Definition of a "coverup"

[tgnyc]

It's hard to see how Cheney's actions constitute a "coverup of the shooting." Nobody tried to get rid of the victim. Nobody tried (as far as we know) to silence the victim. We may suspect, but have no evidence, that anybody tried to silence or influence the witness(es). Nobody tried to hide the gun. The news media were notified --local, yes, but they are the news media, and can spread the word to national outlets. And the police were called -- a day later, yes, but called. People trying to coverup a shooting don't call the police and admit to the shooting.

What Cheney may very well have been trying to coverup, though, is that he was drunk. Given the way events played out, that's the only type of "coverup" that makes sense. Note though, that there really is no evidence of alcohol being a factor, so we are only supposing that this is what may have been hidden. With nothing else to go on, the frenzy overstates the case for a "coverup."

[JeffR]

1. ..

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. the intoxication and the extra-marital affair

[Wickerman]

3. wrong

Cheney is number two man in the country. Hell, he is really in charge, and we all know that.

When the number two man in the country, hunting on the taxpayer's dime is involved in a near lethal incident and details are not reported right away and then the details reported don't match reality (no way was the victim 30 yards away, no way was he peppered), that, my friend, is a cover-up. As a citizen and a taxpayer I have a need, not just a desire to know how much attention my elected leaders are paying to the job and how much they are paying to "spinning" their latest fuckups.

I frankly cannot fathom expecting less. :crazy:

[tgnyc]

5. But what exactly is he covering up? That he accidentally shot a guy

from closer range than he admitted? Unless he's trying to avoid embaraasment with the hunters of America, why should that matter enough to coverup -- unless we think the shooting was intentional?

[jedicord]

8. Perhaps it STARTED as a cover-up...

Then, upon advice from the WH, he changed his mind and 'fessed up.

Hence the long amount of time it took for the story to get out.

[Wickerman]

9. But isn't that what a coverup is?

Hiding shit so we don't know what it is? Was he drunk? Did he have a stroke and misfire? Was he protecting the honor the Swiss Miss as Mr. W hit on her? Hell, EVERYTHING is speculation and that would be the point. If this administration were *ever* honest with us we wouldn't have to speculate.

The simple fact that they have not been forthcoming with information, and ht at it is habit says volumes about this group of thugs.

Why would you want to defend such hubris? Why as a taxpayer aren't you offended by what, by definition is a cover-up? Why would they stonewall at every turn were there not something hinky in the works?

[neoblues]

4. The thing is, it looks like they were thinking real hard

about possibly covering it up. Someone decided not to try as it would likely be impossible... or someone let the cat out of the bag... whatever... but even then, they didn't bother to share or be forthcoming with any major news media--as though they were either about to cover it up or in the forlorn hope that while they did report it to a local media outlet... maybe it wouldn't get picked up... So too with the delay in bringing in the Police--as though they were trying to keep their options open--and realized a day later it was hopeless and that they'd look bad if they didn't call the Police and report the incident to the News.. (perhaps they chose a local outlet in the hopes that the very fact it was local might explain the delay in the pickup of the story). Whatever, they just "look guilty". They aren't--necessarily--assuming of course that the story reflects reality. If Cheney got pissed off (or pissed in the drunk sense) and blasted the guy--they ARE covering it up--in plain view. Go figure--the story sure doesn't make sense--you'd think they could make up a more clear sequence of events--instead of having Cheney accidentally mistake a couple of hundred pounds of grown man in an orange vest for a tiny little birdie and somehow shoot the guy despite him approaching from behind...

[RufusEarl]

6. What!

They took the guy to Kingsville for treatment! instead of CC where he ended up. Silence the victim, have you heard him speak? The media was notified! Some woman called a reporter friend, this was the VP of the USA. He has a publicity machine in place, i hardly call that notifying the media.

They didn't let the local sheriff talk to the VP till the next day, why?? Did he have to get his blood alcohol level down first?

Also first stories came out that the victim was 90 yards from the VP, well that dog want hunt. Any hunter will tell you straight up that thats BS, and i could go on.

And for crying out loud, we all know how straight speaking this admin have been with the MSM and the american people. But hey nothing to see here, keep moving, nothing to see here.

[Imalittleteapot]

7. Booze. What I have suspected all along.

He need time to purge his system of liquor or beer.

[Beetwasher]

10. Amazing, Simply Amazing

Tell it to the Republicans:

"The Republicans said Cheney should have immediately disclosed the shooting Saturday night to avoid even the suggestion of a coverup and should have offered a public apology for his role in accidentally shooting Harry Whittington, a GOP lawyer from Austin. Whittington was hospitalized Saturday night in Corpus Christi, Tex., and was moved back into the intensive-care unit after suffering an abnormal heart rhythm yesterday morning."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR2006021402137.html

--snip--

Oh, and there's this excellent summation:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/15/71550/5894

Yeah, only whackos would think there's some kind of cover up going on! :eyes: