Via AP:
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.
Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was “alert and doing fine” in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property’s owner.
He was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System in Corpus Christi.
Armstrong in an interview with The Associated Press said Whittington, 78, was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest during the incident which occurred late afternoon on Saturday.
She said emergency personnel traveling with Cheney tended to Whittington until the ambulance arrived.
Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president met with Whittington and his wife at the hospital on Sunday. Cheney “was pleased to see that he’s doing fine and in good spirits,” she said.
Glad to read Mr. Whittington is doing well, but as Michelle Malkin notes, the usual suspects are going to have a field day with this.
Monday AM Update: Let the conspiracy theories begin - sigh. (Hat tip: Outside the Beltway)
Well I guess Cheney could quip that this is and assination attempt gone wrong. Sorry I suppose it is better than the whole “Good Start” Lawyer joke.
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/12/2006 - 7:40 pm
Why did it take 24 hours to notify the public? How do you hit a human when your shooting at birds? Why was this group together? What is the relationship between each person in the party? And lots more. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/12/2006 - 7:46 pm
Because troll, sometimes people who do not know how to hunt tend to do stupid things, like walking into the line of fire.
Quail take off suddenly and you have split seconds to draw up and shoot otherwise they are gone, if this person walked ahead of Cheney instead of walking next to him, then he would have been in the line of fire.
Accidents happen in hunting all the time.
Put your tinfoil hat away steve, these things do happen quite a bit in hunting.
Comment by sanity @ 2/12/2006 - 8:20 pm
I have a feeling he is too old for this kind of thing
Comment by Cump @ 2/12/2006 - 8:59 pm
“Reader C.T. writes: “I’d rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy .”"
Michelle is right. The usual suspects are up to their crap.
Comment by andrew @ 2/12/2006 - 9:05 pm
Accidents happen and those who try and spin this as anything more than just carelessness in hunting will make themselves sound very ignorant indeed.
Here is some helpful information:
LINK
Like I said, accidents happen.
Comment by sanity @ 2/12/2006 - 9:32 pm
- Theres a reason we used to paint “COW” in large white letters on the sides of our livestock back in Ohio during hunting season, although one of my friends once changed it to “LARGE CAT”…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/12/2006 - 9:43 pm
Why does the public need to know steve? What were you going to do with the information 24 hours ago. It appears that Mr. Wellington walked into that one as he didn’t signal to the others that he was in their line of fire….no harm no fowl!
Comment by Pam @ 2/12/2006 - 10:05 pm
Pam - Steve would find a conspiracy between his household furniture pieces if he stubbed his toe on the tea table….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/12/2006 - 10:34 pm
Good thing he was using small bird shot! The result is painful, and embarassing, but not serious, thankfully. Fortunately it missed his eyes.
From what I understand from the reports, Whittington went forward to retrieve a downed bird, and was squatting down in the brush/grass, when another covey was flushed, and Cheney fired on the birds, not realizing Whittington was out there. These things can easily happen if you don’t keep your communications up.
This is a major problem in training infantry troops, in fact the Marines once did a version of Doom to be played on the networked computers in the day rooms of barracks. It replaced monsters with enemy troops, and the purpose was to teach squad communication and organizational skills. Things like, when assaulting a position, don’t walk across the line of fire of your own men. Worked great, guys in the barracks loved having a game 4 or 5 of them could play together, it’s easy to get people enthused about playing, which means they want to train.
Comment by Severian @ 2/12/2006 - 10:42 pm
Anyone care to bet on how long it will take some Democrat and/or the MSM to suggest there was a coverup and call for a special prosecutor? My guess is: within a week, tops.
That’s what political hacks do when they have no ideas to offer the country. Real Democrats don’t debate - they investigate!
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 2/12/2006 - 11:41 pm
- Actually they don’t really investigate either - They Bloviate. The “investigations” are just to give them an excuse to gather with the press and grandstand endlessly…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/12/2006 - 11:51 pm
I was quite surprised at the neutral tone of the Associated Press account of the story…
Comment by camojack @ 2/13/2006 - 12:44 am
I scalia going to keep on hunting with cheney?
