The Next Hurrah: Dick Cheney, Hunting the Truth

« Chickens Come Home To Roost | Main | bermanfacts.com »

February 15, 2006

Dick Cheney, Hunting the Truth

by emptywheel

One of the most fascinating things about Dick's little hunting accident is that it exposes Dick violating the rules--rules that few are going to argue are partisan. When Dick and Libby broke the law to out Valerie Plame, wingnuts proclaimed they were just exposing an unfair partisan attack. When Dick and Bush broke the law to eavesdrop on American citizens, most Republicans excused it by saying Democratic complaints about the law-breaking just proves they're pre-9/11 partisan sissies. But many of the same conservatives excusing Dick for breaking the laws of the United States are the same who will tell you--in no uncertain terms--that you don't shoot your gun without looking where you're shooting. My blogmates (who are much better shots than I) are better qualified than I to pursue this line of thought. Meanwhile, though, I'd like to talk about a similar object lesson this shooting incident might offer.

Cheney's shooting accident and the bungled aftermath demonstrates clearly (again, to people who have doubted this in the past) many of Cheney's and Rove's favorite techniques for lying.

Repeating the Lie until It Becomes True

My favorite of these is a technique that is quickly becoming ineffective. Just keep asserting something to be the truth over and over again. Will it to be true.

I knew, when I watch Scottie's Monday press conference, that Katharine Armstrong did not really witness the shooting she claimed to have seen. How did I know? Because Scottie said, no fewer than six times, that Katharine Armstrong was an eyewitness, or that she saw what happened. When this crowd repeats something that many times, you can bet they're lying.

The Vice President spoke with Mrs. Katherine Armstrong and they agreed that she should make that information public. She was an eyewitness, she saw what occurred and she called her local paper to provide those facts to the local paper.

[snip]

The Vice President thought that Mrs. Armstrong should be the first one to give that information out, since she was an eyewitness.

[snip]

I mean, Mrs. Armstrong was there and saw that --

{snip]

hang on, hang on -- she was an eyewitness to what occurred and could provide the facts to the press.

[snip]

Well, Mrs. Armstrong provided that information. She was the eyewitness to what took place. [my emphasis]

And guess what? I was right. Ms. Armstrong herself admits that the first indication she had that something was wrong was when she saw the Secret Service responding to the accident--and even then, she thought Dick's ticker had given out.

Armstrong said she saw Cheney’s security detail running toward the scene. "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem," she told The Associated Press.

While the press corps is asking Scottie why he was so insistent that Ms. Armstrong was an eyewitness, they might also want to ask him about the WMDs they promised we'd find, the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or heck--let's think domestically for a second--the jobs they've promised would result every time they cut taxes on people like Ms. Armstrong. Repeating those lies haven't made the lies true any more than the lie that Ms. Armstrong was an eyewitness.

Erasing the Evidence

Then there's the celebrated memory hole.

One of TNH's loyal readers, John Casper, was one of the first people to notice that MSNBC had erased a damning quote from Armstrong.

"There may be a beer or two in there, but remember not everyone in the party was shooting,"

Now MSNBC has kind of replaced the line:

In a recorded, on-the-record phone call with NBC News, Armstrong said that beer may have been available at lunch that day. "If someone wants to help themselves to a beer," she said, "they may, but I did not see anyone do that," Armstrong says. She says she was not sure if there were beers in the coolers but wasn't ready to rule it out: "There may be a beer or two in there, but remember not everyone in the party was shooting," she told NBC News.

I doubt the bloggers' catch on the MSNBC erasure is the only thing that has now convinced Dick to admit he was drinking before he shot his friend. (Given the way Whittington's doctors refused to comment on alcohol in Whittington's blood, I suspect there's some medical records that reveal beer was involved.) But Dick's admission will bring more attention to the way these facts have a way of disappearing. FWIW, MSNBC seems to be saying that they had accidentally published a comment that had been given on background. But we know the White House has cleaned things like the July 12, 2003 press briefing transcript off of their website before. Not to mention things like call logs and e-mails. Erased, apparently, without a trace.

Referencing a Doctored Report

Which brings me to another Bush Administration favorite: answering questions by referring someone to a doctored report. When NBC called Dick's office to confirm whether or not he had been drinking (knowing, because Armstrong had told them, that there had been beer at lunch), his office directed them to refer to the Sheriff's report, which says alcohol was not involved in the accident.

NBC News called the vice president’s office for comment four times Tuesday and Wednesday and asked whether the vice president or anyone in the hunting party had consumed any alcohol on Saturday prior to the accident. In an e-mail statement Wednesday to NBC News, the vice president’s press secretary referred NBC News to the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Department report on the incident.

Of course, they could point someone to the Sheriff's report because they had managed to postpone Dick's interview with the Sheriff's Office until Sunday morning, after the alcohol in his system had worn off. So the report says there was no alcohol involved. I guess that's the nice part of practically owning the county your guests have major hunting accidents in.

This tactic is one, of course, that the White House just loves. The Silberman-Robb report, for example, is a favorite reference to "prove" that pre-war intelligence wasn't politicized. Ditto the Roberts-Hatch-Bond addendum to the SSCI report attacking Joe Wilson. Ditto the British White Paper announcing--in an unclassified document--that Iraq was trying to get Nigerien yellowcake. Ditto all of Judy Miller's pre-war reporting. All of these documents were doctored in every way possible. But the Bush Administration has been unbelievably successful at getting otherwise intelligent humans to believe a lie by pointing to these dodgy dossiers.

Hiding the Witnesses

Then there's the technique of hiding the witnesses.

Pamela Willeford was almost certainly the primary witness of the shooting. She was the person standing next to Dick when he shot Whittington. But if you google Willeford and Whittington, you find just a few stories that managed to interview her. Instead, we get Armstrong claiming she witnessed the accident, even though by her own account, she didn't realize something was wrong until the Secret Service detail started running toward Cheney. It will be interesting if the press or the police decide to find Ms. Willeford to interview her at more length.

In this case, the press might be able to find the real witness, if they try (after all, Ms. Willeford is a government employee over there in Switzerland). But think of the witnesses the Bush Administration has hidden over the last several years. Any number of Iraqi scientists who would testify there were no WMDs. A number of American scientists or intelligence professionals who disputed the claims that Iraq did have WMDs. Curveball and a host of other INC defectors, whose stories could be sustained only so long as no one interviewed them directly or looked closely enough to realize they're alcoholic freeloaders.

Working Media Timelines

And finally, the Bush favorite of working media timelines. This is something any smart media person is going to do--time your stories to make the most of the rhythm of press reporting. But the Bush Administration has taken this to a new level, what with their consistent Friday document dumps, the release of bad news late on a Friday to avoid any press attention. The idea, of course, is to release information, while virtually guaranteeing it will get little attention.

With Cheney's shooting accident, I doubt they believed the news could be buried forever. But by having Katharine Armstrong announce this via the local paper, they bought themselves several hours. Armstrong first tried to contact a friendly reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller Times at 8:00 on Sunday and didn't actually reach anyone until 11:00 am. That, plus the lag between the time the Caller Times reported the story on their website and the AP picked it up guaranteed that the story wouldn't appear on any Sunday morning talk shows. Which of course also forestalled the time when Dick would have to make a public appearance.

So if you're talking to a hunter who has just realized--after seeing Dick break the most basic rules of hunting etiquette--that Dick Cheney is a lying, foolish idiot, be sure to use this as a teaching opportunity. It's not just reckless violence Dick has been fomenting around the world, it's also transparent lying.

February 15, 2006 at 19:17 in Bush Administration, Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--emptywheel, Press and Media | Permalink

Comments

Watching Tim (of Sunday AM's Meet the Tim) on NBC pontificate on the matter was very puzzling. Time says whether this remains a story, now that the Veep has been forthcoming and has humanized the situation, is entirely up to the victim's health. Only then can we see whether the story 'resonates'.

What a pompous ass. The story's resonating for all the stated reasons whether Tim approves of it or not. And Cheney lying to his media dog, Hume, doesn't end the story, it just adds fresh questions.

Posted by: DemFromCT | February 15, 2006 at 19:29

Cherchez la femme. There's more to this story at Huffingtonpost. Armstrong's lobbying partner Karen Johnson is frequently linked to Rove down there in Texas. And where was Lynne Cheney? Is she another reason why Cheney tried to suppress the story and why Pamela Willeford hasn't been interviewed?

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 15, 2006 at 19:43

It's not shooting an old guy in the face, but going hunting with women that's the big secret! Cheney better get out in front and do some damage control about the rumours now emerging about him and US Ambassador to Switzerland Pamela Willeford! And just how would the VP have hooked up with the head of the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board? Maybe it was during the course of her performance of duty as the apparently figurehead "Partner and President" of Pico Drilling Company? What's up with Pico Drilling, anyway. In a 2000 commencement speech in which she talks about careers, education, salaries, Willeford refers to herself thus;

I stand here before you today as a volunteer appointed to a statewide board--not as a recognized author, nor a Nobel prize winner, nor a famous actor, nor a brilliant neurosurgeon, nor a former president or ambassador, nor any kind of elected official, nor a world-renowned orator (obviously)--well, you get the picture. My opportunity for service is probably different from what will present itself to you. But we who are blessed with an education and other opportunities must want the best--and do our parts to make the best happen--for not only our own children and families but for our society as a whole.

How did this woman get to be the president of a well connected oil drilling company anyway? What else was the OVP up to in the summer of 03 when Pam was appointed to the cushiest ambassadorships?

