BottleOfBlog

Criminal

Interviews with U.S. soldiers -- from top generals to front-line grunts in Tall Afar, Mosul, Ramadi, Balad and throughout Baghdad -- as well as briefings at the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, reveal a markedly different war from that seen in 2003 and 2004, or even last year…

The war here has gone through three distinct phases, each with its own feel and style of operation.

The first period, from May 2003 to July 2004, was characterized by drift and wishful thinking, military insiders say, with top U.S. officials at first refusing to recognize they were facing an insurgency and then committing a series of policy and tactical blunders that appear to have enflamed opposition to the U.S. occupation.

The second phase began in the summer of 2004, when Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. replaced Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as the top U.S. commander in Iraq and developed -- for the first time -- a U.S. campaign plan.

Tommy Franks, Jay Garner, L. Paul Bremer, Ricardo Sanchez, 900 dead Americans, fifteen months, two hundred billion dollars, some wishful thinking by the United States military, and for the first time the U.S. came up with a plan.

Over a year after the invasion.

And a year and a half after that, our first plan in Iraq, some guy decided to buck the system and finally include counter-insurgency training in the plan to fight an insurgency.

Of course, 2000 Americans were dead by then.  Over fifteen thousand horribly wounded.  Nearly 300 billion dollars had been spent.  And that magic moment, the one where democracy blooms all over the world, had come, gone, and seemed as silly and dated as bell bottoms.

What I don't get, what I really don't understand, is how the President of the United States and his Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Staff at the Pentagon and the head of the NSA repeatedly told us, on TV, in print, on radio that we had a plan. A good plan.  And that we were making good progress.  And that democracy is sometimes messy.  And that Iraqi democracy is no more messy than our own democracy.  And that this messiness was no more than a bunch of bad losers and dead enders.  And that we've got more than enough troops in place to implement our excellent plan.

And then we find out, we went into this thing with no plan:

WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

And then we find out, aside from having no plan, we didn't have enough troops:

Bremer turned to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top American commander in Iraq, and asked him what he would do with two more divisions, as many as 40,000 more troops. General Sanchez did not hesitate to answer. "I'd control Baghdad," he said. Bremer then mentioned some other uses for the soldiers, like securing Iraq's borders and protecting its infrastructure, to which General Sanchez replied: "Got those spare troops handy, sir?"

Yet for most of the 14 months that Bremer oversaw the occupation, he and his aides, and General Sanchez and his, often seemed the only people in Iraq who refused to acknowledge the anarchy in the streets. Though confronted by the growing guerrilla insurgency and the brazen behavior of armed militias, Bremer and other senior American officials routinely batted down any suggestion that they needed more soldiers.

And Franks, and Garner, and Bremer, and Sanchez, and Myers, and Rumsfeld, and George "Jesus Christ Almighty" Bush were well aware of the fact.  Though, they were some of the few Americans who knew it for a fact.  A lot of Americans--those who weren't stupid enough to vote for Bush twice--suspected it, alleged it, and believed it.  But they didn't know it for a fact.  Almost no one did.  You know why?

Because the only people who did know it for a fact kept lying to the American people about what they knew.

We didn't have a plan going in.  And we didn't have a plan after we were there for over a year.  But we were told we did.  And we got billed for one.

And we're told now that we should have optimism because we've got a plan.  And it might work, too. Because it's different than the other plans we were told we had in that this one might actually exist.

And in the midst of finding all this out, we also find out Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam had no terrorist allies.  We find out a reconstruction that could essentially pay for itself will cost American taxpayers about a trillion dollars.  We find out that instead of a western friendly, secular democracy, we're most likely to get an Iranian friendly Islamic theocracy.  We find out our intelligence was cooked.  Our "allies" are criminals and con men.  Our Secretary of State wanted to vomit over what he was told to present to the United Nations.

But he did it anyway.

And now, after just about busting our military, shattering the Pax Americana, breaking the piggy bank, and dragging the Stars and Stripes through the mud all around the world, the payoff?  Civil war. Extreme, American hating theocrats gaining influence.  More dead Americans.  More money.  And even William F. Buckley thinks the thing is an abject failure.

Do you realize that since this thing started in 2002, the American people have not been told the truth about one single thing about Iraq by this administration?

The closest thing to the truth anyone, anywhere, has ever told the American people is:  it's really fucking hot there.  Though, even that, they qualify by saying it's a dry heat.

This has been the single largest criminal enterprise by any group of people in the history of our country. 

People shouldn't be fired.  People shouldn't resign.  People shouldn't be voted out of office.

They should be rounded up, shackled, head-bagged and incarcerated in the same horrific prisons they gleefully and sadistically built.

This thing has become so bad that latest round of P.R. stories, about counter insurgency and improved tactics, which are supposed to reassure the American people, but when you read them in conjunction with the years of previous P.R. stories about Iraq, only serve to astonish us with the dishonesty and incompetence, and stupidity of the Bush administration.

Three years into a war, none of this shit makes me feel any better.  All it makes me think is:  what took so fucking long?  And what was up with all that horrendous bullshit in 2003?  And 2004?  And 2005?  Were you lying then?  Or are you lying now?  Are you still lying?  Do you ever stop?  Can you people stop?

Well, that's not really true.  That's not all I think. I also think: since the Bush administration knew all of these things, and since so many of them were denied in an election year, and since nothing was done, in a run up to an election, the other thing I think is that the Bush administration made a heartless and calculated choice to let nearly 2000 Americans die, and 16,000 of them suffer horrendous wounds, for political purposes.

Just to get re-elected.  Just to try to extend tax cuts.  Just to try to divert billions of Social Security dollars to Wall Street. Just to stay in power for the sake of having power.

And that is nothing short of murder.

It's criminal.

Pound, Pound, Pound

A little sweet taste for my very good friend Karen, who sent me a fantastic disc of songs by Loudon Wainright III.

Ah, fuck.  Why jab, when you can go for the knockout?

I already liked John Wesley Harding, but I knew he was the real thing when I saw him once on a river front in a major American city, and a truly frightening storm exploded right on our heads.  Rain was pouring down and lightning actually struck the stage a couple of times and a bunch of goons from Public Safety and the cops showed up to shut the whole thing down because it was obviously too dangerous.

