There are two important discrepancies in the Vice President's story about how he shot his friend in the face. One is the missing 24 hours before the incident was reported. The other is the glaring inconsistency in the statements of the main witness, Katharine Armstrong.
There are several reasons why you might want to wait 24 hours before reporting that the Vice President has shot someone. One of them is not the official reason given - they first wanted to make sure the guy was okay. That might take a couple of hours, but not a whole day.
Cheney and the others even sat down to dinner that night back at the ranch. They didn't even stay in the hospital with Whittington. But we were reassured that Cheney was glum and worried throughout dinner. And what would separate that from any other dinner with Dick Cheney?
The Vice President didn't think about reporting the event to the press before, during or after dinner - or breakfast the next day. Who believes this? Are there people that gullible in the world? Well, maybe cable news hosts.
How the Vice President was going to break this news to the American people must have been at the very front of their minds for nearly the whole time. And they chose a very curious route.
The smart move is obviously to come out and say it right away. Tell people how apologetic and concerned you are and you have to go back into the hospital to stay with your friend all night. It's an accident and everyone understands.
Instead they sit on the story for 24 hours and then have the ranch owner release it to a small local newspaper. I can think of only two possible explanations for this bizarre reaction.
They thought they might be able to bury it. But that's just nuts. What, the Corpus Christi paper runs a story about the Vice President shooting a friend in the head and no one else notices?
The second explanation is that they were buying time. Now, it's nearly impossible to know why. But since they won't tell us the real reason, we are forced into speculation. One obvious reason why someone would want to buy time before talking to anyone about an accident like this is because they are waiting to sober up.
The Secret Service wouldn't allow a local sheriff's deputy to talk to the Vice President that night. Why? How is that within their purview? Was the sheriff's deputy going to endanger the Vice President?
If they don't give us a plausible explanation, then we can only guess as to why the Vice President went out of his way and against all common sense to avoid being seen that night, by the sheriff's office or by reporters.
I want to make clear that I have no evidence that the Vice President had been drinking. But I also know the sheriff's office down in Kenedy County has no evidence to conclude that the Vice President was not drinking that night. They never gave him a breathalyzer test, as they almost certainly would have if this was an average citizen involved in a dangerous shooting. They never observed him that night - they weren't allowed to see him. They're taking the word of his friends who have a financial and personal interest in protecting the Vice President, and who also might have been drinking with him.
This is why honesty is so important from people in government. Because when you lie, you open the door to speculation.
When Jayson Williams, the former NBA star, accidentally shot his driver with a shotgun, everyone said he was grossly negligent and he was vilified in the court of public opinion. Of course, in that case, the man died. But in this case, it was a matter of luck that Harry Whittington did not die from his head and chest injuries. It makes Cheney no less negligent. This is not a small matter. A man was shot in the face. The best case scenario is one where the Vice President was careless with someone else's life.
Of course, the immediate White House spin is that it was Whittington's fault for sneaking up on him without loudly declaring that he was a human and not a quail. When in doubt, blame the victim. If he had just made some more noise, Cheney wouldn't have shot him in the head.
The press as usual is compliant. The Associated Press is reporting that Cheney "apparently" violated the first rule of hunting. What -- not shooting your friend in the face? I love the word "apparently." What's apparent about this? The man got shot and he is in the hospital. Obviously, at the very least Cheney ignored hunting etiquette when he shot a human being.
It is also being reported that the Vice President was shooting "birdshot." That sounds like bullshot to me. The Vice President was shooting ... a shotgun. This wasn't a BB gun. Saying there was birdshot in the shotgun is a way of spinning the story to minimize the damage. If you don't believe me, try getting blasted with birdshot from a shotgun, see how minor that is.
Also, the Vice President didn't shoot the man according to White House spin. He peppered him. I suppose when gangs out here in LA do a drive by with shotguns, they don't shoot people, they pepper them.
And where is the NRA? I thought their main concern was gun safety. Guns don't kill people, Dick Cheney does. Where is their outrage?
Now, we get to the second important discrepancy in the story. Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch who is speaking for the Vice President (who by the way, now over two days later, is still hiding in his bunker - what does he think this is, Hurricane Katrina?), tells two different stories that are not logically consistent.
She says that she saw, while sitting in her car by the road, Mr. Whittington approach in the tall grass and she saw that the Vice President didn't see Whittington when he shot in his direction. However, later she says that she first saw the Vice President's security detail running towards the scene and explained, "The first thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem."
How could that be the first thing you thought if you saw that he was not the one that had been hurt but the one that did the shooting?
Did Katharine Armstrong really see the shooting or didn't she? If she did see the shooting why would she think the Vice President was the one that was in danger?
Look, I think the Vice President ought to be out hunting Osama bin Laden, not quail. And if he hadn't gotten five deferments from Vietnam, he might know how to shoot straight. But putting all that side, we have to reassert the rule of law here. The Vice President has consistently acted like he is above the law and in this case someone got hurt (well, many Iraqis and Abu Ghraib detainees have also been hurt, but this was on a personal level).
There has to be a point where we draw the line and hold this government accountable for its actions. Are we really going to let him get away with just saying it was a small, honest peppering accident? Are we not going to hold him accountable for the missing 24 hours? Are we not going to bother checking out the obviously inconsistent story of the so-called witness? Is Dick Cheney really above the law?
Can we for the love of God stop throwing roses at this guy's feet and hold him accountable for a change? If we don't do it when he shoots someone and lies about the details, when will we ever do it?