Cheney shoots 78-year old man

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:05 pm

Oh, my, the gift that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving.... Old article (take note of SCI, mentioned in it, for later reference): <a href="http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/">www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/</a> 2001-01-26/pols_naked5.html Naked City BY ROBERT BRYCE January 26, 2001: You read it here first: Within a year, George W. Bush will be ordered to testify under oath in the influence-buying scandal known as Funeralgate. So far, Bush has avoided all efforts to put him under oath. In 1996, his attorney, Al Gonzales, was able to keep his client from being selected for jury duty in a drunken driving case here in Travis County. But the stakes in that case were small and Bush wasn't the focus of the court action. Funeralgate is a different story. Bush has been named as a defendant in the whistleblower lawsuit brought by Eliza May, the former executive director of the Texas Funeral Service Commission; the suit alleges that Bush and others who got campaign contributions from funeral giant Service Corporation International worked to thwart an investigation into SCI's hiring of improperly licensed embalmers. Just as he did in 1996, Gonzales, who is now the White House general counsel, will do all he can to keep Bush out of situations in which he must swear to tell the truth. May's attorneys have been trying to get Bush under oath for more than 16 months. And they have many reasons to support their argument that Bush, and only Bush, can answer questions about discrepancies in testimony given in the Funeralgate mess. For instance, the attorneys want to ask Bush about his conversations with former TFSC chairman Dick McNeil, who has testified that he talked briefly with Bush in 1998 about the investigation the agency was doing. They also want to ask Bush why his chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, was so quick to intervene during the TFSC's 1998 investigation of Houston-based funeral giant SCI. May's attorneys are particularly interested in what Allbaugh, whom Bush has appointed as head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, will say under oath. During May's investigation into SCI, Allbaugh conducted two meetings with her. The purpose of the meetings, says May's lawsuit, was to "pressure and intimidate May concerning the SCI investigation." Adding further intrigue to the influence-buying mess was last month's move by May's attorneys to name Texas Attorney General John Cornyn as a defendant in the suit. The attorneys charge that Cornyn went out of his way to help SCI during the TFSC investigation. As first reported in the Chronicle, the AG's office determined in early 1999 that it would not get involved in interpreting TFSC regulations while the agency was conducting its investigation of SCI. But shortly after that finding, Cornyn personally intervened, overruling the agency's earlier finding. That allowed the agency to interpret state law in a manner that was favorable to SCI. In their latest court pleading, May's lawyers, Derek Howard and Charles Herring Jr., claim that in January of 1999, Cornyn "began participating in the improper and illegal effort to prevent a full and proper investigation of SCI and to assist SCI and other conspirators in covering-up their prior improper, illegal actions, and in preventing May" and the TFSC from enforcing the law. The suit points out that Cornyn's chief deputy, Andy Taylor, used to work at the same law firm that was representing SCI at the commission -- and that by meeting with some SCI officials while working for the attorney general, Taylor acted unethically. In response to the lawsuit, Cornyn's office issued a terse statement, saying the attorney general "holds himself and his staff to the highest ethical standards. This is a politically motivated effort to try to jump-start a two-year-old lawsuit." Herring said that by intervening in the SCI matter, Cornyn changed longstanding policy at the AG's office. Cornyn was "doing a special favor for [SCI CEO Robert] Waltrip," he said. "That's not the way government is supposed to work. In our view, Cornyn was enlisted in the conspiracy." The lawsuit was originally scheduled to go to trial in the spring. It now appears that it will be delayed by several months. May's attorneys appear to have a good case against the state, though they'll have a difficult time proving that Bush, Cornyn, and the others acted to protect SCI because they got campaign donations from the company and Waltrip. Still, that's not the most disturbing aspect of Funeralgate. Voters have become inured to the fact that politicians do favors for big donors; the most disturbing part of this mess is that at no time did Bush, Allbaugh, SCI, Cornyn, or state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, act on behalf of, or show any concern for, Texas consumers. Instead, they acted to protect the fat cats. That's the scandal. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 2/13/06 12:06 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:12 pm

