Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Law Stands... in the Way of No Powerful Man (re: Cheney)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:09 AM
Original message
The Law Stands... in the Way of No Powerful Man (re: Cheney)
The Law Stands… in the Way of No Powerful Man
One thing has never changed in American politics—“the man” is always above “the law.”

O! the bitter humor of the universe.

Bush&Co. lie to the American people and the world numerous times, out a covert CIA agent, grant no-bid contracts to corporations with which they have had personal business relations, don’t follow up when those corporations bilk American taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars meant for the reconstruction in Iraq, pretend they don’t know Jack Abramoff, etc, etc, etc… and what catches the media’s ever reluctant eye?

Vice President Dick Cheney shot a rich lawyer buddy on a hunting trip over the weekend.

At first, this just seemed like another random moment in the new American bizarro world, and I was ready to move on to more important things. But over the span of three days, several disturbing pieces of information about the incident have been disclosed to the public.

First of all, let me throw out a few things that liberal bloggers have mentioned:

  • Hunters sometimes like to have a few drinks while they are hunting. Could Cheney and his buddies have been drinking?
  • If there was alcohol involved, wouldn’t the hospital where Whittington is being treated have a TOX screen on record? Doesn’t the public have a right to know exactly what happened?
  • Why did it take until the next day for information to come out to the public?
  • Why hasn’t the Vice President made a public statement about the shooting? A statement, an apology, a mere moment of regret, well wishes for Whittington’s recovery—not a word from the VP himself.

I believe that these are valid lines of questioning. Although the booze angle recalls visions of tinfoil hats, it is not as insane as it may have seemed in the hours following the initial newsbreak. However, I am going to concentrate on the certainties for the time being:

  • Cheney was hunting without the proper documentation—he claims that all license and stamp registration was done by aides and he did not know that anything was missing—he has since mailed in a check for the $7 bird stamp.
  • Cheney clearly was not following safe hunting guidelines. He would not have hit Mr. Whittington if he had been paying attention—therefore, his action was reckless. Such a reckless “accident” is a felony according to Texas law.
  • Cheney and his cronies kept the story to themselves for almost a full day before it was disclosed to the public—by the owner of the ranch where the accident took place, who was not a credible eye-witness (as she was not actually present when the shooting took place).
  • Cheney has not been subjected to a serious interview with law enforcement officials, who are seemingly content to close this case on the word of a devoutly corrupt man and his hunting buddies.
  • Mr. Whittington is now in the ICU, after suffering a heart attack which was directly connected to the shooting—he has birdshot lodged in his heart. This is no trifling matter—a man’s life is now at stake here.
  • Oh, and our neo-con tough guys? Hunting in a car… possibly hunting tame birds (as he has done at least once before, in 2003). That dog don’t hunt, no it don’t.


So, we have a Vice President who was hunting without the proper legal documentation. Regardless of the cost of the missing document, this is illegal. Cheney broke the law and was allowed to atone by simply sending in a check after the fact, after he had shot one of his fellow hunters during his illegal hunting excursion. If a regular everyday American citizen had done this, he would be sitting in a jail cell right now waiting for authorities to decide if he should be charged with a crime.

Cheney had a dinner party, not a night in jail. While his cronies are spending time spinning the story to blame the victim—nothing new there.

Additionally, Cheney was allowed to simply say the word “accident” and get off without even having to undergo an official questioning, while the AP reported this story in 2004:

A hunter who critically wounded another hunter in November after mistaking him for a deer was sentenced to 20 days on the sheriff's road crew.

Lane County Circuit Judge Doug Mitchell also banned Trevor Kory Foster, 20, of Eugene from hunting during two years of probation and ordered him to pay $865 in attorney's fees and court costs.

He was convicted of misdemeanor assault and negligently wounding another.

The victim, 21-year-old Nicholas Lee Peterson, said he hopes the case encourages hunters to be more careful. He still cannot straighten his left arm, after being shot in the elbow and ribs with a .270-caliber rifle.


Old John Q. Citizen has to face the music for his mistake, but the Vice President of the United States, one of the highest leaders in the “free” world, gets a free pass while his victim is in intensive care.

Also, there are serious questions being raised about how Cheney could possibly have shot Whittington in the face and chest hunting for birds. Birds, as most of us already know, fly around in the air and perch in trees and whatnot. They don’t generally place themselves at eye-level with a human male. It’s either the ground or the sky for birds, not Harry Whittington’s shoulder.

How, even if Whittington snuck up on him as he claims, could Dick Cheney have shot the face and chest of a man while aiming for a bird? Is his aim really that bad, or could he have been mentally or visually impaired? I’m no conspiracy theorist, so I don’t think Cheney intended to shoot a big donor in cold blood, but this observation, made by many hunters as well as non-hunters, definitely gives the booze angle legs. MSNBC actually had the balls to mention this in a recent article, and soon after posting, the article was scrubbed clean of the alcohol reference.

Texas law actually counts such reckless “accidents” as felonies. Drunk or not, Cheney’s actions were obviously reckless—had he been paying attention, Mr. Whittington wouldn’t be in the hospital right now. Shooting someone with a .28 gauge shotgun while supposedly aiming at a bird… sounds reckless to me.

So, we have a VP who was reckless with a weapon, shot a guy in the face and chest, and then attended a nice dinner with friends while his victim was being treated at the hospital. We have a VP who didn’t think this was important enough to share with the White House or the American public until the next day.

There are many hunters talking about how a .28 gauge shotgun couldn’t have caused Mr. Whittington’s injuries at the distance being claimed by Cheney and his pals. So, there is definitely a possibility that Cheney’s victim was much, much closer than the 30 yards or so claimed by the hunting party. If Whittington was closer than they say, then there are two problems:

  • Cheney lied, and got his buddies to lie for him.
  • Cheney had to have been either crazy or impaired to manage to shoot a person, in the daylight (it was still well before sunset when they claim the incident took place—if it was actually later, then that’s another lie), at the range necessary to inflict these wounds with that gun.

Mr. Whittington’s injuries are extensive enough that multiple pieces of birdshot are now lodged in his heart, and have caused him to suffer a “silent” heart attack. He is currently in intensive care at a hospital in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Closer to my own heart (as an animal rights advocate), there is an additional issue in this case to discuss. Dick Cheney has previously been on “canned” hunts, where cage-raised birds are let loose to be slaughtered by “hunters” like Cheney and his rich, elitist pals. These birds have no sense of instinct to escape humans, no sense of danger being around humans with shotguns. These aristocratic quail “hunts” are done from automobiles as well, which is about as ridiculous as you can get.

“Hunters” like Cheney and his pals are useless excuses for human beings. They kill for the joy of the slaughter, with no challenge, and no ethical code.

So, basically, we’ve got ourselves a Vice President, a guy with his finger on the button, who kills merely for the joy of killing God’s creatures. We’ve got a VP who broke the law, evaded law enforcement officials, enjoyed his dinner while his companion had birdshot lodged in his heart, committed a felony in the state of Texas and is not being held accountable, and hasn’t even bothered to offer a public apology to his victim and his victim’s family—not even a few words of well wishing.

This scumbag doesn’t deserve the office he holds.

Best wishes to Mr. Harry Whittington for a full and speedy recovery.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
missouri dem 2 Donating Member (308 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nice post But I have to quibble on this point though:
"Also, there are serious questions being raised about how Cheney could possibly have shot Whittington in the face and chest hunting for birds. Birds, as most of us already know, fly around in the air and perch in trees and whatnot. They don’t generally place themselves at eye-level with a human male. It’s either the ground or the sky for birds, not Harry Whittington’s shoulder."


Quail are flushed (or released) from the ground and then usually fly off parallel to the ground, often at shoulder height. No possible excuse for shooting someone behind him though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. didn't I read somewhere here that those birds were pen raised and had
their wings clipped? how in the H*** could they even fly with their wings clipped?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. it hasn't been proven that this particular hunt was set up, but Cheney has
participated in canned hunts in the past, so it is definitely possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. ah--the key word "behind" dern it--thank you! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Excellent Post! K and R
Thank you!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-15-06 02:11 AM
Response to Original message
6. Okay, I can't help it--here are a couple of pieces of nasty mail I've
since this article hit the net--(view revised copy at OpEd News.)

"You are a moron and this website that posts your rantings is pretty pathetic too." (For the record, the website is a bit of a mess--I am actually working on some plans for a redesign as we speak--hopefully it will be fixed up in the near future. I mostly wonder why this person bothered to read it if he/she considers the site "pathetic" but that's just my willy logical mind...)

"You don't have a clue. You don't know what you are talking about. You are dependent upon others for your "facts"

Hunters don't drink and hunt
Bush didn't lie

Get your facts straight."
(Um, yeah, don't we all depend on major press outlets (whether they be mainstream or otherwise) and official press releases, along with research of others' writings to compile our opinions and ideas? Hmm... )

On the other hand, one reader emailed me and said that the ad hominem attack at the end of the piece changed his opinion--that he thought it was very good until he saw that sentence and then he hated it.

So, I've revised it, and I feel like an a$$hole for using such a pathetic (lol) device--it really isn't a positive addition, and I don't want to be that guy.

G'night DU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC