Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer

[Andre II]

Surprising it hit the MSM:


Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago say Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting and a written report outlining details of the incident has been destroyed, sources tell Capitol Hill Blue.

Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions.
According to those who have talked with agents and others present at the outing, Cheney appeared drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.

We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/2006/02/secret_service_agents_say_chen.html

[physioex]

Sorry....

But I don't trust CHB as a reliable "News" source.....

[Bucky]

29. But but but... they're MSM (Mostly bullShit Media)

Capitol Hill Blue tells the truth as they wish it were, not as it is... a sadly common characteristic among conservatives, even the anti-Bush conservatives.

[Pachamama]

37. Oh come on dear Physioex! It's like the People Magazine of Politics!

Ok, so its really more like the National Enquirer....but you gotta admit, even the National Enquirer tends to have interesting info that gets proven true...

And besides, its so much fun....it confirms what so many of us suspected....it certainly would be fun if this "story" out there got someone to start digging further and then eventually the truth came out somewhere else where no one doubts it....

:hi: Long time no see! How's life in Seattle?

[physioex]

45. Ohhhh.....

Long time no see mama how are things? Things are great down here in Seattle, it has been cold for the last few days. But the sun is slowly coming out.

Yea I agree even the National Enquirer is right on ocassions. But you know I get so tired of the alien baby stories..... ;)

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Capitol Hill Blue not MSM

and not overly reliable either. Not that this report isn't true, just don't go banking on it.

[physioex]

3. Completely Agree......

Using this just makes us look bad....

[Andre II]

7. Sorry,

wasn't aware of that.
My excuses.
Maybe the thread should be deleted then with my apologies!

[Warren Stupidity]

10. No it should stay up.

See havocmom's point. What are we thinking? There are no reliable sources.

[physioex]

14. Don't worry about deleting the thread.....

I was bit fooled by them in the begining myself. Live and learn from your mistakes..... :)

[Andre II]

15. Thanks

:)

[havocmom]

5. Cracks me up when blue is put down and MSM held as a standard

:rofl: MSM?

MSM not overly reliable either.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Oh well that is too true.

Guilty as charged Havocmom.

[havocmom]

24. Appreciate that you recognize the silliness of holding MSM as a standard

but no charges so no addmission of guilt required. ;)

The double vision of MSM around here just baffles me. Glad you noticed the irony of holding other sources up to that particular yardstick.

[physioex]

18. Fortunately.....

We have blogs, so that we can discuss open ideas. This helps us view the news in different points of view....

[sendero]

33. Exactly..

... where is the truth? In the NYT? No. On NPR? No. On Fox News or CNN? No.

CHB is about as good as anything, I have yet to see anything they've printed ACTUALLY PROVEN TO BE INCORRECT.

[MADem]

17. I've never known the guy to lie, frankly

This follow up article is instructive, and deals with this very issue of credibility. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8187.shtml

Despite what the naysayers claim, we get it first and get it right. We reported on Bush's temper tantrums a full year before it appeared in Newsweek. We revealed Bush's executive order allowing the National Security Agency to spy on Americans on June 7, 2004 -- 18 months before the New York Times printed the story. Last week we revealed President Bush ordered Vice President Cheney to go public about his hunting "accident." Time got around to it a few days later. I have no doubt that more information about Cheney's drinking will surface down the line and confirm what we reported Wednesday.

...So what possible motive could I have to subject myself, and this web site, to the barrage of abuse....Some say it's because I'm a liberal, which shows what little they know. How many liberals are card-carrying members of the National Rifle Association or worked for conservative members of Congress like Manuel Lujan Jr. or the 1984 Reagan-Bush re-election campaign?

Others claim the stories are drunken hallucinations, which might make sense if I weren't a recovering alcoholic who hasn't had a drink since June 6, 1994. Still others say it's drugs. Yeah, Tylenol arthritis pain formula, Zestril hypertension medication and Johnson & Johnson baby aspirin are real mood-altering drugs.

And still others claim I'm a bitter, lonely old man living out his final days lashing out at others. I could let my wife answer that one, or the student photographers I mentor or the young people I work with on various projects.....Frankly, I don't give a damn what the naysayers think. I've served my country more than once to preserve democracy and try and make this nation a better place to live. I've worked within the political system in Washington and tried to change it for the better from the inside. While others talked about change, I worked with real lovers of America to make it happen. While others talked about doing, we did....

