bustardblog

Matalin v Harris

Wing-Nut Women Frighten Me.

Russert Teaches Journalism

Tim Russert has a variety of rules on how best to handle events on Meet the Press.

Rule 106: If a Runaway Truck is on the show, let it roll, let it roll, let it roll.

Dick:Way, Way Guiltier Than Bill

I missed Tim Russert's politically biased panel today.  I did read the transcript.  In it Mary Matalin argued, and Tim Russert and Paul Gigot seemed to support her, that this was a sad personal tragedy for Poor Mr. Cheney. They howled like stuck pigs (or wounded quail) that four days of press attention was completely unwarranted. Gregory wanted to appear reasonable, and said all sides can tend to excess. Maureen Dowd saw the importance of the event in terms of symbol and metaphor - but not in terms of reality.

I am confused.  Cheney peppers shot in a "friend's" face and heart, and lies about it. It results in a heart attack and almost a week in the hospital. We are supposed to sympathize with the shooter. 

Bill Clinton shot cum onto a "friend's" dress, and lies about it. No bad outcome for the  "victim."  He is impeached.

If there was any justificationfor Clinton's impeachment - after all, he did lie about sex - then there is more than enough justification for Cheney's departure from the government.

Brooks & Tierney: Not Completely Wrong

The Times' conservative columnists actually made some sense this week - not much, but some.
John Tierney's piece was the weaker of the two. In Saturday's paper he had some cute  comments on celebrity and privacy. But he started the thing off by making fun of the press' handling of l'affaire de Cheney, and how they were too aggressive in actually trying to find out the truth.  Mr. Tierney does not seem to understand that when you shooot someone in the face, you have some explaining to do. The outrage is not in what the press did to our secretive V.P. - it is in what they failed to do.
David Brooks in today's paper has a shockingly interesting (for David Brooks) column. He takes some silly potshots at the E.U. and the U.N., by using their "weakness" as proof that the world is increasingly divided. In fact the mere existence of these institutions proves the opposite. His comments on what we spend on education and on aid are equally off the mark. As always, he just makes up some things and then proceeds as if they were established fact: " In the U.S. highly educated voters are more polarized than less educated voters."  But you can't really blame him for the obligatory swipes at what his base consider "liberal" positions. Because the thrust of his  piece argues that the "market" is not God. Finally, some one on the right understands that not all is determined by a Darwinian, Economic model.  He takes a route that is curiously negative about the human race to get there; but I consider it a triumph that he gets there at all.  Two points for Brooks!

Pillow Fight

Please double Click to Enlarge

Feb 18, 06   Union Square, N.Y. 2:20 P.M.




Pillow Fight

Just the Facts, Please

I hate to admit it, but there are too many on the left who are going overboard on Dick Cheney.

The shooting of Harry Whittington and his handling of the incident proved his incompetence, dishonesty, and unwillingness to accept responsibility for his own behavior.

This is enough.  We need not speculate on whether he is having an affair with Willeford nor whether he paid off Whittington in order to avoid a lawsuit. There is no evidence supporting these accusations. We're now the ones shooting ourselves in the foot.

Alternet uses the following facts to prove the existence of the affair: that she and her husband have spent two nights at the White House, and one night at Camp David, that her daughter was appointed to a plum job, and that as Ambassador to Switzerland she gave a reception in honor of Vice President Cheney when he visited the country.

Sorry, guys but this proves squat. Much has been made of her hunting with Cheney, but we have to remember that her husband was also staying at the Armstrong ranch. She and her family have given over $23,000.00 to the Bushies. Taylor Marsh quoted Randi Rhodes, who simply makes stuff up all the time, as saying there was an affair. Then Marsh went  on to say "But it sure goes to the reality of just how many things Cheney has to hide about this hunting accident." This is just sleazy innuendo. Even if it were true, who cares if Cheney is having an affair?

Alec Baldwin, writing at the Huffington Post, is speculating on whether Cheney is  paying off Whittington.  He wonders about the possibilities of a civil suit - after all, Whittington's a lawyer.  This is ridiculous. Most of what Whittington does is real estate deals. Recently a court confirmed his ownership of one property. It's worth $30 million, and it's by no means his only property. The guy is largely responsible for the success of the Republican Party in Texas. He isn't about to sue Dick Cheney.

These kinds of silly, unfounded speculations only damage our side. They give ammunition to the wing-nuts. Bloggers such as the Confederate Yankee, Exposing Liberal Bias are peppering us the way Cheney shot his friend in the face.

Let's keep the focus on the facts - they're damning enough.

Jest-imony

All right, maybe they are not liars, merely bad comedians.

Rice yesterday testified that "It is Iran's regional policies that really are concerning as we watch them...destabilizing places like...even ... Iraq." WHO destabilzed Iraq?  Suddenly she cares about stability?

