Keep asking the question, "Was alcohol involved?"

[Skinner]

One of the things that many liberals have in common is that we like to have our facts straight, and we don't like to claim knowledge of things which we do not know. While this is an admirable thing, it puts us at a political disadvantage to conservatives who seem comfortable making shit up and then passing it off as fact ("John Kerry is a coward who got his medals because he shot a kid in a loincloth in the back when he was running away;" "Bill Clinton murdered Vincent Foster;" "Tax cuts increase tax revenues").

So, this Cheney situation raises an ethical conundrum for those of us who would prefer not to make unsubstantiated claims. Is it possible that Cheney was impaired when he shot Whittington? Absolutely. Do we know that he was impaired? Absolutely not.

The media feeds on controversy, so they like it when there are "two sides" to a story. It makes for much more interesting television if there are two sides yelling at each other, rather than two sides agreeing with each other. The media has another motivation: They are so terrified of being accused of bias that wherever possible they will frame an issue as being between two opposing -- but equally valid -- viewpoints. Even when there really aren't two sides to a story, they will often do whatever is necessary to create the appearance of two equal sides, in order to show their viewers how fair they are. This usually works against our side, as the media is more afraid of being accused of liberal bias than conservative bias. But it can work in our favor if a story is sensational enough (like, for example, if the Vice President of the United States shoots a man in the face) and the media can benefit from keeping it alive.

I get the sense that they might be getting bored with the "White House bungled the media response" storyline because it suggests incompetence rather than malfeasance. But there are small indications that they are gaining interest in the "was Cheney drunk?" angle, because it is obviously much more sensational.

So, I would argue that the media wants this puppy to grow some legs, but they need "another side." They need controversy.

No self-respecting liberal would claim to know whether or not Cheney was drunk. It would be irresponsible, unethical, and politically dangerous to turn this into a "Republicans say he was sober and Democrats say he was drunk" situation. Instead, we should simply ask the question, relentlessly: "Was alcohol involved?" There are plenty of inconsistencies and red flags in this story that give us good reason to ask:

"Why didn't the Vice President go to the hospital? Did he need time to sober up?"

"Why did the Vice President wait until the following morning to alert the media? Did he need time to sober up?"

"Why didn't local law enforcement do a proper investigation? Was alcohol involved?"

"In many states, hunters are required to take a blood alcohol test after any accidental shooting. Why didn't Cheney?"

"Why can't all the people involved get their stories straight on the issue of alcohol?"

"Why did MSNBC scrub the alcohol reference from their story, and then put something different back in later after the scrubbing was caught?"

"Why isn't the media talking about Cheney's two DUIs?"

"Why won't Cheney hold a press conference? Does he have something to hide?"

"We don't know the facts. I am not saying that Cheney was drunk. But I think the American people have a right to the whole story. Was alcohol involved?"

The Republican political consultant Mike Murray is fond of saying, "Make the charge and let the other guy spend $1 million to explain it."

With apologies to Mr. Murray, I would suggest a slightly modified approach in this case: "Ask the question, and let the other guy blanket the airwaves trying to deny it."

Because, IMHO if you've got republicans on TV 24-7 insisting that the Vice President of the United States was not drunk when he shot that guy in the face, we've pretty much already won the argument.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Were drugs involved?

Was he out in the woods getting a blowjob from someone other than his wife?

How do you know alcohol wasn't involved mr right wing apologist? Because a liar told you there wasn't?

[Xenotime]

43. That's a good question...

I wonder is something darker wasn't at play here. They all feel the are above the law.

[Cronus Protagonist]

179. We know the cover up was covering up SOMETHING!

[John Q. Citizen]

221. Interaction of prescription drugs Cheney's on and alcohol?

[unblock]

2. it's not a question, it's a fact! look at what judge judy would say:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=443996&mesg_id=443996

[ClassWarrior]

3. K&R

Excellent framing, Skinner.

NGU.

[i miss america]

4. I want to know who the other 2 companions were, and why they haven't

filed a statement. So far, only the ranch owner lady has, and supposedly, she was 100 yards away.

Who where the two companions on that hunting trip, and why are their identities being hidden?

[calimary]

153. The other was evidently the ambassador to Switzerland.

Both of the companions on this pseudo-cowboy strut were attractive middle aged women not married to either of the men. When I first heard about that, my eyebrows immediately went up, but then again, I'm among the first to jump to suspicious conclusions with perpetrators like these. I've been conditioned to expect ill of them. My suspicions were heightened by posts here, a few days ago when the story first broke, from DUers who are also hunters, or who know hunters. There were quite a few posts about the so-called "hunting weekend" that one spouse runs off to enjoy, leaving the other spouse back home (ostensibly because she doesn't really enjoy hunting). It's just a cover for meeting a little birdie on the side, as opposed to strictly shooting at little birdies. Or, um, maybe the spouse thinks it's one kind of shooting, but the hunter knows it's a "different kind" of shooting, so to speak. Those posts made an awful lot of sense to me. Notice how Lynnie baby was nowhere in sight.

Further, about the drinking, I'm suspicious there as well. Especially since cheney copped to having a beer with lunch. I suspect strongly that this is the type of thing in which - if he SAYS he had one beer, it actually means he had several. Or maybe it wasn't even a beer. Maybe a highball or four. It's like when you see one cockroach. You know that really means there are several hundred more close by that you can't see.

I know enough about these people to suspect the worst of them, always, and never to take what they say at face value. There's ALWAYS an angle. There's ALWAYS a wink-wink nudge-nudge. There's ALWAYS fine print. There's ALWAYS an ulterior motive. There's ALWAYS more in what they don't say than there is in what they do say. Especially when it's safe to assume that what they do say is usually a lie of some sort. I just know better. I've heard enough, I've seen enough, I've read enough. It's all there in their track record.

[i miss america]

164. Thanks for the wonderful reply. Check out this new article at Wikipedia

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Whittington

Controversy surrounding shooting

While the shooting occurred at 5:30 p.m. local time (23:30 UTC) on Saturday, February 11, the news of it wasn't released for 21 hours until 1:48 p.m. (07:48) Sunday, February 12. Katherine Garcia, a reporter for the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, broke the story after receiving a call from Armstrong. In addition, the local sheriff deputies were not allowed to interview Cheney for 14 hours, until 9 a.m., Sunday morning (see timeline here). Some are saying the delay in reporting the incident was to hide a possible extramarital affair between Dick Cheney and U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Pamela Pitzer Willeford.

A top Republican close to the White House said to Time magazine, "This is either a cover-up story or an incompetence story."

[pitohui]

165. when alcoholic starts drinking at lunch he drinks all day

trust me on this

i don't doubt cheney had a beer w. lunch, trouble is, the man takes a beer, then the beer takes a beer, then the beer takes the man

he is an alcoholic w. a known history of impaired driving and hard drinking

the disease of alcoholism is not forgiving of one beer at lunch, once you take that first beer, you're effed for the day, the little voice whispers, "hell that one didn't have any effect, one more won't hurt" and then one more and then one more --

who is going to cut off the veep and his good friend the high-end attorney?

[tulsakatz]

220. I think you're right about this

I used to have a problem with alcohol (I gave it up about 15 yrs ago). So I remember what it was like.

In fact, when I heard this story, that he had 1 beer at lunch......I remember thinking it was probably more likely 2 or 3!!

About the extra-marital relations, I'm not convinced of that. I just haven't seen any evidence that points to it. If he was really out there for sex, why didn't they find a room instead of hunting quail?

[orleans]

168. i heard yesterday (maybe randi was talking about it on the radio)

that cheney went for cocktails instead of going to the hospital w/his friend.

and ed schultz was talking about what size was the beer? a cup? a 12 oz? a 64ouncer? a pitcher?

and what time was lunch, noon, three?

and what is the effect of alchol w/blood thinners or any of the scripts cheney is on?

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maddiejoan]

5. No questions.

Part of the problem is we always ask questions. The RW doesn't attack with questions.

"The Vice President didn't go to the hospital. He needed time to sober up"

"The Vice President waited until the following morning to alert the media. He needed time to sober up"

"Local law enforcement didn't do a proper investigation."

"In many states, hunters are required to take a blood alcohol test after any accidental shooting. Cheney didn't"

"All the people involved can't get their stories straight on the issue of alcohol"

"MSNBC scrubbed the alcohol reference from their story, and then put something different back in later after the scrubbing was caught"

"The media isn't talking about Cheney's two DUIs"

"Cheney won't hold a press conference because he has something to hide"

"We weren't given the facts. Cheney must have been drunk. The American people have a right to the whole story. By Cheney's own admission, Alcohol was involved"

[mod mom]

6. and "Is the VP above the law?" Who else get to wait 14 hours before a

police interview? Since when are witnesses allowed to confer with each other for hours after a shooting accident? Why did the VP not accompany his "friend" to the hospital, instead of returning for dinner/drinks?

[Karenina]

25. Why was he not tested

for alcohol AFTER the incident and BEFORE the (cya) rounds of dinner drinks? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Carni]

145. Your point IMO is THE KEY

WHY is he "above the law" ???

Proper procedure was not followed because it was Dick Cheney--Dick Cheney obviously holds himself above the law which Ii thought was an impeachable offense?

[bridgit]

7. i agree here as well, Skinner, i posted the likelihood over here...

as soon as i heard the notion...nothing...hammer as well the lobbyist/iraq/no bid contract angle in addition as it is all right there :patriot:

[madinmaryland]

8. I'm not sure how relevant the two DUI's are.

As I understand, both occurred within 8 months of each other 43 years ago. That could probably be explained as a "youthful indiscression". If the DUI's had happened in the last 10-20 years, then there would be a much more relevant reason to discuss them.

What might be examined is his health. He has gout and one of the causes of that alchoholism.

As a further aside, I think we also need a special prosecutor who has at least $70 million at his disposal to investigate this matter. Maybe he/she will be able to discover a blue dress!

[Skinner]

11. Are two DUI's relevant? The point is to ask the question.

If the Republicans are on TV explaining why Cheney's two DUIs are not relevant, that helps us.

[Pirate Smile]

21. I like this explanation from firedoglake also:

"Ole 60 Grit O'Beirne was on Hardball getting chewed up over her ludicrous defense of Dick and how he didn't contact the press until the next morning because he was caring for the old man. Dick wasn't at the hospital, he was back at the house fixing himself a highball IN FRONT OF EVERYONE so that if and when word got out and the police grew uncooperative, he'd have adequate reason for the alcohol in his bloodstream.

That's another alcoholic's trick. "

[Inland]

49. That made sense as soon as I heard it.

Go straight home, don't let anyone else see you. Mix a drink, maybe two, pour them down the sink. When the test is given, there's an explanation for the .08 blood alcohol. There's an explanation for the smell and the clear inebriation. You haven't been drunk all day, just drunk recently.

[peacetalksforall]

62. They also had to take time to get the handlers involved. Evidently,

Dick agreed with those who said lie low and don't make it into a big deal with sirens and cameras. Ease people into it if it's not possible to cover it up all together - then, the added advantage is that that the lemmings will remember what they heard first and make each other believe it for days into months i.e., that it wasn't a big deal.

[Skinner]

51. That's effing brilliant.

Thumbs up for firedoglake.

[Inland]

57. Another point: a person who knows to do that hides his boozing often.

I wouldn't have thought of that after shooting someone, but I would have wished I had. Seems to me that Cheney knew a few practical steps in hiding his state. He's been in these types of situations before.

[mzmolly]

58. Bingo!

:hi:

[Name removed]

177. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Misunderestimator]

189. Cute. But this is about the VICE PRESIDENT... let's concentrate on

something that happened last weekend instead of decades ago. :eyes:

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Pirate Smile]

193. That screen name doesn't give away the freeper troll persona

at all. :eyes:

[alarcojon]

194. Oh yeah, lots of us use screen names like that

I was thinking of changing mine to CommieFerLife just the other day

:sarcasm:

[Tactical Progressive]

202. Yuh, he should have pulled the car out of the water

with his bare hands.

Ted had an accident on a makeshift 'bridge' forty years ago. Dick Cheney got drunk and shotgunned his friend in the face last week. Try to keep up.

[Nothing Without Hope]

195. Very insightful. Here's the PERMALINK for the FDL piece with that:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2006_02_12_firedoglake_archive.html#114014413952494167

In fact, several of the FDL pieces are so excellent, they should be posted in their own thread so people won't lose track of them as time passes and they're no longer close to the top of the FDL home page. I'll try to get to that later.

I was struck by the comments on the very suspicious doctor in charge of Whittington's reports for TV - he's a rabid pro-Bush tool who is under investigation for prescription abuses - and by the long delay before the WH allowed Whittington to get into the trauma center. They really tried to keep this under wraps.

I'll try to put together a FDL thread excerpting important points later today. If someone else does it first, please put a link to it here.

[madinmaryland]

22. Shouldn't we also be asking the question from

the standpoint of his health.

As I mentioned, the gout issue is can be a direct result of a lifetime of alcohol consumption.

[mzmolly]

48. "also" is the key word in your question.

It's a matter of connecting the dots.

[onenote]

68. I disagree with you on this one Skinner

Bringing up the DUIs is a softball - they happened more than 40 years ago. Giving them questions that they can easily rebut doesn't help a case, it hurt it. I have this argument with young attorneys all the time: knowing when you have a good argument and a bad argument matters, because bad arguments end up hurting good arguments.

The point should be to emphasize the fact that Armstrong suggested no alcohol initially and the failure of Cheney to make himself available to the authorities within a time frame during which the amount of alcohol in his system could be determined.

onenote

[bettyellen]

110. it's all part of a pattern of behaviour... he drank before and after the

hunt. They claim he's a tea toataler, and yet there is a history of him fucking up with alcohol, and he hasn't stopped drinking.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

206. Drinking Behavior Among DUI Repeat Offenders: Government Statistics

I went searching for statistical predictions of DUI behavior based on number of convictions, something along the lines of "for every conviction, a child molester has assaulted XX number of children." I didn't find exactly that, but instead found government studies that paint a more comprehensive picture of the DUI repeat offender.

These statistics come from "Repeat Offenders and Persistent Drinking Drivers in the U.S.," a 1993 study by James Hedlund and James Fell of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These stats beg the question, "When are repeat DUI offenders not under the influence?" Some excerpts:

-snip-

PERSISTENT DRINKING DRIVERS IN THE LITERATURE

-snip-

DWI Personality and Attitude (compared to all drivers)
Frequently aggressive and hostile; more frequently sensation-seekers; more likely to have histories of other criminal behavior; minimize the risks of impaired driving -- they do not consider impaired driving a serious issue and rarely feel that they are too impaired to drive.

DWI Drinking Behavior
At least 2-3 times a week; 13-38% daily drinkers; frequently have 5 or more drinks at a time (35-60%); mean BAC 0.18 - 0.28; drink beer (64-79%); drink in licensed establishments (40-60%) more frequently than in private homes (18-34%); frequently had a previous problem due to drinking -- marital or family difficulties (30-49%), previous DWI (20-28%); frequently problem drinkers (54-74%)

This summary doesn't specifically address the persistent drinking driver. However, it's clear from the description of the drinking behavior that these persons are persistent drinkers, and it's fairly safe to infer that many are repeat DWI offenders most (likely) are persistent drinking drivers as well.

-----------------

The study also summarizes the results of a random phone survey in which 56 respondents were self-admitted persistent drinking drivers. While the authors caution that this is a very small sample, what is interesting is the different profile that emerges of this "uncaught" drinking driver versus that compiled using arrested DUI offenders. The individual stats are very interesting but I'll cut to the summary:

-snip-

These respondents certainly fit the definition of persistent drinking drivers: they drink frequently (almost every day) and drink and drive frequently (more than twice a week). However, they differ in important respects from the crash-involved drinking drivers in FARS and in the literature. They are somewhat older, they drink at home rather than in bars or taverns, and they don't drink as much at one sitting. They believe that drinking and driving is an important highway safety problem and they seem to accept DWI laws at approximately current BAC levels. They also have a far higher expectation of detection, arrest, and sanction if they drink and drive than occurs in practice. Again, these results must be interpreted with caution. They are self-reported data from a small sample in a telephone survey.


http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/s21p2.htm

-----------------------------

I also found a Canadian government study that cites some of the same literature as the NTHSA study but goes into greater depth about the psychological and behavioral characteristics of the DUI repeat offender. One excerpt from this substantial section:

-snip-
A number of studies have attempted to identify the social, psychological, behavioural and attitudinal characteristics that distinguish DWI offenders from other drivers (Donovan et al., 1983; Jonah and Wilson, 1986; MacDonald, 1989; Selzer et al., 1963; Cosper and Mozersky, 1968; Yoder and Moore, 1973; Meck and Baither, 1980; Fine and Scoles, 1974; MacDonald and Pederson, 1990; Perrine, 1975; Steer and Fine, 1978). Some of the factors examined include hostility, aggression, sensation seeking, depression, attitudinal intolerance of drinking-driving, attitudinal intolerance of deviant behaviour, attitude toward driving, and health-compromising behaviours. In general, a common theme that emerges from these studies is that DWI offenders tend to exhibit a greater degree of deviance on most factors than do other groups of drivers.


www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/drugs-drogues/
dwi_systhesis-cfa_synthese/characteristics-caracteristiques_e.html

(combine the two lines for the full address)

---------------------

This, then, is the relevance of two DUIs, no matter what the age of the offender, the lag time between convictions or the apparent cessation of DUI behavior.

[Inland]

14. For a guy that has had chauffeurs most of his adult life, 2 DUIs is a lot

Getting caught twice in 43 years, considering that he doesn't drive after he become goverment and big business, indicates that impairment is a part of his life.

[madinmaryland]

20. As I indicated, the DUI's happened over 43 years ago.

At the time, he was in college (i think in between dropping out of yale and his next school).

I think the health issue and why he has gout is a much more telling and revealing issue as to his on-going alcohol consumption.

[Inland]

27. I just posted on the inference from his generally poor health just now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=451412&mesg_id=451412

Still, the point I made is valid. In college, Cheney was drinking and driving. Now, he's not driving. That's enough to avoid DUIs, even if he is constantly stoned.

[mzmolly]

44. When was Vietnam again?

Cheney was CHARGED with 2 DUI's. He's been a powerful man in Washington for many years, who knows how many he's not been charged with. However, the two DUI's speak to a persons ability to "control" their alcohol consumption" - and I think it's a good idea to "bring them up."

[Inland]

53. "Control" is a good point.

I think police and judges assume that someone caught twice is OUT of control: because avoiding DUI charges doesn't mean one has to be sober, or even be sober while driving. All it means is that you don't get too obvious about it too often. If you can't do that, you need a special lesson.

Around here, a third DUI is two to four weeks in jail. Period. The presumption is that you're a guy that needs a hard, hard lesson to get it together, not just unlucky or youthfully indiscrete.

[Ksec]

94. Alcoholism is a lifetime disease.

Its irrelevant how long ago his crimes happened. They happened.

And it shows his history which is very relevant.

[onenote]

116. so every college student who drinks and drives is an alcoholic

Interesting. I did not know that. Can you provide a link?

onenote

[Ksec]

125. No but alcoholism is a lifetime disease.

No link needed.

[onenote]

128. and how do you prove someone is an alcoholic

Is the fact that they drank heavily in college sufficient? Some people seem to say Cheney is an alcoholic and the only thing they point to is that he drank heavily in college. Is that enough?

[Ksec]

133. I beleive it helps

and hes drinking before he nearly kills a guy and then hes drinking after he nearly killed that guy.

Not knowing him personally, I cant say for absolute sure that hes an alcoholic but from my vantage point , it looks like classic alcoholism.

For what its worth..

[onenote]

137. so anyone who drank in college

and then 40 years later, on his way home from dinner and a movie (where he had one glass of wine with dinner before the movie) has an accident with his car, is displaying "classic alcoholism" if they have another drink after they get home.

ALso, what is the definition of "classic alcoholism"?

onenote

[Ksec]

141. You are implying that hes been clean for 40 years.

link?

And yes, these are signs of classic alcoholism.

If his accident may have been related to booze, and someone was nearly killed because of it ? Yes. Classic.

Im not even getting into the facts that he avoided all law enforcement until a day later, which shows an effort to conceal guilt.

[onenote]

144. if by clean you mean no drinks at all, I don't claim that

If you're suggesting that there is actual evidence of his getting drunk in the past 40 years, I don't doubt he has, but the burden for that one is on you.

As for whether the accident was related to booze, that's the question. You can't argue that the accident is proof he's an alocholic unless you know the accident was related to booze, which you can't prove. And you can't prove he's an alcoholic just because he had an accident.

Put another way, there is reason to suspect that he may have been drinknig because the story about whether alcohol was consumed the day of the shooting has shifted (from implying not, to admitting to one beer, to admitting to a beer and a drink). And that would explain why he avoided law enforcement. But you can make that argument whether or not he's an alcoholic. Unless you think anyone who has an accident that is attributable to drinking is an alcoholic.

onenote

[Warren Stupidity]

160. No, but

anyone who drinks and drives and gets caught twice doing so by the police might very well have an alcohol problem. Lots of people have driven when they probably shouldn't have, not nearly so many have been arrested for doing so. How many people who do not have an alcohol problem have been arrested twice for DUI?

Forty years ago - in the 60's - getting bagged for drunk driving was actually fairly difficult to do. The serious crack down on drunk driving didn't start until the 80's. I actually think it is quite remarkable that Cheney got caught twice in that decade. He must have been quite the drunk.

So we have a fellow who has a known history of alcohol abuse, a man who admits to drinking both before and after he shot his friends face off, a man who avoided the police for over 12 hours after he bagged the lawyer, but we should still not be speculating about his sobriety at the time he shot his friend. OK.

[creeksneakers2]

139. DUI arrestees are nearly always alcoholics

The average habitual drunk driver goes four years between DUI arrests. So, the odds of someone who rarely drinks and drives getting caught are very low. Cheney was caught twice. Its very likely during that time period he was drinking habitually.

I agree that its not unusual for an younger individual to go through a period of binge drinking without becoming an alcoholic. But its more likely that Cheney was, and therefore would still be, an alcoholic.

Alcoholics cannot have "one drink."

[txindy]

95. I'd love to know more about the DUIs 43 years ago.

Seems to me that DUI was winked at in the 60s, so what did Darth actually do to be charged with two DUIs? In Wyoming, no less. That was also the same time he got bounced out of Yale for pathetic grades. Not that alcohol consumption had anything to do with that. :eyes:

You have to have major issues with alcohol to get DUIs in the 60s and then have gout 43 years later. Something never went away. And that something is highlighted by those DUIs. So, yes, definitely, they should be brought up. Particularly when flacks like Matalin claim he's a "teetotaler" (:rofl:) and idiots like Shammity claim Darth has never once had a problem with alcohol. Yeeeeaaaah. :eyes:

[ComEPig]

181. who but a saint

has never had alcohol then drove somewhere especially when they were in college. Don't anybody pretend to be innocent either. Not getting a DUI doesn't it make it legal or right.