And Harding, standing up on a big metal stage, in front of a metal microphone, holding an electric guitar, surrounded by about a mile of electric cable, all of which was soaking wet, in the pouring rain, with lightning hitting the stage and the crowd, was shouting at the cops who were shoving people toward cover, "Hey, hey, I'll play in this!"

Don't talk to me about rock 'n' roll.

The Measure Of My Dreams

Yeah, yeah, I called Shane MacGowan a big retarded baby.  But, again, I only wrote it because, when he was good?

Oh my, he was so, so good.

You might want to turn this one up.  Loud.  Even if you're German.  Or English, for that matter.

I'm just saying, if I could ever write anything like that, the only way I'd let drugs or alcohol anywhere near my brain would be to preserve it for future generations.

One Thousand Wrongs Make You Right

TAJI, Iraq - If the U.S. effort in Iraq ultimately is successful, one reason may be the small school started recently on a military base here by Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the U.S. commander in Iraq.

Called the COIN Academy -- using military shorthand for "counterinsurgency" -- the newest educational institution in the U.S. military establishment seeks, as a course summary puts it, to "stress the need for U.S. forces to shift from a conventional warfare mindset" to one that understands how to win in a guerrilla-style conflict. Or, as a sign on the wall of one administrator's office here put it less politely: "Insanity is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different outcome."

That is a good definition of insanity.  Maybe not as good as having a frozen head in your freezer.  But it's pretty good.

What I think is funny about it is that the COIN Academy, of the United States military, under the bold and visionary leadership of their Commander In Chief, The War President, in a war zone, has that sign on the wall.

For three years, The War Preznit has been telling the Murican people that we're making great progress in Iraq, meanwhile the actual combat soldiers in Iraq are saying, "We've got a serious insanity problem here..."

So, that's funny.  Also that for the last three years that anyone who dared to question whether we were, as the Preznit claimed, really making good progress in Iraq was labelled as a shrill, unhinged, irrational Bush bashing moonbat.

The purpose of the school north of Baghdad is to try to bring about a different outcome than the U.S. military achieved in 2003-04, when Army commanders committed mistakes typical of a conventional military facing an insurgency. "When the insurgency started, we came in very conventional," said Col. Chris Short, the District native and recent Manassas resident who is the new school's commandant.

A different outcome from 2003-04?  Why?  The War Preznit and his legions of rational, sane followers told us moonbats again and again during those years that we were making good progress!  Why the fuck would we want to change course now?

Christ, Michelle Malkin is going to jump on Col. Chris Short's dick with both hob-nailed boots.

Back then, U.S. forces rounded up tens of thousands of Iraqis, mixing innocent people in detention with hard-core Islamic extremists.

What???

Innocent people were mixed up with Islamic extremists and detained and tortured and possibly murdered in places like Abu Ghraib???  And it was a mistake???

I find that hard to believe!

Again, rational, level headed and insightful conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and their tens of millions of listeners laughed about those photos and the torture, and heaped scorn on crazy, emotional liberals who were so insane as to suggest that anyone who landed in Abu Ghraib could possibly be innocent or that torturing them might be counter-productive.

And, geez, here's the number one counter-insurgency guy in Iraq saying, "That was a big mistake."

Gosh, it's almost enough to make you believe that the voice of modern conservatism and twenty million ditto heads don't know what the fuck they're talking about!  That, or that liberals are running our military!

Commanders permitted troops to shoot at anything mildly threatening. And they failed to give their troops the basic conceptual and cultural tools needed to operate in the complex environment of Iraq, from how to deal with a sheik to understanding why killing insurgents usually is the least desirable outcome in dealing with them…

Again, amazing!  Because rational right wingers for months advocated not only killing insurgents but fire-bombing or nuking Fallujah!  And The War Preznit sent the Marines in to level the place!

But that might have been the least desirable outcome?

As Apache attack helicopters clattered overhead, Short also offered an unconventional view of Iraq's December elections, which many U.S. officials have portrayed as a great victory. "You can ask just about every Iraqi, 'What about the elections?' " he said. "They'll say" -- Short shrugged his shoulders -- " 'Well, we voted five times, and nothing's happening out here.' "

Yes, many U.S. officials have portrayed elections in Iraq as a great victory.  The Preznit couldn't shut up about it.  Every Republican in Congress showed up to the State of the Union with little purple thumbs.  And nearly every Republican out of Congress has shouted themselves hoarse or ground the nails off their fingers banging on their keyboards about the historic elections in Iraq!

And just about every Iraqi shruggs their shoulders and says, "Yeah, we voted.  Big fucking deal"???

But, but, but...I thought all those liberals who questioned the value of those elections were insane!

Recent attendees at the school came away impressed. "I think it's an incredibly insightful course," said Army Maj. Sheldon Horsfall, an adviser to the Iraqi military in Baghdad. "One of the things that was brought home to us, again and again, was the importance of cultural awareness."

Oh, gawd.  Ever since the looting exploded in Baghdad, our mission has been winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and recent attendees of the school of counter-insurgency are now learning the importance of cultural awareness...

The major criticism offered by students is that it would have been better to have the education six months earlier, when they were training their troops to deploy to Iraq, not after the units have arrived. Short had a tart response: It's not a bad idea, he said, but the Army back home wasn't stepping up to the job. "They didn't do it for three years" -- the length of the war so far, he noted. "That's why the boss said, 'Screw it, I'm doing it here.' "

Yes, it would have been better for troops battling an insurgency to receive training in counter-insurgency before they were deployed to Iraq.  And Colonel Short--God bless him--seems to be right.

The United States military, at considerable cost in lives and limbs and dollar bills, has been battling an insurgency for three years and the United States military, led by its War Preznit, had not bothered to train its troops in counter-insurgency.

I am not mocking Colonel Short or any of these troops.  And I am not criticizing the job they've done.

I am amazed that the War Preznit sent hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters, and fathers and mothers into combat without proper training for the kind of combat the War Preznit was told Americans would face.

