there's no point...) And standard newspaper practice is (used to be) to check out police ledgers on a very regular basis.
*Yawn*
Is there still monkey chatter about the Cheney hunting accident?
Say, I heard Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. Has that been investigated yet?
I'm glad Cheney owned up. He certainly needed to, imo. This somewhat mitigates my disappointment.
I suspect Halliburton was involved.
:ninja:
I would think that any gunshot accidents would be reported as a matter of course (maybe it's common enough in Texas they figure there's no point...)
I grew up in South Texas and most of the people I know here are amazed that this is such a hugh story. My Dad is 82 and still has birdshot in his arm from a similar incident that happened 20 years ago. Same thing with my dentist and my brother.
I think the only time it is usually reported to the police is when it is life threatening or the ammunition is larger that birdshot.
Most of the people ranting the loudest about this have (as usual) no clue what they are talking about, david.
As I have said before, Cheney was ultimately at fault and he admitted that. For normal people, that should end the matter.
I think the only time it is usually reported to the police is when it is life threatening or the ammunition is larger that birdshot.
I think there is a disconnect between people who know what birdshot is and people who don't. People who don't probably imagine a shotgun blast like they're used to seeing on television or in movies. I don't think they realize that birdshot is more along the lines of BBs than bullets. Lots of boys shoot each other with BBs, and sometimes they get hurt, but I haven't seen such incidents reported as "gunshots" in local newspapers. Getting seriously wounded by birdshot is probably pretty rare.
I don't hunt but a neighbor did and once he was walking thru the woods behind two friends. Another hunter mistook them for game and shot. The first two were killed instantly; the single bullet went thru the first guy and into the second. My neighbor, the third guy, was shook up but uninjured.
My point is accidents happen all the time around guns and hunters. And that is all this was.
Let's put it this way - if Faux News is blasting (pardon) Cheney, what would the others have done? It's still the softest touch he was going to find, except maybe the RNC magazine.
And I agree, had Cheney's incident been quietly officially announced Saturday, with an appropriate apology, it probably would still have been fodder for Leno & co. but not the Major Issue it's become. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
And particularly the bit about the "one beer"- in light of the fact that there was a quote from Mrs. Armstrong about this yesterday on MSNBC.com but interestingly, it was removed from the website (that darn liberal media!)
It's always, in the interests of undermining the major media powers, worthwhile to question why they make alterations to their stories without openly explaining why (a little alteration log would do the trick), so I hope you or someone else concerned about this hector MSNBC into explaining what was going on . . .
But why would you think the Bush administration could pressure MSNBC into altering its news articles to paint Cheney in a more favourable light? I think it's much more likely that, as with many things they just heard a rumour, or had "beer" reported to them second-hand (or indirectly, e.g. someone knowledgeable about these types of situations comments that they're common when people have taken a drink or two, and the writer mixes things up), and put it in, only to take it out later when they checked the sourcing.
There may well have been a beer or two involved -- I don't know -- but I don't think that's been firmly established yet.
".......what exactly is not being "fair" in this situation?"
I recall an interview by Matt Lauer with then vice president nominee Dick Cheney in which Lauer asked a question, then cut off Cheney mid-answer with another unrelated question. He did this repeatedly never allowing Cheney to adequately address any question. Lauer's demeanor radiated hostility and distain.
How is your line of argument any different than "Clinton killed Vince Foster" or "Clinton ran a cocaine ring out of Arkansas"?
Common sense tells me that having a man killed and running a cocaine ring are rather more serious than having a beer when relaxing with friends on the weekend.
Brylin said:
"Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment"
Fantastic line- did you make that up? I plan to borrow it.
word verification = ekkng = what we all think when we see a post from Qxxo.
brylin, lemme understand: Kennedy = bad, therefore Cheney = blameless? Got it.
I, too, am not sure what conflating Cheney and Chappaquiddick does. Because Kennedy killed someone, Cheney doesn't have to worry? Or are they somehow equal, and therefore trivial? Or are the kneejerk reactions to Chenery identical to the kneejerk reactions to Kennedy?
Seven Machos: "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs."
Sorry, Seven Machos. I prefer Webster's definition of the word "politics":
"1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : THE ART OR SCIENCE CONCERNED WITH WINNING AND HOLDING CONTROL OVER A GOVERNMENT..."
So what are the facts that we know?
When the accident occured help was given ASAP by Cheney's doctor on the scene and the ambulance was called and the police were notified. The owner of the estate notified the local press.
Close enough?
Exactly *what* is Cheney being criticized for? Exactly what was supressed? And why the heck should he appologize to anyone but the man he shot?
There are a lot of Clinton/Cheney comparisons going on here. But let's keep it straight: Harry M. Whittington was almost blown away by Dick Cheney, but Bill Clinton was totally blown - er - away by Monica Lewinsky.
And, you know why Hillary is so angry? Shortly after Bill's affair with Monica ended, Hillary, as a part of her strategy to win Bill back, had jumped him in their bed and exercised all of her feminine sexual capabilities upon him for well over six minutes or so. Anyway, upon completion she looked up at him and said, "Well what do thing of that! Bet it beats anything you got from that floozy in the sticky dress!". To which Bill smiled and replied, "Close. But no cigar."
Who can blame her?
Ann, you want politics and history and melodrama Texas style with Texas Rangers and Oil and politicians all mixed in? You want a story of a hypocritical, ruthless and decadent ruling class that made its own rules and led a society to the edge of catastrophe?
Shoot first, avoid questions later.
Quxxo:
Well, Sidney Blumenthal would know - though his main acvhievement was shooting himself in the foot with a brick-like memoir that gave new meaning to the word tendentious. (Rating - M for Masochistic Political Junkies only).
I'm still trying to figure out whether Cheney uloaded an Uzi into the face of a random old man in a fit of drunken imperial hubris, or whether it was all a cunning plot to distract the MSM from the fact that the world is sliding into a giant vat of boiling bat poo.
Inquiring minds want to know...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा