The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the Vice President of the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit with his wounds, grew even more curious late Sunday. E&P has learned that the official confirmation of the shooting came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occured and called Vice President Cheney's office for confirmation.
The confirmation was made but there was no indication whether the Vice President's office, the White House, or anyone else intended to announce the shooting if the reporter, Jaime Powell of the Corpus Christ Caller-Times, had not received word from the ranch owner.
The shooting happened Saturday afternoon.
It wasn't reported until after a reporter questioned the Vice President's office Sunday afternoon.
Was the Veep's office not planning on disclosing that Dick Cheney had shot a man?
If this man had died, and nobody had tipped off local reporter Jamie Powell, would we have ever known about the incident?
Accidents happen. Hunting is a dangerous sport. These aren't particularly complex points to make (hell, I just made it in seven words): why would they want to withhold this information when it could be diffused and rendered into fodder for Leno within hours? What possible justification did they come up with for withholding this information from the public for damn near 24 hours until directly questioned by the press?
A few weeks ago, Scott McClellan got into it with David Gregory about meetings Jack Abramoff had with White House staffers. McClellan claimed he was under no obligation to answer the question "what meetings was Jack Abramoff present for and with what staffers did he meet," because the question wasn't specific enough (McClellan insisted that Gregory ask about specific meetings and staffers, and that the White House didn't need to provide that information when asked directly for it). It seems that the Veep's office was following the same line of thought, and only relinquished the pertinent information when confronted with an unavoidably direct question in a direct manner. What, then, will become of transparency in government, when our executive branch maintains such secrecy over events that, at their absolute worst, could embarass officials without jeopardizing national security?
Are they really more worried about image than the public's right to information? Is personality that important to them?
If Harry Whittington had died, would he have been an anonymous martyr to the cult of personality? And is he the only one?
Simple man yes. And I like simple things in life too. Granted I am not professor, banker, lawyer, or some other BIG job person( just a coffee shop OWNER!!!!!) who needs 20+ years of education to feel that I am important in life. But after 20 years in the military, I am happy to have defended your rights to call me a Simple man.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but can you do for your country!!!"
Just somthing to think about as you call me simple.
Who cares if he had a hunting accident. I am sure there will be some PETA person saying that they both should be shot for hunting.
I wonder if he went back to his hotel room and took a nap before reporting it? Or called his advisors and had them flown in to help.
Just a little co-winkie dink.
Also, I refuse to be scared of the ACLU. I will not be bullied around in MY own country. I realize that Jefferson, Monroe and our Founding Fathers did not have a clue when they wrote the Constitution. I took lawyers who graduated from NYU or the Kennedy School of Law to figure out what that document really means.
Exmples:
ACLU defending NAMBLA( North American Man Boy Love Assoc.) Pro Bono.
After members of the Tangipahoa Parish (La.) School Board hosted a conference to discuss religious liberties in the public schools, an ACLU spokesman compared the board members seeking to pray at meetings to "the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country."
ACLU not suing a teacher in Cali. made her students take part in Islamic prayers and having them take Muslim names.
ACLU defending a woman found guilty of reckless endagrement for doing cocaine while she was pregnant.
Just to name a few examples. And no I do not listen to Bill Oreily. Too liberal for me. So don't even say it.
Signed,
A simple man
And yes I have a gun and do not wish to shoot anyone because of their beliefs. NO MATTER HOW DUMB I MIGHT THINK THEY ARE.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but can you do for your country!!!"
Just somthing to think about as you call me simple
Nice almost-Kennedy quote. Funny how Kennedy had the balls to quote Isaiah without crapping himself over the idea of a group dedicated to the Bill of Rights (ACLU) coming in and complaining. Because the ACLU doesn't stop individuals from exercising individual rights: a fact which you continually ignore in favor of demonizing a group that has done exemplary work to protect our essential freedoms (and, for the record, I still have my Black Cat patch in a frame on the wall behind me, so while I respect your service, I don't consider that an excuse for your inability to frame a coherent argument or make a substantiated claim). You aren't simple because you aren't a professor, doctor, lawyer or banker, but because you have yet to show any semblance of critical thought in anything you've ever posted on this site. Ever. Hell, you've even blatantly plagiarized someone else's work on this site, and only admitted it when I called you out for it days later.
You're worse than a demagogue--they at least think they're protecting someone or something. You're willfully ignorant, a sheep that loves to hear itself bleat without considering why.
When an issue of executive disclosure arises, you do our nation a disservice by ignoring it in favor of some snide off-topic comments to further demonize someone you disagree with. You've hurled insults at Ted Kennedy since your very first day on this site, and yet somehow manage to ignore every substantitive point that is raised to counter your positions. In short, you're incapable of actual debate. You're nothing more than a nuissance, contributing nothing to this forum but idiocy and slander.
Case in point:
Who cares if he had a hunting accident. I am sure there will be some PETA person saying that they both should be shot for hunting.
Now, the Vice President of the United States, for the first time since Aaron Burr, has shot a man. You, rather than provide any substance to the debate about whether or not the delay of almost a full day in reporting this information was prudent in an open society, decided to launch a broadside at PETA. If the one local reporter that was notified by a private citizen hadn't followed up on the report, would this story have become public at all? You don't seem to find that an intriguing subject of discussion, so instead you waste our time (hell, I'm disappointed in myself for spending so long in calling out a troll, but I've got some free time between classes, so what the hell).
ACLU defends NAMBLA? Yeah.
Limbaugh? Yeah.
Ollie North? Yeah.
The Skokie Nazis? Yeah.
Brown v. BOE? Yeah.
Scopes? Yeah.
Second-grader that wanted to sing "Awesome God" at a school talent show? Yeah.
Catholic man being forced to convert in drug rehab? Yeah.
Church groups wanting to post nativity scenes last Christmas in Polk County, FL? Yeah.
Christian prisoner that was barred from preaching the Gospel? Yeah. Link
Just because you can't grasp the nuances of the First Amendment doesn't mean its most adament defenders don't, either.
Should the VP call and tell CNN when something happens? This is not an issue of not telling the police but an issue of not telling the media. What happened to reporters actually going out and finding stories?
And speaking of demonizing.... Lets see, hmmmmmmmm.......
"(hell, I'm disappointed in myself for spending so long in calling out a troll, but I've got some free time between classes, so what the hell)."
I don't see how it is the VP's responability to call the media. Call the cops yes. CNN,ABC,CBS,FOX? NO!!!!!!!
"Funnny how Kennedy had the balls to quote Isaiah without crapping himself over the idea of a group dedicated to the Bill of Rights (ACLU) coming in and complaining. Because the ACLU doesn't stop individuals from exercising individual rights: a fact which you continually ignore in favor of demonizing a group that has done exemplary work to protect our essential freedoms."
Lets see....
"The ACLU successfully sues fifth grade public school teacher Kenneth Roberts, forcing him to remove his personal Bible from his classroom desk. Roberts kept the Bible on top of his desk. He never read it to his students or told them they had to read it."
What happend to his rights?
"In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured.'"
What about her rights?
"April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."
What about the kids rights?
The list goes on.
IN MY OPION, THIS IS NOT A GROUP WHOM I WANT ANY DEALINGS WITH. LET THEM STAY OFF OF MY SIDE.
PETA:
"There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President (in The Washington Times August 29, 1999).
The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect. -- Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Humane Society (The Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989).
Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.
"We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child" -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, (New York Times, January 14, 1989).
"Fire is a tool. Nothing does the amount of damage that fire can. Arson works. Make sure that all buildings or vehicles are free of creatures before lighting one single match. Arson should only be used when it can be guaranteed that the fire will not spread to the sheds the animals are in. -- (In the ALF publication "The Final Nail", under section entitled "Smashing the Furriers").
Sorry, I thought I knew what I was talking about when it comes to PETA. They would never say such a thing about the 2 men should be shot for hunting anyway.
And you are quiet correct. I think Sen. Kennedy is a bad man. I do not agree at all with him on any issue. I do not demonize him. He does it for me. He is a radical and I do not agree with any radical.
Just a simple man's opinion.
But am I to sit here and see such things as recent posts on this blog that calls the President a fascist? I do not agree with this man on alot of things but to "demonize" him is uncalled for. And of course we can go through this whole blog and find "demonizing " of people everywhere.
So while you go back to class, I hope you are doing well, Really, lets look at all sides.
Someone who declares Bill O'Reilly to be "too liberal" is in no position to define ANYONE as "radical".
When the VP does something so newsworthy as, say, shooting a citizen, then yes, it is his goddamn responsibility to notify the press. He's a public official and this was a major event, and in case your "libertarian" simple self missed it, we taxpayers pay good money for him to have a press secretary tasked with disclosing such news as his health and inability to distinguish quail from lawyer.
"What happened to reporters actually going out and finding stories?" This is a perfect example of why I think so little of you--you have no idea what accountability or transparency is (Cheney was hunting illegally, for the record--but I'm sure that's a nonissue for you).
And remember when I said you cut and pasted other people's work without attributing it to them? Thanks for DOING IT AGAIN.
Here's the link you meant to put in. Link And I can't help but notice that the examples that I gave of the ACLU defending conservative, religious and rightist causes are nowhere to be seen on this list. This is a hit sheet. I love your characterization of Roberts v. Madigan, by the by--you don't think it's dishonest to leave out the religious poster Roberts kept on the classroom wall, or the Christian texts kept in the classroom library that he instructed his class to choose books from? Would ignoring those details be "sins of omission" or "bearing false witness"? I have trouble keeping those straight.
The same ACLU principles that defended that HIV-positive man's right to doctor-patient confidentiality were what led them to defend Rush Limbaugh's right to confidentiality, yet that case is conspicuously absent from the list you cribbed. Seems strange that that list would include a sick man as a negative example but overlook a drug abuser that was falsifying prescription information, doesn't it? I guess they must think that everyone deserves the same rights from the same Constitution--what a radical position!
"What about the kids rights?" you ask about the Child Pornography Protection Act. That one's easy--THE LAW WASN'T ABOUT KIDS. Seriously, I know you did exactly no research beyond a cut-and-paste theft of someone else's work, but if you had, you'd know that part of the law struck down (and the part challenged by the ACLU) wasn't about child pornography, but about pornography of those over the age 18 that might have been misconstrued as underage. So, just to make this extra clear for you, O Simple Troll, this was a law that restricted the rights of adults to engage in otherwise legal activities based on the notion that they looked too young. But if you'd rather be fooled by Orwellian language, go right ahead--just don't pretend you're a libertarian when you do.
Like I said, your problem is willful ignorance. You'd rather feel superior than be informed. That's what makes you simple, and that's what makes you so wrong, so often. But keep trying--it was by perseverance the snail reached the ark!
Could you please explain the "illegal" hunting part.
And I did notice that you like to refer to me in a childish manner " oh little troll". Yuor choice.
Let's get real, we are talking about a man who's job is to wake up and go to funerals.
Iran is devolping atomic weapons.... 100's of millions of dollars in fraud in New Orleans, a $2.7 trillion budget, yet the head line story was the VP.
I do not care for this man nor his ways and a hunting accident in which the man was involved is the only thing we can discuss.
Give me some reasons ,please, that I should care more about that than the REAL WORLD ISSUEs.
And no I do not have access to LAW books such as those that are provided to you(some on my tax dollars unless you attend a private school). I am too busy WORKING to put MY daughter through one of those higher learning places so I must rely on the internet for much of my info.
I hope you do well in school and go onto a successful career in the REAL world, howerver define success.
Cheney was not licensed to hunt quail, and he has received a written warning from the authorities. Hence, he was hunting illegally.
The VPs primary job is to have a pulse. Why is that? Oh, yeah, because there's a reasonable chance he may have to serve as President of the United States (it's not all that uncommon historically that the VP ascends to the top spot).
You think I'm using law books to make you look idiotic? This stuff is on the web! Here's a link to a site with almost every case you could ever be interested in. Link When you decide to use court cases to prove a point, you might want to verify that you aren't citing bullshit. This is why I consider you willfully ignorant: it would be so easy for you to verify from your computer if what you're plagarizing is actually true, yet instead you simply cut and paste from unreliable sources without critically thinking about what you post.
The only law book I keep with me is The Constitution of the United States.
That was precisely the first thing I thought about.
Remember the Cheney-Scalia hunting trips that--despite efforts by Cheney and others to forcefully outline their "rights to privacy"there were a number of separate media organizations that were at least able to cover the event within a 24 hour time frame. There also was at least some independant media verification.
This time, not only could he have gotten away with the scenerio you proposed, but it would also seem to strike a heavy blow to the notion that a 24/7 news channel would be able to report Breaking News of absolutely any significance outside what's given to them on a press release.
As far as arguments which suggest these trips should be off-limits to reporters imagine if Abramoff's restaurant, the bank accounts of congressional staffers and friends, and a number of golf courses from California to Scotland had no merit in the current lobbyist finance reform scandals?? Simply, there'd be none.
Before I go off into conspiracy land, I'll just say this: at this point it's difficult to make any conclusions. Incidentally, conspiracy land--with this administration is usually more akin to intimate, detailed, and secret planning. Regardless--and thankfully, the lawyer shot--78 years old--is in Stable condition.
I worry that you might equate "releasing to the public" with "showing it on TV."
They suffered panic, for sure. But that's not an excuse for withholding this from the public.
They're not the best when it comes to disclosure (see the McClellan-Gregory example above), either. Likewise, that's not an excuse.
My worry is that this information could conceivably have been withheld from the public permanently. If the landowner hadn't gone to a local reporter that was a friend of hers, God only knows if this story ever would have been told. Probably it would have outed sooner or later, but as rumor or innuendo.
The thing is, these guys in the White House press offices (Press Secretary and Veep's Press Secretary) have risen to the top of their professions because they're good at making real news into nonstories. But that's not what they did in this instance--rather than sell the idea that this was an unfortunate yet all-too-common accident that could happen to anyone, they simply sat on the information. In press management, you want to control the terms of the release of information. You want to get news, even bad or unflattering news, out on your own terms. Saturday evening wasn't a particularly slow news day--the story in many places would have been buried (West coast prison break, Northeast blizzards, Brownie's testimony, to name a few). In other places, it would have been four lines on page A7. A quick quip from the Veep's Press Secretary would be tagged at the end of cable news segments, disarming (no pun intended, I swear) the critics with humor--it would become a war of jokes, rather than a question of disclosure (the only risk in that strategy would be if the unfortunate victim had passed away, but considering the reports from his doctors and eyewitnesses that seemed unlikely).
Politically speaking, I can't figure out why they withheld this information. Delays on stories of this sort are like yeast to dough--the longer it sits, the higher it rises.
You know what?reading over and over about this "Dick shooting" story", I am wondering what we will find months or years from now about it that we dont yet know...........Might become a very scary story.
We might discover it was an old-fashion duel that turned weird,or something.With the Bush administration,I wouldn't be surprised such a stupid thing could happen,since it did plenty of times before for other things.
You know that's going to be the mystery don't you think.
Were I to lay down a bet I honestly couldn't provide 50 % certainty or any certainty of course about where this might lead.
The Swift Boat people--working on behalf of the President--turned heavily disputed claims into campaign warfare and we know how all that turned out.
My guess in regards to the Cheney story is that it'll blow over. And it should. Especially given the recent excellent posts of our "conventioners", it's a bit trite to expend a majority of our time to this.
But again, it's not about Cheney's responsibility to inform the public. In fact, I think this is beyond any doubt whatsoever. It's a look at the media's undeniable responsibility to report current events.
It also fits a pattern. On 9-11, on Katrina, on the recent Iraqi and Palestinian elections it's pretty clear that the media generally has seemed to be more interested in access than in checks and balances. Because of this unprecedented refusal to talk to the media unless it benefits the administration (Judith Miller, New York Times) how is it even feasible to NOT speculate at times.
It's clearly been established that this Administration's payola schemes, their refusal to testify before bi-partisan hearings, refusal to address second questions, and outright manipulation of the news funded by tax-payers expecting democracy only widens the gap between claim and fact.
One can argue all day about the situation here, but it just goes to confirm yet again that the extent to which this administration avoids the media is essentially undemocratic. The ways in which the White House alludes to democracy, is precisely the very thing they have never been too interested in. That's why we should expect more from the mainstream media (anyone remember all of the stories of WMD)
You may think I'm off course here but when you add up all the small things and circumstances it begins to make sense. Consider this a digression if you will, but this is precisely what I intended to say in the first place. I could have been more clear no doubt.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
The shooting happened Saturday afternoon.
It wasn't reported until after a reporter questioned the Vice President's office Sunday afternoon.
Was the Veep's office not planning on disclosing that Dick Cheney had shot a man?
If this man had died, and nobody had tipped off local reporter Jamie Powell, would we have ever known about the incident?
Accidents happen. Hunting is a dangerous sport. These aren't particularly complex points to make (hell, I just made it in seven words): why would they want to withhold this information when it could be diffused and rendered into fodder for Leno within hours? What possible justification did they come up with for withholding this information from the public for damn near 24 hours until directly questioned by the press?
A few weeks ago, Scott McClellan got into it with David Gregory about meetings Jack Abramoff had with White House staffers. McClellan claimed he was under no obligation to answer the question "what meetings was Jack Abramoff present for and with what staffers did he meet," because the question wasn't specific enough (McClellan insisted that Gregory ask about specific meetings and staffers, and that the White House didn't need to provide that information when asked directly for it). It seems that the Veep's office was following the same line of thought, and only relinquished the pertinent information when confronted with an unavoidably direct question in a direct manner. What, then, will become of transparency in government, when our executive branch maintains such secrecy over events that, at their absolute worst, could embarass officials without jeopardizing national security?
Are they really more worried about image than the public's right to information? Is personality that important to them?
If Harry Whittington had died, would he have been an anonymous martyr to the cult of personality? And is he the only one?
God, you are a simple man. Go grab your 12-gauge and hide under your stairs awaiting the ACLU demons.
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but can you do for your country!!!"
Just somthing to think about as you call me simple.
Who cares if he had a hunting accident. I am sure there will be some PETA person saying that they both should be shot for hunting.
I wonder if he went back to his hotel room and took a nap before reporting it? Or called his advisors and had them flown in to help.
Just a little co-winkie dink.
Also, I refuse to be scared of the ACLU. I will not be bullied around in MY own country. I realize that Jefferson, Monroe and our Founding Fathers did not have a clue when they wrote the Constitution. I took lawyers who graduated from NYU or the Kennedy School of Law to figure out what that document really means.
Exmples:
ACLU defending NAMBLA( North American Man Boy Love Assoc.) Pro Bono.
After members of the Tangipahoa Parish (La.) School Board hosted a conference to discuss religious liberties in the public schools, an ACLU spokesman compared the board members seeking to pray at meetings to "the people who flew the airplanes into the buildings in this country."
ACLU not suing a teacher in Cali. made her students take part in Islamic prayers and having them take Muslim names.
ACLU defending a woman found guilty of reckless endagrement for doing cocaine while she was pregnant.
Just to name a few examples. And no I do not listen to Bill Oreily. Too liberal for me. So don't even say it.
Signed,
A simple man
And yes I have a gun and do not wish to shoot anyone because of their beliefs. NO MATTER HOW DUMB I MIGHT THINK THEY ARE.
Nice almost-Kennedy quote. Funny how Kennedy had the balls to quote Isaiah without crapping himself over the idea of a group dedicated to the Bill of Rights (ACLU) coming in and complaining. Because the ACLU doesn't stop individuals from exercising individual rights: a fact which you continually ignore in favor of demonizing a group that has done exemplary work to protect our essential freedoms (and, for the record, I still have my Black Cat patch in a frame on the wall behind me, so while I respect your service, I don't consider that an excuse for your inability to frame a coherent argument or make a substantiated claim). You aren't simple because you aren't a professor, doctor, lawyer or banker, but because you have yet to show any semblance of critical thought in anything you've ever posted on this site. Ever. Hell, you've even blatantly plagiarized someone else's work on this site, and only admitted it when I called you out for it days later.
You're worse than a demagogue--they at least think they're protecting someone or something. You're willfully ignorant, a sheep that loves to hear itself bleat without considering why.
When an issue of executive disclosure arises, you do our nation a disservice by ignoring it in favor of some snide off-topic comments to further demonize someone you disagree with. You've hurled insults at Ted Kennedy since your very first day on this site, and yet somehow manage to ignore every substantitive point that is raised to counter your positions. In short, you're incapable of actual debate. You're nothing more than a nuissance, contributing nothing to this forum but idiocy and slander.
Case in point:
Now, the Vice President of the United States, for the first time since Aaron Burr, has shot a man. You, rather than provide any substance to the debate about whether or not the delay of almost a full day in reporting this information was prudent in an open society, decided to launch a broadside at PETA. If the one local reporter that was notified by a private citizen hadn't followed up on the report, would this story have become public at all? You don't seem to find that an intriguing subject of discussion, so instead you waste our time (hell, I'm disappointed in myself for spending so long in calling out a troll, but I've got some free time between classes, so what the hell).
ACLU defends NAMBLA? Yeah.
Limbaugh? Yeah.
Ollie North? Yeah.
The Skokie Nazis? Yeah.
Brown v. BOE? Yeah.
Scopes? Yeah.
Second-grader that wanted to sing "Awesome God" at a school talent show? Yeah.
Catholic man being forced to convert in drug rehab? Yeah.
Church groups wanting to post nativity scenes last Christmas in Polk County, FL? Yeah.
Christian prisoner that was barred from preaching the Gospel? Yeah.
Link
Just because you can't grasp the nuances of the First Amendment doesn't mean its most adament defenders don't, either.
And speaking of demonizing.... Lets see, hmmmmmmmm.......
"(hell, I'm disappointed in myself for spending so long in calling out a troll, but I've got some free time between classes, so what the hell)."
I don't see how it is the VP's responability to call the media. Call the cops yes. CNN,ABC,CBS,FOX? NO!!!!!!!
"Funnny how Kennedy had the balls to quote Isaiah without crapping himself over the idea of a group dedicated to the Bill of Rights (ACLU) coming in and complaining. Because the ACLU doesn't stop individuals from exercising individual rights: a fact which you continually ignore in favor of demonizing a group that has done exemplary work to protect our essential freedoms."
Lets see....
"The ACLU successfully sues fifth grade public school teacher Kenneth Roberts, forcing him to remove his personal Bible from his classroom desk. Roberts kept the Bible on top of his desk. He never read it to his students or told them they had to read it."
What happend to his rights?
"In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured.'"
What about her rights?
"April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."
What about the kids rights?
The list goes on.
IN MY OPION, THIS IS NOT A GROUP WHOM I WANT ANY DEALINGS WITH. LET THEM STAY OFF OF MY SIDE.
PETA:
"There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President (in The Washington Times August 29, 1999).
The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect. -- Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Humane Society (The Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989).
Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses. -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, The Washington Post, November 13, 1983.
"We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child" -- Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA, (New York Times, January 14, 1989).
"Fire is a tool. Nothing does the amount of damage that fire can. Arson works. Make sure that all buildings or vehicles are free of creatures before lighting one single match. Arson should only be used when it can be guaranteed that the fire will not spread to the sheds the animals are in. -- (In the ALF publication "The Final Nail", under section entitled "Smashing the Furriers").
Sorry, I thought I knew what I was talking about when it comes to PETA. They would never say such a thing about the 2 men should be shot for hunting anyway.
And you are quiet correct. I think Sen. Kennedy is a bad man. I do not agree at all with him on any issue. I do not demonize him. He does it for me. He is a radical and I do not agree with any radical.
Just a simple man's opinion.
But am I to sit here and see such things as recent posts on this blog that calls the President a fascist? I do not agree with this man on alot of things but to "demonize" him is uncalled for. And of course we can go through this whole blog and find "demonizing " of people everywhere.
So while you go back to class, I hope you are doing well, Really, lets look at all sides.
Signed,
A SIMPLE TROLL.
Someone who declares Bill O'Reilly to be "too liberal" is in no position to define ANYONE as "radical".
When the VP does something so newsworthy as, say, shooting a citizen, then yes, it is his goddamn responsibility to notify the press. He's a public official and this was a major event, and in case your "libertarian" simple self missed it, we taxpayers pay good money for him to have a press secretary tasked with disclosing such news as his health and inability to distinguish quail from lawyer.
"What happened to reporters actually going out and finding stories?" This is a perfect example of why I think so little of you--you have no idea what accountability or transparency is (Cheney was hunting illegally, for the record--but I'm sure that's a nonissue for you).
And remember when I said you cut and pasted other people's work without attributing it to them? Thanks for DOING IT AGAIN.
Here's the link you meant to put in. Link And I can't help but notice that the examples that I gave of the ACLU defending conservative, religious and rightist causes are nowhere to be seen on this list. This is a hit sheet. I love your characterization of Roberts v. Madigan, by the by--you don't think it's dishonest to leave out the religious poster Roberts kept on the classroom wall, or the Christian texts kept in the classroom library that he instructed his class to choose books from? Would ignoring those details be "sins of omission" or "bearing false witness"? I have trouble keeping those straight.
The same ACLU principles that defended that HIV-positive man's right to doctor-patient confidentiality were what led them to defend Rush Limbaugh's right to confidentiality, yet that case is conspicuously absent from the list you cribbed. Seems strange that that list would include a sick man as a negative example but overlook a drug abuser that was falsifying prescription information, doesn't it? I guess they must think that everyone deserves the same rights from the same Constitution--what a radical position!
"What about the kids rights?" you ask about the Child Pornography Protection Act. That one's easy--THE LAW WASN'T ABOUT KIDS. Seriously, I know you did exactly no research beyond a cut-and-paste theft of someone else's work, but if you had, you'd know that part of the law struck down (and the part challenged by the ACLU) wasn't about child pornography, but about pornography of those over the age 18 that might have been misconstrued as underage. So, just to make this extra clear for you, O Simple Troll, this was a law that restricted the rights of adults to engage in otherwise legal activities based on the notion that they looked too young. But if you'd rather be fooled by Orwellian language, go right ahead--just don't pretend you're a libertarian when you do.
Like I said, your problem is willful ignorance. You'd rather feel superior than be informed. That's what makes you simple, and that's what makes you so wrong, so often. But keep trying--it was by perseverance the snail reached the ark!
And I did notice that you like to refer to me in a childish manner " oh little troll". Yuor choice.
Let's get real, we are talking about a man who's job is to wake up and go to funerals.
Iran is devolping atomic weapons.... 100's of millions of dollars in fraud in New Orleans, a $2.7 trillion budget, yet the head line story was the VP.
I do not care for this man nor his ways and a hunting accident in which the man was involved is the only thing we can discuss.
Give me some reasons ,please, that I should care more about that than the REAL WORLD ISSUEs.
And no I do not have access to LAW books such as those that are provided to you(some on my tax dollars unless you attend a private school). I am too busy WORKING to put MY daughter through one of those higher learning places so I must rely on the internet for much of my info.
I hope you do well in school and go onto a successful career in the REAL world, howerver define success.
From Trollville, USA,
A simple man
The VPs primary job is to have a pulse. Why is that? Oh, yeah, because there's a reasonable chance he may have to serve as President of the United States (it's not all that uncommon historically that the VP ascends to the top spot).
You think I'm using law books to make you look idiotic? This stuff is on the web! Here's a link to a site with almost every case you could ever be interested in. Link When you decide to use court cases to prove a point, you might want to verify that you aren't citing bullshit. This is why I consider you willfully ignorant: it would be so easy for you to verify from your computer if what you're plagarizing is actually true, yet instead you simply cut and paste from unreliable sources without critically thinking about what you post.
The only law book I keep with me is The Constitution of the United States.
Remember the Cheney-Scalia hunting trips that--despite efforts by Cheney and others to forcefully outline their "rights to privacy"there were a number of separate media organizations that were at least able to cover the event within a 24 hour time frame. There also was at least some independant media verification.
This time, not only could he have gotten away with the scenerio you proposed, but it would also seem to strike a heavy blow to the notion that a 24/7 news channel would be able to report Breaking News of absolutely any significance outside what's given to them on a press release.
As far as arguments which suggest these trips should be off-limits to reporters imagine if Abramoff's restaurant, the bank accounts of congressional staffers and friends, and a number of golf courses from California to Scotland had no merit in the current lobbyist finance reform scandals?? Simply, there'd be none.
Before I go off into conspiracy land, I'll just say this: at this point it's difficult to make any conclusions. Incidentally, conspiracy land--with this administration is usually more akin to intimate, detailed, and secret planning. Regardless--and thankfully, the lawyer shot--78 years old--is in Stable condition.
1-they panicked,as usual.(OH my God,what will Liberals will make of it??)
2-they simply are unable to act like they should.They just plain SUCK
They suffered panic, for sure. But that's not an excuse for withholding this from the public.
They're not the best when it comes to disclosure (see the McClellan-Gregory example above), either. Likewise, that's not an excuse.
My worry is that this information could conceivably have been withheld from the public permanently. If the landowner hadn't gone to a local reporter that was a friend of hers, God only knows if this story ever would have been told. Probably it would have outed sooner or later, but as rumor or innuendo.
The thing is, these guys in the White House press offices (Press Secretary and Veep's Press Secretary) have risen to the top of their professions because they're good at making real news into nonstories. But that's not what they did in this instance--rather than sell the idea that this was an unfortunate yet all-too-common accident that could happen to anyone, they simply sat on the information. In press management, you want to control the terms of the release of information. You want to get news, even bad or unflattering news, out on your own terms. Saturday evening wasn't a particularly slow news day--the story in many places would have been buried (West coast prison break, Northeast blizzards, Brownie's testimony, to name a few). In other places, it would have been four lines on page A7. A quick quip from the Veep's Press Secretary would be tagged at the end of cable news segments, disarming (no pun intended, I swear) the critics with humor--it would become a war of jokes, rather than a question of disclosure (the only risk in that strategy would be if the unfortunate victim had passed away, but considering the reports from his doctors and eyewitnesses that seemed unlikely).
Politically speaking, I can't figure out why they withheld this information. Delays on stories of this sort are like yeast to dough--the longer it sits, the higher it rises.
We might discover it was an old-fashion duel that turned weird,or something.With the Bush administration,I wouldn't be surprised such a stupid thing could happen,since it did plenty of times before for other things.
Were I to lay down a bet I honestly couldn't provide 50 % certainty or any certainty of course about where this might lead.
The Swift Boat people--working on behalf of the President--turned heavily disputed claims into campaign warfare and we know how all that turned out.
My guess in regards to the Cheney story is that it'll blow over. And it should. Especially given the recent excellent posts of our "conventioners", it's a bit trite to expend a majority of our time to this.
But again, it's not about Cheney's responsibility to inform the public. In fact, I think this is beyond any doubt whatsoever. It's a look at the media's undeniable responsibility to report current events.
It also fits a pattern. On 9-11, on Katrina, on the recent Iraqi and Palestinian elections it's pretty clear that the media generally has seemed to be more interested in access than in checks and balances. Because of this unprecedented refusal to talk to the media unless it benefits the administration (Judith Miller, New York Times) how is it even feasible to NOT speculate at times.
It's clearly been established that this Administration's payola schemes, their refusal to testify before bi-partisan hearings, refusal to address second questions, and outright manipulation of the news funded by tax-payers expecting democracy only widens the gap between claim and fact.
One can argue all day about the situation here, but it just goes to confirm yet again that the extent to which this administration avoids the media is essentially undemocratic. The ways in which the White House alludes to democracy, is precisely the very thing they have never been too interested in. That's why we should expect more from the mainstream media (anyone remember all of the stories of WMD)
You may think I'm off course here but when you add up all the small things and circumstances it begins to make sense. Consider this a digression if you will, but this is precisely what I intended to say in the first place. I could have been more clear no doubt.