Maybe, just maybe, the VP shot the man who knows too much. More on SCI, from back during Katrina: <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">www.talkingpointsmemo.com/</a> Another question I'm hoping someone can provide more information on. To assist with the recovery and disposition of the victims of Katrina, FEMA has hired Kenyon Worldwide Disaster Management, a Houston-based company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International (SCI), another Houston-based corporation, which bills itself as the "dominant leader in the North American death care industry." SCI is not only closely associated with the president (which is not surprising since the company is based in Houston), they were also at the center of what is probably the best-known scandal during Bush's six years as governor of Texas: the so-called 'funeralgate' case. What's more, Joe Allbaugh -- President Bush's Chief of Staff in Texas and later his first FEMA Director -- was the central figure in that scandal, or at least the guy whose job it was to take care of the mess SCI had gotten into. The last we heard, you'll remember, now-lobbyist Allbaugh was in Lousiana "helping coordinate the private-sector response to the storm." One Tennessee mortician, Dan Buckner, who was on stand-by as a volunteer as part of the Department of Homeland Security's DMORT program told a local paper that morticians from around the country were available to do this work as volunteers. (DMORT works in conjunction with the National Funeral Directors Association). "There's no telling how many dollars they'll spend on that contract," he told the paper. Once SCI got the contract, the NFDA sent out a notification to their members which read in part ... The company that FEMA has chosen to outsource the recovery work in Louisiana is Kenyon, a worldwide disaster management company, wholly owned subsidiary of Service Corporation International. Kenyon asked us to share the names and phone numbers of NFDA members and funeral directors who are interested in a paid three-week employment situation. If you have already volunteered with NFDA, we'd like to let you know about this paid option to help. When questioned about the matter, a Nenyon spokesman said his company had had a contract with FEMA since 1997. And this list of catastrophes they've done work on does include several US passenger jet crashes from the late 1990s, i.e., before the beginning of the second Bush administration. Still, companies based in Houston and/or companies with close ties to Joe Allbaugh do seem to be snapping up a whole lotta contracts. So perhaps someone out there can look into this a bit further. -- Josh Marshall Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 2/13/06 12:14 pm

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:42 pm

The administration's failure to report this incident themselves is reminiscent of Cheney entering himself in the hospital under an assumed name. I think Jeff wrote about it at the time.

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 6:44 pm

This press conference is sooo hilarious: <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/13.html#a7142">www.crooksandliars.com/20...html#a7142</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 2/13/06 3:45 pm

by **thrulookingglass** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:23 pm

Ya' know, I realize the Bush administration gets away with murder daily/daily, but isn't this intrisically a crime?! Whether it was intentional or not, it's still a crime in most states to shoot someone by accident. Ah, just to show the local folk that it is indeed not ok to pop your hunting budy, ya think they should at least have him plead guilty to a misdemeanor?! Or are Texas hunting/gun laws actually that lax? In short, would any of us not be in a holding cell after neglecting to report shooting someone 18 hrs ago?

by **Ted the dog** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:23 pm

"I wonder how long it will be before the White House blames the guy for stepping in into Cheney's line of fire. " yeah...that's one of the many things that always blows me away about this administration...notice how they have NEVER admitted fault for anything that has happened to/in this country since 2000? everything that goes wrong in this country, since 2000, apparently, is the fault of whoever was fucked up the most by it.

