all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Feb 14th 2006

VIDEO: deranged white house press corps, “what did bush know & when did he know it?”

watch the video at exposetheleft.com. some excerpts:

“Is this type of accidental shooting a type of criminal offense?”
::::
“Is it possible for the Vice President to offer his resignation or has he offered his resignation?”

i cannot imagine being a child of any of these hysterical reporters: come home 5 minutes late, and they’ll treat you as if you stumbled in at 7am with your underwear on your head.
::::
moms, do you have a troubled teen who even your incessant badgering can’t cure? call david gregory.

13 Responses to “VIDEO: deranged white house press corps, “what did bush know & when did he know it?””

  1. Sammy

    That was my first visit to “Expose the Left,” and I can’t say I’m terribly impressed. Their article completely mischaracterizes the situation. The delay in reporting the incident had nothing to do with making sure the accident victim was taken care of. It is now widely known that the delay was due to the V.P.’s insistence that the first media outlet to be told would be the local newspaper where he was assured he would find a sympathetic journalist. The local paper had gone to bed for the evening, so everyone had to wait until the next day.

    That’s not really something to get worked up about in my opinion (maybe just a silly decision by the VP). I just hope you don’t turn to “Expose the Left” too often to keep you informed. You’ll just end up exposing your own ignorance.

  2. four separate points:

    1. i didn’t cite to the analysis of exposetheleft.com. i cited the video that they have archived, which came unedited from the national media. unfortunately, exposetheleft.com does not permit links directly to their video archives, so i had to link to their whole post, text included.

    2. the video is self-explanatory. any kid who’s been berated by an overly hysterical parent for not calling them the minute they knew they were going to get home late, or they were going to a different friend’s house than they originally said, etc….will agree with me.

    3. you completely ignored my point to try to discredit a website that, i think is run by a teenager (at least thepoliticalteen.net used to be, and it now auto-redirects to exposetheleft.com).

    4. can you BLAME the veep for wanting a sympathetic journalist, after THAT display?

  3. Ryan

    You would think that the White House Press Corp were Muslims protesting cartoons. Going on questioning rampages, trying to brew up exciting details with words like “Shooter” and “Pulling the Trigger” and “Shot someone!”

  4. Mason

    I love this. We’re excusing the VP’s actions because, hey, he’s no worse than a forgetful teenager.

    It appears you have little understanding of how press relations have traditionally worked with the executive office regardless of the controlling political party. (Hint: it’s not exactly like a teenager forgetting to call home when he’s going to be late). Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office.

    If you had a more accurate historical perspective (or any historical perspective at all), you would be less eager to chalk this up to “hysterical reporters” and more likely to see it as it is: a very strange and poor PR decision by that quirky VP Cheney.

    I for one am not going to encourage the press to back down and give the executive office some breathing room. What a dangerous practice to encourage, no matter which party is in power.

    And not to beat a dead horse, but you seem to take issue with the reporters question: “Is this type of accidental shooting a type of criminal offense?”

    If the shooting victim dies (which at the time of the questions was a real possibility considering his age and minor heart attack). The shooter if found to be negligent or reckless can be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter.

    The question by the reporter, especially considering the unnecessary secrecy, was actually quite relevant and understandable. But, admittedly, you have to have some understanding of the law to realize that.

  5. Cliff

    This White House has a habit of covering up anything negative, even things like this that have no real political significance. I understand why they would get rid of pictures of President Bush with Jack Abramoff. I understand their openly denying any role in Plamegate and then refusing to discuss it once their role was exposed. But no one is saying that Cheney is unfit to lead because he accidently shot someone. Still, the White House hunkered down with the bunker mentality that has worked so poorly in the past.

  6. I love this. We’re excusing the VP’s actions because, hey, he’s no worse than a forgetful teenager.

    i’m not excusing him. he shot somebody. others have already done a great job of condemning him. i took the opportunity to point out a funny element of the monday press conference. hystericity seems to be a characteristic of reporters generally. white house press conferences, gretzky gambling conferences, you name it. it is ugly and i don’t like it.

    Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office

    ah, yes, i remember it like it was yesterday: bill clinton, our model of openness and speedy honesty, came out of the oval office with monica lewinsky and immediately sought out the white house press corps, where he could inform the american public of his and the intern’s extracurricular activities — activities not done on a private ranch outside of a work context, but carried on at least in part while the president was on official business and in the oval office. but cheney is the uncharacteristically private one.

    And not to beat a dead horse, but you seem to take issue with the reporters question: “Is this type of accidental shooting a type of criminal offense?”

    If the shooting victim dies (which at the time of the questions was a real possibility considering his age and minor heart attack). The shooter if found to be negligent or reckless can be charged with criminally negligent manslaughter.

    The question by the reporter, especially considering the unnecessary secrecy, was actually quite relevant and understandable. But, admittedly, you have to have some understanding of the law to realize that.

    what bothered me, as i said, was the barrage of hostile questioning. i’ve seen this before (you noted my lack of understanding of press relations and my lack of historical perspective:

    It appears you have little understanding of how press relations have traditionally worked….If you had a more accurate historical perspective (or any historical perspective at all)….

    but i referred to it, briefly, here, in an article about helen thomas from years ago) the question the reporter raised was relevant, but i think we will find, like the case of the hyperactive mother, that it was an overreaction.

    the facts as they have been reported would not reach the level of a criminal offense. the majority of courts have typically distinguished the following types of cases:

    (1) hunters who mistake a person for an animal and shoot at it may be found guilty of criminally negligent homicide or voluntary manslaughter (or whatever term the jurisdiction uses to describe criminal offenses at that level).

    (2) hunters who shoot at an animal and accidentally hit a hunting companion will generally only be civilly liable. see Hunt v. Commonwealth, 289 Ky. 527, 159 S.W.2d 23 (1942); State v. Millin, 318 Mo. 553, 300 S.W. 694 (1927); Robertson v. State, 70 Tenn. 239 (1879) (action accompanied, not only with no intent to do harm, but also with a reasonable belief that no harm is possible, is clearly wanting in every essential element of crime). the problem with cases in category (1) is that the belief of the shooter was unreasonable.

    but you probably already knew this because of your extensive knowledge of the law!

    a texas attorney appeared on keith olbermann’s “countdown” (not exactly a bastion of conservatism) last night and said that hunting accidents of this type are not generally prosecuted as criminal offenses in texas. he also said (if memory serves) there were 79 or 89 such accidents in texas resulting in death last year. as i said, some cases support imposing criminal liability for hunters who shoot, intending to kill, figures rustling in bushes, figures in the brush, etc. cases in which a hunter accidently shoots a companion whose location he is unaware of do not warrant criminal charges. if it is true that mr. whittington had been apart from the group and was approaching unbeknownst to vice president cheney, that would support the fact that the vice president reasonably believed that no harm was possible. lacking intent and reasonable belief of harm, mr. cheney will not face criminal charges.

  7. Ryan

    Perhaps the Vice President didn’t go about this in a “traditional” way. However, he did talk with the Ranch owner, who was an eyewitness, and was fine with her reporting it to the local paper.

    Is that trying to cover it up? The strange thing is that reporters and others think that this administration was actually considering trying to cover this up. Or they are trying to leverage this event to support their claims that the administration is secretive and evil.

    They actually are suggesting that. THEY ACTUALLY ARE SUGGESTING THAT. WOAH WOAH WOAH…lemme say that again. They are actually suggesting that! Haha. Good gosh. That is scary. 😐

  8. Cliff

    “ah, yes, i remember it like it was yesterday: bill clinton, our model of openness and speedy honesty”

    Yes, Bill Clinton wasn’t open either and it also served him and the country poorly. That’s another great example. Of course, Clinton isn’t president anymore so nothing can change about his administration. I guess the Bush White House can use Clinton as an excuse for their mistakes, but that makes little sense. Shouldn’t we expect more?

  9. Cheney is uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped for someone holding such a public office

    i quoted this snippet from mason, then referred to one of bill clinton’s many secrets to point out two things:

    first, cheney isn’t “uncharacteristically private and tight-lipped.” every president has been this way, pretty much, and every president will be this way. which brings me to #2:

    second, no one is eager to have their embarrassing moments put under the microscope of media analysis.

    additionally, there are other differences.

    i think it was bill clinton’s choice to lie (and encourage others to lie) about the affair(s) after they had been discovered that served the country poorly, not his failure to be forthcoming. in the case of mr. cheney, some people are probably waiting for lies of his to come out, but he seems to have been honest so far.

    I guess the Bush White House can use Clinton as an excuse for their mistakes, but that makes little sense. Shouldn’t we expect more?

    i don’t think the bush white house has mentioned clinton in this. i did not mention clinton to excuse cheney. i mentioned clinton (i could have mentioned a dozen others, both republican and democrat) to show that there are others who are just as private and tight-lipped, and to support the claim that cheney is not “uncharacteristically” so.

    now, if we want to talk about blameworthiness, there is another point to make: bill clinton carried on his acts over a lengthy period, in an official capacity, using taxpayer resources, and with clear intent and desire. mr. cheney, by all accounts, had an accident on a private outing, in an unofficial capacity.

    the main beef the media has: it took 18 hours for them to get the news.

    talk about a hissy fit. give me a break.

  10. We should instantly know about every President’s sins every time they commit them and they should summarize them in monday evening broadcast confessionals every week and NO PRESIDENT CAN BE CALLED FLAWED ENOUGH THAT GOOD OR CONFUSED INTENT CAN COUNT FOR THEIR DEFENSE BECAUSE IF YOU DO *ANYTHING* DAMAGING IT IS PROOF OF EVIL INTENT AND CONTEMPT FOR AMERICA!!

  11. Al

    so, travis… how are those law classes going? i hope you are now able to use other resources to find cases and briefs, or did you have to look those cases up in books? well done, none the less.
    if i may enter my thoughts on the matter…
    i agree this is yet another attempt by many media outlets to demonize and find fault with the administration. the link to the video showing the absolutely insane range of questioning, i believe, only proves that point.
    i am not excusing, dismissing, or covering up in any way what cheney did. it was pretty much incredibly stupid, and must have been down right terrifying to shoot a friend. did anyone listen to the statements of the victim of the shooting? maybe that would be a good place to verify any wrong-doing. oh, but wait. he said there is was just an accident, so obviously the administration must have gotten to him and paid him off or something… obviously they are covering it up.
    give me a break.
    and one final note-
    what exactly does covering up mean? in my mind it is hiding the truth so that nobody ever finds out what happened, ever. what does it mean when everyone says they are covering it up again? has there not been press conferences stating exactly what happened? were the proper authorities not informed? true, they did come the next day, but were others not witness to the event, and did they not come forward with their information and point of view? has the victim and his family and their statements, points of view, and press conferences been suppressed in any way? in my opinion, those are signs of a cover-up.

  12. Good arguments Travis and Al – and I agree that what would be signs of a coverup are absent – well in fact the opposite of those points is the case here. And I think it’s extremely unreasoned to even suggest a coverup here.

    By the way, if it didn’t come accross, my last post was farce.. which I guess this one would make clear.

  13. […] –Sammy and Mason, Jan 2006 [link, link] That all you boneheads got? […]