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 12:45 am
“Anyone care to bet on how long it will take some Democrat and/or the MSM to suggest there was a coverup and call for a special prosecutor? ”
There won’t be a coverup. Just a guy in the ICU with a bunch of people saying he’s doing just fine. And some deflecting of the blame too.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 12:46 am
Awww… what a shame Andrew… Looks like a whole week might go by with no juicy “non-issues” for the Libs and NYTrash to scream about … just terrible isn’t it….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 12:57 am
Get ready to hear about this story for the next seven to ten days. The MSM will hang onto it as long as they can.
Comment by Sloan @ 2/13/2006 - 1:39 am
Yeah, The Liberal Avenger is already calling Vice President Cheney a “loose cannon,” saying “His ability to serve as vice-president has been fatally comprimised.” They’ll probably start impeachment hearings.
Of course, he shat an attorney! Lawyers are always in season in Texas.
Comment by Dana @ 2/13/2006 - 9:10 am
Errr, shot an attorney.
Comment by Dana @ 2/13/2006 - 9:10 am
“Accidents happen and those who try and spin this as anything more than just carelessness in hunting will make themselves sound very ignorant indeed”
Careless hunting is bad.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 9:11 am
Gee, it is not like Cheney drove off a bridge leaving a woman to suffocate in a semisubmerged car while he swam to shore, called political stategists all night to salvage his political viability, got a good night’s sleep, then had daddy buy off the dead woman’s family and the state prosecutors.
Comment by PCD @ 2/13/2006 - 9:17 am
In this we are in complete agreement andrew.
Comment by sanity @ 2/13/2006 - 9:19 am
“Of course, he shat an attorney!”
Comment by Severian @ 2/13/2006 - 9:34 am
I think you should have let “shat” stand. It seems appropriate in discussing lawyers.
Comment by J Rob @ 2/13/2006 - 9:50 am
Don’t forget that Teddy showed up the next morning acting normal until somebody said they had found his car then his back suddenly went bad.
Comment by J Rob @ 2/13/2006 - 9:53 am
For those who don’t know, shat is the past tense of a word not to be used on these boards, but describes most attorneys.
Comment by PCD @ 2/13/2006 - 9:56 am
- As the story comes out it seems Mr. Whittington was the careless person in this accident, breaking a cardinal rule of walking around aimlessly during a covey stalk, something even a begginer is warned against up front. Seems you and your Liberal “get Cheney” posse will have to wait for another day Andrew, or if you want to keep up your head of partisan yammering you could always impeach the lawyer.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 10:35 am
People like Cheney are the reason we need serious gun control laws in the United States. Owning a gun should be legal, taking it out in public should carry jail time and a hefty fine. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/13/2006 - 10:46 am
“Owning a gun should be legal, taking it out in public should carry jail time and a hefty fine. Peace”
- Owning a computer should be legal. Boring adults to tears with childish posts and trolling blog sites should carry jail time and a hefty fine. Pethetic
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 11:11 am
Let’s make owning ammunition illegal. Why is the Right so paranoid that they must be armed to the teeth in order to feel comfortable in their own home. Remember, if your not doing anything wrong you don’t need to be armed. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/13/2006 - 11:40 am
“As the story comes out it seems Mr. Whittington was the careless person in this accident, breaking a cardinal rule of walking around aimlessly during a covey stalk, something even a begginer is warned against up front.”
OMG. It’s starting. The blame shifting is here.
He wasn’t walking around aimlessly. The other guys went off and then he was cathing up. He was behind the guys with the gun. Is there another place he ought to have been?
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 11:54 am
Andrew, your ignorance about hunting is stunning. In these situations, the person leaving and then reapproaching a hunt is responsible for letting everyone know where they are. When you reapproach a hunting party, you yell out you’re coming back and where you are. It’s simple, and even newbies are informed of this at the start of a hunt.
And steve is well into the liberal lunacy of firearms. The “the police and military are evil, fascist organizations, and they are the only ones who should have guns” meme.