[txindy]

222. Wow, you mean you were kicked out of Yale for boozing, too, like your VP?

Oops, my mistake. After reading your post, again, I realize that spelling and grammar such as that would never have made it into Yale. On a drunken ride PAST Yale, perhaps.

Enjoy that you've already earned.

Adding: Oops! Forgot to say, give my regards to Colmes tonight, Shammy!

[eppur_se_muova]

238. For your info, there are a LOT of people who never drink AT ALL.

Some of us are never even tempted to TRY it.

Acceptance of drinking runs in families, and people who drink hang out with friends who drink. Don't let that blind you into thinking that drinking is universally accepted. It most certainly is not. For many people, drinking is completely ruled out by their religious faith. And even atheists can be tea-totalors. (You'll never hear an atheist say "God, I could use a drink!" :))

And even among those who drink, drinking and driving is, if nothing else, illegal. It's damn sure dangerous, and stupid. So don't go asking "who hasn't had a few beers and gone driving" unless you are prepared for the possibility that, outside of whatever subculture you inhabit, the answer is "THE MAJORITY!".

Very subtle nickname, BTW.

edited to add:

[mzmolly]

41. Would Republicans question the relevancy? They swift-boated Kerry

and told outright LIES, we are simply asking if his drinking problem was ever improved upon. To have a DUI within 8 months of your first - speaks to me - about the lack of regard for a) the law and b) respect for responsibly using alcohol.

Ahhh, "the blue dress" a truly irrelevant piece of information (unless the sex life of our elected officials is important somehow?)

[onenote]

69. am I the only DUer who ever drank in college?

Man...there are zillion questions that can and should be put to Cheney, but this emphasis on the fact that he got charged with DUI twice in the early 1960s -- that's right, the early 1960s -- is ridiculous. While I was in college, I could've been pulled over and charged with DUI every freakin' weekend. And if it had happened once, it wouldn't have happened again for a while, but eight months later? Probably wouldve. Thirty-five years later I still go out to hear live music and have a couple of beers every couple of months. Does that mean I'm a chronic alcoholic?

Sometimes DUer sound like fundie Puritans...

onenote

[mzmolly]

73. Did you have two DUI's and come under question for a hunting accident

in which you A) refused to talk to police, B) refused to go to the hospital with a friend who might not live C) not call and tell your boss aka the President until the next day etc...?

If not, then your college days are not related. Sure, I drank in my - jr. high, high school and "technical college" days, and I still enjoy a beer or two on a fairly regular basis, but I don't get intoxicated while firing a gun or driving a car.

[onenote]

84. the DUIs are a red herring

You admit that you drank back in your younger days. Did you ever drive with a blood alcohol limit over the legal limit? If not, I supposed you are entitled to criticize anyone who has. But if you ever did, then the only difference between you and Cheney from that standpoint is that you didn't get caught and he did.

Let me be clear: I think anyone involved in a hunting accident should be tested for the presence of alcohol and/or drugs in their system. Anyone. I don't care what their past history is. And Cheney's avoidance of that investigation is reason for suspicion. But the fact that he got drunk 43 years ago is a red herring. Put another way, if he didn't have those DUIs would his behavior be less suspicious....I think not.

onenote

[mzmolly]

104. The fact is he has a HISTORY of alcohol use with reckless behavior.

He also has health issues possibly related to his abuse. He was tossed out of college for drinking excessively. He fixed himself a stiff drink instead of going to the hospital to be with his friend (who's condition was not known.) He refused to talk to police.

This is not about any ONE issue in regard to Mr. Cheney, it's about "connecting the dots."

So I say, this is not a red herring, it is an opportunity to examine the character of a man who is making decisions about the life and death of people in this nation and abroad. I have no problem examining him and his past behavior as it relates to this situation. Ones criminal past is examined in a court of law every day in this country, and is considered potentially indicative of current behavior.

And, keep in mind the criteria for a DWI 43 years ago was much different than it is today. "Legal limits" were based upon the judgment of the officer who questioned you. If you looked at the documents that show the original police reports, one would note he was also charged with "drunkenness" and "careless driving" not simply "driving under the influence."

[onenote]

115. the average person is going to cut a lot of slack for 40 plus year old

events. So if the only argument we have is based on that, we got nothing. But its not the only argument and we ought not to pitch softballs to the other side that allow them to dismiss the good arguments by saying we think that what happened 40 years ago, with absolutely no evidence of similar behavior in the intervening years, is somehow signifnicant.

Stick to the good arguments and drop the bad. Otherwise we get spun and we lose.

onenote

[mzmolly]

122. That's not the ONLY argument, it's part of the puzzle.

As I've said before it's about "connecting the dots."

Criminal pasts, as they relate to current behavior, should be taken into consideration.

[Maat]

146. Self delete.

[Maat]

147. This J.D. agrees emphatically with you, Counselor Onenote.

I'm also a retired social worker. In keeping with YOUR point, what I emphasize is that, if this incident had involved one of my poor clients, the sheriff would have been RIGHT THERE in a hurry, and an alcohol test WOULD HAVE BEEN performed immediately thereafter. That is the typical response of law enforcement to this situation. Therefore: why didn't it happen in Cheney's case? Was alcohol involved?

[Warren Stupidity]

161. This aint a court of freaking law

it is a political street fight.

[alarcojon]

190. Exactly

That's Skinners point. We can't prove he was shitfaced when he shot Whittington in any court of law in the land, at least not at this time. But in the court of public opinion, the longer this story stays alive, and the more Cheney and his toadies have to deny that he was drunk, the longer he stays a laughingstock, and the more political damage that is done.

Let's also remember that Bush knew about it that night and is solidly defending Oily Dick's behavior.

[Maat]

149. Self delete.

[mzmolly]

105. .

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alarcojon]

192. Are you of the "It's Whittington's fault" school?

Even the administration has shied away from that one.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay.

[mzmolly]

196. And accidents in automobiles happen as well, generally the drunk

party is charged with a crime - regardless.

All I want to know is "was the VP intoxicated?" Mr. Wittington did not comment on that today - "the lawyer" that is.

[Inland]

82. You figure someone gets caught once every dozen times they DUI

Let's see, if you could have gotten charged every one of a hundred weekends, but didn't, and Cheney got charged twice, that means he was drunk every weekend, AND every tuesday and wednesday, and so obviously drunk that he got caught.

I mean, maybe this is the first time he's had a beer, too, as Hannity suggests, and just bad luck that someone got shot somehow afterwards.

But I see the tips of icebergs.

[onenote]

90. Interesting "statistic" == entirely made up of course

So the first time you drink and drive you're guaranteed not to get arrested? And if you drink and drive every day you're guaranteed to get arrested a certain number of times.

Does that work for speeding and running red lights too.

And even if he was drunk every weekend 43 years ago, it means nothing when there is no evidence that Cheney, who has been in the public eye for years, attending zillions of receptions, fundraisers, etc where booze flows freely, has a drinking problem. Believe me, if it was the case, we'd know.

onenote

[Inland]

97. Uh.....yeah, it does work for speeding and red lights.

You know it does.

As for Cheney's attending receptions, and being in the public eye, he is DRIVEN to these events. He's had a chauffeur supplied by his work for at least thirty years. He hasn't been caught driving drunk, but he hasn't been caught driving sober, either.

And if he had a drinking problem, you're right, we would know. It would be evidenced in something like DUIs or somebody getting shot, which has happened. What you obviously mean is that we would have known it before Cheney shot someone. But we don't even know where Cheney is for weeks at a time. To say that there is "no evidence" that Cheney was a drunk before just this second is based on what the man let's you see. There's no evidence of sobriety, either.

I guess we'll just have to keep asking the questions to determine whether cheney is a monster or a monster with a drinking problem.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

237. How would we "know" it? Who's going to report on it? Just curious.

MKJ

[johnnie]

89. It doesn't mean you are a chronic alcoholic

"Thirty-five years later I still go out to hear live music and have a couple of beers every couple of months. Does that mean I'm a chronic alcoholic?"

It had nothing to do with being a chronic alcoholic. It has to do with drinking alcohol and then shooting weapons while under the influence. Even if he doesn't have an alcohol "problem", he would surely be breaking the law by being under the influence and firing weapons recklessly.

[onenote]

92. Right, his past history has nothing to do with the issue

Anyone involved in a hunting accident should be tested for alcohol and drugs. Period. And the fact Cheney didn't make himself available for such a determination is suspicious. But what he did 43 years ago is not and its silly to make a big deal out of it.

But others here seem to be certain that because Cheney was a heavy drinker when he was in college 43 years ago, and because he admitted to having a beer on the day of the shooting (and a cocktail later that evening after the shooting), that's proof he's a chronic alchoholic. And that's just bullshit.

onenote

[mzmolly]

112. Bologna.

His past history would not be part of this discussion if he made himself available for drugs/alcohol testing - as you note. Instead the SS kept him insulated/from being interviewed thus, his past history of alcohol use is relevant and should be shouted from the roof tops.

If Cheney had acted in a manner that lead a reasonable person to believe he had changed his ways, his use of alcohol last week would not matter.

[onenote]

114. backwards

People are claiming that because of his past history he should've been tested. We should be claiming he should have been tested period.

onenote

[mzmolly]

120. That's not so. People are claiming that he should have been tested,

and his current/past history is indicative of why he was not.

[onenote]

136. let me try it this way

Here's a hypothetical.

You get a call from an acquaintance who tells you that he hit someone with his car the night before. He tells you that he made sure that the person was okay and called 911 for an ambulance, but then took off. He admits he had a beer a few hours earlier, but that he wasn't drunk. He says that he finally spoke to the police the next morning and he told them that he had wandered away from the accident site before the cops got there because he was upset and confused. You think -- he probably was drunk and he's willing to risk a leaving the scene charge rather than face a more certain DUI charge.

Now you tell a group of people you know the story. Some of them agree with your conclusion: he was trying to avoid the police because he'd been drinking. But a few people say that they believe him or that they believe he only had one beer and that he was afraid that even one beer might get him in trouble. You insist that he must have been drunk. They say how can you be sure. You say, well, he drank heavily 40 years ago when he was in college. The doubters laugh at you and go home.

My point is that a 40 year old DUI conviction isn't going to convince anyone that Cheney was drunk. So why make it part of the discussion. Instead, focus on what is known. THe story about whether there was alcohol consumed during the day's activities seems to have shifted from initial reports of "no alcohol" to "one beer at lunch" to "one beer at lunch and a cocktail at dinner". What's the real story and what's the real story why Cheney stayed away from the authorities until morning. See, a good argument that never once drifts into ancient history.

onenote

[mzmolly]

172. I don't care how many ways you "try" to defend Dick Cheney.

And, what is known never changes without questioning the "unknown."

Additionally in the scenario above, the party in question, has CLEARLY broken the law.

[onenote]

207. I'm not defending Dick Cheney and you know it

I'm trying to point out that the best argument we have doesn't involve talking about 40 year old DUIs and that the more we talk about them, the weaker, not stronger, our case seems.

Have you ever debated? Cause you really need to brush up on your skills.

Finally, what difference does it make that leaving the scene of the accident in my example was clearly a violation of the law. As I said, the point was that in my hypo, the person was willing to risk that violation to avoid being seen by the cops with some amount of alcohol in his system. Just as Dead Eye obviously was willing to risk the criticism of avoiding the cops and thus avoid timely investigation of whether he was under the influence of alcohol. Very suspicious. And once again,no need to give the other side the opportunity to claim that our case is based on 40 year old DUIs. Its not, so why bring them up.

onenote

[mzmolly]

209. LOL

To answer your question, I've never formally debated anyone, but I guarantee you I've had far greater challenges than YOU sir/madam. Frankly, you don't interest me that much. Further, generally debates don't veer into illegal "hypotheticals" when one wishes to defend a person who has a rich "history" of breaking the law while drinking.

I'm not going to respond to this circular ignorance any longer. Your not worth my time.

:hi:

[onenote]

210. nor you mine, so I guess we have agreement on something

[alarcojon]

187. I'll agree with you about the DUI's

but the fact that he had to admit to "a drink" at lunch and that someone admitted he had "a cocktail" after the shooting speaks volumes to me. Cheney and/or his handlers must have known the delay would raise questions, so they would be loath to mention any alcohol consumption that day unless there was absolutely no way to deny it. Too many people must have seen him tying one on.

Of course, it doesn't follow from that that Chestpainey is a chronic alkie, but it is absolutely relevant as to what state he was in when he shot his buddy.

[ComEPig]

182. no you are not

everybody did.

[Misunderestimator]

191. A DUI in the 60s, when everyone drank and drove... pretty damn serious.

Hardly anyone got DUIs in those days, unless it was a MAJOR problem.

[Vickers]

9. Was the young lady "hunting" with him drunk?

:P

Seriously, I posted in another thread that I am persoanlly familiar with (but not responsible for) 3 weapon accidents (none fatal, BTW):

- 3 while hunting
- 2 while cleaning/clearing
- 1 at a range

ALL THREE of the hunting accidents were alcohol related, and one of the cleaning accidents was.

So when RWers automatically try to dismiss the alcohol angle, I know there is fire.

[seabeyond]

10. was he drunk. ok. and WHO is paying the victims hospitalization

i really really want to know. i just do. i NEED the answer

[orleans]

171. i'm sure harry has insurance. i'd say his insurance company

is paying for it.

[Binka]

12. LBJ Used This Strategy

LBJ once told one of his political lackeys to accuse an opponent of being a pigfucker. When the lackey pointed out that LBJ knew perfectly well that the opponent was not a pigfucker LBJ replied "I know that, I just want to make him deny it."

[Inland]

13. Every single person who says Cheney was sober was not there.

Conversely, no person that was there has stated Cheney was sober. Even Cheney hasn't quite told us his condition that day.

Until somebody vouches for Cheney's sobriety, in my mind it's fair to conclude he was not.

[Pirate Smile]

15. Don't forget about his getting kicked out of Yale for his drinking.

"JONATHAN MANN: Already not the best student, his grades suffered and he was asked to leave the school for a semester or two. Dick returned to Wyoming and took a union job laying power lines. It wasn't the best time for Dick Cheney. SIMPSON: You could see a person who was going through the period of raising hell and not paying attention and didn't give a damn about anything.

JONATHAN MANN: He was arrested twice for drunken driving and after re-enrolling at Yale, his dismal grades forced the school to dismiss him for good.

-snip-
JONATHAN MANN (voice-over): By the age of 21, Dick Cheney had dropped out of Yale, had several brushes with the law and was working a dead-end job in Wyoming. One thing going for him was his high school sweetheart, Lynn Vincent. But they were on very different paths.

SIMPSON: He worked out on the power lines, you know, out in the wind and the rain and she wasn't about to hook up with him.

JONATHAN MANN: Lynn gave him an ultimatum.

MEYER: I've got to believe it was his deep-seated love for Lynn, he didn't want to disappoint her, that certainly gave him some backbone to keep working as hard as he did.

SIMPSON: You finally light a fire in yourself. You figure why am I drinking like I am, why am I doing this? "

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/04/pitn.00.html

Didn't he get kicked out of Yale twice?

[Inland]

17. At 21, Dick Cheney found his ambition:

He would become so rich and powerful that nobody would fuck with him over his drinking or anything else.

He didn't stop drinking. But he did make it so nobody would ever criticize him for it, no matter how much harm it did to himself physically or who it endangered.

Well, maybe I am reading too much into this story.

[txindy]

24. Kicked out of Yale, but then attended an equally fine school:

Casper Community College

:rofl:

(Not laughing at CCs, but Darth's bizarre educational background.)

[Ganja Ninja]

79. It never fails to amaze me how mediocre these people are yet ...

they always seem to fall ass back wards into money.

[Newsjock]

16. "For the children!"

If our national leaders demonstrate irresponsible alcohol use, what will our children think?

If our vice president won't demonstrate proper firearms safety, what will our children think?

[txindy]

18. Getting bounced from college for drinking is no small thing, either.

And dependency like that doesn't just disappear. Darth and alcohol go back a loooooooong way.

[Skinner]

29. Agreed.

As someone who went to Yale, (albeit decades after Cheney did) I can tell you that they don't give a rats ass about drinking. At least, they didn't when I was there in the early 90's. The only rule was "no kegs in freshman entryways". As a freshman, the dean of my college walked into the liquor store right after I bought a case of beer, and all he did was say hello to me.

I would imagine that things were probably more lax when Cheney was there. I'm pretty sure they served beer in the dining hall back in those days.

[orleans]

180. also--a lot of us drank in college

a lot of us got behind the wheel when were were buzzed

things were rather kicked-back back then

we had plenty of room to screw up

how many of us got a dui, let alone two?

i'd guess not many

i only remember one of the guys i knew from the 70s & 80s who got a dui

(and the majority of people i knew were "fuck-ups"--for years. one dui. hum?)

!!!!!!!!!!!
i have randi on now--she just played a tape of whittington when he got out of the hospital today--he said the accident happened last FRIDAY!!!!!
(did he misspeak?) FRIDAY?? not according to what we've been told so far. FRIDAY?

[txindy]

224. He did, indeed, say Friday. Most interesting, isn't it?

Then a hand came from off-camera and snatched away the paper from which he'd been reading. Presumably it had Friday on it, as well.

[Junkdrawer]

37. Kinda makes you wonder if "Undisclosed Location" may be "Betty Ford

Clinic" or some other detox.

[Skinner]

38. LOL

:rofl:

[Inland]

45. Do yo know John Malkovich was asked to leave France?

It's hard to imagine how bad things get before THAT happens. Who drinks TOO MUCH for college? What do you do to get thrown out of FRANCE?

[onenote]

70. did he get "bounced" for drinking or for bad grades?

and a lot of folks here must've been saints during college. I know I wasn't, so I guess I'm an alcoholic too.

[Pirate Smile]

74. I and almost everybody I knew drank in college but we didn't get thrown

out.

Exactly how MUCH do you have to drink to get thrown out of college? Considering how high the norm seems to be, it would really have to be a lot.

[onenote]

77. again, did he get thrown out for bad grades or drinking

Curious about when you went to college. Back in the 60s, schools held students more accountable than they do today and you could get bounced for failing grades. It happened. Sometimes alcohol played a role, sometimes it was simply a lack of interest. Sometimes it was a combination of things.

onenote

[npincus]

19. I posted Cheney's DWI ARREST documents:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x451244

[bridgit]

40. exactly my point...nothing...

:shrug: i kicked your thread, while waiting for GD to get it together here :thumbsup:

[npincus]

60. thanks!

I'd like to see it float around for awhile to add a bit of context to the speculation.

[0007]

215. Thank you for the link...

[CrazyOrangeCat]

23. And . . . was there a swinger's weekend happening down there?

I rather doubt it . . . but it doesn't hurt to stir the pot . . .

[Spinoza]

223. And.....was Cheney undergoing hormonal

shots prior to a planned sex-change operation?......I doubt it too, but it doesn't to stir the pot....a little more.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

230. Now yer talkin'!

Sex really messes up fundamentalists . . . something like that, even on a grocery store tabloid, would short-circuit their tiny minds.

[H2O Man]

26. It is known

that Dick had at least a beer for lunch, and a mixed drink after recklessly shooting his buddy in the face. Those who hunt should not be drinking at all before going out with a gun. It seems fair to question what other medications he is taking, as synergism is a very real consequence of mixing drugs.

More, the fact that Dick mixed himself a drink after recklessly shooting his friend in the face is significant. When people are under stress, we want them to make sober judgements.

A couple of days ago, I mentioned that we should be using the word "reckless" to describe Dick's shooting his friend in the face. I note Paul Begala used the word ("reckless") several times on CNN yesterday. It is a term that attorneys use in cases where they want to identify how a person's behavior impacts an accident; it applies to anything from an automobile accident, to a Vice President shooting his buddy in the face.

Besides "reckless," we should use this as an opprtunity to discuss "character issues." While Cheney is not going to face legal consequences for shooting his buddy in the face, we can make sure he is found guilty in the court of public opinion.

[Pool Hall Ace]

65. Yes, we should talk about character issues.

I remember all the "Character Does Matter" bumper stickers after Big Dawg's blow job. I don't see how that crowd can just dismiss this as Not a Big Deal.

[Raksha]

152. "Character Does Matter."

Think we'll be seeing any of those bumperstickers next to the magnetic yellow ribbons on the freepers' SUVs?

[Pool Hall Ace]

214. Of course not,, we'll see this instead:

[Junkdrawer]

28. Hehe..Gotcha Covered...

Senators shouldn't speculate on the floor of the Senate. Blogs were MADE for speculation - especially in the abundance of suspicious behavior

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=427276&mesg_id=427725

[LeftHander]

30. My how distracting....

Lets focus on Dick Cheney's obvious issues...

Everybody know this guy is schmuck and need to be tossed out on his head.

But lets get real here.

The Patriot Act is geting forced down our throats
Moderates keep handing victory to the GOP.
The NSA is still spying
the chimp is still smirking
everybody is "doin a great job"
The Democratic Party is in pieces
Full body bags keep coming home
Jobs keep trickling overseas
Civil liberties heading down the gurgler.

And you are fucking pumping the flames on Cheney. What a easy target. And what will be gained by it. NOTHING. But sure...write letters and ask the questions. But don't expect anything to come from it.

The answers to all your questions are: Cheney is untouchable.

Like the SS were going let the local cops give cheney a bloodtest. FAAAAAAHHHCK give me a break. Not in the best interests of Natonal Security. And you can bet the SS agent who first called the cops is wishing he hadn't.

So IMHO it is pointless to do anything other swallow the puke and go after the bigger battle and that is convincing the American people that WE ARE right.

Oh we would all love to see Cheney get his...but it is not going to be from shooting someone in the face in Texas.

GW was a coke head drunk and still got elected.

Bush broke the law spying on people and nothing is going to happen.

Cheney is still on Halliburton's payroll and nobody seems to care about that.

They all lied to start a war and we marched by the millions, while the Dems in congress handed GW a golden key to invade then we watched the shock and awe unfold.

We tortured, we bombed an entire city in oblivion. We shot the brains right out of people for fun.

The real battle should be in organizing a effort to change this party to make it effective. The real battle should be to educate the American people that Deomcrats and progressives are the right choice by offering REAL examples of how to effect change and stay above the filth that the GOP seems to be so comfortable wallowing in. If we don't the GOP will take as there own all of our values and say they were right all along. The wind is blowing in our direction now lets not fuck this up too.

