OT - Hilarious analysis of Cheney shooting

This is not mine. I cut and pasted from another group:

"I don't really give a rat's patoot either way, but I do enjoy playing
the devil's advocate here, so this is what I've read in the newspapers
and on the net:

First "official" notice that Cheney has been involved in something
newsworthy is 21 hours later, when Armstrong provides account to local
paper. White House says the time was needed to "get the facts
together."

Armstrong gives detailed account:
Cheney's party saw two coveys on the ground, one directly in front of
them, with dogs on point, and the other 100 or so yards to the left.
"The idea was to shoot the first, then for the group to move ahead and
shoot the second covey," After Whittington shot the two birds, he moved
away to look for them. He had trouble locating one, so he told the
group to move ahead. They moved to the second covey, but Whittington
had walked back near the group and was about 30 yards to the right of
the vice president when Cheney fired at birds emerging from the covey.
The sun was behind Whittington, possibly making him difficult to see.
"He got peppered pretty good. He's going to be sore and bruised. But he
was talking and communicating the whole time."

Armstrong then tells Associated Press that she had stayed in the car
until she suddenly saw the Secret Service men running in. "The first
thing that crossed my mind was he had a heart problem." Whoops. So much
for the detailed eyewitness account.

Initial news report quotes Armstrong as saying people were drinking
beer at lunch, "but remember not everyone in the party was shooting."
Then that paragraph is quietly deleted from the news website (but still
recoverable via Google cache). Armstrong later bolsters her competence
as a non-eyewitness by stating that she herself had not had a beer.
It's like a fifth grade problem for the "fuzzy math" crowd:
You have four people.
Beers were consumed.
Three people were shooting.
The one who wasn't shooting did not drink beer.
Is it possible that none of the shooters had a beer?
If you were the person who was not shooting and did not have a beer and
were an honest person, would you be able to caution the press that,
although there were beers consumed, "remember not everyone in the party
was shooting" without deliberately being misleading?
Would you decide later on it was smarter to delete the whole thing?

After a couple of days of mentioning Cheney and Whittington and a third
hunter, the Third Hunter is revealed to be a woman.

Also after a couple of days of sunny reports from the doctor,
Whittington's "peppered pretty good" is revealed to include a pellet
lodged against his heart which caused a heart attack. Later, he is
revealed to have two more pellets in his larynx and one in his liver,
despite supposedly being shot from 30 feet away, and one assumes
wearing appropriate outdoor clothing (high temperature in Austin Feb.
11 2006: 52 degrees).

Luckily, the Sheriff's Department has already closed the case as a
simple unavoidable accident.

So, really, all the Cheney-haters have to go on is two men out shooting
and having a few beers with a couple of women not their wives, one guy
who ends up shot, the shooter refusing to talk to the Sheriff until the
next morning or to the press until 4 days later, a detailed account of
an unavoidable accident given to the local press 21 hours later by
somebody who did not see it, an evasive but false insinuation that none
of the shooters were drinking which was later deleted, and the doctor
downplaying for days the fact that the injuries were severe enough to
be life-threatening and inconsistent with some of the details of the
official account. That's all. Nothing remotely suspicious, not like,
say, Kerry's war record, or Hillary's involvement in Vince Foster's
death.

That's what's so great about the Bush administration, and Cheney in
particular; even if nothing whatsoever remotely bad happened, they
cover everything up until it looks like the plot of a bad film noir;
because of course they know what they would do with any information
they got about any incident, however innocent, involving their
political opponents, and how their loyal public swallows the Koolaid
without question and asks for more."


.

Loading