Posted by: peanutgallery | February 15, 2006 at 20:12

I'm aware of the rumors about Willeford (plus, why continue to stonewall on her identity??).

I'm also very curious about Armstrong's lobbying. No one will say which company it is, but it's a company that is involved in Defense and Foreign Affairs. And one that uses Baker Botts, as many oil and gas firms do. And, of course, Armstrong's mom is one of the people Dick at Halliburton in the first place. I think there are several unpurused angles. The alcohol, at this point, is the low-risk confession.

Posted by: emptywheel | February 15, 2006 at 20:26

After being informed that Mr. Willeford was also at the Armstrong Ranch, big game hunting in another party, I looked around and found this truly surreal but telling picture. Ewwww... The woman in this picture of a thousand words wasn't hanging out with vascular Cheney and the canned quails for carnal purposes....I reckon the links have to do with Pico Drilling of Breckenridge....

Posted by: peanutgallery | February 15, 2006 at 20:39

ew->On Keith Olbermann, John Dean just identified the issue you did back on Monday in comments at FDL, and in this article, that Armstrong can't both be a witness to the shooting and in the vehicle, as the most serious of Dead Eye's contradictions.

Posted by: John Casper | February 15, 2006 at 20:43

Excellent analysis...very perceptive...and enlightening...

Posted by: Oleary25 | February 15, 2006 at 21:26

JOhn Casper

Cool, glad to see that point will finally get some attention. One thing's for sure, Armstrong is a big fat liar.

Posted by: emptywheel | February 15, 2006 at 21:46

There should be at least one more witness: In the interview with Hume, Cheney says a "guide" or "outrider" was with them.

Posted by: jacl | February 15, 2006 at 21:52

As usual, despite the fact you're not a post-modernist, terrific deconstruction.

Among the best news of this whole incident is the reaction on the right. Judging by a cruise through a dozen or so of their more vociferous blogs, they're devouring each other over this, with one side saying this is really a screw-up and others saying, yes, but it's a little one. I love to see them, for a change, eating their own.

Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 15, 2006 at 22:08

Nice job, EW. A great, systematic analysis of how this fits into the classic MO of this Admin -- which, after all, is probably the most important point of all in this ridiculous mess.

Posted by: KM | February 15, 2006 at 22:40

Brilliant work, EW.

I saw that John Dean bit. He's also going to review in depth any executive orders that might give Cheney cover to assert what Dean totally doubts is the case: that he or anyone can unilaterally make the decision to declassify (as opposed to classify) anything.

Posted by: Pachacutec | February 15, 2006 at 22:42

Brings to mind the Bizarro cartoon of a few years ago: "But surely you agree that the truth can be created by the repetition of lie," says Karl Rove to Plato. Still one of the best visual commentaries on this administration.

Posted by: SimoneDB | February 15, 2006 at 22:57

EW,

you are correct, of course

It truly puzzles me why the press does not jump on the "eyewitness" lie. Just so obvious, and so easy.

Another thing I wonder, and maybe you have seen it, is why no one staked out the scene. Determine positions, distances, etc.

Perhaps the locals were too tightly bound to the manor to even think of doing such things.

But the SS must have made a report. Have the press asked for it?

Posted by: jwp | February 15, 2006 at 23:11

EW -- when you get "free" time (hah!), take a look at the ambulance thing. I won't be able to do it justice like you would. Google up the Armstrong Ranch map (Latitude: 26.93389, Longitude: -97.76222), take a look. Even though you won't get in close, you'll catch my drift. How'd a security detail at the gate not know about what happened when the cops showed up Saturday night? How'd they miss a chopper or an ambulance coming or going, ostensibly in a big, fat hurry? Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Rayne | February 15, 2006 at 23:18

I agree with mimikatz--where's Lynne Cheney? She should be out in public standing by her man. And his two daughters--not a peep. Is Dick in the doghouse?

Posted by: marysz | February 15, 2006 at 23:26

"...apparently figurehead "Partner and President" of Pico Drilling Company? What's up with Pico Drilling..."

This is interesting...certainly has a low profile on Google.
The first thing that caught my eye was the phrase "Partner and President". Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but partnerships have Partners not Presidents and corporations never refer to Shareholders as partners. Who is Pamula Willeford and how did she get appointed to the position of Ambassador?

Posted by: Steve | February 16, 2006 at 00:35

Steve,

I have no idea about this case

but you can have a limited partnership, and the general partner can be a corporation

so PW could be the President of the general partner, and a limited partner

wonder who the other limited partners would be in that case. typically, the investors

Posted by: jwp | February 16, 2006 at 01:34

there was also the odd case of the disappearing/morphing woman from the cheney/scalia hunt 2 years ago...

Posted by: lukery | February 16, 2006 at 03:10

so wait...

where's david addington?

Posted by: eric | February 16, 2006 at 03:13

Everyone needs to file a complaint on Cheny he was obviously more than a bear or two while hunting,,
Texas Parks and Wildlife
Executive Office/Office of Internal Affairs
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
Phone: (512) 389-4440

Posted by: shawn | February 16, 2006 at 06:19

so dick cheney was drinking and involved in adultry when he shot this poor schmuck in the face ???

we've got a three stooges routine as presidential politics ???

where's the dignity ???

Posted by: freepatriot | February 16, 2006 at 09:03

It's great to see an analysis like this, now the Democrats and press need to develope an attack plan for responding (I'll keep hoping).

EW there's a post of KOS you will be interested in regarding who has the missing Plame emails at the White House:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/16/32934/9980

Posted by: kim | February 16, 2006 at 09:43

One problem the Soviet Communists had at the end of their reign was the inability to manage their lies competently. Chernobyl was the seminal moment that preceded Glasnost and Perestroika. It took seventy years to catch up to them because as a dictatorship they retained iron control over information. The communications revolution finally beat them down.

Similary, Republicans can no longer manage the flow of their lies competently. This inspite of a subservient media serving as stenographers for their message. Katrina was their Chernobyl and Cheney's "Gungate" is their Chappaquidick. This is encouraging. Not so much because the Republicans are getting what they deserve. Rather it gives me hope that even in these troubled times of lies, public apathy, and a corporatist media - America is still America and the truth is bubbling to the surface now. And it didn't take seventy years. That said: five years is way too long for my patience.

Intrepid Liberal Journal

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | February 16, 2006 at 12:11

I thought of one other thing to add to the typical tactics..."Pick someone to blame who fits the worst prejudices held by the base". In this case, the hated "liberal media" so full of themselves that they got upset at being "upstaged" by the Caller Times.

Posted by: Oleary25 | February 16, 2006 at 12:24

I don't think anyone's commented on this recently, but isn't it ironic that Howard Dean called Cheney "Aaron Burr" on FTN on Sunday BEFORE all this shooting info became public. Did Howard know about this before the media did? Or was it just a remarkable coincidence?

In any case, not that it would resonate with the general public, I still think Aaron Burr is a great frame.

Posted by: viget | February 16, 2006 at 12:50

e'wheel

this is a nice analytical technique with very useful results.

thanks

Posted by: orionATL | February 16, 2006 at 13:11

I just want to clarify some details about the Whittingham shooting. (Sorry for the length, and I've posted this in extensive discussion at FDL as well)

From the sheriff's description of the shooting as quoted in a Washington post article from 2/15:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp...6021400990.html

"Salinas and San Miguel said they went to the site of the shooting. They said Whittington had been standing in the bed of a dried pond, several feet downhill from where Cheney and another hunter, Pamela Pitzer Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, were standing as they were shooting quail. "He was standing in a low-lying area, and they were out in front on higher ground," Salinas said. The vehicle carrying two other members of the hunting party "was directly behind the vice president and everybody else, from what we were told."

From Cheney's description in the Fox interview:

"...bird flushed and went to my right, off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. Didn't know he was there --"

"He was dressed in orange, he was dressed properly, but he was also -- there was a little bit of a gully there, so he was down a little ways before land level, although I could see the upper part of his body when -- I didn't see it at the time I shot, until after I'd fired."

Two important points emerge:

1. Whittingham was downhill from Cheney when he was shot. Cheney's shot him from about mid-torso (liver) to the head, so roughly centered vertically about the shoulder. If they had been standing at the same elevation, this would imply Cheney had his shotgun aimed horizontally. But, since Whittingham was below Cheney, Cheney must have actually aimed his shotgun below vertical, that is, slightly toward the ground or downhill.

2. Obviously Cheney didn't see Whittingham before he shot. Cheney says he "turned and shot at the bird" then saw Whittingham (who was hit). So, Cheney turned, following a bird, and shot in a direction before seeing what was actually there in his line of fire.

Cheney apparently violated not one but two safety rules. The first is simply to see your line of fire before pulling the trigger. The second is don't shoot at low birds, or in other words, always be able to see some sky under your target. This avoids shooting your hunting companions and dogs. Had he followed EITHER of these rules, Whittingham would not have been shot.

Posted by: John K | February 16, 2006 at 13:42

As many people in the non-traditional-media have noted, Ol’ Blunderbuss’s story has more holes in it than Whittington. And certainly, this is not the first time that the very crème de la crème of the corporate media have embarrassed themselves by chasing the non-story, i.e., “Cheney didn’t notify the press”, en masse.

Is this simply a case of the uber-competitive media elite all chasing Karl Rove’s feign like a not-too-bright retriever running after a ball you didn’t really throw? Sympathy with Cheney (another member of the same elite club)? Fear of the “liberal” label? Some combination of the above? What gives?