YOu got the ear of the grassroots of this party. Use it for something constructive and positive now that we have an opportunity to be heard.

All People are sick of Bush and Cheney and this fucking war. Now is when we need a unified message and set of values to challenge Americans to pick who they really align with.

LEts rise above the tit for tat of reacting to every stumble by Dick and Bush. And come out with a REALLY big vision for America, one that doesn't have room for bullshit people like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Tom Delay, Scooter Libby and the rest of the criminals in Washington.

flame away....

[Skinner]

35. So... how has that approach been working for you?

Right now, the media is interested in the Cheney story. Instead, let's ask them to cover the same issues that they have refused to cover for the last six years.

[LeftHander]

54. Yup exactly....that's what we do....

We need to stop doing what they expect.

Democrats and progressives need to gather together and do some serious soul searching and put some real effort into ignoring the GOP and building a really solid vision for the future and promoting it from the highest roof tops at all levels of our society to every American...

A national "Progressive" vision for the future of America not the "Regressive" one the GOP is promoting.

So we all need to sign onto:

Quality Free Education
Peace and Non-Violence
Choice
Marriage Equity
Fair taxation
Sane Military Spending
Universal Healthcare
Local Economic Development
Renewable Energy Innovation
Lobby, Election and Campaign Finance Reform.


These are nothing new. But we need to start saying them again and again...and again....and again.

If we don't start really doing this....the day will come when the GOP will sponsor a nationalized healthcare plan and say they have been right all along. Mark my words they will TAKE all our values away from us. And call us DO NOTHING reactionaries.

One day they will mothball a carrier battle group or two and pay for real progress. And we won't be there.

This is an election year. And if we don't start talking about the issues and forming a vision we can kiss any hope of taking any credit for the policies that WILL be laid out. They will be stolen by the GOP or lost in a din of distraction.

Time for some leadership....leadership from unexpected places.

[FatDave]

81. I agree with Skinner on this

While The-Vice-President-Shot-A-Man-In-The-Face-Gate is pretty silly and small potatoes compared to all the other offenses, it has captured the nation's (and more importantly, the media's) attention. I guess it's simple enough for the average shmoe to understand or something. Clinton got a BJ. The VP shot a guy. Everybody gets those, no need to understand constitutional law or rules regarding congressional lobbying. As long as this thing stays in the public's attention, we should use it. And one of the nice things about it is that it contains intentional secrecy and acting as if they're above the law, which can then be linked to past scandals to help bring them back into focus. These guys have an MO, and this story, silly as it is, fits it.

[Inland]

47. Sad, but true. MSM hardly cared how many Cheney got KIA or WIA

But I think you are overstating your case. This isn't a different issue, it's a side of the same set of issues. Above the law, secretive, creepy Cheney tells you that a man full of HIS birdshot is none of your damn business.

It doesn't hurt to keep expressly tying it back into all the national issues, because it does tie.

[LeftHander]

61. But the outcome is so predictable....

As a sad and unfortunate "accident". Is how the American people will perceive this incident.

As they react to the "facts" suppplied by the White House.

[Inland]

66. Clearly not: already the perception is negative for this incident and more

It's all good. I don't mind a few days on an event that reinforces the perception of the malfeasance and misfeasance in other events, that illustrates that in fact all the crap that's rolled down the hill in five years weren't just sad and unfortunate accidents.

I don't think anyone is going to get the impression that all there is wrong with Dick is what happened between Saturday and Monday. Quite the opposite, IMO.

[LeftHander]

124. so was the outrage at Abu Ghraib...

So were the "13 words"...

So was the 2000 election...

So was the 2004 election...

So was the outrage at pre-911 intel the president had seen

So was NSA spying.

The "image" of outrage does nothing as we have seen for 6 years as all the GOP has to do is spin, delay and distract.


there is no "perception" of malfeasance by the bush administration. it is a reality but time and time again the media shows us how outraged everyone is and that there will be investigations and persons held accountable it wrong doing is discovered. Then the next thing comes along for the oppositon to flutter around like a harmless moth.

Count how many times any Bush of Cheney have been held accountable for anything....??

::insert cricket chirping::::


I thought so.

[Inland]

131. Mere handwringing can wait until Cheney's follies are off the front page.

I guess if your standard is that a topic to be discussed must make Cheney just disappear into the ether and install a new administration and congress, then all I can say is, none of your suggested alternatives will, either.

But if your standard is driving down perceptions and poll numbers, by holding a light to the admin, then it's pretty good stuff, as are all the other things you mentioned.

It doesn't win an election in and of itself, but it's still better than handwringing. So let us talk about it. Mere handwringing can wait a day.

[marions ghost]

64. OK....but have you noticed that

no matter how many big visions the Dems have tried to get off the ground, the opposition has systematically shot them down like a bunch of quail. At some point we have to stop 'taking the high road' and confront the bullies in their own backyard.

Cheney is not untouchable anymore. Even dependable rightwing shills are having trouble defending him these days. Thinking Republicans have become sensitized. They are watching this, judging by the polls and anecdotal evidence. We would be fools to follow your advice. Of course we must work to dismantle the disastrous Bush legacy and offer a better way...but working within the society that PRODUCED these criminals, we also have to go for the jugular EVERY time they stumble. They have made it a down and dirty turf war, by their vicious behavior. It's not a time to be lofty.

There are so many unanswered questions about the hunting incident. The implications go directly to CRITICAL questions of fitness for leadership, character, integrity, responsibility, public trust, secrecy, legality and proper procedures. Until these questions are addressed, we should NOT be letting this incident go...even as we also focus on other issues. What. Are. They. Hiding. down there in Kenedy County? The country needs to know.

[mzmolly]

119. We've been doing those things. Why must we choose?

I do consider it a REAL issue that a man who feels he is above the law, is making life and death decisions effecting millions of people.

[LeftHander]

157. We are so wrapped up....

One outrage after another and nothing happens.

So lets keep beating those soft squishy heads against the wall.

Why stop doing the same things we've always done...they have worked so brilliantly haven't they....?

Dammit people. At some point you will wake up and say....

"I don't fucking care about what Dick Cheney does anymore." And you will walk over and open the door to your children's room and look at them. You will walk in your neighboorhood and talk with your neighbors about the weather and the state of the potholes in your street. And admire thier roses in the front yard.

And you will say...."I am putting in that new biodiesel fuel oil furnace." or "Have you tried using the new ethanol fuel yet?"

And comment "Have you met the young couple that moved in across the street? Alan and James are really nice. I took a house warming basket over to them yesterday." - that time is already here and THAT scares the shit out of conservatives.

The world is changing fast. The neocons are pain in the ass and trying everything they can do stop the change but they ultimately will fail to the sheer momentuem of change forced upon them by us. As WE push this nation forward kicking and screaming into the future, dragging their sorry miserable lives with us. The harm they have caused is so immence that it is beyond the scope of any one incident or lie or for anyone person to change the course they have set themselves on...which by the way is one of self-destruction. They will implode all on their own as we keep progressing into the future.

Where we know or grandchildren will live honest open lives in a clean and safer world.

Fuck Cheney and Bush. They are nothing.

WE are the REAL POWER that matters. WE have the power of LOVE and our HOPE for the future on our sides.

We would do well to never forget that.

I for one am leap frogging the neocons. Skipping their bullshit in favor of thinking and working on a new future for my daughter and her future family.

I am building a new future now by talking about what needs to be done to live in peace and in harmony with this planet we call home. I am changing the way I interact with this vile leadership we have now. I am not going to be drawn into the drama of lies and deception. The negativity they project is further strengthend by our own negative resoponse. So now it is time to take a different course.

I hope others are ready to do the same.

Say it with me...

I have hope for the future and it starts with me today.

[mzmolly]

176. Hope for the future depends upon removing Republicans from office.

Say it with me ....

I will work every angle possible to defeat this criminal empire.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Repeat After Me...Pamela Willeford...Pamella Willeford...

The drinking only goes so far. It can outrage the fundies, but most of them also have that snifter or flask hidden away. There's still a wink and nod about drinking in our society...especially in the South and among Repugnicans that the tread-life here, while the corporate media can run with it, still does only limited damage.

The media really likes the sexual sizzle...add a corpse and you have Rita Cosby...add a kinky friend or relative and you have Jerry Springer or add race and you have OJ.

If one thing Bill Clinton proved, women...especially those 35-55 don't look too kind on filandering husbands...especially those who have used their wives to further their political careers. Anything that can be thrown at Hillary Clinton can be thrown times ten at Lynne Chenney.

Ms. Willeford's silence speaks loudly...it's the elephant in the room even people on our side are afraid to touch. She witnessed the shooting and has slipped under the media's radar. Methinks we need to pound this drum as much as any other.

Cheers...

[mzmolly]

135. I though she was the wife of one of Cheney's doctors?

:shrug:

[wordpix]

138. agree, Pamela Willeford---why hasn't someone interviewed this witness?

'cause there's a sex scandal involving Dickhead? hahahahaha, that would be too good to be true, LOL

[Gregorian]

32. Drinking and shooting? What kind of vice president do we have here?

He shot this guy and walked away like nothing happened.

One thing is for sure- Cheney is thinking about what a gun can do to a human being. Maybe his illegal war and all of the suffering it caused is coming back to haunt him.

[qanda]

33. David Letterman seems to be on the job

Last night he kept making references to Cheney being drunk.

[mzmolly]

34. Why did the SS keep the police from interviewing him immediately?

:shrug: I think this is THE question.

[Skinner]

36. Damn good question. (nt)

[mzmolly]

55. Thanks, troubles me that the media is focusing on "why didn't he tell us"

and THAT has determined the terms of the entire debate - on a national level.

[Ganja Ninja]

75. That's exactly what I posted yesterday.

Who cares about when the press got the word? They're nothing but boot licker's anyway. I think the the whole issue is a red herring designed to distract people from asking the real questions. Was he drunk and why did he refuse to talk to the police that evening?

What do you suppose the reaction would be if any Democratic politician were involved in an accident and refused a breathalyzer test? I think we all know the answer to that one. FOX, MSNBC and CNN would be putting out a non-stop 24/7 resignation watch.

[mzmolly]

78. You said it. They'll make Americans sick of hearing the press whine

until they are no longer interested in what actually happened.

What do you suppose the reaction would be if any Democratic politician were involved in an accident and refused a breathalyzer test? I think we all know the answer to that one. FOX, MSNBC and CNN would be putting out a non-stop 24/7 resignation watch.

Indeed!

[bettyellen]

103. why has matlin insisted he was a tea totaler, when he drank before and

after the accident, by his own admission?

[mzmolly]

132. "tea totaler"

LOL

[Carni]

156. Exactly WHY WAS HE ABOVE THE LAW?

I am not an attorney but I do not think the SS trumps local authorities when there has been a shooting...does this mean that bush and Cheney can just run around shooting people at their leisure?

I have a good picture of Bill Clinton or Al Gore shooting a guy in the face while in office and then going under cover for 14 hours courtesy of the secret service without answering questions...something tells me that would have flown about as high as those slow fat little quail!

[mzmolly]

175. Right. You can see my thread in GD about CBS scrubbing for more info.

:hi:

[Sparkly]

39. That makes sense!!

Great points. Another question (setting up two sides) might be: "Was the reason Cheney stayed at the ranch partying, instead of going to the hospital with Whittington, because he was drunk, or because he's so callous he didn't care?"