Comment by Severian @ 2/13/2006 - 12:00 pm
Hey Steve and Andrew take a look at Great Britain there is a perfect example of your gun control idiocy. Great Britain’s crime rate has increased tremendously since they confiscate law abiding citizen’s weapons and basically rendered them defenseless against criminals. Because we all know that all criminals obey every law when it comes to purchasing and handling weapons! “RRRiiiggghhhttt” Before either one of you show anymore of your ignorance google “Great Britain’s Crime Rate” and after that look at John Lott’s books “The Spin on Gun Control” and “More Guns Less Crime”. If you believe in gun control why don’t you put a sign in your front yard saying “This house is gun free”?
Comment by Jim M @ 2/13/2006 - 12:49 pm
“Hey Steve and Andrew take a look at Great Britain there is a perfect example of your gun control idiocy.”
For me gun control is not swinging around and shooting behind you without checking to see what is there.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 12:58 pm
- I think your paranoia and fears are not without merit Andrew. If I were involved in the “Anti-everything-American” movement and “lets-turn-America-into-another-Zombie-Socialism” crusades, I’d be looking over my shoulder too… Good luck…
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 1:07 pm
Hey Andrew you are right Gun Control is hitting what ever you are aiming at especially if it’s a criminal and make sure they are DRT saves on court costs. The ignorance you show about hunting tells me you have never been it is up to you to let the others know where you are at “it’s called communication”.
Comment by Jim M @ 2/13/2006 - 1:51 pm
” The ignorance you show about hunting tells me you have never been it is up to you to let the others know where you are at “it’s called communication”.”
And its up to someone pulling the trigger to tell the difference between a bird and senior citizen, specially when he’s spinning around and shooting at what he wasn’t looking at. Cheney needs gun control all right. But its not the law kind.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 2:34 pm
Steve wrote:
The Vice President was engaged in purely legal activity, and an accident occurred. The good people of Philadelphia suffered 380 murders last year, the vast majority of them by people with prior criminal records, killing people who also had prior criminal records. Mr Cheney is legally allowed to use a firearm hunting; most of the murderers (and victims) in Philadelphia were not legally allowed to have a firearm, due to their previous criminal records. But somehow, some way, all of the gun control laws didn’t stop people who were already criminals from committing more criminal acts.
Comment by Dana @ 2/13/2006 - 3:08 pm
Steve, perhaps you believe that the law-abiding homeowner in this case should not have been allowed to own ammunition.
Comment by Dana @ 2/13/2006 - 3:13 pm
THIS WEEK IN RNC STRAWMEN:
It’s not that Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and then tried to hide it, it’s that the hyperventillating liberals will try to turn this into a(n) impeachment/guncontrol/story about how crazy Cheney is.
Comment by Maimonides @ 2/13/2006 - 3:22 pm
Steve, you just demonstrated you know nothing of the Constitution and individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I don’t know why anyone would listen to someone like you. You are wrong 99% of the time.
Steve, go read the 2nd amendment.
Comment by PCD @ 2/13/2006 - 3:26 pm
THIS WEEK IN DNC MOONBAT BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME:
- Its all an elaborate coverup. Cheney was actually engaged in hunting puppies and bunnies with a rusty ceiling fan. He makes fuzzies out of them, like beer glass coasters, and slippers. Its a vicious hobby, and we’re outraged…..Outraged I tell you….Congress needs to hold investigative hearings into this anti-puppy/bunny scandal….
- I’m really hoping Kennedrunk weighs in on this. The gift that keeps on giving….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 3:37 pm
Come on Big Bang Hunter (very hopeful thinking on your part considering your lack of a sex life), if you’re going to snark, at least get your own snark, and learn to use ellipsis properly.
Comment by Maimonides @ 2/13/2006 - 4:01 pm
Constitution talks about regulated and armed militias not individuals. Allowing individuals to have guns was allowed when some activist judge ruled it was ok to own guns. Now that the Suprem Court has no activists we the people will revisit the gun issue and have it reversed. You guys have abortion and we have guns. Good luck. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/13/2006 - 4:07 pm
Oh the al Qaeda lovers are out in force today, trolling right along. The obvious hope working here, is you tin-hats hope to take attention away from the truculent inflamatory remarks of your unguided missle mouth, Al Gore, over the weekend. Just keep on alienating mainstream America Komrade, election day is right around the corner….
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 4:13 pm
Just to be helpful to people, I thought you all might actually want to read the 2nd Amenment.
The 2nd Amendment with Legal Annotations:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ”individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ‘’states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ”[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ”civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ”comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, ”when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, ”[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”7
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
Comment by Maimonides @ 2/13/2006 - 4:14 pm
Wrong again Steve. The 2nd Ammendment mentions that militias are necessary, but then goes on to state that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I know it’s complex for you to grasp, but there never was, as you so naively indicated, a court decision that said “OK you can have guns.” We have owned and used firearms since the inception of this country, we don’t need a judicial review to grant us a right we have always had. You make it seem like guns were illegal until some activist court ruled otherwise, and that just isn’t so. This is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You may be a wimpy, hand wringing liberal who’s scared of guns, but most of us aren’t.
Once again, the liberal confliction: The police and military are fascist organizations, which is why they should be the only ones allowed guns.
Actually, I feel much better knowing you don’t have one personally.
Comment by Severian @ 2/13/2006 - 4:16 pm
This horrible tragedy calls for a boycott of the gun manufacturers, the ammunition maker, the companies that provided the rubber for their hunting boots, an immediate ban of the word “hunting” from our schools. Dick Cheney should also be impeached and tried for attempted murder, thrown into Abu-Graib where he’ll be raped, tortured, humiliated and beaten.
SCANDAL!!! SCANDAL!!!
Comment by Right of the Center @ 2/13/2006 - 4:25 pm
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ‘the right of the people’ to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- Is there a school that moonbats go too to learn reading “non-comprehension”, or is that just a natural talent of the “elites”?
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 2/13/2006 - 4:33 pm
Big Bang,
Liberals Listen with their mouths and read with their writing hands. The get most things bassackwards and wonder why they are scorned and mocked.
Comment by PCD @ 2/13/2006 - 4:51 pm
>Constitution talks about regulated and
>armed militias not individuals.
That’s who’s, you know, IN the militia. Individuals.
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/13/2006 - 5:08 pm
This is really good, 40 reasons to support gun control:
http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html
Comment by Severian @ 2/13/2006 - 5:11 pm
>Constitution talks about regulated and
>armed militias not individuals.
That’s who, you know, is IN the militia. Individual citizens like you and me. Well, like me.
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/13/2006 - 5:11 pm
Ok, here is the deal that the Left extends to the Right. If you give up all of your fire arms, we will give up our Right to Privacy and let you spy on us. Peace
Comment by steve @ 2/13/2006 - 7:30 pm
If you give up all of your fire arms, we will give up our Right to Privacy and let you spy on us.
After reading some of your posts Steve I cannot help but feel pity for the poor slob that get’s stuck reading your e-mails and listening in on your phone conversations. Talk about a lousy civil service job!
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 2/13/2006 - 7:47 pm
Here is the deal that the Right extends to the Left. Let the adults run the country. It’s past your bedtime.
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/13/2006 - 7:47 pm
“Let the adults run the country.”
nah. let them all go on hunting vacations.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 8:39 pm
Well, that certainly proves my point. Oh, and you forgot to say ‘peace’ after wishing all Conservatives would be shot. Mask slipping, Andy?
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/13/2006 - 9:12 pm
Never mind; it’s the other one who talks like a hippie. Hard to tell you two apart.
Comment by CavalierX @ 2/13/2006 - 9:14 pm
“Never mind; it’s the other one who talks like a hippie. Hard to tell you two apart.”
I’m the one that thinks the kind of gun control Cheney needs is the kinds the NRA will teach you.
Comment by andrew @ 2/13/2006 - 10:32 pm