Posted by: shep | February 16, 2006 at 14:26

Sort of off-topic: not encouraging news out of Philadelphia today for those of us holding out for major new developments in Fitzgerald's investigation.

Posted by: Jeff | February 16, 2006 at 14:29

Ack...losing the head FBI guy is a problem. Though Fitz has said the investigation is pretty much complete. I don't know if he still needs the FBI task force at this point.

Posted by: viget | February 16, 2006 at 15:02

There's a lot of talk about Cheney's possible romantic link to Ambassador Pamela Willeford. But perhaps there's a Swiss connection here. We know lobbyist Katharine Armstrong has represented (and perhaps continues to represent) Prionics AG, a Swiss firm specializing in quick, reliable testing for mad cow disease (BSE) and human prion diseases.

My guess is that Cheney was on a lobbying holiday as much as he was there for the shooting. So is anyone looking into Prionics AG?

Posted by: QuickSilver | February 16, 2006 at 16:16

John K and anyone else: Who was the fifth person, the one in the car with Armstrong?

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 16, 2006 at 16:39

Mimikatz

The fith person is Katharine's sister Sara (Sarita) Hixon.

And QS

I've been trying to guess who the unnamed Baker Botts client Armstrong was lobbying the White House for last year. I think it much more likely it's someone like (say) Halliburton than Prionics, who she no longer lobbies for (as I understand it).

One more reason I doubt the romantic aspect of this: one article (trying to find it) says two of the guests--one of whom has a medical background--visited Whittington on Sunday morning. Willeford's husband is a doctor, so I'm wondering if they visited Whit.

If my wife had just narrowly missed having Dick shoot his wad into her, I wouldn't be too happy about providing backup medical services.

Posted by: emptywheel | February 16, 2006 at 16:50

emptywheel,

The NY Times article said Dr Willeford and Mr Hixon accompanied Mrs Whittington to the hospital Sat eve (more or less chasing the ambulance, it sounds like). Willeford and Hixon relayed a message about Mr Whittington's condition (this is from the Corpus Christi hospital now) to the others, and returned to the ranch about 10 PM.

Could that be what you're thinking of?

Posted by: John K | February 16, 2006 at 17:13

The US Ambassador to Switzerland Pam Willeford whom Cheney's office initally refused to confirm as the third member of the shooting party was noted to be Partner and President of Pico Drilling of Breckenridge, TX (or sometimes CO according to the WSJ). Very low profile company...Googling reveals Pico Ranch and Drilling... and the Pico Springs Ranches near Wimberley Tx a 10,000 acre ranch created after the S&L banking scandal which specializes in deer breeding and hunting. George Willeford III, Amb. Pam Willeford's husband, whose presence at the Armstrong Ranch was emphasized to quash rumors that Amb. Willeford may have been Cheney's girlfriend is an avid big game hunter and contributor to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation, a charitable organization with a $43 million dollar endowment headed by big time Cattle and Cattlefeed man Michael Teel. The TPWF is not to be confused with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department - a cash strapped state agency with a $15 million dollar annual budget.

Posted by: peanutgallery | February 16, 2006 at 17:19

My bad, too much teaching today, ignore please the last part about Teel and Cattlefeed. In fact Gov. Perry appointed Mark Bivins of Amarillo to be the head of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission until 2011. He is a former Trustee of the TPWF and Head of the Cattle Feeders Association.

Posted by: peanutgallery | February 16, 2006 at 17:30

Let's cut to the chase. They delayed the report because of Cheney's blood alcohol level. It'll never be known because of the passage of time. They continually refer to poor old Harry as Cheney's hunting partner because they are trying to suppress Pam's involvement. 1) She's probably spending a little too much time with Cheney and 2) She doesn't want to either lie or tell the truth. Keep avoiding mentioning her and maybe she'll never be approached.

Posted by: thorny1 | February 16, 2006 at 17:56

p gallery

There's also a LeeRay ranch south of Breckenridge TX associated with Pico Drilling. In other things, Willeford is said to own a ranch with her sisters that "makes a profit"--so it could be one of those TX style Oil Ranches. She's from Breckenridge TX originally, so I suspect LeeRay or Pico Springs is her gig.

John K

The article I read didn't mention names, but I guess that's the visit I'm thinking of. Whatever article it was only said a guest with a medical background which, given the stated employ of everyone else, sounded like it had to be Mr. Ambassador's husband.

Here's another question I've got.

W appointed Mommy Armstrong to the regents of Texas A&M in 1997. When did HW's Presidential Library there open? I can't tell from the stuff at the Library site. But I am curious.

I'm working on a post on this, but Mommy Armstrong has had a finger in every major Republican scandal in the last half-century: Co-Chair of RNC under Watergate, Chair of the FIAB for Iran-Contra. She's been more closely associated with the Republican bid for authoritarian power than Dick and Rummy--and equally as involved as the Bush family. Which is pretty intriguing, if you ask me.

