Letters to the Editor
-
Was the witness close enough to actually see?
Cheney's "witness" may have actually been sitting in a car 100 yeards away when the shooting occurred: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/15/71550/5894
-
30 minutes since you posted this
... and not a single comment. So let me be the first: nobody gives a shit.
-
Nobody Cares?
I doubt that. It's an international sensation, kinda like Fraulein Sally Bowles ("Divine decadence, darling!")
What about the Ambassador who was hunting with Cheney and Whittington? Isn't she a better witness since she was right there as opposed to 100 yards away inside a car? Why isn't anyone mentioning her in the news stories and why hasn't she been interviewed or at least sought?
Here's a good summation of some of the major holes in this story:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/15/nbc-paragraph-reappears/
-
False inference John
Many of us do care. And as the whole incident gets stranger and stranger (some drinking before the hunt, discrepancies between different individual's stories, statements that the pattern and depth of the shot is more consistent with a closer range shot, waiting for the better part of a day to let the story out and to allow local law enforcement officers access to the VP), I think many of us are beginning to wonder about the true nature of this hunting accident.
Initially, I was in the camp that thought the incident was very unfortunate and that the VP had been recklessly careless, but now it seems we're being spun even more heavily than the initial blame-the-victim story. I, for one, would like to have a clear account of what really happened, and knowing the VP, the only way we'll get it is by piecing together as many strands of information as we can. I'm certainly not holding my breath for Cheney to suddenly become forthcoming.
-
Wow, it's the left's Vince Foster!
How much do you want to be that, in 2 years, there are a dozen websites dedicated to what "actually" happened, who Cheney was trying to silence, etc.
-
Give me a break
I don't think Cheney deserves to get a break. I mean, the whole way this thing was handled speaks to his arrogance and his condescension. He feels no need to deign to offer explanations to the masses.
But c'mon. Give me. a break. Stand up and rise above what idealogues do with this kind of story. Cheney accidently shot a man. I believe it was a mistage. I believe he's sorry. I don't even give a damn if he had a beer. Good god, people. I don't care that the local sheriffs treated the Vice President of the US "differently."
Frankly, this is a lesson in why one should use a press office. Yes, Cheney played it wrong. Yes, he's an arrogant bastard. Armstrong's arrogance perhaps surpasses Cheney's. She thinks she can stand up in front of veteran reporters and weave any story she wants. Wrong! The press corps chews up and spits out amateurs like Armstrong.
Next?
-
Dick Cheney: International Man of Mystery!
Forgive my presumption. I guess I can wait until we bomb Iran for the obligatory after-action discussion about why we didn't have a "national debate" before-hand.
-
Wow, it's the left's Vince Foster!
Unlike Foster who shot himself, Dick, after a few snorts, shot this guy who was in plain sight at most 15 yards away. That's what is suggested by how the VP is acting.
-
Obviously bleeding?
If some of the buckshot entered Mr Whittington's cardio-vascular system and caused a heart attack I have to think he was bleeding quite a bit. If it wasn't for the ever present Vice-Presidential entorage I have to wonder if the man would have bled out before getting to the hospital.
Most people don't go hunting with their own medical technicians but Mr. Cheney probably does.
-
illegal
Ask any policeman how many times he's heard the one beer story. then think if a policeman was standing in front of you and you told him this one beer story what do you think your next meal would be. Poor me shooting rabbit for meals they would put me on bread and water. Yea he had a drink, too many I'd say; explains all the fuba around this.
-
Where was Tom?
I'm waiting for Tom Delay to show up in this narrative. Then we would have an incident involving Tom, Dick and Harry!
-
This was just a trivial incident that should have blown over after a few late night jokes.
But the White House's insistence on concealing, spinning, and lying has turned this into a microcosm of how they relate to the press and the American public. It's not the actual event that matters, it's the half-assed cover-up, and if the media refuses to nail them on real issues (Iraq, Katrina, etc.), a character issue like this is the next best thing to demonstrate their excessive and almost irrational secrecy.
-
"Cheney and his 'witness'"
Hello, friends at Salon.com and thanks for providing me the opportunity to reply to some of your articles (though -- "a word to the wise" you youngsters [I'm 75 years old and only five years semi computer-literate]) it would be nice if some of you could clean up the page I get when trying to post, which shows a whole lot of words on top of words, &etc.
That said (or almost? said), I do feel a need to chime in (again -- sorry?!) on the topic of Salon.com's current coverage of the Dick Cheney/Harry Whittington ... event, coverage, political implications, etc. right now highpowered news bite.
The only time in my life I "voted Republican" was for Eisenhower and I sent a letter of apology to -- oops, I'm having a senior moment -- Adlai Stevenson? ... that doesn't feel right to me, but that's how "senior moments" go, o.k.? Any way, whoever he was, who ran unsuccessfully against "Ike", I apologised to him for "falling for" the "Time for a Change" slogan of that electoral year.
All my politics are "left wing", some of them many more to the left than even what "most people" now might think of as "left". I'm not taking up this much time to argue the many important political points.
My concern is about decency and kindness. Sure, "the bushies" exploited words like "compassion" and "conservatism", but the current "quikspik" online coverage re the shooting accident is pushing me perilously close to the other side of this questionable line of divide.
Where does Salon.com draw a line between gossip (in the long ago sense of -- however mild or not so mild -- slander) and ?objective? ?news? reportings?
Your current style of coverage on this ?"news bite" is leaving me troubled indeed.
oldwoman "salonmarte"