Dick Cheney Hunting Accident

Mary Matalin - advisor to Dick Cheney - appeared on Meet the Press earlier today and refused to nail down exactly what "a beer" means in ounces, quantity, and/or alcohol content:

TIM RUSSERT: Was alcohol in any way, shape or form consumed during the afternoon? And should we accept the [Vice] president's "a beer" as literally one beer?

MARY MATALIN: What Katharine Armstrong was answering is a literal fact going to the question she was asked, which is always the case on the Armstrong ranch, you don't drink and hunt, and you don't hunt with drinkers. And that's what the sheriff reported, that's what she reported. It is true that the vice president had a beer at lunch, and let me ask anybody sitting at this table who knows the vice president, has known him for many years, has seen him in social situations, he's known not to be a drinker. But let me ask you a more logical question - you think the Secret Service would let the vice president out, tanked up, with a loaded gun, or let him be around anybody who's drunk with a loaded gun? It just defies common sense that the press would even go there. And that's why these adversarial question-and- answer periods set up the presumption that Cheney would be drunk, or having to deny that Cheney was drunk, as opposed to presuming what we all know, that he doesn't drink, he wouldn't hunt and drink, the Secret Service woudn't let anybody around him who is drinking and hunting.

Drudge reports:

Both TIME and NEWSWEEK are planning high impact covers of Cheney for newsstands starting tomorrow, with each magazine rolling out top staff bylines and thousands of words on the hunting incident: TIME: With deep reporting by John Cloud, Mike Allen and Matthew Cooper/ Washington, Cathy Booth Thomas and Patricia Kilday Hart/ Austin, and Hilary Hylton. NEWSWEEK urgently brings in its big investigative guns: Evan Thomas, Michael Isikoff, Daniel Klaidman, Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey, Mark Hosenball and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Carol Rust in Texas.

NEWSWEEK's Jonathan Alter essays that media budget cuts and shifting news priorities have contributed to the public being in the dark about Cheney's ways and means.

TIME headlines a poll: DICK CHENEY APPROVAL RATING 29%

NEWSWEEK editor Mark Whitaker defends his decision to push for another week of Cheney-Shooting coverage: "The reason we ultimately decided to stick with a cover is not because of the hunting incident itself-although we did turn up some new details that you might not have read elsewhere-but because of what it says about the mysterious world of the most powerful vice president of recent times."

There are a lot of links about the incident here. One of those is certainly "interesting": last year the Larouchians published "Cheney Is on the Way Out!".

The Harvard history professor weighs in:

Hunting trips occasionally change the course of history. Trotsky's decision to go duck-shooting instead of attending Lenin's funeral gave Stalin the perfect opportunity to begin his political marginalisation. Cheney's trip to the Armstrong ranch has had the opposite effect. Far from marginalising the Vice-President, it has brought him centre-stage - his least-favourite location.

At some point, when the history books get written, the question will have to be asked: Was George W Bush the 43rd President of the United States, or was it actually Dick Cheney? Serious analysts of American politics generally discount the idea that the President is merely a puppet whose strings the Vice-President pulls...

...Man was born free, wrote Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but he is everywhere in chains. George W Bush was born freer than most. But he is everywhere in Cheney...

According to a Rasmussen poll taken on 2/14 and 2/15, just 27% of Americans say that the unfortunate incident "raises serious questions about his ability to serve as Vice President".

On the other hand, 57% say it was "just one of those very embarrassing things that happens to all of us."

66% say they've been following the news on this "somewhat or very closely."

And, 36% view Dick Cheney favorably, with 41% unfavorably disposed.

Even though they wouldn't matter in this case, apparently they asked about gun control laws too. 39% they should be stricter, with 52% disagreeing.

The AP has a roundup, with these sections:
BLAME
DRINKING
VICTIM'S CONDITION
LICENSE
DISCLOSURE
TELLING WASHINGTON

During his interview with Brit Hume (the transcript of which can be found easily on the Internets), Cheney said that when the accident occurred, he was hunting near one other hunter (obviously Pam Willeford) and a guide (probably Bo Hubert) and/or an "outrigger." Cheney was on the group's "far right." (Or so he thought. In fact, unbeknownst to him, Whittington to was to his right.) The setting sun was to the group's right (which can only mean they were facing south).

Cheney told Hume that a quail then went up and flew towards the west. Cheney took aim at the bird, then pulled the trigger, shooting towards the sun (the west), inadvertently hitting Whittington.

Persons hearing this Hume interview probably assumed (very reasonably) that Cheney, while following the bird, had simply turned to his right (clockwise) and spun perhaps 90 degrees before pulling the trigger.

But look at the police report that summarizes Deputy San Miguel's brief 2/12/06 interview of Cheney. (It's posted at the Smoking Gun Web site.) That reports indicates Cheney told the deputy that the quail went up "behind" him, and he then turned in a "counter clockwise direction" before shooting at the bird.

Assuming Cheney told Hume the truth, and assuming Cheney told the deputy the truth, and assuming the deputy accurately recorded what Cheney had told him, then the only logical conclusion we can reach is that Cheney, while following the quail, turned to his left, then spun around about 270 degrees before shooting low towards the west, striking Whittington.

The fact that Whittington got hit on the right side of his face and neck seems to corroborate, not contradict, this 270-degree spin theory. Allow me to explain. If Willeford, Cheney, and Whittington were standing in a roughly east-west line, facing south, with Willeford to Cheney's left and Whittington to Cheney's right, and if a quail then goes up behind Cheney, and if Whittington then hears and/or sees (out of the corner of his eye) the quail, his natural reaction would be to turn his head (if not his whole body) to his left roughly 135 degrees (three-quarters of a half turn) so that he would then be looking directly at the quail behind Cheney. Such a turn would expose the right side of his face to Cheney. If the quail then flew in Whittington's direction, and if Cheney pulled the trigger just as the quail was flying in front of or behind Whittington, Cheney's birdshot would hit the right side of Whittington's face and neck.

From a hunting-safety point of view, Cheney's biggest gaffe was pulling the trigger without first making sure there was no person in his line of fire. But the 270-degree spin that he apparently made just before he pulled the trigger was nearly as big a gaffe. It was reckless. It was a gross violation of an important hunting-safety rule: when hunting with others, don't spin to the point where you are pointing your gun at one or more of your companions. As Cheney made his 270-degree counterclockwise spin, he almost certainly pointed his loaded shotgun at Willeford and the guide and/or outrigger, thus placing them in danger, at least momentarily.

In case you know the name, keep reading anyway. Tearing a page from MythBusters, he conducted shotgun ballistics tests and claims that Harry Whittington was shot at close range, between 15 and 18 feet. There's even a 10 minute video.

(Via this)

As the Harry Whittington picture shows, he was hit on his right side. However, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report shows him having been hit on his left side.

Huh?

(Via this)

Harry Whittington was released from the hospital earlier today. Pictures are here and here.