Posted by: emptywheel | February 16, 2006 at 18:06

Look, if anyone wants to know how the elite go "hunting," read this:
http://web.caller.com/1999/july/.../july/...al_ne/ 3203.html
It's all about Tobin Armstrong's hunting life on his ranch, and how they do it. Drinkin', drivin' and shootin'.
Whoopee!

Posted by: Honest Response | February 16, 2006 at 18:48

I have to say, I'm skeptical about the Cheney-Willeford romance angle. Her husband was there (among other reasons I'm unpersuaded).

What we do have, for sure, is recklessness or negligence with a gun: not looking where you're shooting, and aiming too close to the ground (where your companions and hunting dogs are).

We may never know about the alcohol. Must be a lot of pressure on all the other folks who were there to not talk (suddenly today it seems there were quite a few, and we're not even counting the Secret Service). I'm guessing if you might the talkative sort (like us for example), you wouldn't have been invited in the first place.

Posted by: John K | February 16, 2006 at 18:55

What is going to be left of our treasury, government, and constitution when they finish gutting them all?

Posted by: Lyn | February 16, 2006 at 19:06

In his interview on fox, cheney kept making the point that Armstrong was going to make the report because they wanted the report to be as accurate as possible, and she was an eyewitness. OK, then how come she got almost everything wrong? She said the old man was "peppered and knocked silly, but was talking and making jokes." Dick said the guy was unresponsive. She said he was allright, Dick said the medical guys were working on controlling the bleeding.

Here's another critical detail. According to someone, I believe Armstrong, after Whittington was taken in the ambulance, they rest went to dinner, and Dick fixed himself a cocktail. Why? The guys had 2 DUIs in his life. Anyone who is familiar with breath alcohol tests knows that the best defense is to take a drink or 2 so that when you are tested you can assert that the alcohol was consumed after the incident.

I also don't understand how or why the Secret Service didn't notify Washington superiors, or perhaps they did and that's being hidden. Think about it. A shooting involving the guy they're supposed to be protecting? That would seem like the kind of thing they're supposed to report to the superiors.

Posted by: Dick (no, not that one) | February 16, 2006 at 19:12

i don't know if this is any help but here's a profile of katharine armstrong from texans for public justice. as quicksilver mentions, she lobbied secretary of agriculture ann veneman on behalf of prionics and her lobbying on "an undiclosed issue" for baker botts.

if you are all already on this, i apologize.

Posted by: rustbelt girl | February 16, 2006 at 20:04

Here's one thing I don't get, and maybe someone could explain this to me. Cheney claims Whittington was 30 yards away when he was shot. The shotgun shell used by Cheney has about 250 pellets in it. The doctors have been quoted as saying that they have removed 200 pellets from the victim, and one penetrated through clothing, skin, muscle, etc to lodge in his heart. So a vast majority of the pellets landed in this man, and penetrated a couple inches into the skin. Sounds more like 3 yards than 30 yards to me. Perhaps someone with shotgun experience can weigh in here?

Posted by: Gregory | February 16, 2006 at 20:08

I just looked at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's incident report.

Isn't it odd that the description of the victim's injuries says: "Shotgun wound to right side of face, neck and chest," but then when one looks at the graphic next to this statement, the blacked in areas are on the left side of the victim's body, the left side of Harry Whittington's face and chest, and his left upper-arm and left shoulder?????

From listening to everyone in this bizarre case, I get the feeling no one can tell their right side from their left side. But all initial, verbal reports (unlike the pictures shown on Faux News and in this TPWD report) indicate Harry Whittington was shot on his right side.

Which is why I'm curious to see in what manner Harry Whittington leaves the hospital after he's discharged. Will anyone get to see him up-close or will he be spirited away?

Up to now, day six since the accident, we have had no visual confirmation of the extent, nor location, of Harry Whittington's injuries. In fact, the doctors tending to him have refused to say how many shotgun pellets they've extracted from his body. Why the over-the-top secrecy?

Also, check out Officer Gilberto San Miguel Jr.'s investigative report on the shooting incident.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, he reports that he was escorted to the site of the Saturday shooting, the Comal Pasture, but doesn't say who escorted him there. Nor does he indicate if he took along recording equipment or if he walked out to where the hunting party was located when the shooting occurred.

In other words, that one, short paragraph sure is a little shy on details. Was the person who escorted him an eyewitness to the shooting? If I were investigating the scene of a hunting accident, I'd want someone along who'd be able to show me the specific positions of everyone involved at the moment the accidental shooting occurred. Plus, just in case, I'd want a visual record of the accident scene and the general layout of the land where it happened.

Something seems mighty fishy about this bird-hunting accident, methinks.

Posted by: The Oracle | February 17, 2006 at 06:13

I was thinking about the right side business too.

It would suggest that W was walking back toward the car.

Not necessarily inconsistent with the story if he was milling around in the ditch looking for something. But I thought I read somewhere that he handed both birds to ladies in car, offered them a chance to shoot, and then returned.

If so, why was he turned around in the ditch?

Posted by: jwp | February 17, 2006 at 08:38

Seeing as Cheney walks with a cane these days, after operations on both knees for aneurisms, the image of Dick turning and shooting into some bushes after quail (poor birds didn't even get to take off!!) and accidentally letting loose on Whittington - does seem ludicrous.

The left/right side issue might be important regarding how easily he could turn and fire depending on whether Dick is left or right handed. Then there's the 30 yards question.

Just imagine Cheney hearing noise in bushes behind him, turning and waiting for the birds to take off, then Harry pops up and gets whacked - mistaked for a quail.

Posted by: kim | February 17, 2006 at 09:13

Sorry, I just can’t leave this question alone.

This story is a fantastic case study in a MSM phenomenon I’ve been watching for some time. Network and major media dailies miss the main story, which appears obvious to many mainstream administrative critics (Lawrence O’Donnell) alternative media journalists (our host) and “non-journalists” (FDL). In this case, the story is a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate certain facts surrounding the Vice President’s shooting accident. The traditional MSM pronounces the “story” over, “nothing to see here folks”, essentially giving themselves a pat on the back and pass for not doing their jobs – investigating the holes and inconsistencies in the official story. Non-traditional and non-journalists become the de-facto independent press doing the serious investigative work and analysis that is the job of traditional press – all in plain site to the interested public.

What are the social/psychological mechanisms by which media elites delude themselves en masse into believing that they’ve done their job (I really do believe that the Russert’s and VandeHei’s think they have)? What are the social/cultural mechanisms that allow them to do it?

It seems to me that the answers to those questions go the heart of why we often seem to be operating without an independent, unbiased, mainstream (in the public's face) media. And why the country is afflicted with one of the most morally and intellectually bankrupt political movements (movement Republicanism) in American history.

Posted by: shep | February 17, 2006 at 12:26

I think it's largely a function of the editors/management.

David Gregory regularly uses Scottie as a punching bag in pressers. But then he goes on TV and--as you said--says the story is over. I gotta believe that's a function of an editor telling him to lay off the story.

That, and the question of access. If you read Russert's motion to quash the subpoena, it's all about protecting his relationship with sources, not an actual agreement to protect a source on a particular story. BUt what he was effectively protecting (since he wasn't working on a story at the time) was his relationship with Libby. Not a reporting relationship. An access relationship. He wanted to shield the contents of what was basically an audience complaint on First Amendment grounds. These people are terrified of losing their access, because if they do, they won't be among the select anymore.

Posted by: emptywheel | February 17, 2006 at 14:56

So they're willfully deceiving the public in order to keep their jobs to inform the public.

I feel like I need a shower.

Posted by: shep | February 17, 2006 at 15:24

Oddly, I think Cheney's cover story has the seeds of the truth. I think they delayed to see if W was going to survive.

If he died, the stakes went up in several ways. Criminal negligence, higher risk. Also, the certainty of a formal inquiry. Lies are more imperative, but higher risk.

The low risk option, if W survived, was a limited hang-out.

The ideal choice as spokesman was a non-witness. She could recount her "good faith" idea of what happened without actually saying she saw it. If heat came, she could just say she was reporting what she thought happened.

Moving the witnesses was to prevent them from having to go on the record -- and so, possibly, face some consequence some day.

What was being hidden? Probably not drinking. I suspect the one or two beers at lunch is correct. Probably not the alleged girlfriend.

I think it was terrible negligence with the gun. Extraordinary. The kind of gross negligence that leads to a prison term if W dies.

Cheney says he was very worried about W's health.

I believe him.

Posted by: jwp | February 17, 2006 at 20:28

limited hangout indeed.

The choices Cheney made in the aftermath were of course all a funtion of what was known at the moment, and how limited the hangout would be based on a best-guess scenario, so this is why the rationale and cover story is continually changing. The instant after he shot, "when Harry met Salvo," as one would-be poet has already joked, Cheney likely started to hope his own doctors could fix him up at the ranch house and keep the whole thing 100% quiet. That wasn't possible, so they took him to a clinic in an ambulance - over an hour's drive away, in complete contrevention to the logic of treating a major trauma with a 78 year old patient. But it is exactly what you would do if you wanted to still try to keep the whole thing as quiet as possible, or at least buy yourself some time to think straight. And, given that Cheney was CLEARLY in charge at this juncture the responsibility is his alone that a chopper was not scrambled. No doubt he cowed his medical assitants into the plan to slow walk the guy to the local clinic. Hell he probably suggested taking him to a vetranarian first. The scared staffers obeyed, if only to get out of his jurisdiction since the moment Harry was in the custody of the clinic he was out of their hands, and out of Dick's control. Once in Kingsville clinic, a chopper was called for in minutes, and the guy would finally get the help he needed at least two hours after the accident.