[Hubert Flottz]

42. Does Dick Cheney Drink?

WINO!

[SeaBob]

232. Dick Cheney

asking if Dick Cheney drinks is like asking if the pope is catholic

[wryter2000]

46. Bingo

Because, IMHO if you've got republicans on TV 24-7 insisting that the Vice President of the United States was not drunk when he shot that guy in the face, we've pretty much already won the argument.

That's it in a nutshell. My own gut inclination is, honestly, that it was no more than his natural arrogance that kept him from doing the right thing about this accident. But, his behavior has made him suspect without any help from us. Just raising the question in the most innocent way possible can be a killer strategy, thanks to His Dickness. :evilgrin:

[pinto]

50. Yeah. Repubs having to get up and say the VP 'was not impaired' = Nixon's

having to get up and say 'I am not a crook'.

[spanone]

52. Remember, Cheney thinks he's above the law. Let's remind him otherwise.

After all, he's our employee.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Absolutely, and I would add two more questions

1) Could Cheney have had an adverse reaction when alcohol was mixed with the medications prescribed for his chronic health issues?
2) Since Lynn wasn't there, did the attractive blonde who was hunting with Cheney observe any unusual behavior after Cheney had "a beer" at lunch?
:evilgrin:

[mac56]

59. Skinner, thanks for this.

I'm weary of having others on THIS VERY BOARD tell me that this isn't worthy of our attention, and to "get over it".

I'll get over it when I'm damn good and ready to be over it.

[Klukie]

76. Hear Hear!

This was my thoughts the other dhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=414397&mesg_id=414397ay on this matter.

[Ganja Ninja]

63. A few questions for anyone that knows Texas law.

What law would be broken for injuring someone with a firearm while under intoxication?
Is it a Felony?
Does Texas have any law that requires a minimum sentence for committing a felony with a firearm?

[druidity33]

88. yes

It is a felony if it's considered reckless. Someone posted the Texas laws on Mon or Tues here on DU... can't search for it and i didn't bookmark it. Any help? Also, the statute made it so that if you shot someone oover 65 it was a harsher sentence. There's more but i've already forgotten. Someone else posted about a Latino man who recently served time for doing what Cheney did... only he hadn't been drinking, had a dozen witnesses, and had the right hunting permit (though the man he shot died).

[Nothing Without Hope]

199. ***Here are posts on the Texas laws:***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x438158
thread title (2-15-06 GD): Cheney could face criminal charges
Comment/excerpt: Yahoo News – “Dallas defense attorney David Finn, who has been a state and a federal prosecutor, said Wednesday that a Texas grand jury could bring a charge of criminally negligent homicide if there is evidence the vice president knew or should have known ‘there was a substantial or unjustifiable risk that his actions would result in him shooting a fellow hunter.’ ”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x418049
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Attorney on Ed Schultz' Show just said he researched TX law, and {the reason the WH Drs are so involved in this Whittington case is that they're scared! TX law states "If a victim dies "WITHIN ONE YEAR" of a shooting incident, the shooter can be charged with involuntary manslaughter!}

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x414197
thread title (2-14-06 GD): The Reason For the Cheney Coverup: He's Guilty of a FELONY under TX Law!
Comment/excerpt: berni_mccoy cites the Texas penal code.

COMPILATION of threads on the Cheney shooting - not comprehensive, but a lot of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3133
thread title (2-14-06 RESEARCH FORUM): Compilation of threads on 2/06 Cheney shooting incident, including videos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411916
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Thread COMPILATION on Cheney shooting/Fuddgate - including VIDEOS:

[peacetalksforall]

67. Brilliant, Skinner. I like logic, especially insightful logic. nt

[Klukie]

71. Here is another Question that could blow them out of the water.

Did the hospital that treated Mr. Whittington perform a blood alcohol level test and if so is Mr. Whittington willing to release the results? If it turns out this guy was drunk well that could be very interesting...

[DubyaSux]

72. An obvious question...

Is Texas one of the "many states" that require alcohol testing after an accidental shooting?

[Skinner]

91. Don't know.

I was hoping someone here might know.

[Tin Man]

80. And BTW - Cheney under stress from Plamegate - might turn to alcohol

People with a history of alcohol abuse (like Cheney) increasingly turn to alcohol during times of stress - like when, for instance, a former chief of staff (like Scooter Libby) is about to roll-over and take down the alcohol abuser as part of a criminal proceeding.

[Lasher]

83. Ren is your pet?

[npincus]

85. Cheney's DWI Records:

[MrBenchley]

86. It's also worth asking about the Swiss Miss

and worth asking why the delay in reporting.

and worth asking when exactly the pResident was informed that Cheney was the shooter...

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[txindy]

96. You go do that.

Posting in this thread is distracting you from those major issues.

I can't imagine what Darth is going through, either. But, then, I've never shot a friend and then left him to be shuttled from one hospital to another while I kick back with a cocktail at the ranch and a fine dinner with friends. Nope, can't imagine going through that.

Oh, yeah, welcome to DU.

Adding: Skinner! You took our plaything away too fast! :rofl:

[Skinner]

101. The message on his profile said:

"I would rather hunt with Dick than ride with Ted."

Pretty clear troll.

[txindy]

107. Well, I know

But it's fun to poke them a bit before rolling them out the door.
Mockery can be cathartic!

:rofl:

[MrBenchley]

106. Sorry I missed him....

Skinner's thread reminds me of the classic Lyndon Johnson story: Johnson once told an aide during an election to go out and whisper that the Republican opponent fucked pigs.

"But Lyndon, we'll never be able to prove that," said the aide.

"I don't give a damn about proving anything," replied Johnson. "I want to hear the son of a bitch get up and deny it."

As Peggy Noonan said about Bill Clinton being a secrtet agent for the Red Chinese: "It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate."

[Sparkly]

155. Right -- and the Nooner quote reminds me of Michelle Malkin's

about the possibility Kerry's wounds in Vietnam were self-inflicted: "Don't you WONDER??"

[MrBenchley]

159. I sure DO wonder

about Cheney getting shitfaced while on a weekend tryst with a blonde tootsie, shooting a guy and obstructing justice, and then trying to cover it all up.

I mean, after all, the folks telling us everything is aboverboard and perfectly oaky-dokey about Cheney's shooting spree were the ones trying to pretend that John Kerry got himself wounded deliberately (but only a little) 30 years ago so that he could embarrass the war time deserter staining the Oval Office nowadays.

[NashVegas]

87. Skinner This Is Evil

And beautiful.

:evilgrin:

I'd love to add another question: was Cheney's mistress there?

[Ksec]

98. Its only being responsible

A possible felony happened.

It would be irresponsible NOT to ask questions. They guy could have been killed by the irresponsible behavior of a supposed role model for our children.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

102. A good resource for anyone interested...

Google News search on "Cheney" and "Alcohol"

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=cheney+alcohol&btnG=Search+News

[TygrBright]

99. But... but... but Skinner!!

>>Even when there really aren't two sides to a story<<

Aren't there ALWAYS 'two sides' to a story?? I mean, even HITLER was a non-smoker!

heheheh

Anyway, I think you're especially right about this, based on the number of conservative media flaks and pundits who have been making an unseemly fuss over the "unseemly fuss" that the "media" is making over this "sad but basically unimportant incident" based on "liberal instigation."

So let's get out there and

Instigate!

Instigate!!

INSTIGATE!!!

encouragingly,
Bright

[berni_mccoy]

100. HOW ABOUT THIS QUESTION: "Were Cheney's Meds Involved?"

Check it out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x452472

[txindy]

109. I might emphasize the prescription angle there rather than "meds"

Were drugs involved? Or.... What role did prescription drugs play in the shooting? Was alcohol added to those drugs?

Prescription costs for seniors are a hot topic right now. They should be reminded that the Dark Lord has his provided for him and they have to struggle with the joke that is Medicare.

:evilgrin:

[berni_mccoy]

113. Excellent point!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

108. K/R, Skinnner. Besides, after looking at all of it, this scenario (drunk),

makes by FAR more sense than any other.

It explains the delay in news. They KNEW the fallout of that would be bad, but not as bad as headlines of "Drunk VP blasts buddy" = instant resignation.

It explains the need to hole up on the ranch and not see sheriff until the next day.

It explains the "bad judgement" to not disclose.

It explains the initial nondenial denial of alcohol ("to my knowledge no one was drinking" "I refer you to the official report (which says no alcohol)"), followed by the trickling out of this amazing new info, gradually, day by day ("oh yeah, we had 'a beer' at lunch", "yeah he fixed hisself a cocktail after").

I think bringing it up as questions as you have outlined is good for some. Presenting the scenario works okay for others.

As long as it is not presented as fact ("unfortunately we can't know for sure because of the botched/obstructed investigation"), I think it's fine ethically.

[kid a]

111. I'd rather have them on 24/7 insisting why * shouldn't be impeached nt

[Skinner]

121. Baby steps.

Baby steps.

[flyarm]

117. Tie it together..Cheney is so distressed...

i heard * say yesterday how distressed cheney is from shooting his friend...

well my immediate reaction was...well how the fuck distressed are the 21 year olds that are killing Iraqi's and are being shot at ..or are seeing "their buddies being shot at and killed"..many of them are holding their buddies in their arms while they die..

i thought..if cheney thinks he is distressed...how are the kids in iraq dealing ..they don't get the coctail after shooting an iraqi...or a nice dinner...

there is no cover for our troops...

cheney is involved in the abu grab torture..and he gets to have a drink for coverup of his possible drinking after shooting a friend..what do our troops get...

yeah...a sentence for following orders!

and cheney is so shook up he is doing a campaign fund raiser today...

seems cheney thinks being shook up / very distressed is relieved by campaigning!

others would say that is the sign of a man with no conscience! a man devoid of compassion...

my husband was shot when he was younger..hunting..one of the pellets went into his eye and detatched his retina...

he has a silicone patch on his retina...

i also was the wife brought to the hospital by the police..and the shooter in my husbands case also did not stay at the hospital to even tell me where or how my husband was shot...he did not wait to tell me what my husband was being operated on..or what part of his body was involved...

see he was more worried about being sued...so he went home right away to call his lawyers..to protect his own ass...

i felt then, as i do today..he was more concerned about himself... a very selfish move..

and that is how i see this cheney shooting..there was more concern of cover up than concern for his "supposedly good friend"

cheney had to cover up..it became his # 1 priority..not the man he shot.

as for distressed..cheney couldn't deal with what our 21 yr olds are dealing with daily in iraq...all brought about by the lies and deciet of cheney!

fly

[bleever]

118. It would be irresponsible not to ask if alcohol was involved,

over, and over, and over.

:evilgrin:

[txindy]

123. Agreed. It would be irresponsible not to ask if the VP consumed alcohol

prior to SHOOTING A 78 YEAR OLD MAN IN, WHAT CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS, HIS FACE.

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

126. Shooting a senior in the heart right in front of his girlfriend!

Oops!:blush:

[txindy]

127. Shooting a senior in the heart & right side of his body

All while Dickie had spun counterclockwise with his gun and kept tracking across Harry's body to finally shoot him on the right side. Harry just appeared on CNN and it was the right side that took the pellets. Yet Dick claims he spun counterclockwise. How does that work without tracking across Harry's body before finally shooting him? Harry was walking towards Darth. If Dick spun counterclockwise, the right side is the LAST part of Harry's body that the gun would've been trained on.