by **sunny** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 pm

Since I think we are all Dave McGowan fans here, I thought I would post this from a link provided in the comments section of Jeff's latest blog post: ********************************************** Consider the following report from the venerable Los Angeles Times: "Two Black Hawk helicopters were brought in and hovered nearby as Cheney and Scalia were whisked away in a heavily guarded motorcade to a secluded, private hunting camp owned by an oil industry businessman [identified as Wallace Carline, the head of Diamond Services Corp.] ... the Cheney-Scalia trip drew the attention of local officials because of the unusual security precautions ... on the morning of Jan. 5, a large security contingent was in place -- two Black Hawk air combat rescue helicopters, a line of armored sport utility vehicles and a ring of federal agents and sheriff's deputies who set up a security perimeter. The area was declared a no-fly zone for other aircraft ... Perry [Ken Perry, of the Perry Flying Center at the Harry P. Williams Airport] said Cheney was among the first to deplane, followed by Scalia and a young woman who was identified to Perry as one of the justice's daughters. Both Perry and Naquin [David Naquin, the local sheriff] said there were orders prohibiting photographs of those who exited the planes and climbed into the motorcade. But two days later, Cheney returned to the airport without Scalia, and photographs were allowed ... Scalia stayed on to hunt a few more days, the sheriff said, but local officials said it was unclear how he returned to Washington." [David G. Savage and Richard A. Serrano "Scalia Was Cheney Hunt Trip Guest," Los Angeles Times, February 5, 2004] Uhmm, would it be considered rude to ask what happened to Scalia's 'daughter'? Why is there no mention of how she returned to Washington? And would Scalia really have brought his daughter along on such an outing? Since it wasn't a big secret that Scalia and Cheney were there, doesn't it seem reasonable to conclude that the ban on photographs was intended to protect the young woman's identity? And did Scalia really hang around to hunt for a few more days, despite the fact that, according to Sheriff Naquin, the hunting "was terrible. There were very few ducks killed."? Is it possible that Scalia and Cheney opted to leave separately so as not to highlight the fact that someone in their party had gone missing? Since no one saw Scalia leave, then it follows that no one can confirm whether his 'daughter' left with him. And even if she did, doesn't this story, at the very least, have the makings of a good sex scandal? I mean, when two older guys and a young woman go duck hunting for a couple of days and no one brings back any ducks, people are going to talk. And if the two guys come back without ducks or the girl, then I think we could have a serious problem. <a href="http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr50.html">www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr50.html</a> (scroll all the way down to the last story)

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:31 pm

Oh, my. Do you suppose they have to be young? Maybe he got the wrong one. <a href="http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Third_hunter">rawstory.com/news/2005/Third_hunter</a> _revealed_in_Cheney_hunting_0213.html Third hunter revealed in Cheney hunting party Ron Brynaert Published: February 13, 2006 The U.S. ambassador to Switzerland was the third member of a hunting party which went awry after Vice President Dick Cheney accidently shot 78-year-old Austin, Texas attorney Harry Whittington, according to a story written for the Cox news service, RAW STORY has learned. Pamela Willeford, a former Texas education official, accompanied Cheney and Whittington as they hunted quail at the Armstrong ranch in Texas on Saturday. Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong told the Associated Press that after Whittington separated from the others to gather his kills, he "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:11 am

<a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/">www.talkingpointsmemo.com/</a> --quote-- (February 12, 2006 -- 10:29 PM EDT) Okay, in response to my question below, I've gotten a slew of emails from hunters, many of them from Texas and longtime hunters of doves or quail. So let me try to summarize what they've said. Because, while the emphases are different, they all come back to the same basic points. (ed.note: You hunters already know this information. So I'm going to try to take what I've heard and learned and summarize it in laymen's terms as best as I can.) First, needless to say, hunting accidents happen. This may be particularly the case with quail hunting since the prey can rise into the air suddenly and unexpectedly and you're hunting in groups. So you have a lot of variables in play. That said, one point that comes through really clearly from everyone is that when you're hunting and you hit a person -- that's your fault. Period. End of story. Outside of extreme cases of negligence or self-destructive behavior on the part of the victim, it's not his fault. You're responsible, as the shooter, for knowing no person is in your line of fire before you pull the trigger. So this stuff about Whittington being at fault for the accident just doesn't wash for any of the hunters we've heard from. The other point that comes through in the emails we've received is that most of our emailers seem to have a pretty clear idea what happened here, based on the description provided in the AP article. Some find the facts as described improbable; but most seem to have a general sense what happened. Again, I'll try to explain what's been described to me using laymen's terms. You're out hunting for quail with a small group of people. For basic safety purposes you keep a clear mental picture of where your fellow hunters are at every moment. Based on that mental picture of where people are, you create a safe fire area, a range in front of you covering some number of degrees where you know no one else is. Things can get chaotic and excited when a bunch of birds (I'll just try, as a blanket matter, not to use the jargon) come into range or rise up. But if you don't shoot outside that safe fire zone, then everyone should be safe. Now, if you read the description provided by Katharine Armstrong, the Bush-Cheney fundraiser on whose 'ranch' this happened, what she seems to describe is this: The birds 'flush'. Cheney picks out a bird and starts following it. In the process he basically wheels around doing a 180. So he's spun around and is now firing backwards relative to the direction he had been facing. And Whittington was just, for whatever reason, where Cheney didn't expect him to be. Now, this happens. One TPM Reader actually describes watching the same thing happen to his father-in-law. But when it happens it's a matter or carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of the shooter and it involves ignores some of the most basic rules of gun safety. So, from the information available, Cheney screwed up -- a relatively common hunting accident, based (as most accidents are) by not following basic safety guidelines and being careless. Trying to blame it on the guy who got shot just doesn't wash. Late Update: On the other hand, Mary Matalin told the WaPo: "The vice president was concerned. He felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do." (Uh, he wasn't supposed to SHOOT a guy, DuH? -- S) -- Josh Marshall <a href="http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/learning/hunter_education/shotsafe.phtml">www.tpwd.state.tx.us/lear...safe.phtml</a> "Shooting safety Rules," KNOW YOUR SAFE ZONE OF FIRE AND STICK TO IT. Your safe zone-of-fire is that area or direction in which you can safely fire a shot. It is "down range" at a shooting facility. In the field it is that mental image you draw in your mind with every step you take. BE SURE YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR COMPANIONS ARE AT ALL TIMES. Never swing your gun or bow out of your safe zone-of-fire. Know the safe carries when there are persons to your sides, in front of, or behind you. IF IN DOUBT, NEVER TAKE A SHOT. When hunting, wear daylight fluorescent orange so you can be seen from a distance or in heavy cover. **** Comment: I don't think there's ANYTHING esp. nefarious about this shooting -- it wasn't a botched hit or warning or payback or anything -- the WH has pros for that kinda wetwork. Clearly it was a stupid, careless accident which Deadeye Dick was solely responsible for. The White House's decision to NOT inform the public about the accident was really typical of the whole Bush Regime's attitude about bad news -- ie., pass the back, stall and stonewall, deny or ignore if possible. "Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong told the Associated Press that after Whittington separated from the others to gather his kills, he "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself." Yeah, RIGHT-- Cheney as the trigger-finger-dude wasn't responsible for his gun discharging at another person. So I guess, someone can just stand someplace (where it's legal to do so, anyway) holding a gun pointed at nothing in particular, and when someone walks past the barrel's line-of-sight they can pull the trigger, then claim, 'They walked into the bullet --it's not MY fault!' Sheesh ... We can call it 'The Cheney Defense.' And oh: To add carelessness to recklessness, the VP was cited by Texas Wildlife officers for failure to buy a bird stamp (he at least DID have the required out-of-state hunting license.) The spin put out by the WH, following Richardson's lead (who initially called the press, and which the WH deferred to) that this shooting was no big deal, it 'happens all the time', Whittington didn't 'announce' his position to the VP, are more of the same Bush Inc. pattern -- never admit fault. Like Ted the Dog, this really astonishes and disgusts me to no end -- a fine role-model for our kids, eh wot? Oh, and THIS is a guy who has his hands on the nuke button? Makes you feel all warm and 'protected', eh? According to Texas hunting-accident figures, accidental shootings are anything BUT common -- the most recent stats are something like 2.2 accidents per 100,000 hunting licenses -- the lowest numbers since they started collecting stats about 1992 (as I recall from reading). But also -- it seems to me there must be a hospital/MD requirement that all shooting incidents be reported. Apparently, the local sherrif's office was kept from investigating the incident by the Secret Service -- yet another instance where these AHoles insulate themselves with exemption and privelege, immune from laws and rules that us lesser proles and plebes are subject to. Starman ******

by **seemslikeadream** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 am

<img src="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0213061cheney1.gif" style="border:0;"/> http:www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0213061cheney1.html

by **dbeach** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:32 am

accidental head shot?? shooting lil birds?? somebodt not me posted a nasty hunting story about the PTB and they were not hunting 4 legged critters Ever hear of the short story :"'The most dangerous game"?

by **sunny** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:25 am

Starman, I may be way off base here, but I find it passing strange that the birds flushed toward the hunters, thus necessitating Cheney's 180. Are birds so stupid they would fly to their predators? Admittedly, I haven't been around hunting since my girlhood in the country, but I have not seen this phenomenon just in the context of going out into the yard and startling a flock of blackbirds munching on my blueberries.

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:59 am

Sunny said: --quote-- Starman,7 I may be way off base here, but I find it passing strange that the birds flushed toward the hunters, thus necessitating Cheney's 180. Are birds so stupid they would fly to their predators? Admittedly, I haven't been around hunting since my girlhood in the country, but I have not seen this phenomenon just in the context of going out into the yard and startling a flock of blackbirds munching on my blueberries. --unquote-- Good point. I didn't really think about this before -- but at first, it DOES seem mighty peculiar that the flushed bird should or would be flying along such a path to cause Cheney to swing so far and close to the other hunter to his side and rear. But perhaps, and even likely, the hunters were using dogs to flush and point. A flushed quail may have been 'squeezed' in its escape by one of more dogs, or proximity to a road or one or more trees, and so forced to fly closer to one or more hunters rather than more directly away. While I've never hunted Quail, like a lot of folks I've had them flush while walking thru a field or lightly-treed woodland -- so I've seen that their flightpaths can be very erratic and unpredictable. I also note that quail can sit tight and suddenly burst out of hiding literally beneath one's feet, or right under a dog's nose. So in a group of hunters with two dogs, it may not be uncommon that circumstance will find a bird flushed --or flying-- between one hunter and another or a dog(s). In this instance, I'd suppose the bird was, for whatever reason, flying erratically and --apparantly-- looped around to Cheney's side and back, taking it close to an imaginary line between Cheney and Whittington. It might have been 50 feet or more away from Whittington, and so not actually flying towards any of the hunters when Cheney fired. I'd suspect Quail, especially those not used to being hunted, might have a highly cultivated sense of security by their agile mobility and ability to keep a minimum distance to danger, over and above a sense of direction. From: <a href="http://www.riverviewplantation.com/Quail_Hunting_Tips/quail_hunting_tips.html">www.riverviewplantation.c..._tips.html</a> --quote-- An awareness of all of the gunners responsibilities and location of each prior to the flush is an absolute necessity. Strict gun discipline is required. While wind conditions and proximity of escape cover for the flushing birds may alter what I am about to say, as a rule of thumb the hunters should approach their dogs from behind the dogs. The gun muzzles should be oriented skyward and the shotgun needs to remain on safety until mounted to one's shoulder. The two hunters should approach the dogs, one on either side, and in a straight line with one another. This straight line is very important for the safety of each hunter. Prior to moving on up and allowing the birds to flush, each hunter should visibly and mentally locate: each other, both dogs, the hunting rig, and the hunting guide if on a guided hunt. Each hunter should know in advance where he can and cannot swing the muzzle of his gun to follow an escaping quail. Each hunter's range of gun swing should be from the mid-point between him and his partner and out to his side. He should never cross the mid-point to shoot at a quail flying on his partner's side. Not only is this poor shotgunning etiquette, it is dangerous. Additionally, a quail hunter should never take a shot at a low flying quail that would cause him to lower the muzzle of his shotgun below a horizontal plane with the ground. Taking a shot at a low-flying quail has ended the life of many fine pointing dogs since the inception of this great sport. --unquote-- These guidelines point out the tendency of quail to assume unpredictable and sudden changes of flight path, requiring a very keen situational awareness and rigorous gun-safety practices. Hmmm -- I wonder if Cheney managed to get his bird after all -- with the pellets that weren't deflected by Whittington's face and shoulder, that is. Starman

by **km artlu** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:00 am

From Jimmy Kimmel: "...to be fair to the Vice President though, if he doesn't draw human blood at least once every five years his pact with the Devil expires." (confused, nervous murmer of laughter from the audience)

by **seemslikeadream** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:51 am

<img src="http://www.nypost.com/img/front021406.gif" style="border:0;"/> <a href="http://www.nypost.com/" target="top">www.nypost.com/</a>

Cheney shoots 78-year old man

Re: Re:Remember Funeralgate?

Re: Re:Remember Funeralgate?

Re: Re:Remember Funeralgate?

Re: Re:Remember Funeralgate?

Re: Isn't shooting someone a crime?

...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Re: ...

Smoking Gun Cheney Accident Report

Re: Smoking Gun Cheney Accident Report

Re: ...

Re: ...

Mainstream Media Punchline

Re:ALL WIGHT, SAY YA PWAYERS WASCALS Cwitics bwast the WH

Who is online