Leaving out for now who told whom among the secret service, and the WH situation room and Karl Rove, etc (another whole debacle in and of itself,) events at ground zero were still unfolding regarding the coverup of any meaningful investigation. Cheney did not jump in the ambulance, nor did he follow it in a car. Too much attention might be called, even though any reasonable person would do precisely that. He went back to the ranch house and made sure to mix a drink for himself in front of witnesses. We now know from her own statements that Karen Armstrong didn't see the shooting, and we know from direct observation that the guide/horseman and third shooter have been shunted aside and their statements kept from the public. So some plan had to be moving into place already -and Dick alone was calling the shots, pun intended. By the time Cheney is finishing his third highball he likely knows that Harry is in a chopper. As Al Franken points out, after you shoot your friend you dont sit down to roast beast. You eat from a vending machine in the ER waiting room. After you talk at great length with the local law enforcement. And EVERYONE gets interviewed right away. Separately. But that didn't happen.

And at this point Cheney knew for certain it was going public, but it was only a matter of WHEN. And he may or may not have been getting orders from Washington, but it damn sure looks like he wasn't obeying anyone's but his own still. Since Harry could die at any moment still, Bush was kept out of the loop before bedtime. can't link him in any way until things are safe. Bush makes no statement ata ll for DAYS in fact until it looks like Harry is in the clear, and Cheney had his patty-cake with Brit Hume on Fox. But meanwhile, back at the ranch Karl Rove and Armstrong have a private call. Very likely Karl is the caller and KA is the reciever. I'm not going too far out on a limb to assume KA was asked to put Dick on the phone eventually, once Karl heard evrytihng she had seen and heard. Somehow the suggestion that Cheney appear at the Corpus hospital is raised, possibly nixed out of hand but more likely agreed to on Sat eve but rejected later, and here we have the critical juncture where it seems most likely that Cheney rejects the WH (Rove/ Card) plan.

There is a gap here in what we know, but Karen Armstrong's role as designated witness emerges by morning. And Cheney's gambit of stalling off law enforcement works - a deputy is turned away by secret service as the deal is struck to be questioned in the morning. One can only assume Cheney knows the choice he was making by the time he went to bed- the obvious LOOK of guilt versus the absolute proof of whether or not he was drinking. Cheney clearly chooses the former. So I would say with near certainty he thought he would fail a blood alcohol test, and had to risk the PR flap and disobey Rove. He probably lied to Rove already about the drinking, so Rove wouldn't have that to hold over him. (For all we know, Rove thinks _he_ can be VP some day if Cheney has a coronary.)

By morning, Scottie is livid, Rove is ready to cut Dick lose if Harry croaks, and Bush knows about the shooting and the rogue VP but can't do anything - because for sure, the hospital visit is off the table. The Cheney plan is in effect, and the WH has to go along to some extent. Karen Armstrong is made to appear to be an "eyewitness" but is given an out in case the story has to change later. Scottie has to say the word EYEWITNESS six times during his press conference when her statement about seeing the doctors rushing into the field is already out there. Eyewitness: an obvious talking point which is also an obvious alibi and a clear half-truth. Scottie takes it like a man however, since he has no choice. Meanwhile Cheney does his vauge interview with the sherrif and leaves the state. Armstrong's version will have to suffice as the offical story since every other witness is in hiding after they may or may not have given a statement. Said statements still have not been produced, so we have no idea if they really even exist. They can always be made up after the fact, now if the sheriff's arm can be twisted enough. One blogger has already pointed out that in six months time the county will have all new patrol cars and fancier radios and computers. And sherrif Matt "I ain't spillin'" Dillon will be easily re-elected thanks to his fancy TV ads.

The die is cast, and the guilty have played a whole round of cards before the heart attack, which includes the notion that he was "bruised more than battered," "sitting up and joking," and the cruel insinuation that it was all his fault anyway. Jeb and Scottie are making orange tie jokes by the next morning, hoping to spin it with humor, lighten the mood. All principals are in hiding, including Cheney, who has to hide in open sight. Then the guy has a heart attack.

And guess what, the story of what happened "evolves" at that point. It has to. This is the game that moves as you play.

Posted by: kenter | February 18, 2006 at 13:15

Posted by: patrick | September 09, 2007 at 20:39

Posted by: patrick | September 09, 2007 at 20:40

Posted by: patrick | September 09, 2007 at 20:40

The comments to this entry are closed.

Contributors

Where We Met

Daily Kos

The Next Hurrah

February 15, 2006

Dick Cheney, Hunting the Truth

Comments

Recent Posts

Contributors

Categories

Archives

Where We Met

Links