[EFerrari]

129. Alcohol really messes with your memory.

:evilgrin:

[txindy]

130. Stress would do it, too., plus the physical exertions, drugs, & alcohol

Particularly after partying all night, drinking to excess, and SHOOTING A 78 YEAR OLD MAN IN THE FACE!

[wordpix]

142. also shooting a senior in the face

[bleever]

212. That was probably the single

most hilarious line to come out of this debacle.

So far.

:hi:

[onenote]

140. agreed, but

But you don't need to hinge that question on the fact he drank in college 40 years ago. No one who believes Cheney's story now is going to change their mind because of what he did four decades ago.

The reason to keep bringing it up... and the way to bring it up...is to focus on the shifting nature of the story..first it was implied that there was no alcohol being consumed during the day's events...then it was one beer at lunch...then it was one beer at lunch and a cocktail after he got back to the ranch. The question to hammer away at is why does this story keep shifting? What is the complete story. What do the other witnesses say? Was a blood alcohol test done on Whittington. If not why not?

THese are all great questions and you don't get sidetracked by the softball issue of what Cheney did 40 years ago, which most people will dismiss as ancient history (because a lot of people did the same thing 40 years ago, even if they managed to avoid getting caught).

Stick to the case that isn't easily dismissed, not the softball that distracts from the argument.

onenote

[PurpleChez]

134. I'm not proud, but I agree.

By trying to take the moral high road Dems have allowed the Thugs untold opportunities to misrepresent us and our views. It may not be possible to reclaim what we've lost without beating the GOP at their own game (i.e., being dirty and vindictive). It may be distasteful at the time, but the results will be worth it.

[Carni]

143. Esp when he could have cleared the whole thing up by submitting

to the normal procedure of talking to police and taking a sobriety test right after the shooting like THE REST OF US WOULD HAVE TO DO IN THE SAME SITUATION!

I was in a car accident about three years ago (I wasn't driving my husband was)

It was late at night and he had not been drinking--he still had to submit to a sobriety test and breathalizer (which he passed) they didn't ask him if that was OK, or if he would prefer they come back and question him 14 hours later.

They didn't tell him he could defer all questions to me since I was after all a witness that had been right there in the car.

Bottom line Cheney is NOT ABOVE THE LAW and standard procedure was not followed!

[ScreamingMeemie]

148. I think we should couple that with Clinton, Cigars etc...

I think we need to get as tough as they, as misguided as they were, were.

[mtnsnake]

150. Skinner (or anyone), Cheney said he had a beer, but did he say

that he had ONLY one beer, or did he simply say he had "a beer"?

Anyone who guzzled 8 or 10 beers could say they had "a beer" and not be lying about it. I don't recall exactly the way he phrased it, but if he simply said he "had a beer at lunch", that doesn't mean that he didn't have many more beers after that one, too.

All "a beer" means is at least a beer.

[Tactical Progressive]

154. Depends on the meaning of what "a" is.

[Joe for Clark]

151. I think it is reasonable to assume he was impaired.

Just read the police report. By his admission, he wheeled and shot into an area he knew his friend to be "on the fly" - clearly without looking.

If he wasn't impaired, it is hard to believe he wouldn't have more friends in Whittingtons condition.

As you point out well, he was drinking at times durring the day, there is the missing time - If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

Good post. Hell, if we were republicans and he was a democrat he'd already be convicted.

Joe

[peacetalksforall]

158. Equally important angle - emotions and feelings.

We've been given a gift - all that stuff that Dick, Mary, Hannity, Brit and everyone else handed us about how AWFUL he FELT. George telling us how PROFOUNDLY DISTURBED he was. Whittington getting TEARY EYED.

But, there is no emotion from them about our dead and wounded - including those who are losing their minds and immune systems plus careers. Where - emotions, feelings, profound distress, suppressed tears? (It isn't even worth including the Iraqis, because we know their deaths and losses won't make any difference to him).

Short term: Rule of law - above the law - and lying maneuvers. possibly including local and state cover-ups.
(And it will be exquisite irony if we learn that Pamela is a girlfriend (or Katherine).)

Long term: For the lang haul we have ammunition every time there is a motorcade, parade, or any other opportunity - demand to know why there never has been any emotional, feeling, touchy-feely promotional theatrics for our kids. Throw it back at them for decades - he provided the way. As a secretive guy we didn't have much to go on - as a shooter with a hundred questions following his every step - we can demand to know where it is for our kids.

This is it. He doesn't deserve respect. If your a Clinton follower, think of every time you've heard him laugh, sneer, and make a joke about Clinton - the last time was within about the last three months - carried on TV. Clinton on the light side - you know the dark side. He doesn't deserve respect because he gives no respect even to a 19 year old or a baby.

[cassiepriam]

162. So Bush and Cheny are drunk most of the time? God help us.

[pitohui]

163. we don't know, you are right

but we don't know because of actions they took, that we all know good old boys take in such situations, to avoid being tested for alcohol

so i can't be as generous as you, skinner

deep in my soul, i am morally certain that both men were drunk as skunks

you are right to keep asking questions rather than just making blanket statements of course, i just hope the questions are heard

[go west young man]

166. Here's a good way to spread the word...

on the CNN Situation Room website right now one of Jack Caffertys daily questions is "what would you do with $365 million dollars?" I wrote that " I would own 5 mansions, have a puppet named "W", run the world, give lucrative contracts to my friends, out CIA agents for political reasons and own a $10,000 shotgun that I would use to shoot my friends in the face! Hey I'm Dick Cheney!" If enough of us bombard him with some witty responses maybe we'll get one on the air.

[calimary]

167. Another EXCELLENT point, Skinner - Make 'em deny it.

The Republican political consultant Mike Murray is fond of saying, "Make the charge and let the other guy spend $1 million to explain it."

Someone else posted here on DU awhile back, reminding me about how LBJ first snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Evidently, it was back when he was first getting into politics, during his first congressional campaign when he was trailing his opponent badly. As the story goes, he got his people together and ordered them to spread all kinds of shit about his opponent, like he was sleeping with pigs and other outlandish stuff. Wasn't true. Didn't need to be. The point, as LBJ said, was to MAKE HIM DENY IT. Punchline of the story was - LBJ was soon on his way to Washington, his political career well on its way, too.

ABSOLUTELY. MAKE THEM DENY IT. Say, accuse, fabricate, exaggerate, WHATEVER IT IS. No matter how outlandish. But force them to react, defend, and deny. The important point here is OFFENSE. Go on the OFFENSE. Force them to react. By doing that, you're forcing THEM to play YOUR game, not the other way around. Then, YOU control the game, AND the frame.

[coalition_unwilling]

169. Bravo! I would add only a 2nd question (connected to yours). . .

Why did the Secret Service deny local sherrif's deputies immediate access to Cheney?

variations:

If you had shot someone by accident, would you have been allowed to wait until the next morning to speak to local authorities?

Who in the Secret Service detail authorized the denial of access? Should a special prosecutor look into "Obstruction of Justice" issue

And so on ~

[cyclezealot]

173. Wittington will defend Cheney.

already has. Need counter Wittington's sympathy for the Cheney. Wittington as lobbyist on the take. Can over look a little buckshot when you are paid to. Similiar to the claims that parents of some of Michael Jackson's young home stays forgave Michaels' potential actions.

[druidity33]

229. here's what you do...

Remind them that Menorah Gardens (a funeral home Whittington ran as head of some Halliburton type mortuary) fed the corpses of Jewish people to wild hogs... how much more offensive can it get? Google Funeralgate scandal, there's been posts here about it and them getting the contract for Katrina... millions of dollars, and they were counting our dead... how many were there? Maybe we'll never know. Who cares if Whittington forgives Cheney! He's a scumbag too!

rinse and repeat:
He fed the corpses of Jewish people to wild hogs!

[cyclezealot]

174. Wittington will defend Cheney.

already has. Need counter Wittington's sympathy for the Cheney. Wittington as lobbyist on the take. Can over look a little buckshot when you are paid to. Similiar to the claims that parents of some of Michael Jackson's young home stays forgave Michaels' potential actions.

[Joe for Clark]

178. "Cheney Beer"

Wonder how long it will take some enterprising young person to market it.

I'd buy it.

Joe

[B Calm]

183. I printed this picture out this morning and laid it on the table in

the break room at work. Didn't take long for one of the right-wing gun loonies to waddle it up and throw it into the trash. Sitting at a distance, I couldn't help but laugh!

[Joe for Clark]

188. That is really funny.

I still have my Billy Beer six pack from the 70's. A great investment.

Joe

[nomatrix]

184. Baby steps...

History of Illness
http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/a_cheney.htm

He walks with a cane before the hunt....gout?

What is the relief for gout? Certainly not walking around a ranch.


Prescription drugs would definately factor on ANY alcohol consumed.

DUI's 40 years ago were a different level than todays .08

[Nothing Without Hope]

185. Hardest-hitting TV journalism on this issue so far- Keith Olbermann (LINK)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x447244
thread title (2-16-06 GD): VIDEO- KO Covers the Hunting Discrepancies (Brand-Booze)
Comment/excerpt: Liveoaktx VIDEO clip from Keith Olbermann shoots the hell out of Cheney's story. Shows the discrepancies between Cheney's Fox interview and other testimony, then brings on attorney Brand for some more questions.

Ongoing COMPILATION of Cheney shooting threads in GD (where it's easier to comment) and in the Research Forum (where it's easier to read them in order):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3133
thread title (2-14-06 RESEARCH FORUM): Compilation of threads on 2/06 Cheney shooting incident, including videos

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x411916
thread title (2-14-06 GD): Thread COMPILATION on Cheney shooting/Fuddgate - including VIDEOS:

I'll add this current thread later today.

[mzmolly]

198. Please do start a thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=454117&mesg_id=454117

Your welcome to use info from my thread as well if you wish? It's possible that the subject was already discussed and I missed it though?

[Nothing Without Hope]

201. I plan to start a thread later with permalinks & highlights from the

excellent firedoglake coverage of the Cheney shooting.  They
make observations you don't see anywhere else, and they put it
together with linked discussion of reports from blogs and the
corporate media.

What thread were you suggesting I start, if you had something
different in mind?  My thread compilation threads already
exist (see my sig line for the links), though I surely wish
other people would point out what's missing and/or post it. 
I'm posting this comment in plain text format to give the
TEMPLATES I use for citing DU threads:

 * * * * * * * * * * * 

*URL OF THREAD*
thread title (2-0-06 GD):  [b] *TITLE* [/b]
[font size="2"
face="Palatino"][i]Comment/excerpt: *COMMENT*
[/font][/i] 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * 

I paste in the URL and title, adjust the date and forum, and
then often add comments or excerpts in the small-print area,
which I feel takes little space and adds a lot.  NOTE THAT
THERE ARE ONLY TWO LINES IN THIS TEMPLATE.   The line
"thread title....[/font][/i]" should have no
carriage returns.

[Nothing Without Hope]

226. I've reposted an updated version of the GD COMPILATION THREAD

on the Cheney shooting here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x456727
thread title (2-17-06 GD): COMPILATION OF CHENEY SHOOTING THREADS - with comments/excerpts:
Comment/excerpt: Repost of updated thread started in this forum Feb 14. At time of posting, it is identical to the version in the Research Forum.