Rice also testified that "many more Iraqis are getting drinkable water and have sewers." After questioning, she clarified that they weren't actually getting it - but there is now the capacity for them to get it. It's an important distinction if you want a glass of water. There is no actual water to drink, nothing is in your glass: but there is the capacity for something to be in your glass.

Rumsfeld testified that the country of Iraq "is functioning" for the most part. But there is less oil production,less electricity production than there was three years ago. Ooops!

By the way, Rumsfeld testified that "We're not there to do nation-building." 

So why are we there?

What have we built?

"U.S. and Iraqi authorities discovered an apparent death squad operating within the country's Interior Ministry last month."  Within the new government we so proudly hailed.

Every day that we are there - the number of terrorists in the world increases. We are not destroying our enemy, we are creating them.

They are liars.

Liars: 24/7

Our friendly racist reader Rick is on a new course.  He hopes that our liberal eyes remain focused on Five Deferment Dick's shooting a friend in the face.

He knows that the lies that Dick and George tell in their day job are far worse than the  lies about a "hunting accident."

He's hoping that we spend all our time on their extracurricular lies, and ignore the lies they tell us Monday through Friday, 9:00 to 5:00.

What he fails to understand is something that most of the country realizes - a liar doesn't lie according to a schedule. Credibility doesn't punch a time clock. Guys like Cheney and Bush tell lies whenever they think it will help them.

A guy who lies about shooting a friend in the face has no problem lying about Saddan's nuclear arms. Lies about the relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq? A piece of cake.

The more clearly that the American people see Cheney - the better for the left, and, more importantly, for the nation.

Cheney Continues to Lie.

Dick Cheney is scum.

He finally admitted his fault in the shooting incident, in an interview with Brit Hume of Fox News this afternoon:
"You can talk about all of the other conditions that exist at the time but that's the bottom line and -- it was not Harry's fault,'' he said. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend.''

So now we have to ask: why have Ms Armstrong, Ms Matalin and Ms Willeford  been doing exactly that for four days - blaming the victim?

Just as he still thinks he was correct to describe the Iraqi insurgency as being in its last throes" many months ago, he still thinks deferring to Ms Armstrong's desires on how the accident should be released was a good plan. He said that the plan which she had come up with was the right one. Why doesn't he mention that Ms Armstrong spoke with Karl Rove Saturday evening? Rove and Cheney had nothing to do with how the incident was announced - they left it up to Ms Armstrong and her mother?

Why can't the well respected medical analyst for the N.Y. Times, Lawrence Altman, who has discussed the health of Presidential candidates with their doctors for decades, can not get his calls to the Texan doctors nor to the Washington D.C. doctors returned?

Why all the lies about the severity of the injuries? Ms. Armstrong said a lot: "He was more bruised", "he was sprayed - peppered is what we call it", "But he was fine. He was talking." Ms Armstrong's brother in law visited in the hospital Saturday evening. The report was that he was "yakking and cracking jokes." But after a little more than an hour in the local hospital, a helicopter was called and he was flown to a larger center. He has spent the better part of five days in the I.C.U. God willing that all goes well, he'll probably spend about ten days in hospital.

Why did Ms Armstrong say that there had been "zip, zero" drinking? Cheney says he had one beer. Lies.

Cheney said he did not go to the hospital because there was no room in the ambulance. But Mrs. Whittington went in a separate car, along with two other guests. So the ambulance was probably not overly full. And if it was why didn't he get a ride with them? Cheney himself probably had only half a dozen SUV's at his disposal, with Secret Service guys ready to drive. Liar.

The deputy who arrived Saturday evening was turned away at the gate. Supposedly the guard didn't know that anything had happened. So you have the V.P. staying at the house, a man well known for his heart problems. An ambulance races in. The ambulance with siren blaring, races out. Right behind it was another car also speeding along.  And the guard did not know anything had happened? Lies.

The sports writer for the Collar-Times editorialized as follows: "I don't care if the sun's in  your eyes or your sight is hampered by a tree or if your buddy failed to tell you  he was venturing into the brush. If you're not certain about what's in your line of fire, then abandon the shot. My father said it best. 'If you don't know where your brother is, then you don't shoot.'" Finally, some truth.

QuickDraw Mc Cheney

This is from the Corpus Christi paper, the Caller Times.

It shows what the pattern of shot was that hit Whittington, who is back in intensive care and is expected to be in the hospital for another seven days. A reporter for the paper shot the target with a gun similar to the one Cheney used at a distance of 30 yards.

The paper also quotes the third hunter, who described the incident

She said Whittington and Cheney were walking beside her when Whittington stopped to search for the downed quail.

"The vice president and I hesitated and then walked on," she said. "Unbeknownst to both of us, Harry had caught up with us on the right."

I'm not a hunter, but it doesn't sound like 30 yards to me. Was she also 30 yards from Cheney?