If Cheney's mea culpa put the question of blame to rest, something else he said in the same interview raised a different kind of ire among experienced hunters. He admitted that he'd had a beer at lunch on the day of the hunt—a huge taboo in the sport. No one has alleged Cheney was impaired by alcohol; the hunt took place hours after the lunch, and the accident report says no alcohol was involved…
It just kills me. One more story, as if the other ten billion weren't enough, reminds us that "[n]o one has alleged Cheney was impaired by alcohol..."
No one--except for me and people like me--has suggested that Cheney was impaired by alcohol.
In the same way that no one suggested that there was a second shooter, maybe up on a grassy knoll.
And no one suggested that the guy shot himself.
No one has suggested that Hillary Clinton actually shot the guy in an apartment she owned and then moved the body beneath Cheney's quail.
There's a lot of things no one suggested. But there's only one thing that's been denied, without suggestion, about a billion times, in a thousand different newspapers:
Alcohol was not a factor.
No matter what no one is suggesting.
If alcohol wasn't a factor, and no one was suggesting it was, how come, in every newspaper and magazine article, and television story, in which no one is suggesting alcohol was a factor, are we, repeatedly and emphatically, told that there was no alcohol involved?
No one's suggesting it! Why are we being told it's not true?
We're not only just being told it's not true, we're being told the police have ruled it out! We're being told that, though no has suggested it, even if someone might suggest it, "the accident report says no alcohol was involved".
And, again, that's great. Case closed. Completely conclusive. That should totally satisfy anyone who has any questions about something no one has suggested.
Though, again, the accident report was a product of an interview fourteen hours after the guy got shot. It's worthless.
And I don't care. Maybe Cheney was drunk. Maybe he wasn't. Who knows? Nobody but Cheney and his "hunting" party.
But, again, if no one has suggested it, why on God's green earth does every article about this simple hunting accident keep saying that, without a doubt, and there's ample proof, and even documents to back it up, alcohol was not involved?