The Research Forum version nof the compilation remains current (though of course many threads have been missed) because it can be open-edited:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3133
thread title (2-14-06 RESEARCH FORUM): Compilation of threads on 2/06 Cheney shooting incident, including videos

[Joe for Clark]

197. This post is important.

The moment Cheney opens his mouth in a press conference with live questions he is screwed - -and the longer he remains silent the more he appears guilty.

November is very important. I think even Fox has the generic democrat with an 8 point advantage.

I don't really care that this asshole shot his friend, it is not the issue.

But I know many people that hunt for food that understand well the lack of judgement and they live in the states that will matter in a few months.

This is about winning in November. And we better win.

Good job Skinner.


Joe

[Lone_Star_Dem]

200. You've got the right idea on this one

Most people want to know the answer without our prodding. Not that I've that stop me from feeding their curiosity.

And why was Cheney the only one having a beer at lunch? That's an issue that has struck a nerve with many of the people I'm in contact with. We are supposed to believe that he, and only he, had one beer at lunch during a hunting trip?

I was amazed at how many people didn't know that Cheney had the two prior DWIs. Many were quite surprised to hear of his history of drinking problems.

[savemefromdumbya]

203. Does cheney really have a heart problem or is it something else?

[stanwyck]

204. Of course. How could anyone believe otherwise?

This is a no brainer. Even a freeper, if told this was a life or death question, would say Cheney was drinking. We all know, yes, he was drinking.
This was a play weekend with the wives out of the picture. Other women on hand. And "play" hunting farm-raised tame quail after being driven out to the fields.
Lots of servants were available for the heavy lifting.
And, of course, they were drinking.
Why people admire these despicable leeches is a mystery.
They've done nothing for America. Produced nothing. Invented nothing. Inspired nothing but hate.
Now they're shooting each other.
Karma is a bitch.

[Joe for Clark]

205. Karma really is a bitch.

Joe

[Beth in VT]

208. Either way, this whole thing just exposes how dumb he is.

If alcohol was involved, it was dumb to drink and hunt. If not, it was dumb to take a shot the way he did. Then the coverup shows how untrustworthy he is. "Dumb and untrustworthy" -- how's that for a meme?

[Joe for Clark]

211. Kick

[Joe for Clark]

213. Kick

Sorry if this came out wrong - it is just important to keep up.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

216. Republicans made Ted Kennedy's name synonymous with alcoholism

because of one incident, Chappaquiddick, also where nothing was proved.

I completely agree with Skinner but would suggest taking it beyond just this incident. Dick Cheney's name should now become the very name of the model irresponsible, blame-avoiding, excuse-making alcoholic and drunk. Every time Cheney screws up, we should look for the connection to alcoholism. Every drunk joke should be modified to have Cheney's name in it. Every future hospital stay should be blamed on the alcoholism that proved he was drunk on the weekend of the St. Valentine's Massacre. This is a man who admits to drinking at lunch and supper and having cocktails instead of appearing at the bedside of the man he shot. This is also a man taking heart medication and who knows how many other substances. This is a man who as recently as January of this year had treatment for what some believe to be gout, a hereditary medical condition aggravated by alcohol. This is a man who doesn't make the results of his annual medical physical examinations public. This is a man who lives in a bunker inside of a bubble and avoids the light of day and, because of this secrecy, as to both his public and private lifestyle, only brings upon himself any rumors regarding excessive drinking.

[Tom Joad]

217. Why focus on this and not the Iraq War lies, the Plame leak???

I mean, speculation about Cheney being drunk, which is very likely false, lead no where. This is not the question

We should concentrate on the issues. Cheney personality problems is NOT THE problem, the war is a problem for the people and plants, and other living things.

We should be grilling Scotty about the story that Libby testified his superiors ordered him to leak the name of a CIA agent to the press. To discredit someone who was questioning the premises given to go to war (where INNOCENT people were shot, many killed, not some criminal like Cheney's hunting buddy). This may not be as sexy a story, but it is much more important. This was no accident.

The Dems do have a problem if the issue is the war, because there is a very mixed record here. Many supported it originally, though the evidence was flimsy reasons for this attack on this sovereign nation. Many still say the occupation should continue.

However, as progressives we should fight for an end to this madness. The war is killing so many people. Focus on that.

Even as a campaign issue, it will backfire on Dems to attempt to use this accident as the main campaign issue. Folks have a choice if they will go on a hunting trip with Dick. But they will take action to stop the war their kids or their neighbors may be called to, if they are convinced it was sold to them on the basis of lies and even criminal action (leaking a CIA agent name).

[SoCalDem]

218. or "HOW MUCH" alcohol was involved

we should frame arguments like THEY do.. ASSUME it happened..just question the amount:)

[Raine]

219. Great post Skinner! nt

:thumbsup:

[Tom Joad]

225. Posts like this get me thinking the Repubs are going to win.

So the idea of so many is to ignore the war (Dems support that anyway, only want it "managed" better), the economy, torture, health care (Dems only differ on how the "free market" can best manage it)...

ignore all that and go after Cheney's imagined drinking habits? All the while the "victim" here is walking around telling people he is fine, & thinks Cheney is a swell guy. Brilliant. NOT

[Wapsie B]

227. But no matter what comes of this

he's not running for re-selection again. And if the stench of this administration gets too bad all the gop will do is more distancing from this cast of clowns.

[Nothing Without Hope]

228. ***Please see the UPDATED THREAD COMPILATION in GD and the

ongoing Research Forum version:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x456727
thread title (2-17-06 GD): COMPILATION OF CHENEY SHOOTING THREADS - with comments/excerpts:
Comment/excerpt: Repost of updated thread started in this forum Feb 14. At time of posting, it is identical to the version in the Research Forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=358x3133
thread title (2-14-06 RESEARCH FORUM): Compilation of threads on 2/06 Cheney shooting incident, including videos

[SeaBob]

231. 1 Beer?

For some reason I dont see Dick Cheney as a beer drinker. He is more a single malt liquor man

[JohnnyCougar]

233. Skinner...

I know you don't post on here much. Your style is to keep the site managed well, and let the discussion go as it may, for the most part.

But this has got to be the most brilliant post I have seen on the entire internet for a very long time. I agree 110%. Just keep asking it and repeating it. As Lawrence O'Donnell said on Scarborough Country, "How many martinis did he have? Did he have two drinks? Did he have three?"

The way I am framing it with conservatives (I love debating them on politically neutral forums) is to bring up the fact that Cheney admitted to having one beer. But let's get real here. Someone does something stupid, we find out through a third party that there was alcohol there...If the guy that does something stupid is saying they had "just one beer," come on. That sounds like an excuse I would make if my parents found out I went to a party in high school that got busted by the cops for alcohol.

Nobody who does something incredibly stupid has "just one beer." They either had no beer at all and it was an honest mistake, or they were drunk as hell.

[entanglement]

234. Do you have all the beer you need, Skinner?

If not, please let me know. You deserve the very best.

:toast:

[Festivito]

235. Why would the police report indicate NO alcohol? But, does not matter.

The police have splain'n todo.

But, the public, I do not think will buy this questioning, Skinner.
The group knew he was drinking.
They made their informed choice.
Illegal? YES.
But, on guarded private land with informed people who chose to be there.

Actual small-j justice will triumph in the form of American people dismissing this case from their minds.

[Neil Lisst]

236. Why Cheney didn't go to the hospital tells it all. - fear of police ....

and fear of testing that might be done there if some police officer followed standard procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Why didn't the Vice President go to the hospital? Did he need time to sober up?"

"Why did the Vice President wait until the following morning to alert the media? Did he need time to sober up?"

"Why didn't local law enforcement do a proper investigation? Was alcohol involved?"

"In many states, hunters are required to take a blood alcohol test after any accidental shooting. Why didn't Cheney?"

"Why can't all the people involved get their stories straight on the issue of alcohol?"

"Why did MSNBC scrub the alcohol reference from their story, and then put something different back in later after the scrubbing was caught?"

"Why isn't the media talking about Cheney's two DUIs?"

"Why won't Cheney hold a press conference? Does he have something to hide?"

"We don't know the facts. I am not saying that Cheney was drunk. But I think the American people have a right to the whole story. Was alcohol involved?"

[Spinoza]

239. Uhhh,

isn't making insinuations, to stir shit up, with no evidence, sort of.....McCarthyite? Do we really want to go there? Do we now believe that the end (political victory) justifies blatantly McCarthyite means? Personally, I would rather lose elections than win under those circumstances.

[Jemmons]

240. But you forget that they lied throught their theeth all the way:

Armstrong gave this account of the accident:
Whittington, Cheney and Willeford saw two coveys on the ground, one directly in front of them, with dogs on point, and the other 100 or so yards to the left.

Quote:
The idea was to shoot the first, then for the group to move ahead and shoot the second covey," Armstrong said.

After Whittington shot the two birds, he moved away to look for them. He had trouble locating one, so he told the group to move ahead.

Cheney and Willeford moved to the second covey. Unbeknownst to either of them, Armstrong said, Whittington had walked back near the group and was about 30 yards to the right of the vice president when Cheney fired at birds emerging from the covey.


This is off course just a pack of lies, lined up to hide the awful truth: Cheney was pointing his gun directly at Whittington, not at some poor bird. Why he was doing exactly what every hunting instruction tells you never to do, we dont know yet. Whittington was not sneaking up from behind, but was clearly in sight either in front of Cheney or to his side. He was also not near the sun, or somehow made invisible by a low sun. He was also not 30 yards away but a lot closer, most likely around 15 yards away. This is the crucial point: Whittington was so close that he was totally clearly a human and not a bird, neither penguin nor quail. How do we know this? The fact that he picked up close to 200 pellets in a fairly small area marked in a drawing in the shooting incident report filed at the sheriffs office.
Why the trigger was pulled is the other big unknown, but perhaps not significant. Might have been carelessness combined with alcohol, combined with arrogance and a slight misstep of sorts.

My favorite guess for the first of two unknowns is that Cheney pointed the gun at Whittington in accordance with his character and as way to make a point. As Bush said at one occasion: “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things”.

After the shot there is little guesswork involved: They check him out, calls for the medical team, which does the first aid there.

Damage control is still way down on Cheneys list because a) he really dont give a damned about public opinion and b) he didnt mean to hurt the old guy.

After a chat with Karl Rove its a bit different: Rove makes it clear how bad this will look and gives his advice on what to do. They start arranging for the right place to have him treaded by someone loyal to Bush/Cheney: Blanchard gets a call. They still dont know how dangerous the situation is for Whittington and that is a key piece of information. Blanchard is willing and able to: a) give poor Whittinton class a treatment, b) give Cheney updates on the medical situation and c)serve sweet lies to the press.


The medical updates are critical for laying the communications strategy. When they learn that he is going to survive they decide to pull all the lies that they can possible come up with to explain away the above described scenario: It was an honest accident! Whittington was a bit of a fool to sneak up on them. He had been away to look for some birds, actually Cheney and Willeford had left him behind and moved to the next covey, where a quail got past Cheney who turn for it, only to hit poor Whittington. He was in the Sun! He was sneaking up on them. He was 30 yards or more away. Long distance. Sun. Quail. Sneaky bastard, almost asking for it.

Only thing was that they knew it wouldnt hold up to a real investigation. So as this was never meant to be something fed to an investigating officer they had to wait until they were sure that it would not be a manslaughter investigation, but just a minor hunting incident.

[eppur_se_muova]

241. We don't need an alcoholic gunslinger running the country.

And we don't need Bush** either.