[onenote]

31. can you explain this? looks like CHB is doing so post hoc editing

CHB claims in the linked piece that he revealed the executive order allowing the NSA to spy back on June 7 2004 and provides a link to the article that includes a paragraph with that reference. But when I used Google to find that article, the version I came up with doesn't have that paragraph, which leads to the following question: Did he add it after the fact so he could claim credit for it?

Here is his link.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4648A.shtml

Here is the link I found on google:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=32&num=4648


compare them. Only the one he now links has the NSA reference.

onenote

[MADem]

38. You should write to Doug Thompson and ask him about it

If you aren't rude or snarky, he will respond.

[blossomstar]

35. A salute to you Sir! Way to go, the truth is all there is....

[MADem]

20. They've gotten it right more often than Faux or CNN n/t

[havocmom]

25. Yes, they have

And made Wolf look bad a time or two which I enjoy greatly.

[havocmom]

2. Duck! You cite a site not appreciated around here

Although, I have noticed blue has been proven correct on several things after some time for facts to sift up through the corporate media filters.

[grytpype]

9. You mean they guessed correctly.

They guess the worst-case scenerio and then print it as though they actually had sources and were not just making it up.

And very often the worst-case scenerio turns out to be true, but still, they are making it up.

[havocmom]

23. And MSM just ignores truths which are starring at them in the face

I don't see that one is more reliable than the other. MSM keeps telling us bushco won fair and square and we damned well know different. They also pushed Saddam/9-11 meme for MONTHS or years before finally admitting Saddam was not responsible for 9-11. The list is too long for me to recite, so I just ask that you think about MSM's standard. It sucks.

Amuses me we belittle some sources as not being MSM then complain and moan about MSM. Just does not compute.

[MADem]

39. It isn't a they, more than it is a HIM

The site owner was a print reporter, and used to be a Congressional staffer back in the Reagan years, for a GOP congressman.

He has pals all over the Hill, many who have moved on and up in the world. Not all of them stay on the Hill, they slide over to agency jobs in various cabinet/executive branch offices, and some even make it to the big show, working in the Casa Blanca.

Apparently, as a staffer, he was a helpful type, and was probably a lot of fun to be around, seeing as he was drinking back then and probably bought more than a few rounds. He made some friends, and kept them...

[TahitiNut]

11. Be careful yelling "Duck!" Cheney might shoot you.

:evilgrin:

[havocmom]

27. 's OK TahitiNut, got my Hard Head on today. Cheney can't touch this!

Caught any of my mayhem in the abortion threads? The mods will be hunting me with tranquilizer darts any time now.

[_testify_]

4. capitolhillblue is not the MSM

it's more like a wish-list - I've never read a story on that site that actually named a source.

[Penndems]

13. No, and you won't either

Anybody who's presently connected to the current Administration will NEVER go on record.

They're not gonna risk committing personal and political suicide by going "on the record" against The Village Idiot and his minions, irregardless of whether it's Capitol Hill Blue, The Washington Post or a cable news outlet.











(on edit: text)

[johnnie]

6. Many people here question Capitol Hill Blue's reliability

I'm not saying either way. I believe it is probably true because of the way the whole thing was handled, but who knows?

[KansDem]

12. Can the Secret Service agents be questioned?

I think they were during the Starr investigation of Clinton. Perhaps an investigation into this incident should be opened and the SS agents subpoenaed.

[raysr]

26. You bet they were

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. CHB is MSM? Does MSM Mean MANY STORIES MADE-UP???

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Actually it seems it does.

Why are we considering the MSM as reliable? Since when?

[havocmom]

28. Shows how brainwashed WE are. Like we need MSM seal of approval?

Then we complain about DEM leaders not bucking bushco. Well, if we insist it plays in MSM before we give a story an honest appraisal, we are doing just like those DEM leaders we whine about: waiting for daddy to wink and say it's OK.

Hope you know I am not attacking (or stalking) you, Warren Stupidity. I have read enough of your posts to know you are bright and very reasonable. I am using you as a foil to get people to really address how they swallow the MSM crap too easily and disregard other sources that don't parrot the PRAVDA party line, err, MSM reports. 'It'll make us look bad if we talk about it before MSM carries the story...' Blah Blah Blah! If it weren't for places like DU and other liberal blogs, MSM wouldn't admit to half the stuff they finally get around to reporting which is usually months after it appears here and the public starts asking questions.

