What Fresh Hell Is This?

February 14, 2006

"There's something screwy around here."

Be very, very quiet. I'm hunting wabbits quail people.

OK, OK, I know that everyone and their mother has already commented on this but, since Saturday I've had three separate family members go to the emergency room on three separate occasions (the two who I escorted are still hospitalized -- everyone should be OK) so I haven't had a chance to weigh in on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE. And, since I called dibbs on this story, Dayvoe could not comment.

And, since as one of our readers commented, this blog engages in "sophomoric humor, name calling, and [has a} general childish tone," I must comment on THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE.

Besides, I think it's fudding funny.

Yes, I know that I'm not the first to make the Elmer Fudd reference, but if the shoe fits...

(Besides, I immediately started downloading Elmer Fudd pictures when I heard about THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE on Sunday evening).

So fess up:

How many of you, like me, laughed your butt off when you heard that Darth Vader shot a 78 year old man in the face?

How many of you thought, "God, I hope the Daily Show/Letterman/leno is live on Monday?"

How many of you thought, "Jesus, he isn't content to be the cause of so much death in Iraq, he's got to start trying to shoot folks himself?"

How many of you wondered why it took almost 24 hours for this story to make the national press?

Well, from the press and media coverage so far, I know I'm not alone in my thoughts.

For your reading pleasure, I present a roundup of some of the more interesting stories resulting from THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOOTING AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE:

1. Here's the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report on Vice President Dick Cheney's accidental shooting.

2. Here's Scott McClellan unsuccessfully trying to avoid the question of why the public had to find out this story from a tiny little local newspaper THE DAY AFTER IT HAPPENED.

3. Here's Ron Reagan asking why local law enforcement weren't able to immediately question the Veep like they would after any other incident when someone is shot. Questions like "Was alchohol involved?"

4. Here's firedoglake with the law on the MANDATORY REPORTING OF GUNSHOT WOUNDS in Texas and the NRA on gun safety.

5. Here's AmericaBlog letting us know that Ol' Darth didn't really have the necessary paperwork needed to hunt lil birdies in Texas.

6. Here's One of Cheney's adviser's letting us know that Cheney has nothing to be sorry for because "He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." (I guess THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SUPPOSSED TO SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE!)

7. Here's Atrios with photos of the people who participated in the hunting party.

8. Here's Josh Marshall explaining exactly how Cheney really did fuck up.

9. Here's Shakespeare's Sister demonstrating that even this story has a connection to a scandal in George Bush’s past.

10. Here's firedoglake reminding everyone how snarky Chickenhawk Unka Dick was when John Kerry went hunting during the election (And Kerry did not SHOOT AN ELDERLY MAN IN THE FACE).

11. And, Crooks and Liars has Monday's Daily Show video:
Courdry: "Jon, tonight the Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time-there-were-quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be the 78 year old man. Even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists-he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face."


Braden said...

Wow, it took you long enough, and secondly, I noticed that you took the story and commented on it like a spoiled little child, complete with the capitalized and boldface print more than twice . It was an accident, and I did comment via my own blog that anyone who cannot handle firearms safely, shouldn't handle firearms - that's how far I took it. You, on the other hand, you take it and go to "town" with it like you're almost "happy" it happened. You know, I can't help but wonder what you would say if this country were to get hit by terrorists again, all while you sit there and undermine this Administration's attempt at fighting it. Sheesh, Cheney accidentally discharged a firearm, and yes, as far as I am concerned he shouldn't be handling firearms. You almost seem to enjoy what happened because it was the Vice President that did it. C'mon, admit it, you know you're happy.

Gloria Forouzan said...

To me it's a no brainer:

Old men + rifles = bad idea, very bad idea.

And how come Cheney couldn't cough up the $7 for his hunting permit? Haven't we cut his taxes enough yet?

Jonathan Potts said...

Look, I admit I laughed when I first read it, because it just sounded so ridiculous. As Keith Olberman noted, it's the first vice president we know of since Aaron Burr who shot someone. Of course, it's much less funny to the 78-year-old man who was shot, and I'd like to think no one is actually glad that it happened.

But it is worth discussing further, because of what it reveals about how this administration operates. Case in point, this paragraph from a Washington Post article:

"The White House typically releases information immediately on incidents involving the president's personal life, such as bike-riding accidents, to avoid the appearance of covering up embarrassments. It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the White House to allow a private citizen serve as its de facto spokesman.

But current and former aides said the White House rarely imposes its practices, especially on press matters, on Cheney. The vice president's office often operates autonomously in a manner that many top White House officials are reluctant to challenge."

So again, we have to ask of this administration, just who exactly is in charge?

(Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021300452.html?referrer=email&referrer=email)

Sherry P said...

it's pretty plain who is in charge.
mr. cheney can operate by a different set of rules. he isn't really a political animal. he is big business with it's fingers firmly poking into government to further big business via laws, connections and loop holes. he isn't afraid of not being re- elected to anything, or his legacy as far as being vice president is concerned. to me, it seems he has his priorities in order according to his thoughts on it. he has secured his fortune for himself and his family and his friends for at least 2 generations, perhaps more.

Braden said...

This is a little off the subject per this blog post, but I just have to bring it up anyway. Seems as if Al Gore was attending an event, sponsered by the Bin Laden family. I am curious as to where you guys stand on this.


Sherry P said...

why would that surprise you. the bin liden family (huge) has been close to the movers and shakers in washington for years. i have people in my family that i am not like, bet you have or had as well.
president bush has made it quite clear that he hasn't any problem with the family OR the saudis, so...????

Braden said...

Sherry --

Ahhh, so what you're saying is that it's ok for Al Gore to do what he did, since GWB has made it clear that he doesn't "care" either, right? I question the validity of your statement in regards to GWB, seems to me you may of gotten your misinformation via Michael Moore's "Farenhype" 9/11 film.

By the way, nice "assumption with attempted-justification" on your part to say that you're willing to bet I have family members like "that" as well.

Once again, the silence but excuses and justification from the left is present when someone like Al Gore stoops to the levels that he did. I can just see Maria and/or Dayvoe reporting this as fast as ever if a Republican did what Al Gore did. However, since a Democrat did it, well...it's just different, right? Shhh, we won't say anything, it's ok, really.

Anonymous said...

Braden go back to Trollville. No wonder you have no friends

Anonymous said...

sounds as if anonymous cannot respond with any ounce of intelligence

Sherry P said...

about family, unless you have a very small one, i'm pretty sure there is at least 1 possibly 2 that aren't "mother teresa" so i will not blame an entire family for 1 member, BUT that doesn't mean that i wouldn't want them interviewed after a horrendous deed by one of them. gee, isn't that what is considered good police procedure?
i truly wish some people would admit or at least try to understand that no 1 party has all saints in it or all sinners. this is not tv wrestling here and it isn't taking sides rooting for a football team, this is not about one upsmanship braden or clever little spins. we are all in this together. it's our country. there are good and bad and average in both parties,and, i'm really sorry if i somehow insulted the good name of your family, i thought the waltons were fictional. : )

Adkenar said...

The lack of questioning, lack of proper papers, and lack of "sorry" do indeed seem unbefitting for anyone, let alone the Vice President. I was pretty worried when I first read the article in the paper, but I had figured out that the victim was ok by the time the Daily Show aired, so that was pretty hilarious. I was a little concerned they wouldn't do it justice, but the parallelism was beautiful. I don't think anyone is glad it happened, but that doesn't change the fact that the treatment/analysis is pretty darn funny.

As for the comments on Gore and the BinLaden Group:
Let's take a theoretical example. Say you could go talk to people in Palestine right now, and say you could make a spech asking them to renounce their ways. Is there anything wrong with that? Say they pay you for it. Does it now become wrong? Now, if you know full and well you're talking to those people, it's entirely possible that some of your audience (and perhaps even the people paying you) were or are involved in terrorist activities. Is it suddenly bad to try to tell them to change their ways? Now, I don't know what Gore's message was, but it seems to me that the actions taken there are what makes it good. Really, I don't see this as any more guilty than the pictures of Bush with Abramoff; the fact that he was there with the person in question (in either Bush's or Gore's case) is not important; what's important is if they're involved in the "bad" activities (in either Bush's or Gore's case)