And that would be bad enough, but the war began in March of 2003.  The insurgency was obvious to anyone who was or wasn't deranged by their irrational hatred of Bush by the summer of 2003.

And, nearly three years later, just recently, Colonel Short has taken it upon himself to say, "Fuck it" and started a counter-insurgency school in Iraq.  Again, God bless him.

But where the fuck was it 2000 dead Americans ago?

How many of those Americans would not be dead today if The War Preznit had heeded the advice of nearly everyone who wasn't a disgruntled employee whose views were wildly off the mark?

And for three years, every person who questioned the progress, questioned the methods, questioned the veracity of the sunny optimism of the Bush administration were labelled as irrational, politically motivated, unhinged, deranged, emotional, naive, wrong, and flat out liabilities in the War On Terror.

Three years later, everything all the insane moonbats on the left have said has been basically agreed with by General George Casey and by Colonel Short.  Everything.

We're not even talking about the bullshit reasons for going to Iraq--we're just talking about the very reasonable questions and concerns Americans had about what was going on in Iraq.

And all of those questions and concerns were dismissed and mocked, and attacked as unpatriotic, ill-informed, irrational, anti-American.  By the same people, the same "pundits" and by the same political party who mounted the same vicious attacks against the same liberals who questioned the need, the wisdom, the cost, and the rationale for going to Iraq in the first damn place.

I mean, how wrong can you be?  And how can you be wrong about everything?  And how can you be wrong, all the time, about everything, and the wronger you get, become more insistent of how right you are???  Insist that how appalling, mindnumbingly, idiotically wrong you've been just proves your original point that everyone who disagreed with you was insane, unhinged, and irrational???

Christ, three years of wasted time, wasted opportunities, wasted lives and limbs, and wasted money, and the War Preznit gets candid with the Murican people, and what does he say?

"On the one hand, we will work to have a political process that says to all Iraqis, the future belongs to you. On the other hand, we'll continue to work on the security situation there," Mr. Bush said. "We're making darn good progress."

He's insane.  At least, according to the men and women he's sent into combat.

Preznit Says Alternate Fuels Will Blow Our Minds! And Maybe Much More!

President Bush unveils startling source of his brush clearing energy.  Claims similar sources of alternative fuels could, one day, enable Cheney to shoot as many as four or five close friends in the face in a single day.

MILWAUKEE - Saying the nation is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that would “startle” most Americans, President Bush on Monday outlined his energy proposals to help wean the country off foreign oil…

Some of these foreign suppliers have “unstable” governments that have fundamental differences with America, he said.

Yes, some of these countries do have "unstable" governments.  It's a mystery how they got that way!

“It creates a national security issue and we’re held hostage for energy by foreign nations that may not like us,” Bush said.

And some foreign nations, which are huge oil producers, may not like us.  Though, that's a mystery as well!

You know what else is a mystery?  To me, anyway.  It's a mystery how, thirty years after Americans first realized that our national security and way of life was vulnerable to the whims of foreign oil producing countries which may not like us, we've been consuming more oil--with bigger cars and lower fuel efficiency.  It's a mystery, isn't it!

"By changing our driving habits," Bush said, "we change our dependency on foreign sources of oil…"

Yes, and by offering incentives to buy more SUVs we change our dependency on foreign oil by increasing it.  Or didn't you get that far in school?

"I think we ought to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush said Monday. "I think it makes sense to do so."

Oh, gawd.

We built a bunch of nuclear power plants in the country in the fifties, the sixties, the seventies.  Almost all of them were incredibly expensive to build and actually cost consumers money.  Some of them were poorly built.  Some were built on fault lines.  Some of them were built and never even operated. 

One of them very nearly exploded central Pennsylvania.

And the funny thing about that one is?  That's the second worst nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania.

But I'm sure, today, we probably could build much cheaper and much safer nuclear power plants than we did twenty, thirty, forty years ago.  They might be so safe and so clean, and so productive, it might be irresponsible to not build them.

Having said that, it would be insane to let the Bush administration oversee the building of anything more powerful than a windmill.  These guys can't do anything without massive fraud and incompetence.

You want to know what a Bush administration nuclear energy policy is bound to look like?

For The Thousandth Time, No One Said Anything About Alcohol

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.

It's true.

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?

Life Is Ugly But Art Is Beautiful

I don't do a lot of film criticism on my blog.  And I understand people are pretty upset about this.  I probably get about a dozen emails a month, saying:

"You fucking liberal cocksucking faggot, if you love Saddam so much, why don't you move to Iraq and be his prison bitch, you American hating, terrorist sympathizing, communist fuck, you.  Also, what did you think about The Pianist?  I thought it was pretty good."

I don't have nearly enough time to reply to all the requests I get to go to foreign countries and suck the cocks of various strong men, while at the same time review the latest movies!  So I don't even try.

If I can't do both well, I'm not going to shame America by doing either badly.

But I feel kind of obligated about this one. 

I recommended to a friend that he see a documentary about Shane McGowan of the Pogues, called "If I Should Fall From Grace".

I hadn't seen it myself.  But both he and I are huge fans of the Pogues.  And I found out that this documentary was out there, and I recommended he see it.

Then I saw it.

And, as soon as I saw it, I wrote him a quick email:

Having recommended the documentary about Shane to you, I feel obligated to tell you that you might not want to watch that.

It’s great.  It’s a classic rockumentary.

Some of the concert footage is fantastic.  And some of the footage of Shane with his earlier bands—like him singing the exquisite “Gabrielle” with the Nips—that alone is worth seeing the thing.  And there are some pretty funny and telling interviews with people in the Pogues and around them.

But what Shane did to himself?  It’s appalling.

And I’m a big fan of sort of hard drinking, tragic romantic heroes—Fitzgerald, Hemingway, whoever.

But Shane?

He’s got a mouth full of speed teeth and he’s retarded now.

I mean, it’s shocking now to see this guy who wrote dozens of impossibly beautifully inspired songs and he can’t even spit out a simple sentence.  Next to him, Keith Richards looks like Noam Chomsky.

Hell, Nick Drake’s in the thing and he looks like a psychologist who has been keeping Shane locked up in his basement, with a hockey mask on, for his own good.

Again, it’s a great, strange, compelling documentary.  And seeing what a trainwreck of a human being Shane has become, somehow, makes his earlier, almost effortless greatness seem even more brilliant.

I’d highly recommend the movie to almost anyone.

But it’s disturbing.

And if you think about it too much, it might actually affect your ability to enjoy the Pogues at all.

I thought I should warn you, since I recommended the thing to you.

If you haven't seen it, watch it, or don't.  But, either way, remember Shane the way he should be remembered--a wonderful writer and singer, and a poet.

(Really, a poet.  The greatest Christmas song of all time.)

(Fine.  If you people still aren't convinced, then you either aren't Irish at all, or you're dumb as the day you were born.)

Liberal Media Reminds Us All That, Today, Is Our First Day On Earth

WASHINGTON - The lawyer accidentally shot by Vice President Dick Cheney during a hunting trip was discharged from a hospital on Friday and told reporters he was sorry for all the trouble Cheney had faced over the past week.

Harry Whittington, wearing a suit and tie, gave a brief statement and didn’t take questions. His voice was a bit raspy but strong, and he had what appeared to be a line of scarring on his upper right eyelid and scrapes on his neck…

“My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with,” he said…

Christ, how pathetic are these people?  I mean, the guy’s a big GOP booster and a friend of Dead Eye Dick Cheney.  But Dick Cheney shoots the guy in the face, the liver, and the heart;  the guy spends three days in the ICU before having a heart attack;  and he gets out of the hospital with scars on his fucking eyelids and he says, “My family and I are sorry for the pain caused to Dick Cheney from him shooting me.”

Gawd.

If the guy’s got no ill will, fine.  But he apologizes???

So we should all feel sympathy for the poor Cheneys and feel terrible, ourselves, for what we, the American people, have put the poor Cheneys through?

Well, my family and I are deeply sorry that there are people like Whittington out there, who are more than willing to get shot in the face and say shit like this.  Like they’re comical dwarfs getting thrown off palace balconies for the amusement of powdered and drunken aristocrats.

They hit the lawn, facedown, with a sickening thud, and apologize for being so heavy that gravity pulled them down.

Cheney also defended his decision to keep it from the public until a day after it happened.

The vice president acknowledged that Bush press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush communications adviser Dan Bartlett urged him to release information about the accident quickly. But he said he made the ultimate decision to have the owner of the Texas ranch to reveal it to a local newspaper without any official announcement from the White House…

Really?  Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett urged Cheney to release the information quickly?  When did they do that?  Because according to the official White House Time Line of Event, finally pulled together on Wednesday, five days after the shooting, I read this:

February 12th
6 a.m.

The situation room awakens McClellan with a telephone call and informs him that Cheney was the shooter. McClellan pushes the vice president's office to inform the media quickly, he says later.

February 12th, at six a.m. is, of course, twelve hours after Cheney shot the guy in the face.  And only  a couple of hours before  Armstrong, who didn't see anything at all, alerts the media with her eyewitness account--the "peppered" and "more bruised" than anything crapola.

But what happened before that?  According to the White House timeline, on February 11th, the day Cheney shot the guy:

7:30 p.m.

The remainder of the hunting party returns to the ranch house. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tells President Bush that there has been a hunting accident, unaware at the time that the vice president was involved.

8 p.m.

After talking with Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch and who accompanied the hunting party, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tells Bush that Cheney has shot Whittington.

Late night
 
The White House situation room notifies Bush spokesman Scott McClellan of an accident in Cheney's hunting party, but not who was involved.

So, at 7:30, on the eleventh, the White House is informed about an accident in Cheney's hunting party--and, again, the White House and your liberal media pretends that no one at that time bothered to ask what exactly happened in that hunting accident involving the Vice President--and, at 8 p.m., Karl Rove tells Bush Cheney shot a guy, and then, a mere ten hours later McClellan and Bartlett urge Cheney to immediately release information to the press!

Yes, twelve hours after Cheney shoots a guy, eleven hours after Bush finds out that there has been an accident involving Cheney's hunting party, ten hours after Karl Rove tells Bush Cheney was the shooter, McClellan and Bartlett urge Cheney to immediately release information to the press!

Oh!  If only Cheney had heeded McClellan's advice and immediately released information to the media twelve hours after he shot his friend in the face and two hours before he finally met with police, instead of waiting eighteen hours to have a third party, who wasn't a witness at all, talk to the press!

None of this wild, irresponsible, and hurtful speculation would ever have occurred!

But Cheney, despite his grief and concern for his face-shot friend, and the urging of a White House that makes full and rapid release of information to the public a point of pride, Cheney deferred to the rights of property owners.

It was Armstrong's property.  Someone got shot in the face there.  Absent some kind of claim of eminent domain, it's really her story to tell.  Unless Bush wants to build a stadium on her ranch, Cheney wasn't about to fuck with her property rights.

No matter what the cost to him or his family.

Cheney said he had had a beer at lunch that day but nobody was drinking when they went back out to hunt a couple hours later. Law enforcement officials ruled out alcohol as a factor.

Just in case you were wondering, just in case you had been reading loooooony left wing blogs, your liberal media just wants to make sure you aren't confused about any possibilities that have never, ever been raised in your liberal media.

Your liberal media can't stop telling you that alcohol played no role in Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face.  Though, if you watch TV or read the papers, no one, except the looooney left on the internet has even bothered to suggest three time DUI Cheney was drinking at the time he shot his friend in the face.

Yes, a lot of people like me have come out and said they have no doubt Cheney was drunk when he shot his friend in the face with a shotgun, but neither the New York Times, nor the Washington Post, nor network television has even suggested it.

All they've done, for a week, is continually assert that alcohol played no part!  And Cheney, after five days of silence, immediately told Brit Hume that he had a beer, but alcohol played no part.

Christ, if alcohol played no part, and nobody but a bunch of left wing looooneys have even suggested it, why the full court press to rule out alcohol?

You read a lot of true crime stories?  If you do, you find out guilty people always spring their alibies too early.  Before anyone asks.

But I don't even care about that.  And I don't even care about the oft repeated,  ridiculous line that "law enforcement officials ruled out alcohol as a factor." 

Law enforcement officials didn't rule dick out.

They didn't talk to Cheney until fourteen hours after Cheney shot the guy.  Can you imagine if you had a head-on collision, sent some guy to the ICU for a couple of days, and you refused to talk to the police for fourteen hours?  And later on, on television, you said you had a beer at lunch.  Ya think the cops and your liberal media would say, "We've ruled out alcohol as a factor"???

They haven't ruled anything out.  They don't know and they'll never know because they didn't talk to Cheney until the next day.

Maybe Cheney was drunk.  Maybe he wasn't.  Who can say?  Only Cheney and his "hunting" party.  But nobody else can say they've ruled out alcohol as a factor. 

And then Cheney says he had a beer at lunch.  One beer, two beers?  But alcohol wasn't a factor.

I only had two beers.

The "two beers" line has been uttered so often that it's a joke among police officers. In 20 years of patrolling highways, Virginia State Police Trooper L.L. Parker has heard that slurred lie more times than she can remember.

"I don't know of any officer out here who, if you tell them you only had two beers, they'll tell you, "Okay, then, have a nice night,' " Parker said, chuckling. "But drunks, for whatever reason, they say it all the time..."

"Two beers," said Elizabeth Wingo, a supervisor in the D.C. attorney general's office. "Everyone says that. Then they come in and blow a point-one-four."

Yes.  Here's Cheney who's been busted three times for DUI, who shoots a guy in the face on a day in which he admits he had something to drink, but alcohol has been ruled out as a factor because, aside from the cops not being able to talk to Cheney for fourteen hours, Cheney told Brit Hume he only had one beer.

Maybe not two.  Maybe not the oldest line of drunk people in trouble everywhere.  But probably still laugh out loud funny to real cops everywhere.

Sure, there was some beer there, and I drank some beer, and later on I accidently shot a guy in the face, but I only had one.

Alcohol ruled out!

Right.  I only had one beer.  It came in a small can, called a keg.

And who the fuck has one beer anyway?  What's the point?  Christ, if you're only going to have one beer, you're not going to have one beer at all--you're going to have a Coke.

Who has one beer?

But never mind that.  Who cares?  What still cracks me up is this:

7:50 p.m.

The Secret Service notifies the Kenedy County Sheriff's office of the incident. The sheriff requests the chance to talk to Cheney, and arrangements are made for an interview Sunday morning.

While earlier stories reported a fuller weirder tale:

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said that about an hour after Cheney shot Whittington, the head of the Secret Service's local office called the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. "They made arrangements at the sheriff's request to have deputies come out and interview the vice president the following morning at 8 a.m. and that indeed did happen," Zahren said.

At least one deputy showed up at the ranch's front gate later in the evening and asked to speak to Cheney but was turned away by the Secret Service, Zahren said. There was some miscommunication that arrangements had already been made to interview the vice president, he said.

A guy has been shot in the face.  He's been taken by ambulance to the hospital.  Later, airlifted to a second hospital, where he's been admitted to the Intensive Care Unit in their trauma ward.  From a gun shot.

And according to Cheney's people, and your liberal media, the cops, at the "sheriff's request" scheduled an interview the following morning.  Which is, as you all know, pretty standard for a shooting which sends a guy to the hospital.  Near death.

But even though the sheriff requested an interview the next day, for some crazy reason, one of his deputies missed the memo and showed up that night!

Apparently, Cheney would have been more than happy to talk to the cops right then and there, but the sheriff, at his request, would prefer to meet with Cheney the next day, and then some loose canon of a deputy just drove out to talk to the Vice President on his own!

There's one in every department.  Some guy who's seen Dirty Harry or Murder At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue too many times.  Maybe the guy was frustrated that Vince Foster's murderers walked scott free.

Whatever.  This deputy, despite this sheriff's request, despite the alleged shooter being the Vice President of the United States, this deputy tried to take matters into his own hands.

But the Secret Service stopped him.  Though it's a little unclear why.  Again, according to early reports:

At least one deputy showed up at the ranch's front gate later in the evening and asked to speak to Cheney but was turned away by the Secret Service, Zahren said. There was some miscommunication that arrangements had already been made to interview the vice president, he said.

I've read that a couple of times, and I'm still not sure I understand it. 

"There was some miscommunication"...

What was it?

According to the White House, early in the evening, the Secret Service notified the sheriff that Cheney had shot his friend in the face.  According to the White House, the sheriff, at his insistence, scheduled an appointment the following morning to talk to Cheney.  Later on in the evening, a deputy shows up and wants to talk to Cheney about shooting his friend in the face.

The Secret Service turns the guy away.

We're told that there was some kind of "miscommunication".

In the sheriff's department???

Some rinky dink sheriff's department in Texas--even if it's a huge rinky dink sheriff's department in Texas--gets notified that the Vice President of the United States just shot a guy and the fucking deputies aren't clear on what the plan is???

Some deputies think, "Well, what the heck, I'm in the neighborhood, I might as well drop in on the Vice President and see what he has to say"???

Or was the confusion with the Secret Service?  They thought deputies would be coming by the next day and, therefore, turned away deputies that night? 

And you can see how that could innocently happen.  The Secret Service is well aware that Cheney just shot a guy--they were the ones, allegedly that notified the sheriff.  And they know that the sheriff needs to talk to Cheney.  But when a deputy shows up on Saturday night, they turn him away.  They refuse to let him talk to the Vice President.

Because, I guess, they thought deputies would be coming the following morning.  And the Cheney people, despite the urging of McClellan and Bartlett, didn't let the Secret Service know that Cheney would be more than happy to talk to the cops as soon as possible, since the shooting of his friend in the face was a simple hunting accident and alcohol was definitely not involved.

Though, that's weird.  Because, again, the Secret Service were well aware of what happened.  And since, as far as I know, the Secret Service are all wired and mic'ed.  You know, if a deputy shows up, when he's not supposed to, in a car that clearly identifies him as a deputy, and he's got identification showing him to be a deputy, which can easily be confirmed, and that deputy wants to talk about something that the Secret Service knows has happened and which the Vice President needs to talk about--why send the guy away?

Why not just call the Cheney compound or whatever it was and say, "Hey, the cops are here."  Why not just invite the guy in for a cup of coffee and a four minute interview with the Vice President?  It was, after all, a simple hunting accident.

With no alcohol involved.

Cheney could have talked to the guy.  Told him the simple, understandable circumstances, signed an autograph, and the renegade deputy would have been on his way in ten minutes.

Why didn't Cheney talk to him?  What was the "miscommunication"?  How, in light of the small sheriff's office, and the thoroughly wired Secret Service could there possibly be a "miscommunication"?

Hunting accidents do happen.  They happen every fall, every year.  Though, nearly every hunter I know tells me they only happen because someone is an idiot.

Whatever.

But, again, why, if it was a simple hunting accident, it this story so fucked up and weird?  Why is it so conflicted?  Why is it so bizarre?

The only answer is:  because it's not true.

True stories are really easy to tell.  And people tell them right away.  And they keep telling them the same way.

Bullshit stories change from day to day.  Like this one.  And the stories change as people point out what's stupid about them.

Like this one.

And I don't know what really happened.  And I don't even care.  Again, aside from the guy who got shot in the face, it's just been funny to me.  It would be irrelevant.

Nobody elected Cheney Vice Safe Hunter.  We, Americans, don't pay Cheney to hunt responsibly.

If he wants to go out every weekend, with his girlfriend, Pamela Willeford, get loaded, and shoot the shit out of the skyline, occassionally hitting close friends, I couldn't care less.

That's nothing compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars he's cost Americans and the tens of thousands of Americans he's gotten killed, crippled or wounded with his bullshit war.

Christ, a weekend Dick Cheney only puts one of his friends in the hospital is a weekend all Americans should feel grateful for.

What's amazing to me is that it took an entire week for the White House and Cheney and Republicans in general to get their bullshit story straight for a simple hunting accident.  And after taking an entire week, with conflicting stories and objectively untrue statements and bizarre unbelievable theories, after all of that, we're told it was just a simple hunting accident and anyone who suggested anything else was just crazy!

Wild speculation!

A simple hunting accident takes five seconds to explain.  You can explain it right away. 

Even if you're the Vice President of the United States.

Nothing, that is simple and straightforward, and legal, and blameless takes five days to explain.

Nothing.

From The Man Who Brought Us Such Good Ideas...

...as invading Iraq:

Fox’s Brit Hume, who conducted the interview, said Cheney told him he had “a beer” with lunch hours before the accident. Hume said Cheney told him “no one was drinking” while hunting.

“You don’t hunt with people who drink. That’s not a good idea,” the vice president said.

Cheney's right!  That's not a good idea.

Christ, you go out drinking and hunting, and somebody could wind up getting shot in the face.

Let's Pretend This Is Our First Day On Earth!

Aside from the guy who actually got shot in the face, the whole Cheney thing has really made me laugh.  When I first heard about it, all I could think was:  "There's ol' three DUI Dick, driving around with a bottle of Wild Turkey, getting all liquored up and blowing more birds apart.  And the quails have come home to roost..."

And I'm sorry I didn't write that at the time.  Because I get a child-like glee out of saying "I told you so!"   But every now and then, someone writes me and complains about me pointing out that Bush is obviously still a practicing--because he's so lousy at it, he needs the practice--alcoholic.

And because, to be honest, I had no reason to write that other than it was the first thing I thought of when I heard Cheney mistook his friend for a bird and shot him in the face.  That, and also I happen to live in a state where hunting is so popular they close the schools--the highschools--on the first day of hunting season. 

And virtually everyone I know in this state who hunts, whether they go for a day, or they have a hunting cabin in the woods, basically describes the experience as getting really, really drunk and then killing stuff.  With rifles.

But I don't know everyone even in this state who hunts, and I'm sure there are many, many hunters in the woods in fall who aren't drunk--probably at least half the highschool kids aren't.  And I'm sure most of the "sportmen" in my state are nearly sober enough to drive a car and very responsible and sporting as they sprinkle deer food and scent around a tree, then climb up in their blind to "hunt" an unsuspecting deer from like eight feet away.  With a high powered rifle.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not against hunting.  I eat meat, pigs in particular.  I love to eat a pig.  I just let someone else kill them.  And I don't see how anyone who can pay other people to kill animals for them can really express outrage at someone who would rather kill animals for themselves.

Either you give up bacon, or you get upset about some guy making deer jerky.

One or the other, but you can't do both.

And frankly, the horror of the Thysen or Purdue chicken factories, or the slaughterhouses where they raise and kill cows and pigs are probably a lot, lot worse than what happens to an animal that lives in the wild all its life and one day takes a bullet.

If most people knew how their food wound up in the super market or their favorite restaurant, they couldn't stand to eat it at all.

Plus, I fish.  And, if you really think about it, fishing is about as bad as anything else.  Sometimes, I feel really guilty about it.  You've got this happy little sea creature, swimming around in the cool water, and you fucking hook it through its face with steel, haul it out of the water, and then sufficate it in a cooler.

What a total nightmare!

It's like if you were walking down to the post office on a beautiful spring day and suddenly got hooked in the lungs and hauled off into outer space.

I try to quiet that thought by reminding myself:  this is the way of the world.  If I didn't catch and eat that fish, some other fish would have eaten that fish.  And if no fish ate my fish, my fish would have died and sunk to the bottom of the sea and been eaten by crabs or bottom feeders I've never even heard of and quite possible would be grossed out by.

Better me than them.

Though, I like to eat crabs, too.

And I'd probably like to eat that other stuff I've never even heard of.  As far as I know, maybe I do!

When you think about it, if you think about it too much, for as nice and funny and sexy and compassionate as any of us might be, we're a bunch of fucking monsters!  John Carpenter couldn't invent us.  There's almost nothing we can't look at and consider eating.

You might look at your dear old parents, still on the go, loving life, still loving each other after all these years;  you might look at your newborn child, sweet and innocent, with all of life and its attendent wonders to experience; you might look, longingly and lustfully at someone you need to see naked...

And unless any of those people are vegitarians, they're going to eat a fucking chicken!

At least one.  Probably fucking hundreds of them!

Can you imagine if you walked out in your backyard, on a starry night, and found your wife on all fours, blood all over her hands and face gnawing on the lifeless body of a chicken???

You'd probably scream.

But bacon for breakfast.  Chicken salad for lunch. Hamburgers--entire cows ground up--for dinner.

And that's a lovely day.

So, anyway, I just can't get that upset about hunting.  Not without giving up fish and meat all together.

Having said all that, I don't know any hunters.  Sitting in a tree blind, half drunk from the night before, with a high calibre rifle, and shooting an unsuspecting deer you lured in with raisins and apples and deer scent is, I'm sorry, not hunting.

It isn't any worse, again, than the chicken or pig or cow factories that fill our super markets, but don't kid yourselves--you're not hunting.  You're just killing what you eat, rather than paying for it.

I don't feel any moral superiority to those "hunters", and I'm pretty sure they shouldn't feel any moral superiority to me.

But, then there's another kind of "hunter".  Another kind of "sportsman".  And that's Dick Cheney.  He's the kind of guy who's too lazy and too incompetent, and too impatient to actually "hunt" something.  And the things he blows apart, he doesn't even bother to eat.  Just him, and eight other guys, just for fun might blow apart 417 birds on a single afternoon for no other reason than just to kill 417 things with guns.

That's 46 things, per guy, blown apart on a single afternoon.

Why bother pretending to hunt?  Why doesn't Cheney just strap on golf cleats and stomp on baby chickens for an hour or two?  It isn't any different.  And it isn't any harder.  And it isn't any more "sporting".

But you can kill about the same amount of birds.

So, again, with my limited knowledge of the actual events and Dick Cheney's passion for "hunting"--which some people call his insationable lust for blood--and Cheney's unrepentant, um, enjoyment of way too much alcohol for the task at hand, well, I just figured he got drunk and shot some dude in the face.

But, again, I didn't write that because I didn't want to become part of the looooooney left.

I mean, it was a simple "hunting" accident.  They happen.  They happen all the time.  They happen every year. 

Which is why it's amazing, as simple a thing as this, that CNN needs to offer a timeline to try to clarify this incredibly confusing, complex...hunting...accident...

6:50 p.m
While aiming for a quail, Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter Harry Whittington, striking him in the face, neck and chest with numerous pellets of birdshot. Medical staff, Secret Service agents and members of the hunting party administer first aid.

7:20 p.m.
An ambulance transports the 78-year-old Texas lawyer to a nearby hospital in Kleberg, according to The Associated Press.

7:30 p.m.
The remainder of the hunting party returns to the ranch house. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card tells President Bush that there has been a hunting accident, unaware at the time that the vice president was involved.

Laugh with me, for a minute!  The Vice President shot a guy in the face, someone told Andrew Card...something...and Andrew Card told the President and no one mentioned Cheney was the shooter!

And no one in the White House asked, "Hey, what exactly happened?"

It's the Vice President.  The White House is alerted that there was a hunting accident involving his hunting party.  And no one asked, "What happened?"

Nobody.

Apparently, in this post 9-11 world, where we're constantly at war and everyone's life is in danger, the White House was informed that there was some kind of accident involving the Vice President, and nobody was remotely interested in what the details of that accident were.

Nobody asked.  Nobody could find out!  It was chaos!

For just a moment, let's all pretend we're not completely as retarded as the Washington Press Corps.  Why, exactly, couldn't the full and complete details of what happened be immediately transmitted to the White House?

Phone lines weren't down.  There wasn't chaos in the capitol.  Cheney wasn't in the fog of some Iraqi battle.  He was in Texas.  In America.  Someone called the White House.  Someone said there was a problem.  Are we really supposed to believe that that person didn't tell the White House that Cheney shot a guy???  Are we really supposed to believe that the White House wasn't interested in what happened???

7:50 p.m.
The Secret Service notifies the Kenedy County Sheriff's office of the incident. The sheriff requests the chance to talk to Cheney, and arrangements are made for an interview Sunday morning.

And, as you all well know, when someone gets shot in the face, police officers often schedule an appointment a day or so later to talk to witnesses or view the scene.

8 p.m.
After talking with Katharine Armstrong, whose family owns the ranch and who accompanied the hunting party, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove tells Bush that Cheney has shot Whittington.

Which is weird, because on Sunday, the White House said Bush didn't know at all!  I'd also like to say that, if the Vice President very nearly kills a guy at 6:50 in Texas and it takes the White House an hour and ten minutes to hear about it, how the fuck are these guys, who are supposedly tuff on terra, supposed to protect the American people???

It takes them an hour to know what they're doing.  In America.

Evening
Cheney and members of the hunting party dine at the ranch, and sheriff's deputies who heard reports of an accident arrive to offer help but are turned away, the AP reported, adding that the Secret Service retracted an earlier statement that the deputies sought to interview Cheney.

Well, the AP can get shit wrong.  What they reported was this:

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said that about an hour after Cheney shot Whittington, the head of the Secret Service's local office called the Kenedy County sheriff to report the accident. "They made arrangements at the sheriff's request to have deputies come out and interview the vice president the following morning at 8 a.m. and that indeed did happen," Zahren said.

At least one deputy showed up at the ranch's front gate later in the evening and asked to speak to Cheney but was turned away by the Secret Service, Zahren said. There was some miscommunication that arrangements had already been made to interview the vice president, he said.

And we shouldn't doubt that this was all a big miscommunication!  Because, as we all know, whenever, in America, a man winds up in a hospital, shot in the face, requiring treatment in the intensive care unit, the police schedule an appointment, at a convenient time, to talk to the shooter.

The police have no interest in securing a possible crime scene.  The don't want to do any kind of nitrate tests or anything like to determine if the person claiming to do the shooting actually did the shooting.  They're not interested in preserving evidence, or taking immediate statements.

