Cheney Needs New Glasses

Jackie Mason | February 14, 2006
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | February 14, 2006
The worst part is, it wasn't even much of a "hunt." It was what's called a canned hunt, where a ton of cage-raised, tame quail are released so that inept hunters can be sure of bagging at least one.

Jackie Mason | February 14, 2006
[hidden by request]

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
How is it that you always seem to know these little tidbits of information like it was a canned hunt. So what if it was... Like that really matters.

And hunting accidents happen all the time. This time it just involved a high profile figure. This is really a non-story. If this was Joe Average hunter, this wouldn't have been news. Who cares!

Kris Weberg | February 14, 2006
I can honestly say that this would be funny to me no matter what public figure did it. A 66-year-old nationally-known figure on a not-quite-real hunt manages to tag a 78-year-old with buckshot while firing at tame, easy-to-hit quail. You sub in the name Martin Sheen or Al Roker and it's still funny.

It has "Elmer Fudd" written all over it.

As to the canned hunt thing, it's been mentioned in some of the more recent news stories, and it makes it all the funnier for some of us. Hell, where I'm from in Illinois, most of the hunters I know make fun of people for going on such hunts whether they have an accident or not because it's hunting without the need for any tracking skills.

That this guy still managed to hit a person and not a bird is therefore funny.

Amy Austin | February 14, 2006
Heheheh... "Cheney's got a gun." That was a good joke.

Aw, c'mon, Mike -- all partisan politics aside... you gotta' find this at least *somewhat* funny! (Albeit a bit tragic, too, I thought... I actually feel kinda' bad for him -- that's not something anyone feels good about, accidentally shooting someone, poor guy.)

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
Yes, it is somewhat funny. However, the big media outlets are trying to turn this story into something that it's not. I heard one report this morning on my way to work where one media member asked if Cheney should resign because of this. That's just stupid. It was an accident and nothing more.

As for the canned hunts, I don't see a problem with it. I've done something similar when it comes to fishing. I fish all the time on lakes in Minnesota, but sometimes we go to a lake in Missouri that is stocked with trout. You can't go there and not catch fish. It's just for fun. So canned hunting, I'd do that too. If what I'm supposed to shoot at is already there, great. Less work for me.

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
Oh come on, this is hilarious. If it happened to anyone (either party) the media outlets would be running away with it. I personally am looking forward to the day when Cheney gets indicted, that will be a nice day. (Not for this, BTW)

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
He won't get indicted.

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
I can name at least 2 reasons why he should be.
1) Goo 718
2) Haliburton getting every major military contract no-bid

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
Valerie Plame, give me a break. She wasn't even an undercover agent when that story came out. She was just an employee.

As I am a military contractor, I can understand how they would get contracts like that. It has nothing to do with who you know or any kind of power you wield. My company gets military contracts all the time without competition. The main reason is they have the infrastructure already in place to handle what the military requires. Other contractors don't, and no idea what they need to take over a contract like that. Also, to make a statement that Haliburton gets every major military contract is just absurd. That's completely false. I can name several contractors that have major contracts right now. So, I think I have a little more knowledge on how the military contracts work. So nice try.

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
The contracts that Haliburton have been getting lately are insanely big, and there are plenty of other companies that have the infrastructure to handle these.

(link)

(link)

Even though, he's no longer the CEO, there is no doubt in my mind he's making a shit load of money off of this. If he was not the Vice President, other companies would have landed some of the contracts they have.

And the Valerie Plame thing??? Who cares if she wasn't undercover at the time. This was a leak of national security. Who knows if she'll ever need to go undercover again? Now, she cannot.

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
No, not really. There aren't that many contractors large enough to handle these jobs. As much as the media wants to make out like there is, there really isn't. Does it help that he used to work for them, yes, but almost every defense contractor hires their executives straight out of the military when they retire. This is so they have an in with the DoD. This is how the game is played. So what if Haliburton won these contracts. They employee a lot of people and they are out there doing the job that needs to be done. As for that second article, that was a really nice liberal website that was on.

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
If there is no problem with this, then why were both the FBI and Senate investigating this?

(link)

(link)

There's more to it than the public is seeing. This is not an in with the DoD, this is the Vice President of the country using his influence to see that he makes a fortune.

Mike Eberhart | February 14, 2006
"The oil restoration work was given to KBR without competitive bidding through 10 separate work assignments called "task orders." The orders were issued under an existing contract between Halliburton and the U.S. military that was awarded competitively in December 2001."

This was from one of your articles. This is how it works. The task order is used frequently. My contract gets renewed by using task orders. They can only use this method for so long, then they do have to re-bid it out. Which this article says has happened. "Halliburton is still working on the oil facilities, but it is now operating under a new, competitively awarded contract." So, there still isn't a problem as I see it.

Steve Dunn | February 14, 2006
I haven't seen anything indicating that this was a canned hunt. Cheney is from Wyoming and has participated in outdoor activities his entire life. He was using a small shotgun used by expert bird hunters. I'm sure the guy he shot is grateful he wasn't using one of the larger varieties used by novices.

I think the "canned hunt" criticism is irrelevant, but even assuming it is relevant, it appears to be invalid. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but Kris, I think you might be thinking of a canned pheasant hunt Cheney went on a couple years ago.

Having said that, I think Cheney is a world class dumbass for shooting the guy. Some people are trying to blame the victim, for "failing to announce himself" or something. I think that's absurd. Even as a ten year-old boy, I knew you never EVER pull the trigger unless you know exactly what you're shooting at. Cheney screwed up big time.

Kris Weberg | February 14, 2006
Steve:

(link)

"The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported today that 500 farm-raised pheasants were released yesterday morning at the Rolling Rock Club in Ligonier Township for the benefit of Cheney's 10-person hunting party. The group killed at least 417 of the birds, illustrating the unsporting nature of canned hunts. The party also shot an unknown number of captive mallards in the afternoon."

So it does appear that I was misremembering here. Still, doesn't make the incident less funny.

Should Cheney resign over this? No, of course not.

But it is sad that we're so partisan and divided as a country that a joke about the vice-president spraying some dude with buckshot on a hunting trip -- soemthing I can't recall happening anytime in my life -- has already turned intoa deeply political debate for all of us.

Kris Weberg | February 14, 2006
Oh, and Mike, about Valerie Plame:

(link)

"Feb. 13, 2006 -- Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)"

Emphasis mine.

So yes, she was covert. Unless you want to argue that the opinion of a judge, which would constitute an actual legal determination, doesn't "really' count.

Michael Paul Cote | February 14, 2006
It seems like people are missing the best part - He shot a lawyer! We should all be rejoicing!

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
Clean, concise and well put, Mike!

Amy Austin | February 14, 2006
"Decise"?

Scott Horowitz | February 14, 2006
I be an engineer

Jackie Mason | February 14, 2006
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | February 15, 2006
I can understand what Mike is saying, though... the media *is* ready to pounce on any ridicule-worthy (or unworthy... though I haven't seen that many!) "events" surrounding the current administration. And saying that a VP should resign because of a hunting accident *is* ridiculous.

Chuckles to Steve on expert bird shooter gun vs. novice whammy... that one came with visuals. ;-D A decisely true observation, too. ;-DDD

Steve Dunn | February 15, 2006
Actually I was serious about Cheney's gun. He was using a small shotgun, I think it goes by the name .410 or 28-guage. It really is used by experts. Larger guns, such as 10-guage and 12-guage, have a larger spread of bullets and more power - easier to kill birds. You gotta have mad skills to shoot a quail with a small gun.

Shooting your buddy in the face requires fewer skills.

Amy Austin | February 15, 2006
Oh, I understood that you were being serious... I just found it a rather funny observation from the standpoint of being shot by your "expert" companion, that's all. ;-)

Kris Weberg | February 15, 2006
"Shooting your buddy in the face requires fewer skills."

Though it requires social skills in order to have a buddy to shoot.

Kris Weberg | February 16, 2006
One thing I will say in seriousness -- Cheney's statement released yesterday is exactly how things like this should be handled by public figures. Take responsibility, point out that the whole thing could've happened to anyone (as Mike E. did here), and let everyone move on.

Scott Horowitz | February 16, 2006
Agreed Kris, but we still can make fun of it. The thing is that he shouldn't have waited this long to release it.

Kris Weberg | February 16, 2006
Eh. He accidentally shot the guy, probably spent a little time freaking out (as just about anyone would), and then got it together and released the statement.

I'm no fan of Cheney or this administration, but this is more funny for the "Fudd Factor" than anything else.

Scott Hardie | March 8, 2006
I wish I hadn't missed this discussion when it happened. The best line I heard (can't find the source) played on the whole the-innocent-have-nothing-to-hide justification for illegal wiretaps: "If you're innocent, you shouldn't mind a shotgun blast to the face!"

At the time I was riled up by some liberal blogs that argued that A) Cheney didn't appear in public to explain what happened, B) there was no criminal investigation of what happened, and C) the story only made it to press because of a leak. But on further research I have discovered that all three of these points are bullshit: Cheney has discussed it in multiple appearances, the local sheriff's office investigated and cleared him of wrongdoing, and Cheney's office brought it to the press themselves (albeit a little late). Politically biased blogs feeding false information to a gullible public? This can't be true!

Jackie Mason | May 6, 2006
[hidden by request]