Its enough to make you puke.

[rs]

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,184933,00.html

[Yeah, that fox...

Dick Cheney's Quail Hunting Accident Affects No One

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

Can you believe this Dick Cheney quail hunting situation? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Point Memo."

No, Bill, I cannot believe it either. Cheney shot a man with the gun parallel to the ground (or at least it *must* have been) at a close enough range for buckshot to penetrate his chest. And he is not being investigated for a crime...

Last night I had to make a decision which story was more important, Vice President Cheney failing to disclose a shooting accident in a timely matter or Vice President Gore in Saudi Arabia accusing the USA of abusing Arabs on American soil. Call me crazy, but I chose the Gore story, believing that his explosive accusations in the Middle East could hurt America on the war on terror.

That is because you were told to by your CIA handler. But of course, I'm reasonably sure that your choice was not to point out the moral high ground in Gore's comments, but instead to tear him the proverbial new one just because...

The Cheney story was unfortunate for the man accidentally shot, but who else was affected? No one.

If by "No one." you mean "everybody in the USA who should by now be ever so slightly beginning to awaken to the reality that this administration will lie about anything".

Well, today, in Washington Post online Howard Kurtz wrote, "I was looking forward to Bill O'Reilly's take on the Cheney matter but his lead was, `Did Al Gore go too far?' In fairness, Gore charged in Saudi Arabia that Arabs in the U.S. were being mistreated and would not provide specifics to "The Factor." O'Reilly did give the veep's misfire a couple of seconds as `The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day.'"

That is correct. I saw the incident as ridiculous. Mr. Cheney has a well-known press phobia. Why is it surprising to anyone that he would delay announcement of the accident so it missed the Sunday papers and chat shows? Now, if the story had any implications other than the poor man getting hurt, and today unfortunately Harry Whittington did suffer a heart attack, we are monitoring that situation, I would have been all over Cheney. But, again, the vice president's hunting accident affects no one. Means nothing. And his reluctance to brief the press about it is predictable.

Yes, I will completely agree that "his reluctance to brief the press about it is predictable". Gotta hand it to you Bill, when you are right, you are right.

Of course, Cheney should have known that the anti-Bush press would make a big deal out of this and the vice president has given his enemies more ammunition, pardon the pun. So once again Dick Cheney's secret style hurts him. But some of our competitors are spending hours talking about this Cheney misfire which seems absurd and today their anger seemed to be growing.

Thats because your competitors are all part of that rabid pinko liberal media. "Liberal". Just typing the word makes my fingers shake in mortification.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: I was very respectful and responsive to your questions yesterday. I have provided you the information I knew based on the facts that were available. And we have been through this pretty thoroughly.

DAVID GREGORY, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: One final question.

MCCLELLAN: I'm not going to go back through it again I would appreciate if you would let me respond fully before you jump in?

GREGORY: Hold on one second. I've got one last question .

MCCLELLAN: A lot of people in this room have questions.

GREGORY: I'm not getting answers here, Scott. I'm trying to be forthright with you but don't tell me that you are giving us complete answers when you are not actually answering the question because everybody knows what is an answer and what is not an answer.

MCCLELLAN: David now you want to make this about you and it's not about you it's about what happened. And that's what I'm — I'm trying to provide answers to the questions.

GREGORY: I'm sorry that you feel that way but that's not what I'm trying to do. I want ..

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O'REILLY: Gregory wanted to know what President Bush thought about the situation. That's what he wanted to know.

Um, Bill, I did a search for the string "Bush" and it is nowhere in the above transcript. But I guess making things up works for you too... Anyway, in an ideal world, shouldn't Bush care that his vice president shot his hunding buddy at close range with a level gun?

So what say you? We have a brand new billoreilly.com poll question. Which is more important, Al Gore accusing the USA of mistreating Arabs on U.S. soil or Dick Cheney delaying the accident announcement? Which story is more important? We have a little category. Gore or Cheney. And you click it off on billoreilly.com. Now I think I know how the poll is going to turn out but I want to see the plurality. By the way, the Al Gore speech in Saudi Arabia was almost totally ignored by the elite media. Says a lot. That's "The Memo."

Yes, Bill, it boils down to a single binary choice. Black/white. Good/bad. Gore/Cheney. Yep, no nuance, no grey areas, no "all of the above are important because it demonstrates a patern of complete disregard of the law". All you get is a binary choice.

The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day

Two examples of the clash of civilizations. In India scores of Muslim women protested Valentine's Day, raiding shops that sell romantic cards, setting those cards on fire.

How does this relate to Gore/Cheney?

Apparently, the women believe that all signs of western civilization should be burned in the wake of the cartoon controversy.

How does this relate to Gore/Cheney?

And in a Virginia courtroom today, convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui renounced his French citizenship, saying, quote, "I am not French. I do not stand here with a nation of homosexual crusaders."

How does this relate to Gore/Cheney?

Who knew? Might be ridiculous.

—You can catch Bill O'Reilly's "Talking Points Memo" and "Most Ridiculous Item" weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the FOX News Channel. Send your comments to: oreilly@foxnews.com

No thanks, Bill. My comments would require that I ship my "barf bag" to you and I'm sure it would not get past the new Post Office interrogation: "Does your package contain...?".

 

[Yossarian]

Hey rs, you're good at this. You're style also makes clear how the "talking heads" obfuscate and obscure issues in the minds of the "thinking" public. Like honest critique of wrong doing is bad and hiding truth and being secretive is quite fine and dandy for our "democratically" elected public personages. Anybody with two matchsticks to rub together can figure that the delay gave Cheney & Co. time to get the "story" straight, make the right arrangements with the right officials and destroy what needed to be destroyed--before disclosing the absolutely minimum possible amount of any slight shred of truth. Standard Operating Procedure. If there were nothing to hide there would not have been such a long a delay in "coming clean." I wonder if this "buddy" of Cheney's saw or heard something he shouldn't have or confronted Cheney about something he shouldn't have? Heart attack eh? I wonder if this guy has a prayer of making it out of this one alive?! If he does I'll bet his wife won't say it's the same person. One thing is sure, no matter how bad the odor, Cheney will SOMEHOW manage to come out smelling like a "rose." IMHO.

 

[Laura]

Applause! Applause! Never thought I could read Bill O'Reilly and chuckle. Thanks.

 

[Cyre2067]

Awesome analysis. I hate O'Reilly - he's like... the antithesis of Jon Stewart (although they've prolly gotten to him by now too... )

 

[kenlee]

Here's an interesting article that I found from political analyst Dick Polman.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2006/02/16/news/front/13882769.htm

Polman asks 5 very interesting questions:

1) Bush strategist Karl Rove discussed the shooting with ranch owner Katharine Armstrong about 8 p.m. and was told that Cheney was the shooter. But did Rove, or anyone else at the White House, suggest at any time that speedy disclosure might be the preferred option? That would have been consistent with White House practice, such as when press secretary Scott McClellan speedily disclosed Bush's bike collision with a cop during an economic summit in Scotland.

2) Armstrong has told the Associated Press that after victim Harry Whittington was taken to the hospital, the entire hunting party sat down to dinner at the ranch yet never discussed public disclosure. Given that virtually all the diners were veteran Republicans with decades of experience in party politics and that Cheney had become the first vice president since Aaron Burr to shoot a man, was that the right response?

3) Cheney said yesterday that Armstrong was the best person to deal with the press because "she'd seen the whole thing." But how dependable is a witness who, according to reports, was sitting in a vehicle 100 yards away at the time? The distance may be important: Armstrong has also said that when she saw Cheney's security people running toward the scene, she first thought that Cheney had suffered "a heart problem," not that someone had been shot. If she was close enough to witness the incident, wouldn't she have known that Whittington was the person in distress?

4) When did Cheney first speak to local authorities? The New York Times was told that a deputy sheriff interviewed Cheney on Saturday night. The Associated Press was told a deputy sheriff showed up at the ranch that night, only to be turned away after learning that Cheney would be available Sunday.

5) If Cheney is taking full responsibility for the shooting, why did several people on the scene - Armstrong and Ambassador Pamela Willeford - put out the early word that it was Whittington's fault? If Cheney felt all along that he deserved the blame, what did those women see that led them to conclude otherwise?

Chillingly, this event also reminds me of an excerpt from the C's that I took from an earlier signs page:
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs20050503.htm

Comment: Exploding frogs, exploding cell phones, malfunctioning car alarms, family members stabbing each other over 100 times, and now this?

Comment from the C's with no apologies:

Q: (T) Are you aware of [the alleged] Dr. Greenbaum and his mind control experiments, that we've been looking at lately?

A: Yes.

Q: Is what's said there factual? I won't say true, but is it factual? Most of it?

A: Close.

Q: (T) OK, the question is, is the fellow that just shot three professors in San Diego, I think it was, the University, before they read his thesis, because he was afraid they would throw his thesis away, and make it look bad, and flunk him. Was he a Greenbaum [victim]?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Why did they turn him 'on' at that point?

A: Not correct concept. What if: those programmed in the so called "Greenbaum" projects are preprogrammed to "go off" all at once, and some "malfunction," and go off early? [August 17, 1996]

The programming is mainly intended to produce erratic behavior, for the purpose of "spooking" the population so that they will welcome, and even demand, a totalitarian government. [October 5, 1996]