Basically, in America, if you shoot someone in the face, and send them to the hospital, to the ICU, the police will schedule an appointment, within a day or two, at your convenience, so you can tell them what happened.

 

9:15 p.m.
Whittington is flown to a hospital in Corpus Christi and is treated in the intensive care unit, the AP reported.

Late night
The White House situation room notifies Bush spokesman Scott McClellan of an accident in Cheney's hunting party, but not who was involved.

Again, according to the White House time line, at some time, late at night, hours after the Vice President has shot someone in the face, sent that guy to two hospitals, and twice notified the White House of an "accident" in the Vice President's "hunting" party--no one in the White House, not even in their "situation room" has fucking bothered to ask a very, very simple question:  what happened?

My God, if your third cousin shot someone in a "hunting" accident, you'd know it before Bush!

If we can possibly believe this incredbily silly timeline.

February 12th

6 a.m.

The situation room awakens McClellan with a telephone call and informs him that Cheney was the shooter. McClellan pushes the vice president's office to inform the media quickly, he says later.

Don't you love that little clause after the comma?  "[H]e says later..."

9 a.m.
Kenedy County sheriff's deputies interview Cheney. Armstrong starts leaving messages for a reporter at the Corpus Christi Caller-Times newspaper.

Fourteen hours after a guy gets shot in the face.  The cops show up.

I know the shooter is the Vice President.  But it was an accident.  Right?  It was clearly an accident, with no alcohol involved.  And they called an ambulance within a half hour or so. 

Why in God's name wouldn't they talk to the police at the same time?  You got the paramedics there, you got the ambulance there, you get the police there, you show them exactly what happened, when it happened, how it happened.  You got all the witnesses.  You've got the blood and the evidence.  It was a simple hunting accident!

Wouldn't you want the cops to show up right away?

Noon
Armstrong reaches the reporter with information on the shooting.

2:48 p.m.
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times publishes a brief story about the incident on its Web site.

Yes, and she told reporters that a guy who was shot in the face was "peppered" and "more bruised" than anything.  Even though he spent three days in intensive care.

Last night, I got up to get a glass of water and totally kicked a coffee table on my way to the kitchen.  And it never occurred to me at all to spend three days in ICU, at the trauma ward, in my local hospital.

3:30 p.m. - 4 p.m.
CNN and other news agencies confirm news of the shooting after a bulletin is issued by the AP.

Afternoon
Cheney visits Whittington in the hospital.

February 13th

3 p.m.
Doctors take Whittington out of an intensive-care unit and place him in a private room, AP reported.

Three days later, after being "peppered" pretty good, the guy is getting out of the ICU.  For bruises.

5 p.m.
The chief deputy sheriff for Kenedy County says the shooting is being handled as a hunting accident, AP reported.

6:20 p.m.
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's accident report says the main contributing factor was a "hunter's judgment factor" and that both Cheney and Whittington were violating state law because they did not have required stamps to accompany their licenses, AP reported.

February 14th
7:30 a.m.
Hospital officials estimate this is when Whittington suffered a minor heart attack without noticing, because of a pellet that moved in or near his heart, and Cheney is informed soon after that doctors will perform a cardiac catheterization, AP reported.

This is, of course, hours before the White House decides the best way to deal with Cheney shooting his friend in the face is to laugh and joke about it.

Fine, everyone else was joking about it.  But, you know, everyone else didn't shoot the guy in the face.

This is right up there with Bush joking about the missing Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Never mind the creepy sociopathic tendencies of everyone in this White House.  It's horrible and scary, but forget it for a minute.  What's really significant--not really, but it's something people can understand--is the almost hilarious incompetence of this White House.

Yes, everything since Bush came to Washington is a total mess.  Terrorism, debt, war, lies, torture, international humiliation--but these guys, while mastering the art of lowered expectations, are re-writing the laws of regular expectations.

Even expectations of failure.

It was a simple hunting accident.  Tragic.  Avoidable.  Hopefully not fatal.  But nothing more than poor muzzle discipline.

And, as much as I despise these guys and doubt everything they say, I would be more than inclined to believe it. 

But here's the thing:

If it was simple, careless, stupidity--why the fuck did it take the Vice President five days to talk about it?

Why did it take five days for the White House to provide a time line of events?

Why all the conflicting stories?

Why the fourteen hour delay to talk to the local cops?

Why all the confusion within the White House itself over events and time?

Why the original blaming of Worthington for getting shot, which has been, five days later, rejected by Cheney?

Why the scrubbing of any mention of beer on the day of the shooting to have Cheney, five days later, say, hey, maybe he had a beer or two?

Why the idiotic descriptions of Worthington being "peppered" and "bruised" when the guy was airlifted to a hospital and spent three days in the ICU ward?

This is the kind of shit where nutty right wingers will endlessly gibber about loooony lefties and their crazy, Michael Moore conspiracy theories!   

But, again, if it's that simple, which according to the White House it is, if it's nothing more than sloppy, careless hunting, then why does it take five whole days to get a somewhat clear story about what happened?

If it's just a stupid, stupid hunting accident, why on earth do we need a CNN graphic and timeline to explain what happened that's nearly as detailed as the Warren Report?

Originally, I just thought Cheney was drunk and shot his dumbass quail exploding buddy.  And I didn't really care.  Now?  Now, I know Cheney was drunk and shot his dumbass quail exploding buddy, shit his pants, fucked everything up, lied to everyone, told Bush, who likewise shit his pants, a la 9/11, compounded the fucking of everything in an upward motion, and then, after five days, they established workable, remotely believable--if you're an idiot--timeline, and hit FOX News.

In an effort to be candid with the American people. 

Five days later.

And while I have no idea what exactly happened, I'm completely right about whatever I suspect is being hidden from me.  Don't even bug me about it.

All I'm saying is: we're being told it's relatively simple.  And, for all we know, it is relatively simple.  But, if it is, how on earth did it become so damn complicated and confusing?

Five days later, and we finally get a coherent timeline.   For a hunting accident?

People, that's a story.  That's damage control.

And why on earth would anyone need damage control for a hunting accident???