Thank you for playing nice. You're a hellova sport. We will get one or two people here to question instead of just letting their knees jerk them around! ;) :hi:

[wiley]

21. Recommended and Kicked!

Put it in a supermarket tabloid and it will become the truth to most people. It most likely already is. We gain no popints kidding ourselves that "they" are playing fair. have you ever read NewsMax? Or a release from the RNC? Or listened to anything the liar in chief says?

CHB has it all over them. At least it dares to say things everyone knows are probably true.

[physioex]

22. Completely Agree....

Newsmax is another piece of crap "News" source that is biased to the right.....

[Virginian]

30. Somebody tried to float this yesterday.

It makes for interesting reading, but...
I'll enjoy reading it, but take it with a grain of salt. They have had some good ones, but those in the know won't quote them.

[Czolgosz]

32. FWIW, Capitol Hill Blue has a better record for accuracy than Drudge (eom)

[onenote]

34. That's not saying much. And see post #31

[951-Riverside]

36. This CHB shit again?

CHB is even worst than CNN they COMPLETELY lie

Yesterday's post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x490004

[Cults4Bush]

41. Prove it, seriously give me three examples of out and out lies from CHB

in the last 5 years.

If they lie soooo much then this should be no problem for you or the others always saying the same thing and then not backing it up with conclusive proof that he "COMPLETELY lies" as you so eloquently yelled.

Every cable news network lies much more, almost alll print media lies more, and our elected officials certainly lie more. Sorry but Ill believe CHB before I believe CNN, NYT, WaPo or many of the posters on forums around the internet.

Now prove to all of us that this isn't just partisanship and bad blood from the Clinton daze. If you can prove conclusively three or more out and out lies from the last 5 years from CHB you will change my mind and many others, if not than I dare say that you and all the other detractors of CHB are as full of shit as you claim CHB to be in this regard.

[mattclearing]

42. The whole point is that CHB reports stuff that no one else can

substantiate. You can't prove something that didn't happen didn't happen, and that's exactly why people still believe this bs. Thompson only writes these stories when he is certain no one will disprove it. It's his word against theirs, and Thompson knows people like you will believe what you want to believe, so he gives it to you.

[Cults4Bush]

43. Excuse me but not naming sources is commonplace to the point of being a

given these days in all media. My point is that the bulk of his work is no different than any other media outlet especially online sources. If you were to apply the same rules to all media stories posted on DU I would not have a problem with it.

...and aren't you the elitist! "People like you" indeed. Prove that "Thompson only writes these stories because no one can disprove it", I find it hard to believe that you know him so well. What is your source for this allegation? This isn't a "prove the negative" situation here I am asking you to show proof with scources named how you know with such certainty that this is why he writes.

I think "people like you" hold an embittered partisan edge and set up the catch 22 to seemingly prove they are right when in fact all it does is leave the argument stagnant and unmoved. Again I say prove to me that he has lied 3 different times in the last 5 years, you can't... so it leaves your argument ambigous at best. The good news is that the same rationale can be applied in the reverse so that it leaves his articles ambigous at best. That is not the stance you and so many others have though. You make up conspiracies about his motives when there is no way in hell you know his motives (if indeed he has any beyond exposing lies), which leaves you looking quite hypocritical considering that this is exactly what you accuse him of. There is in the end or more likely for the moment a no win on this debate for either you and the many other detractors he has or for him and his many supporters.

I believe if CHB were nearly as bad as you and so many others make it out to be than admin would not be allowing links or mention regarding CHB, so if it really upsets you and so many others enough to spend so much time shooting down every thread about it then get it banned at DU. Just remember that the same justifications you use for censoring out CHB should fairly be applied across the spectrum. That is really all I am trying to say here but Im sure "you will believe what you want to believe" as well.

[mattclearing]

44. I didn't say anything about not naming sources.

I said that no one can substantiate his stories.

As soon as the Nation or Utne or even Kos can find someone to confirm the "Constitution is a goddamned piece of paper," or "Cheney is drunk," stories, I'll give a shit what Thompson has to say.

[Cocoa]

40. even if he wasn't drunk

Dick Cheney shot a lawyer. :wow: