Tuesday, February 14, 2006

And now for something really stupid

Larry O'Donnell blogging at the H-Bomb thinks he knows why Cheney didn't hold a press conference immediately after a hunting accident involving his good friend. He was drunk. Larry knows because he's been at Ivy League football games and everyone knows that if you'll drink before a football game, you'll drink before you try to successfully shoot small birds that dart about at the speed of your average mosquito with live ammunition. I don't hunt, but I do scuba dive. Would I drink at a tailgate before a football game? I'd insist. Would I have a drop before I engage in an activity where a mistake can result in death? Not hardly.

O'Donnell writes:

How do we know there was no alcohol? Cheney refused to talk to local authorities until the next day. No point in giving him a breathalyzer then. Every lawyer I've talked to assumes Cheney was too drunk to talk to the cops after the shooting. The next question for the White House should be: Was Cheney drunk?


I am not aware that he "refused" to talk to local authorities on Saturday (that they interviewed him on Sunday is not the same thing) nor can I fathom why a lawyer would think that he or she was justified in "assuming" that Cheney was drunk. What I do know is that everyone of those lawyers - if he or she was at all competent - would be all fists and teeth if someone made such an assumption about his or her client.

But this is what gets you prime space at a leading liberal blog. No wonder we are kicking these guys for drill.

5 comments:

Jay Bullock said...

I am not aware that he "refused" to talk to local authorities on Saturday [. . .]

Here ya go.

Chris said...

Lets hope they keep wasting their time and energy howling at the moon over stories like this. It just makes beating them that much easier.

Its got to grind on them a bit though every time these stories break they go into the "we have go them now" dance only to find out W and Dick are still in power at the end of the day.

Rick Esenberg said...

No, Jay, it does not say that Cheney "refused" to be interviewed. I am aware that he wasn't interviewed until Sunday, but its unclear that anyone tried to talk to him or, if he did, that he knew about it.

But far be it from me to discourage the Dems from hounding a guy who just had an accident in which 1)he was probably at fault and 2) his friend almost died. I am sure you guys are scoring points all over the place.

reddess of roscommon said...

Certain people just seem to forget that there was a severely injured man, a frightened family, as well as someone's medical privacy rights to consider. The media and the far left are not the top priorities in this situation. They are keeping this guy in ICU now just to shield him from pushy reporters. People like Jay might ask themselves what they would be doing and thinking if they accidentally shot a good friend. I would imagine that the "average citizen" can identify with a situation like this and are sickened by the behavior of the press and some Dem.leaders.

Peter said...

Plus, law enforcement was already there. The Secret Service is law enforcement.

Cheney didn't refuse to speak to anyone. This is more reckless speculation on a story that matters to no one except the Beltway Press, angered that a local newspaper was notifed first and not David Gregory personally.

I somehow don't think the VP has Gregory on speed dial