The "throe-away" insurgency and yet more evidence of the stupidity and arrogance of the Bush administration

Outside of Big Dick Cheney's asinine statement about "last throes," I have not written much about the Iraqi insurgency. Note that I said Iraqi insurgency, which is due to the fact that report after report after report said that--contrary to Bush and the Neocon Gang That Can't Think Straight kept saying--the insurgency primarily consisted of Iraqis, not foreign fighters.

Well, there is now even more evidence of that--and evidence that the Bush administration was told this and utterly refused to listen. Today Knight Ridder published an article entitled "Intelligence agencies warned about growing local insurgency in late 2003" by Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay. Strobel and Landay did not rely on anonymous sources, as clearly shown in the following excerpts:

U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more than two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war, according to former senior intelligence officials who helped craft the reports.

Among the warnings, Knight Ridder has learned, was a major study, called a National Intelligence Estimate, completed in October 2003 that concluded that the insurgency was fueled by local conditions--not foreign terrorists--and drew strength from deep grievances, including the presence of U.S. troops.

The existence of the top-secret document, which was the subject of a bitter three-month debate among U.S. intelligence agencies, has not been previously disclosed to a wide public audience.

The reports received a cool reception from Bush administration policymakers at the White House and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to the former officials, who discussed them publicly for the first time.

President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and others continued to describe the insurgency as a containable threat, posed mainly by former supporters of Saddam Hussein, criminals and non-Iraqi terrorists - even as the U.S. intelligence community was warning otherwise.

Robert Hutchings, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, said the October 2003 study was part of a "steady stream" of dozens of intelligence reports warning Bush and his top lieutenants that the insurgency was intensifying and expanding.

"Frankly, senior officials simply weren't ready to pay attention to analysis that didn't conform to their own optimistic scenarios," Hutchings said in a telephone interview.

The office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte declined Tuesday to comment for this article.

The NIC is the intelligence community's foremost group of senior analysts, and as its chairman, Hutchings presided over the drafting of the October 2003 report and other analyses of the insurgency.

Wayne White, a veteran State Department intelligence analyst, wrote recently that when it became clear that the National Intelligence Estimate would forecast grim prospects for tamping down the insurgency, a senior official "exclaimed rhetorically, 'How can I take this upstairs?' (to then-CIA Director George Tenet)"

White argued forcefully in inter-agency deliberations for a more pessimistic description of the insurgency, and his views eventually prevailed. White is now an adjunct scholar at the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

Revelation of the intelligence warnings come as religious and ethnic violence has escalated in Iraq after last Wednesday's destruction of a revered Shiite Muslim mosque in the city of Samarra.

In Congress on Tuesday, Army Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified that the insurgency "remains strong, and resilient."

Maples said that while Iraqi terrorists and foreign fighters conduct some of the most spectacular attacks, disaffected Iraqi Sunnis make up the insurgency's core. "So long as Sunni Arabs are denied access to resources and lack a meaningful presence in government, they will continue to resort to violence," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

That view contrasts with what the administration said as the insurgency began in the months following the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion and gained traction in the fall. Bush and his aides portrayed it as the work primarily of foreign terrorists crossing Iraq's borders, disenfranchised former officials of Saddam's deposed regime and criminals.

*******

White, who worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said of the administration: "They've gone through various excuse phases."

Now, he said, "The levels of resistance are pretty much as high as they were a year ago."

Hutchings, now diplomat in residence at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said intelligence specialists repeatedly ran up against policymakers' rosy predictions.

"The mindset downtown was that people were willing to accept that things were pretty bad, but not that they were going to get worse, so our analyses tended to get dismissed as `nay-saying and hand-wringing,' to quote the president's press spokesman," he said.

The result, he said, was that top political and military officials focused on ways of dealing with foreign jihadists and disaffected Saddam loyalists, rather than with other pressing problems, such as growing Iraqi anger at the U.S.-led occupation and the deteriorating economic and security situation.

A former senior U.S. official who participated in the process said that analysts at the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department's intelligence bureau all agreed that the insurgency posed a growing threat to stability in Iraq and to U.S. hopes for forming a new government and rebuilding the economy.

"This was stuff the White House and the Pentagon did not want to hear," the former official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "They were constantly grumbling that the people who were writing these kind of downbeat assessments 'needed to get on the team,' 'were not team players' and were 'sitting up there (at CIA headquarters) in Langley sucking their thumbs.'"

*******

Hutchings said that one theme that ran through intelligence analyses as early as 2003 was that there were "signs of incipient civil war."

"The invasion and occupation opened issues for which the Iraqi people had no answer," he said, including the role of religion and relations among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

(emphasis added). More analysis will follow.

Reasons for invading Iraq? We don't need no stinking reasons.

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan, I came across this rather enlightening on outragedmoderates.org entitled "DoD Staffer's Notes from 9/11 Obtained Under FOIA." Just read it. I was not the least bit surprised, but still, to see the actual proof was a real kick.

Also read this post and this post.

Sectarian violence that could tear apart Iraq--who knew?

The answer is "Everyone except the Bush administration."

Time for a refresher course. Back on September 30, 2004, I published a post entitled Wolfowitz's Reason 3 why Shinseki was wrong. "Reason 3" referred to one of the reasons Wolfowitless gave to Congress as to why Gen. Eric Shinseki's testimony that it would take several hundred thousand troops to adequately take care of the post war period in Iraq was "wildly off the mark." Reason 3 was that there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq. In the course of completely trashing Reason 3, I quoted many other people who made their views and evidence known before the war. Here are some highlights that directly address the potential for sectarian strife.

Highlight 1

Anthony Cordesmann of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said this in early March, 2003:

The possibility of ethnic fighting, with Turkish and Iranian complications, cannot be dismissed. There are major tribal and clan fault lines. There are serious Arab-Kurd-Turcoman-Assyrian fault lines. There are Sunni vs. Shi'ite fault lines, and deep fault lines within the Kurdish and Shi'ite populations plus problems like the Iraq-armed Iranian MEK and Iranian-armed Iraqi Badr Brigades. There are cities, agricultural area, and oil to fight over and there are real questions about revenge killings.

(emphasis added).

Highlight 2

The final group of general statements comes from "Iraq Backgrounder: What Lies Beneath," an October 1, 2002, report from the International Crisis Group (ICG).

Indeed, many tensions between opposition groups derive from deeper fault-lines that pre-date Saddam Hussein and are likely to survive him. These divides are principally along religious, ethnic and tribal lines, though class and ideology should not be neglected.

*******

After decades of power imbalance and discrimination, Shiites may seek to settle scores with Sunnis. Ethnic inequities and unresolved political and economic issues could ignite tensions and provoke violence between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomans.

(italics in original post, bold added in this post)

Highlight 3

Revenge killings based on religious and tribal connections...Well, that might be strife, but it certainly isn't ethnic strife, now is it? So, maybe there was no history of ethnic strife in north and south Iraq, but what about the central region? From the Wall Street Journal:

The U.S.-led coalition would encounter some of its toughest challenges in the center of Iraq -- in Baghdad and across the heartland occupied by the minority Sunni Muslim population. There the Sunni elite would find themselves threatened as they haven't been since the British took the region away from the Ottoman Turks after World War I. Although Sunni Muslims make up no more than 18% of Iraq's population, they have dominated the country's affairs for centuries. From their ranks have come not only Mr. Hussein but also a long line of sheiks, monarchs and strongmen stretching back through British rule to the administrations of the Ottoman Turks. Sunnis play crucial roles in operating the country day to day, from holding key positions in its military to overseeing public services such as water and health care.

Highlight 4

And speaking of religious differences, anyone who has done even meager study of Islam knows that these branches of Islam have been deeply divided and antagonistic for hundreds of years. As the ICG put it:

There is little doubt that a religious schism exists and dates back to the earliest days of Islam when what is now Iraq served as a battle ground for many of the seminal events that have defined the Sunni-Shiite division. The ascendancy of Sunnis during the Ottoman period was perpetuated in modern Iraq, and Sunni political figures and officers have held a disproportionate share of power since independence.

*******

During the 1990s, the rift between Sunnis and Shiites deepened, and overall religious tensions intensified.

Gee...a dispute that goes back centuries and has been fought primarily in Iraq...

To quote Will Smith...

As Will Smith's character in "I, Robot" said, "Somehow 'I told you so' just doesn't quite say it."

However, note that I did not say it. Plenty of other people said it, AND they said it BEFORE the war. And yet, the Bush administration paid no attention.

The ports deal and Bush's cluelessness described by calmer people

Thanks to Kevin Drum, I read a wonderful column by William Greider. I was about to do nothing more but give the link to Greider's column, but given that it is on the web site of The Nation, clicking on the link might cause some to experience a severe allergic reaction. ;-) The entire column is worth reading, but in order to protect those who might break out in a rash by going to the web site of one of the most lefty liberal publications, I will present some excerpts here.

David Brooks, the high-minded conservative pundit...consulted "the experts," and they assured him there's no national security risk in a foreign company owned by Middle East Muslims--actually, by an Arab government--managing six major American ports. Cool down, people. This is how the world works in the age of globalization.

Of course, he is correct. But what a killjoy. This is a fun flap, the kind that brings us together. Republicans and Democrats are frothing in unison, instead of polarizing incivilities...The issue is indeed trivial. But Bush cannot escape the basic contradiction, because this dilemma is fundamental to his presidency.

A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush's invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defense spending by more than 40 percent. Hysteria has been used to realign US foreign policy for permanent imperial war-making, whenever and wherever we find something frightening afoot in the world. Hysteria will justify the "long war" now fondly embraced by Field Marshal Rumsfeld. It has also slaughtered a number of Democrats who were not sufficiently hysterical. It saved George Bush's butt in 2004.

Bush was the principal author, along with his straight-shooting Vice President, and now he is hoisted by his own fear-mongering propaganda.

*******

So why is the fearmonger-in-chief being so casual about this Dubai business?

Because at some level of consciousness even George Bush knows the inflated fears are bogus. So do a lot of the politicians merrily throwing spears at him. He taught them how to play this game, invented the tactics and reorganized political competition as a demagogic dance of hysterical absurdities, endless opportunities to waste public money. Very few dare to challenge the mindset. Thousands have died for it.

With one exception, Greider is spot on. The exception is that "conservative" does not necessarily mean "Bush supporter" or "war supporter." Stated differently--and as discussed some even on this blog--George W. Bush ain't exactly what could be called "conservative," but that is a different topic. And now ol' George wonders why people are so upset with our ports being run by a company owned by an Arab government. Again, what a dumbass.

In response to Greider, Drum said the following:

On a related note, it makes me feel almost nostalgic to watch the toxic stew of cherry picking, half truths, and outright misrepresentations currently being used to demonize the UAE as a virtual arm of al-Qaeda. You know what it reminds me of? The way Bush & Co. tried to sell Saddam Hussein as Osama's best buddy in the Middle East. It's poetic watching the Bushies squirm when they're on the receiving end of this stuff.

Poetic, yes. Now if we can just add some justice to the poetry...

The new U.S. port deal: the latest example that Bush is clueless

I am not even going to bother to provide links and researched facts on this one. Instead, I'm just going to riff.

George W. Bush is so completely clueless. There's a deal that his administration made to have a company owned by an Arab government take over control of some our major ports. I am not going to take a position here on whether this is a good idea. Instead, I am going to point out that Bush's seeming disbelief over the reaction to this deal proves once again that he is a clueless moron.

Stream of consciousness time...Bush has built almost his entire Presidency and agenda on fighting terrorists. How many times has he said "this post 9-11 world?" And the 9-11 terrorists were Arab. Osama is Arab. Al Qaeda was and is a primarily Arab organization. Saddam Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda, and, by the way, he is Arab. We are in Iraq so "we can fight the terrorists there instead of here." Iraq is an Arab nation. Thus, we are fighting Arabs in an Arab country so we don't have to fight Arabs in the USA. Homeland Security has become oh so important to Bush in this post 9-11 world. That's why we need the Patriot Act. That's why we need warrantless wiretaps--to catch Al Qaeda terrorists, which is to say "Arab terrorists."

Do I really need to go on?

Our ports are key to our homeland security, Bush has spent years saying we are at war with Arabs (not all Arabs, but Arabs nonetheless), and now he is all bent out of shape because people are upset over the fact that he wants an Arab state-owned business in charge of our major ports.

What the hell did he expect?

What a dumbass.

Bush--and all of the other neocon dumbasses--are apparently incapable of comprehending possible consequences beyond a few weeks.

I have to stop before I go into an apoplectic rage.

Cheney's interview shows his true priorities

In Cheney’s first public statement about shooting Harry Whittington (his interview with Brit Hume of Fox News), he spouted some bullshit in attempting to explain and justify the delay in disclosing the shooting to the public. As shown below, Cheney claimed that the key factor was Whittington's medical condition, but a closer look shows otherwise.

And guess what? There is some indisputable evidence directly controverting one of Cheney's major claims.

Cheney's explanation of the disclosure delay in general

Cheney’s explanation of the delay in informing the media just does not make sense. The discussion in the interview began with Brit Hume asking this question:

Now, what thought did you give, then, to how -- you must have known that this was -- whether it was a matter of state, or not, was news. What thought did you give that evening to how this news should be transmitted?

Cheney began his answer with a tactic that–as I have said before–is part of the Bush administration SOP, namely saying something that nobody can or would dispute but that really is irrelevant to the issue:

Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him.

Nobody would expect Cheney to think first about notifying the press. Probably 99% of people who accidentally shot a friend would think immediately about the victim’s health. That is not the issue here. The issue is why it took almost 24 hours for the public to learn of this incident. Cheney went on to explain that there were concerns as to Whittington’s family:

That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

Well, of course that sort of thing is important. Again, nobody can dispute that, and, again, that is largely irrelevant to this matter. It did not take 24 hours to get Whittington’s wife “hooked up with the ambulance.” In other words, she found out very quickly that her husband had been shot. As for the Whittington children, does anyone that any mother is going to wait to try to contact her children in the event that their father has been shot? Does anyone think that any mother is not going to insist that someone contact her children as soon as possible in the event she cannot do so personally? I can certainly understand waiting a few hours in order to make sure that all family members had been contacted, but 24 hours? There has been no statement that the Whittington children for some reason were incapable of being notified within a few hours. As a result, from the facts which have been disclosed, this part of the “explanation” from Cheney is bullshit.

Cheney’s answer to Hume’s initial question about the delay concluded with something that on the surface seems to make sense:

But we also didn't know what the outcome here was going to be. We didn't know for sure what kind of shape Harry was in. We had preliminary reports, but they wanted to do a CAT scan, for example, to see how -- whether or not there was any internal damage, whether or not any vital organ had been penetrated by any of the shot. We did not know until Sunday morning that we could be confident that everything was probably going to be okay.

I can come up with an explanation that makes this reasoning very legitimate, but as I will explain later, Cheney did not give that explanation and instead it is clear that Cheney’s primary concern was not Whittington. Notice that Cheney simply said “Sunday morning” without any clearer definition. Was it 12:01 a.m. or 11:59 a.m.? Obviously, Cheney wants to give the impression that it was well after 12:01 a.m. because that way the delay between that time and when Armstrong actually contacted the media would be shorter. However, I have been unable to find any statement as to when on Sunday morning it was determined that "everything was probably going to be okay."

Moreover, from what I have found, there are strong indications that determining Whittington's condition was not a factor in deciding when to notify the public. From the AP article cited in previous posts:

Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong said no one discussed notifying the public of the accident Saturday because they were so consumed with making sure Whittington was OK. She said the family realized in the morning that it would be a story and decided to call the local newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times. She said she then discussed the news coverage with Cheney for the first time.

“I said, Mr. Vice President, this is going to be public, and I’m comfortable going to the hometown newspaper,” she told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “And he said ‘you go ahead and do whatever you are comfortable doing.’ ”

The Washington Post reported the following:

In a telephone interview, Armstrong said that she, her mother and her sister, Sara Storey Armstrong Hixon, decided on Sunday morning after breakfast to report the shooting accident to the media. "It was my family's own volition, and the vice president agreed. We felt -- my family felt and we conferred as a family -- that the information needed to go public. It was our idea," Armstrong said.

Notice that there was no mention of Whittington's condition being a factor in deciding to contact the media. Notice also there was no mention of Cheney saying that Whittington's condition was a factor in deciding to contact the media. These facts indicate that Whittington's condition did not play a role in deciding when to contact the media, and that indication is even stronger in light of the following from the New York Times:

Ms. Armstrong and her guests insisted that the focus Saturday was solely on Mr. Whittington and that no one talked about whether or how to put out the news of the incident. "I'm telling you, there was no discussion at all, there wasn't," she said.

*******

That night, Ms. Armstrong said, Mr. Cheney and the others ate a somber roast beef dinner, overshadowed by concern for Mr. Whittington. Dr. Willeford and Mr. Hixon returned from the hospital in Corpus Christi to brief them further. They went to bed around 10, she said.

She said she was up Sunday by 6 a.m. and the other guests drifted in to breakfast around 7:30. It was then, she said, that they first started discussing how the news of the shooting was to be released.

Thus, if Armstrong's statements are accurate, there was no discussion of when to disclose the incident until 7:30 a.m. on Sunday. That means no one--including Cheney--discussed when the story would be disclosed, and it follows that Whittington's condition as an element in that decision was not raised, if at all, until 7:30 a.m. on Sunday. As shown below, Deputy Sheriff San Miguel arrived at the Ranch approximately 30 minutes later to interview Cheney and Armstrong, and, according to a column in the Caller-Times, Armstrong first tried calling reporter Jaime Powell's cell phone (Armstrong did not call the paper's office initially) about the time San Miguel arrived. That means any discussion about Whittington's condition being a factor in deciding when to publicly disclose the incident had to take place between 7:30 and 8:00. However, as shown above, Armstrong apparently simply informed Cheney that she and her family had decided to contact the media and Cheney conceded. Consequently, the facts as known to date strongly show that information on Whittington's condition was not a factor in deciding when to contact the media.

Also, it seems to me that in some ways the fact that Cheney shot Whittington and Whittington's condition are two distinct matters. Whittington's condition does not alter the fact that he was shot, nor does it have anything to do with the facts surrounding the shooting. By Saturday night, all the relevant facts about the shooting incident were known. Cheney, Armstrong, and the others on the scene all knew what had happened. This was not a case to be solved by forensic detectives. Within a few hours of the shooting there were no more facts to be determined outside Whittington's condition. So why would a lack of information on Whittington's condition justify delaying public disclosure of the incident for almost 24 hours? As I said, I can come up with an answer to that question, but Cheney never did give a similar answer. Moreover, this does not in any explain why informing the public of this incident was left to the discretion and responsibility of Armstrong, but that is another topic.

"My explanation" is as follows. Obviously, a media frenzy would (and did) develop as soon as the shooting was disclosed. As soon as possible, media would have swarmed to the hospital in Corpus Christi, and that atmoshpere potentially could have caused stress and adversity to Whittington and his family which might have affected his condition. Cheney could have given this explanation. Not only would it have made some sense, but it would have fit perfectly with his claim that his top priority was Whittington's well being. However, Cheney never said anything like this. Instead, he spoke at great length about something else upon which he placed greater priority.

Cheney's real priority: CYA

Cheney's expressly said his main concern was accuracy, but his real concern was covering his own ass. His expressly stated priority was established in this exchange:

Q: Well, did it occur to you that sooner was -- I mean, the one thing that we've all kind of learned over the last several decades is that if something like this happens, as a rule sooner is better.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's accurate. If it's accurate. And this is a complicated story.

Again, I stress that the facts concerning the shooting itself were known by Saturday night. What's so complicated about that? The incident itself could have been reported with full accuracy well before late Sunday afternoon. So what was left to be sorted out? What was so complicated that disclosure of the incident had to wait?

It turns out that that the answer is Whittington's condition. This was made clear in the following statements from Cheney:

But one of the things I'd learned over the years was first reports are often wrong and you need to really wait and nail it down. And there was enough variation in the reports we were getting from the hospital, and so forth -- a couple of people who had been guests at the ranch went up to the hospital that evening; one of them was a doctor, so he obviously had some professional capabilities in terms of being able to relay messages. But we really didn't know until Sunday morning that Harry was probably going to be okay, that it looked like there hadn't been any serious damage to any vital organ. And that's when we began the process of notifying the press.

Let me see if I understand this. The process of notifying the public of the shooting started when it was clear that Whittington was going to be okay. In other words, as soon as it looked like Whittington was not in serious danger, the decision was made to start informing the public. That sure sounds like Cheney's top priority was not even accuracy but rather covering his own ass. Once it could be said that Whittington was not seriously injured, it would be easier to try to pass this whole thing off as an unfortunate, but harmless, accident. Cheney's first concern was not Whittington. If it had been, he could have said something along the lines of the explanation I came up with, but he said nothing of the sort. Accurately informing the public of Whittington's non-dangerous condition at the same time as disclosing the shooting was the top priority. The public could have been told about the facts of the shooting (which, again, were known by Saturday night) along with a statement of what was known about Whittington's condition, with an assurance of updates to follow. Why was this not done, if not to cover Cheney's ass?

CYA and the Sheriff's investigation

Anyone think my tin foil hat is too tight? I do need a new one, but that is beside the point. The investigation conducted by the Sheriff's Department provides support for my CYA theory (though it does not prove it). The official report from the Sheriff's department, which was released on Feb. 17, is an interesting read. NOTE: The link for the report is to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which requires registration to get the document. A February 17 New York Times article has information from the report.

Part of the report was written by Sheriff Salinas. Therein, he stated that before the Secret Service contacted the Sheriff about the incident, Captain Charles Kirk called him (Salinas) to say that he was going to the Armstrong Ranch to get information about a possible hunting accident. Minutes later, the Secret Service called Sheriff Salinas, and then

Captain Kirk called me back and said he'd made contact with a Border Patrol agent at the Armstrong Gate and that the Agent told him that he didn't know anything about the incident. I then told Captain Kirk that it was fine and that I would contact somebody on the ranch.

So far, so good. After that phone call with Kirk, Sheriff Salinas

contacted Constable Ramiro Medellin, Jr., former Sheriff of Kenedy County, and asked him if he had any information about the accident. Constable Medellin stated that he would call me right back.

Constable Medellin returned my call and said, “This in fact is an accident.” He stated that he had spoken with some of the people in the hunting party who were eyewitnesses and that they all said it was definitely a hunting accident. I also spoke with another eyewitness and he said the same thing, that it was an accident.

Again, so far so good. But now things get a little confusing to me. Salinas then stated

After hearing the same information from eyewitnesses and Constable Medellin, it was at this time that I decided to send my Chief Deputy first thing Sunday morning to interview the Vice-President and other witnesses.

(emphasis added). Now this is where I have some questions. I am not a law enforcement officer, but as a lawyer, I know that the sooner one can get information in relation to a given occurrence the better. Why then did the Sheriff decide waiting until the next day would be sufficient? Why not try to get statements from witnesses--including Cheney--on Saturday night, especially when Captain Kirk was at the Ranch shortly after the incident happened? I'm not saying that Salinas did anything wrong. It very well might be that for the purposes of the Sheriff's investigation there was no need to get statements from Cheney and Armstrong until the following morning (the Caller-Times published an article which provided Salinas's reasonable explanation). Then again, I fail to see any overriding reason not to get those statements on Saturday night. As I keep saying, all the witnesses knew all the relevant facts that evening. In other words, Cheney and Armstrong knew on Saturday night what they witnessed, so why not get their statements Saturday instead of Sunday?

Still, I think the timing of Deputy San Miguel interviewing Cheney and Armstrong is significant not because it might show an improper delay in taking such action. Instead, I think the timing of those interviews had a direct impact on the delay in publicly disclosing the incident. Once the interviews were done, Cheney would be able to say that once the incident was publicly disclosed an official, objective investigation had been done, meaning that whatever facts were disclosed to the media by Armstrong could be corroborated by statements given to law enforcement officials, thus giving whatever Armstrong said to the press a veneer of credibility. In other words, waiting until after San Miguel arrived at the Ranch on Sunday morning to start "the process of notifying the press" was just another part of the CYA effort.

Admittedly, I could be wrong about this portion of the CYA effort, but unless further facts come to light, I say my analysis is within the realm of possibility. However, there is another part of my CYA theory that I know is based on incontrovertible facts.

Oh such sweet, delicious irony

Still think I am a lefty loon? Well, I might indeed be, but that is also beside the point. Remember that Cheney insisted that the delay in telling the public about the shooting was necessary to make sure that the story was accurate.

With that in mind, let's review a few facts. Here's another set of statements Shotgun Dick Cheney made to Brit Hume regarding the overriding need for accuracy:

There wasn't any way this was going to be minimized, Brit; but it was important that it be accurate. I do think what I've experienced over the years here in Washington is as the media outlets have proliferated, speed has become sort of a driving force, lots of time at the expense of accuracy. And I wanted to make sure we got it as accurate as possible, and I think Katherine was an excellent choice. I don't know who you could get better as the basic source for the story than the witness who saw the whole thing.

(emphasis added). Now let's review what Cheney's best choice to make sure the accurate story was told actually said. From the AP article cited in previous posts:

Armstrong said the shotgun pellets broke the skin. “It knocked him silly. But he was fine. He was talking. His eyes were open. It didn’t get in his eyes or anything like that,” she said.

(emphasis added). And then there's this from an interview Armstrong did with KRIS TV in Corpus Christi:

Katharine Armstrong owns the ranch as was an eyewitness to the accident. She said, "It happened really quickly, but the first thing I noticed was that Harry was communicating and that really gave me a great piece of mind."

(emphasis added). Now--just for grins--let's compare Armstrong's accurate eyewitness account with what Shotgun Dick told Hume he saw when he got to Whittington.

Q: And Mr. Whittington was conscious, unconscious, what?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was conscious --

Q: What did you say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I said, "Harry, I had no idea you were there." And --

Q: What did he say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He didn't respond. He was -- he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't -- he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him.

(emphasis added). But wait, there's more:

Q: His eyes were open when you found him, then, right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. One eye was open.

(emphasis added). So Armstrong--the best possible source to get the accurate story out--said that Whittington was talking when Cheney got to him and that both his eyes were open, but Shotgun Dick said that Whittington was stunned and not responding and that only one eye was open. Now some of you might be thinking that the discrepancies are not that great, to which I would say I am not the one that insisted that it was vital to get the story as accurate as possible.

The bottom line--established by conclusive evidence--is that Armstrong got the facts wrong. The facts also establish that 1) Cheney knew she had misstated some of the facts, and 2) he did nothing for three days to correct those misstatements. And all of this means that Cheney's explanation that accuracy was a prime reason for waiting to go public is just flat out bullshit.

And that also means that my CYA analysis doesn't seem quite as crazy now, does it?

More on why the Cheney shooting is a big deal

In So why make a big deal out of the Cheney shooting? I explained why this incident is an example of the Bush administraition SOP and "the most recent example of why Cheney should not be trusted to lead this country's government in any capacity--now or in the future." In Cheney makes a public statement--finally, I discussed briefly Cheney's interview with Fox News and concluded that "Cheney [is] really sorry--and I'm not talking about apologetic."

I was working on a follow-up to those posts by going through the entire transcript of the interview, and I took a break to see the recent posts of Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo. One of those posts had a quote from Mary Matalin claiming that Cheney in no way sent out other people to blame Whittington for the incident. After proving the obvious fact that Matalin is completely full of shit, Josh wrote the following (emphasis in original):

This just isn't even up for debate. Until they were forced to switch course the party line was that Whittington screwed up by sneaking up behind the vice president.

About physical courage I don't know the answer. But all available evidence suggests that the Mr. Cheney is a man of deep moral cowardice. Makes a mistake and shoots his friend; blames the friend. Only he won't do it directly. So he gets underlings to do it for him. Forced to speak out publicly, he appears before a ringer-journalist guaranteed not to press uncomfortable questions.

It's all of a piece with the man's record. He's afraid of accountability. That's why he's such a fan of self-protecting secrecy. That's why he's big on smearing government whistle-blowers. It's really just two sides of the same coin. He's afraid of accountability. It's the same reason why he's such a notorious prevaricator -- lies to avoid accountability.

These are all the hallmarks of a moral coward.

Bingo.

Summary of my rant about the Democratic Party

Now that I have calmed down a little, here is a summary of A rant about what is wrong with the Democratic Party:

• The leadership of the Party has been alienating and continues to alienate members of the Party.
• Such alienation is the result of the "leadership" making decisions and then forcing them on Party members, essentially saying "We make the decisions, your views and desires are meaningless, shut up and get in line."
• This is primarily seen in the selection of candidates.
• The "leadership" chooses poor candidates.
• The "leadership" overall is afraid to take strong stands and is afraid of candidates who take strong stands.
• The "leadership" believes that the Party does not need to do anything to get votes other than not be offensive and let the Republicans keep messing up.
• The "leadership" has as its main concern retaining its power within the Party.
• The prime example of the foregoing occurred in the 2004 election with John Kerry.
• The issue which provides the prime example of the foregoing is Iraq. The Party "leadership" turns its back on any candidate who voices strong, direct opposition to the war and everything connected to it, beginning with Howard Dean and Wes Clark and continuing with Paul Hackett.
• The treatment of Hackett is particularly bad because the "leadership" went to him and asked him to run for Senate, and then the "leadership" basically stabbed him in the back.
• The Democratic Party has to give voters a reason to vote FOR its candidates. Basing campaigns only on the Republicans screwing up is NOT going to work. Also, simply doing nothing and waiting for people in the center (both to the left and right) to come to the Party IS NOT going to work.
• The "leadership" should have known these things in 2004, but did not, and the election was thus handed to Bush.
• It appears that the "leadership" still has not learned these lessons.

The foregoing might be long for a summary, but there is so much that is wrong with the Democratic Party that even a summary is necessarily lengthy.

The rant does not include the following thoughts, but they are nonetheless relevant. I had hoped that some things would change once Howard Dean became DNC Chair (see New leadership for the DNC). What I have since learned is that it is going to take more than a change in the DNC Chair to change the Party--and I should have known that before now.

A rant about what is wrong with the Democratic Party

Overview

I was rather stunned two days ago by a headline I saw on the New York Times site, and as I read the article, I got madder and madder. The headline:

Popular Ohio Democrat Drops Out of Race, and Perhaps Politics

I was stunned because I knew that probably referred to Paul Hackett, who was running for Senate. The article was about Hackett, and after reading it, two words came to mind to describe the Democratic Party.

Gutless and stupid.

The Democrats apparently have learned absolutely nothing from the 2004 Presidential election.

This really pisses me off.

Who is Paul Hackett?

The short answer is that Hackett is the Iraq veteran who ran in a special election in August 2005 in an overwhelmingly Republican district in Ohio (District 2), campaigned with "scathing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq War," and almost won.

Hackett's website (and who knows how long it will stay up?) provides a detailed bio, parts of which say the following:

As an undergraduate at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Paul volunteered for the Marine Corps reserves. His father had served in the armed forces and taught Paul that, if able, military service was his patriotic duty.

After graduation Paul attended Cleveland State University’s Marshall College of Law and upon receiving his degree went on to fulfill his commitment to the Marine Corps serving on active duty in destinations such as Quantico, Virginia; Okinawa, Japan; and the Philippines to name just a few. It was during this time that Paul married his college sweetheart, Suzi.

Paul was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 1999. His absence from the Corps would be short-lived however. In the summer of 2004, with the war in Iraq spinning out of control, Paul again answered the call to serve.

Following a serious discussion with his wife, Suzi, Paul volunteered to serve in Iraq as a Major with the 4th Civil Affairs Group, 1st Marine Division. Despite his strong opposition to the war from the very beginning, Paul’s sense of responsibility and commitment to his brothers and sisters in the Corps outweighed his personal political views. Paul was assigned to Ramadi and took part in the Fallujah campaign and subsequent reconstruction efforts. Leaving his politics at America’s shores, Paul fought alongside his fellow Marines seeking to restore order to a country in constant chaos.

Having completed his tour of duty in Iraq, Paul returned to Ohio in early 2005. Shortly after his homecoming, Paul declared his candidacy for Congress in the overwhelmingly Republican Second District of southwestern Ohio, a seat vacated just days before Paul’s return from Iraq.

Written off as a long shot by the media, Paul’s campaign was fueled by the power of the internet and grassroots activists who were impressed with his outspoken defense of the Democratic Party’s core principles. On Election Day, Paul stunned the political universe, winning more than 48 percent of the vote in a District where George Bush received nearly two-thirds of the vote just ten months earlier. No Second District Democrat had done so well in more than 30 years.

Paul’s direct, independent voice won him national attention. USA Today called him a “dream candidate for Democrats” and Newt Gingrich warned his fellow Republicans that Hackett’s performance should serve as a “wake-up call.” Perhaps Mother Jones Magazine said it best when they called him “the rarest of political animals – a fighting Democrat.”

Indeed, a Democrat willing to actually take a strong stand on the Iraq war has been a rare creature. What is so dismaying is that on the national stage any Democrat who has taken such a stand has been screwed over by the Democratic Party. One of them was the guy I supported in the 2004 campaign, Wes Clark.

In any event, Hackett was just the kind of candidate many Democrats--myself included--had been hoping for, and even though most of us had no chance to vote for him, his candidacy gave us some hope that maybe the Democratic Party would find a spine and some common sense (more on what I mean by that later).

Another part of Hackett's official bio provides a clue as to why I am so pissed off:

In the days and weeks following the Congressional election, Democratic leaders in Washington along with countless Ohioans and Americans throughout the country, encouraged Paul to enter the upcoming race for United States Senate in Ohio. Answering their call, Paul announced his candidacy, surrounded by his family and friends, on October 24th at his home in Cincinnati.

(emphasis added).

Talk about your flip flops

As the lead paragraph of the New York Times article described,

Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran and popular Democratic candidate in Ohio's closely watched Senate contest, said yesterday that he was dropping out of the race and leaving politics altogether as a result of pressure from party leaders.

Hackett himself had this to say in a letter to his supporters:

Today I am announcing that I am withdrawing from the race for United States Senate. I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind the scenes machinations, that were intended to hurt my campaign.

The opening of the Times article (which I read before Hackett's letter) immediately started angering me, but the second paragraph really set me off. It identified two of the "Democratic leaders in Washington" who openly persuaded him to run for Senator as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer, and these two men are also among the Democratic leaders who "pushed (Hackett) to step aside so that Representative Sherrod Brown, a longtime member of Congress, could take on Senator Mike DeWine, the Republican incumbent."

Now that's real classy, ain't it? Of course, Reid and Schumer deny that they ever pressured Hackett to withdraw. I might believe them but for the fact that I have seen this sort of thing happen before to Wes Clark and Howard Dean (more on that later). See, this is how the Democratic Party does business--the upper muckity-mucks decide what they want, and then they force those choices on the rest of us. The views and ideas of others do not matter. What might actually be best for the country does not matter. What matters are their desires and decisions. Sorry about that little tangent. I will definitely get back to that subject, but first, a word about Sherrod Brown.

Hackett was not considering a Senate run, but the Democratic "leaders" started working on him in part because in the summer of 2005, Sherrod Brown told the Party he would not run for Senate. Then, once Hackett entered the race, Brown changed his mind. What's up with that, Sherrod Brown? Now there's the kind of candidate that shows real commitment...

Now, back to what happened to Hackett...

Hackett told the New York Times that "for the last two weeks...state and national Democratic Party leaders have urged him to drop his Senate campaign" and instead run for the House seat he sought before.

But wait, there's more...

Hackett further told the Times that "he was outraged to learn that party leaders were calling his donors and asking them to stop giving" to his Senate campaign. Once again, the "leaders denied this charge. The Cleveland Plain Dealer quoted Hackett as saying “I can only repeat to you what my donors told me in California and New York, and it was a recurring theme that they had been contacted . . . by leaders in Congress and the Senate.”

Wow. First they love him and urge him to run for the Senate, and then 3.5 months later, they kick him to the curb.

But wait, there's still more...

As noted above, the Democratic "leaders" now want Hackett to run for the House seat he almost won before. So why didn't Hackett do that in the first place? Well, the "leaders" urged him not to do that but rather run for the Senate. Okay, but why doesn't Hackett just be a good little boy and now run for the House? Well, it turns out that several Democrats were interested in running for the District 2 seat, and they went to Hackett to ask if he would again seek the seat. They told him they would not run if did, and Hackett promised them he would not. From the Times article:

"The party keeps saying for me not to worry about those promises because in politics they are broken all the time," said Mr. Hackett, who plans to return to his practice as a lawyer in the Cincinnati area. "I don't work that way. My word is my bond."

Boy, who wouldn't want a candidate that keeps his word? Apparently, the Democratic Party. Who wants a candidate that breaks promises or changes his mind over short periods of time? Apparently, the Democratic Party.

So, part of my anger due to the leaders of the Democratic Party practically begging Hackett to run for the Senate and then utterly turning on him and forcing him out. That just ain't right. Certainly others will claim this is all just part of politics, but I don't care. This is no way to treat people. This is no way to attract candidates in the future that are willing to stand up and treat people properly. This is however, a way to continue the same old Party--the one that has lost both Houses of Congress and the White House.

So why did the Party decide to back Brown and get rid of Hackett?

There are some good, practical reasons why the Party "leaders" wanted Hackett out. However, that does not justify what was done to Hackett or how it was done.

There are also some bullshit reasons for forcing Hackett out.

Let's go over the practical reasons. The Party wanted to avoid a primary race between Brown and Hackett. No primary would give the Party more time to galvanize support and campaign. Also, no primary would mean that Brown and the Party would have more money to spend in the general election.

Also, it is possible that Hackett was more popular outside of Ohio than within. Hackett got national attention and support during his previous campaign. Brown, on the other hand, has served multiple terms in the House and is very well known among Ohio voters. As Chris Redfern, chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, told the New York Times, "It boils down to who we think can pull the most votes in November against DeWine, and in Ohio, Brown's name is golden. It's just that simple." O.K., there's a good reason for going with Brown over Hackett. But why, then, did you convince Hackett to run in the first place? What was the rush? These "leaders" knew all along that Brown was their top choice. Brown officially entered the race approximately one month after Hackett. Someone explain why the "leaders" did not wait just a little bit longer to get Brown officially in the race without going to Hackett and saying "You're our man. We want you and we will back you all the way."

Now let's look at the bullshit reasons. Hackett is outspoken. Hackett is unapologetically openly critical of Bush and the Republican Party. He has said some really harsh things, such as saying that the GOP has been taken over by religious extremists who are not much different from Osama bin Laden. When Republican officials demanded an apology, Hackett responded by saying "I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it." Gee, the Democrats have been accused repeatedly of being wishy-washy, soft, and constantly changing position. Yet here is Hackett, who takes a position, admits his own words, and stands behind them.

Also, Hackett was not seen as being genteel enough for the Senate. As Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report, told the New York Times,

Hackett is seen by many as a straight talker, and he became an icon to the liberal bloggers because he says exactly what they have wished they would hear from a politician. On the other hand, the Senate is still an exclusive club, and the party expects a certain level of decorum that Hackett has not always shown.

Yeah, that's a good reason for forcing out a guy you previously asked to run.

So why is Hackett's outspoken nature a bullshit reason for forcing him out? Well, the biggest reason is that the "leaders" knew damn well that Hackett was outspoken when they asked him run for Senate. Moreover, the problem for the Party is not so much the content of Hackett's statements as the fact that 1) he has deviated from the "Party line" and 2) cannot be controlled by the Party. Not only does this show that the Democratic Party is about preserving the establishment within the Party, it reflects a huge flaw in the Party's strategy, which will be discussed later.

Another bullshit reason for forcing Hackett out is money. As explained by the Cleveland Plain Dealer article cited above, Hackett has about 1/10 the amount of money as Brown, even though records show they each raised approximately the same amount in the last quarter of 2005. The difference is that Brown has been continuously raising campaign money since he has been in the House. As a result, he has about $2.3 million in the bank already. Hackett told the Cleveland paper, “Here’s my take on it. I’ve got six weeks to raise 3 million bucks. And the hard-core reality is I’m probably not going to do that. That was my analysis.”

So surely this is a reason with which I cannot find fault, right? Wrong. If Brown had stayed out of the race, the fundraising task for Hackett would have been much easier. Also, the Party would have been able to devote all of its efforts to helping raise money for Hackett. However, as it turns out, Brown was the guy the Party wanted all along, and once he entered the race, not only did the Party not help Hackett, it actively worked against him. And again, the Party first begged Hackett to run, then it stabbed him in the back. That just ain't right. Period.

This incident shows that the Democratic Party is screwed up and stupid.

Man, where do I start?

I guess I will start with the fact that the "leaders" continue to alienate many members of the Party. This goes back to the 2004 election. During the campaign, I posted something to my blog on the Clark Community Network entitled "The DNC does not speak for me." Therein I described how it appeared that the primaries had been rigged to make sure Kerry would win and why. There is no question that Kerry was anointed as the preference early on by the DNC. Then along came Howard Dean, and later came Wes Clark. Dean came out talking strong about how the Iraq war was a mistake, and his message resonated with many Democrats. Wes Clark was basically drafted, meaning he had grass roots--as opposed to Party--support from the beginning. Clark also spoke out against the war, and he appealed to many moderate Democrats, independents, and Republicans who were not happy with Bush. However, both Dean and Clark were outsiders who were beyond the control of the party elite. Granted, they both made mistakes (the big ones being the "Dean scream" and Clark's decision not to go to Iowa), but the DNC did everything possible to undermine them. The best example I can give is what happened to Clark when Michael Moore endorsed him. At a rally, Moore said the election was "the general vs. the deserter." Clark was crucified in the media--for something he did not even say. Indeed, Clark said he did not consider Bush a deserter and that he felt the question of Bush's service was not even an issue. Still, Clark continued to be pilloried, and no one from the Party leadership came to his defense. Two weeks later, Kerry made a comment similiar to Moore's. And then, lo and behold, Terry McAuliffe--the DNC chair--made appearance after appearance saying that Kerry was right to make the comment.

The point I am trying to make is that during the 2004 campaign, the Democratic leadership was not at all interested in allowing the people to speak and determine the candidate. As I said in "The DNC does not speak for me," being a Democrat in Texas I get enough of being told by Republicans that my views do not matter, but now I apparently have to hear that from my own party. By forcing Hackett out, the Party is still saying to Democrats everywhere "your opinions don't matter." If this continues, the Democratic Party is destined to have lots of its members simply stop voting for its candidates. When people are part of an organization and feel like they are being disregarded and told they have no worth by that organization, many of them will get out, and unless the Democratic leadership changes its ways, they are going to see this manifest in a big way.

The "leaders" of the Democratic Party are not interested in democracy within their own party. I cannot adequately describe how disgusted many of us Clark supporters were by what happened in the 2004 primaries. Still, in spite of that, we all decided to vote for Kerry, although we did so--as someone put it--holding our noses. I am not doing that again, and I know I am not alone. If the primaries had been truly fair and Kerry won, we all would have felt much better because at least everyone would have had a chance to participate and the nominee would have been a fair reflection of the will of the party. Accepting a result and getting behind the winner is much easier and more likely if everyone feels like they at least got to speak their minds. However, having a preordained decision forced upon you often leaves a sense of bitterness.

Which brings me back to Hackett. It is possible that Brown is the better choice, but to not give voters the chance to make that decision for themselves is not what I consider democratic. Hackett's voice--and the voices of his supporters--have now been removed from the process. What I mean is that you will likely not hear Brown take any of the positions that Hackett had. Anyone in Ohio who liked what Hackett had to say will not hear any of that in the Senate campaign.

Still, if the "leaders" made good choices, I might not be so bitter, and that brings me to another huge problem with the Democratic Party. Again, Kerry is the perfect example. Kerry thought that people were so fed up with Bush that he (Kerry) really did not have to do anything to win. There was a group of us at the Clark Community Network saying over and over that that was not good enough, that Kerry had to give people a reason to vote FOR him, not just AGAINST Bush. He never did that, and as a result, the Democrats handed the 2004 election to Bush. And now it looks like the same thing is happening in regard to the 2006 mid-term election. It is not enough that the GOP is caught in so many ethical scandals. The Democrats still have to offer a reason for people to vote FOR them.

For a detailed discussion of why Kerry was such a sorry candidate, read A few post-election thoughts. The one issue that Kerry and the Democrats absolutely should have hammered Bush and Cheney with was Iraq. During the campaign, there was already a boatload of facts and evidence showing that there was no need to go to war, that the Bush administration had royally screwed up everything following the fall of Baghdad, that the war had not helped in the war on terror, etc., but Kerry and Edwards never went after Bush on Iraq. Why not? Because of all the Democratic candidates, those two were the absolute worst to do so. Edwards was an unapolgetic supporter of the war, and Kerry's votes in Congress and positions he took in the campaign matched up with Bush! (See A few post-election thoughts for more details). And yet these two guys were the preordained choices of the DNC for the ticket and were in no position to refute the very issue that the Bush campaign said in 2003 would be the basis for the entire campaign.

So the Democratic leadership has a tendency to pick poor candidates, but they also show a serious lack of backbone. These people are afraid to take a strong adverserial stand on almost any issue--and they are afraid of any Democratic candidate who does so. Moving toward and appealing to the center is a good thing in my opinion. However, that is not accomplished by being passive and meek. It is not accomplished by refusing to aggressively counter Republican arguments and tactics. The "center" will not move to the Democratic Party automatically without the Democratic Party doing something. And yet, the Democratic Party seems to be doing nothing--other than screwing over candidates and potential candidates like Hackett. Instead, the Democratic Party seems to think that picking candidates and running campaigns that are bland and not offensive to anyone is the way to go. It is not the way to go, and unless the leadership gets that through their thick-concrete-excuse for skulls, the Democrats are in big trouble.

One potential long-term result of these mistaken strategic moves by the Democratic Party is exemplified by how Hackett has been treated. What has been one of the biggest claims Republicans have successfully exploited about Democrats? Answer: Democrats are soft on defense and national security. In the 2004 campaign, when presented a 4-star general who not only spoke out against the Iraq war, not only explained in detail what was wrong about the Iraq war, but also offered actual proposals about what to do, did the Democratic Party welcome him? No. In fact, the biggest attack on Wes Clark from Democrats was that really he was a Republican and therefore he shouldn't have been in the race. Things have now gotten even worse. Now, don't you think that military veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan would make good candidates to directly counter the claim of softness by the GOP? If you answered "no," go have some very strong coffee and then guess again. Hackett, as shown in his bio above, was a Marine whose service was finished before the Iraq war, but he voluntarily re-enlisted to serve his country. That sounds like a good candidate to have. He has first-hand military experience which gives him credibility, and no one could challenge his patriotism and dedication to America. And yet, when presented with a candidate who could directly counter the GOP charge of being soft, the Democratic Party instead screws the guy over. The following excerpt from the New York Times article sums things up:

Mr. Hackett was the first Iraq war veteran to seek national office, and the decision to steer him away from the Senate race has surprised those who see him as a symbol for Democrats who oppose the war but want to appear strong on national security.

"Alienating Hackett is not just a bad idea for the party, but it also sends a chill through the rest of the 56 or so veterans that we've worked to run for Congress," said Mike Lyon, executive director for the Band of Brothers, a group dedicated to electing Democratic veterans to national office. "Now is a time for Democrats to be courting, not blocking, veterans who want to run."

Yeah, but see, the Democratic Party establishment has as its primary (so to speak) goal to remain the Democratic establishment (in my opinion). Because of that and the other factors discussed above, the Democratic Party is not PC--it is PS, as in "Politically Stupid."

Cheney makes a public statement--finally.

Fours days after the incident, Dick Cheney finally made a public statement about shooting Harry Whittington. Cheney went on Fox News (gee, what a surprise), and said the following:

Ultimately I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend, and that's something I'll never forget.

*******

It was not Harry's fault. You cannot blame anybody else.

And he could not have said this on Sunday, or even Monday? He knew all of the relevant facts Saturday evening. What was gained by waiting until today? If Cheney knew all the facts before today--which he did--why did he allow others to publicly say the matter was Whittington's fault?

This sure seems to me like like a repeat of Bush's "agreement" to the McCain amendment. Over the last few days, nobody was really buying the story that this was Whittington's fault, nobody was really buying the explanations as to why almost 24 hours passed before the public was notified, nobody was convinced that leaving disclosure up the discretion of a private citizen made any sense, various articles were written that Cheney violated hunting safety rules, etc. In other words, Cheney really had no choice but to publicly say it was his fault.

Part of being a leader is owning up to your actions. Cheney had all the facts needed to do this days ago, and yet he said nothing and allowed others to lay the blame on Whittington. As far as I am concerned, that makes Cheney really sorry--and I'm not talking about apologetic.

Preview of an extended rant about something besides Cheney or Republicans

I am about to tear the "leaders" of the Democratic Party a new asshole.

Why?

Paul Hackett was basically forced out of the Ohio Senate race by the same "leaders" that asked him to run in the first place.

And why has that made me so angry?

For now let's just say that these jackasses failed to learn anything from the 2004 election, and as a result, they are going to lose many current Democrats and utterly fail to pick up votes from independents and Republicans that are there to be had. These "leaders" are gutless and stupid, and unless they change their ways very soon, the mid-term elections are going to be a huge disappointment.

Stay tuned...

So why make a big deal out of the Cheney shooting?

When I first heard about Cheney shooting Whittington, I thought it was just a hunting accident that, while very embarassing, was not that big a deal. Kevin Drum summarized this viewpoint by writing "Honestly, I don't think the story about Dick Cheney's shooting accident is any big deal. Good for some late night laughs, but that's it."

Obviously, I have changed my original opinion. I have done so for two basic reasons: 1) the way the administration has handled this situation, which 2) typifies everything the Bush administration does. To further explain this, I am going to reprint things I have already written just to make sure I have made my points. In a comment to More on "Shotgun" Dick Cheney, I said

This event exemplifies once again some of the SOP of this administration. There might very well be a defense, but the current story doesn't provide one. Perhaps one could be formed if all the facts are disclosed, and that is not something this administration ever does. Furthermore, it's a little late now to present any kind of defense or reasonable explanation. Instead of being straight and honest, the White House determined that the best course of action was silence and then to blame the guy that got shot. That gives an overwhelming sense of "That just ain't right." Moreover, these are also typical tactics of this administration.

And because of the factors discussed above, this incident has become and will remain a much bigger deal than if Cheney and the White House had been more open and honest about it from the get go.

And I finished More to come on Cheney with

You know, folks, this incident is nowhere near as serious as matters such as taking us to war or trying to respond to a devastating hurricane, but if you haven't wondered before, it's way past time you wondered that if this administration is going to such lengths to keep the truth from the public on this matter, then what might they have done on the really big issues like war, disaster relief, corruption, etc.?

There is a third reason why I am still focusing on this incident. It shows that, as the title of my first post on this topic says, Cheney should not have his finger on any trigger. Cheney has a huge and influential (if not controlling) role in all policy decisions, including going to war and handling its aftermath. Even if one wants to buy the bullshit that Cheney was not at fault because Whittington did not announce his presence, remember what the NRA says about gun safety:

Know your target and what is beyond.

Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Cheney clearly did not follow these NRA rules. These rules present principles which should be followed in many other areas. Know your objective. Know the possible consequences of your decisions and actions. Think before you act. Do not simply make up your mind and then assume that everything is and will be copasetic. None of that has been done in terms of our foreign policy, particularly in Iraq, and Cheney was at the forefront of those policy decisions and actions. The Bush administration decided to go invade Iraq and ignored all possible consequences, ignored all possible alternatives, made unwarranted and myopic assumptions about the aftermath, failed to account for the obvious consequences, and utterly failed to plan for the aftermath. And that has been typical of almost everything the Bush administration has done. The fact that Cheney pulled the trigger on his shotgun without taking the time to consider all the possibilities--especially when he knew Whittington had gone to retrieve a bird--and just assumed that he had a clear line of fire after doing a 180 degree turn shows an appalling lack of thought and foresight by a supposed leader of our national government. If Cheney cannot follow these principles in something as relatively simple as quail huntring, how can anyone think he would do so when it comes to the far bigger matters of our nation's welfare and security?

This incident is just the most recent example of why Cheney should not be trusted to lead this country's government in any capacity--now or in the future.

More on "Blame the guy that got shot."

Thanks to Josh Marshall for for the link to this Knight Ridder article:

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to absolve Cheney of blame for shooting wealthy Austin lawyer Harry Whittington, saying that hunting "protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying others that he was there. And so, you know, unfortunately, these types of hunting accidents happen from time to time."

Several hunting experts were skeptical of McClellan's explanation. They said Cheney might have violated a cardinal rule of hunting: Know your surroundings before you pull the trigger.

"Particularly identify the game that you are shooting and particularly identify your surroundings, that it's safe to shoot," said Mark Birkhauser, the incoming president of the International Hunter Education Association, a group of fish and wildlife agencies. "Every second, you're adjusting your personal information that it is a safe area to shoot or it's not a safe area to shoot."

Safe-hunting rules published by the National Rifle Association and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department echo Birkhauser's advice.

"Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt," the NRA says in the gun-safety rules on its Web site. "Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second."

Yeah, but what do those liberal commie bastards at the NRA know?

More to come on Cheney

I can hardly wait to get the transcript from today's press briefing by Scotty Boy McClellan regarding the Cheney shooting. I have seen some video (and that is supposed to posted on the White House website soon, and is on the Washington Post site right now), and it is rather appalling. The basic reasons being given for the almost 24-hour delay in the White House even acknowledging the incident are:

1. the priority was getting medical treatment for Whittington, and
2. the White House did not have sufficient information and details until the following day; and
   
3. the White House deferred to Armstrong to give out information since it happened on her property.

What a bunch of unmitigated bullshit. Of course the priority was to get medical treatment for Whittington. However, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Obviously, Whittington received medical treatment quickly. Cheney always has a medical team with him, and they provided treatment for Whittington on the spot. And then he was rushed to a hospital. As reported by the Washington Post,

Whittington was treated on the scene by Cheney's traveling medical detail before being taken by helicopter to a Corpus Christi hospital.

*******

"Fortunately, the vice president has got a lot of medical people around him and so they were right there and probably more cautious than we would have been," (Armstrong) said. "The vice president has got an ambulance on call, so the ambulance came."

All of that did not take 22 hours. Nor did it take 22 hours to determine Whittington's condition--especially if it is true that his injuries were not serious. Remember what the AP article said: 1) Armstrong contacted the Corpus Christi paper; 2) then reporters contacted the White House;, and 3) the White House simply confirmed the report without providing any further information. What this tells me--especially when combined with Reason 3-- is that if Armstrong had not contacted the newspaper at all, the White House never would have disclosed the incident at all. That's why Reason 1 has nothing to do with explaining the White House's delay in disclosing any information. Had the delay been several hours only, Reason 1 would make sense. However, in light of the facts, it makes no sense.

This is SO typical of the Bush administration--try to divert focus on the real issues by asserting as a defense or explanation something that no one can disagree with or argue against but really has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

And they have got to be kidding about Reason 2. They couldn't get any detailed information for hours? That is so unbelievable it is not worth discussing--except for one possibility. The only way the White House did not have information is if Dick Cheney his ownself kept that information from the White House. Now that would be so much better, wouldn't it?

As for reason 3, as I said in my previous post, "What the #$@*! kind of sense does that make?" Since when does any White House--and especially this one--leave the decision and responsibility of disclosing information to the public to the discretion of a private citizen who has no official capacity whatsoever?

You know, folks, this incident is nowhere near as serious as matters such as taking us to war or trying to respond to a devastating hurricane, but if you haven't wondered before, it's way past time you wondered that if this administration is going to such lengths to keep the truth from the public on this matter, then what might they have done on the really big issues like war, disaster relief, corruption, etc.?

More on "Shotgun" Dick Cheney

More from the AP article:

The accident occurred Saturday at a ranch in south Texas where the vice president and several companions were hunting quail. It was not reported publicly by the vice president’s office for nearly 24 hours, and then only after it was reported locally by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times on its Web site Sunday.

(emphasis added). I guess this is yet another case of the damn liberal media leaking information of vital importance. Seriously, if the paper in Corpus had not reported this, would the White House have ever said anything about it? And why did the White House wait so long? I guess Bill Clinton trying to keep a lid on his extramarital affairs was the crime of the century, but at least he didn't shoot someone with a shotgun.

According to the Washington Post, the White House decided it would not tell the media anything. Instead, the White House expressly left that decision to Armstrong, and it was Armstrong who contacted the Corpus newspaper. The New York Times then asked Lea Anne McBride, Mr. Cheney's spokeswoman,

why the vice president's office had made no announcement about the accident, Ms. McBride said, "We deferred to the Armstrongs regarding what had taken place at their ranch."

What the #$@*! kind of sense does that make? As Josh Marshall said,

The vice president shoots someone seriously enough to require ICU treatment in the hospital and the White House doesn't see fit to make a public announcement? It's left to the owner of the ranch to let people know?

Un-freaking-believable.

Even more from the AP article:

Katharine Armstrong, the ranch’s owner...said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.

Whittington shot a bird and went to retrieve it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.

Whittington “came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn’t signal them or indicate to them or announce himself,” Armstrong said.

“The vice president didn’t see him,” she continued. “The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good.”

Let me see if I understand. Whittington was behind Cheney, and it was Whittington's fault that he got shot. That's the story?

I will admit that I am not a hunter. I have never been hunting. I do have relatives and plenty of friends who are hunters that go dove and/or quail hunting every year, and from what I have heard from them over the years, this story doesn't seem to make much sense. Given the late hour, I have not tried to contact any of those folks to run this story by them, so I have instead looked for some info on quail hunting safety online. Here's what I found...

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has a publication which lists 10 hunting safety rules:

1. Always point the muzzle or nocked arrow in a safe direction.
2. Treat every firearm or bow with the same respect you would show a loaded gun or nocked arrow.
3. Be sure of your target – what is in front of and beyond your target.
4. Unload firearms and unstring conventional bows when not in use.
5. Handle firearms, arrows and ammunition carefully.
6. Know your safe zone-of-fire and stick to it.
7. Control your emotions when it comes to safety.
8. Wear hearing and eye protection.
9. Don’t drink alcohol or take drugs before or while handling firearms or bow and arrows.
10. Be aware of additional circumstances which require added caution or safety awareness.

(emphasis added). Seems to me that when you know someone in your party has downed a bird and has gone to retrieve it, you should know not to fire a shotgun in the area where he went. I also found some more tips about safety from the site of Riverview Plantation in Georgia, which is owned by a family whose business since 1958 has been hosting quail hunts on their property. Those safety tips include the following:

Prior to moving on up and allowing the birds to flush, each hunter should visibly and mentally locate: each other, both dogs, the hunting rig, and the hunting guide if on a guided hunt. Each hunter should know in advance where he can and cannot swing the muzzle of his gun to follow an escaping quail.

Each hunter's range of gun swing should be from the mid-point between him and his partner and out to his side. He should never cross the mid-point to shoot at a quail flying on his partner's side. Not only is this poor shotgunning etiquette, it is dangerous.

Additionally, a quail hunter should never take a shot at a low flying quail that would cause him to lower the muzzle of his shotgun below a horizontal plane with the ground. Taking a shot at a low-flying quail has ended the life of many fine pointing dogs since the inception of this great sport.

(emphasis added). Note what should be done BEFORE flushing the birds. Note also that Whittington obviously was not flying when Cheney shot, meaning that Cheney was shooting at a low-flying quail.

UPDATE: According to the Washington Post, Katharine Armstrong's mother "said the accident happened after Whittington shot a quail and his dog couldn't find the dead bird. He went to look for the bird but the other hunters didn't know that he had returned. 'Mr. Whittington was in a low place and they couldn't see him,' she said." (emphasis added).

After reading this safety information, it seems to me that Cheney, not Whittington was primarily at fault.

I cited the preceding information so that what follows would be taken seriously. Josh Marshall posed the question of fault on Talking Points Memo, and here's his summation of all the responses he received:

[O]ne point that comes through really clearly from everyone is that when you're hunting and you hit a person -- that's your fault. Period. End of story. Outside of extreme cases of negligence or self-destructive behavior on the part of the victim, it's not his fault. You're responsible, as the shooter, for knowing no person is in your line of fire before you pull the trigger. So this stuff about Whittington being at fault for the accident just doesn't wash for any of the hunters we've heard from.

The other point that comes through in the emails we've received is that most of our emailers seem to have a pretty clear idea what happened here, based on the description provided in the AP article. Some find the facts as described improbable; but most seem to have a general sense what happened.

Again, I'll try to explain what's been described to me using laymen's terms.

You're out hunting for quail with a small group of people. For basic safety purposes you keep a clear mental picture of where your fellow hunters are at every moment. Based on that mental picture of where people are, you create a safe fire area, a range in front of you covering some number of degrees where you know no one else is.

Things can get chaotic and excited when a bunch of birds (I'll just try, as a blanket matter, not to use the jargon) come into range or rise up. But if you don't shoot outside that safe fire zone, then everyone should be safe.

Now, if you read the description provided by Katharine Armstrong, the Bush-Cheney fundraiser on whose 'ranch' this happened, what she seems to describe is this: The birds 'flush'. Cheney picks out a bird and starts following it. In the process he basically wheels around doing a 180. So he's spun around and is now firing backwards relative to the direction he had been facing. And Whittington was just, for whatever reason, where Cheney didn't expect him to be.

Now, this happens. One TPM Reader actually describes watching the same thing happen to his father-in-law. But when it happens it's a matter or carelessness and/or recklessness on the part of the shooter and it involves ignores some of the most basic rules of gun safety.

So, from the information available, Cheney screwed up -- a relatively common hunting accident, based (as most accidents are) by not following basic safety guidelines and being careless. Trying to blame it on the guy who got shot just doesn't wash.

But wait--we all know that no one in the Bush administration plays the blame game, so what's up with blaming Whittington?

Some stories are said to have "legs." Well, this one has got some serious wings, and I can't wait to follow it.

NOTE: The link to the AP article remains good, but the article has been revised at least twice since my original post about this incident, so the quotes contained in this post and the previous one might not appear exactly as they did when I first saw the AP report. It seems that the primary revisions have consisted of adding information.

The Index is incomplete, but it is online.

I just posted the first rendition of the index for this blog. At this time, however, I have provided only a small fraction of the hyperlinks. That is going to be a continuing project--a long, tedious project.

Cheney should not have his finger on any trigger.

As reported by the AP:

Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.

Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was “alert and doing fine” in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property’s owner.

*******

Armstrong in an interview with The Associated Press said Whittington, 78, was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest during the incident which occurred late afternoon on Saturday.

And this is the man that is one step away from (officially) having his finger on the nation's trigger.

Un-freaking-believable.

Perhaps Whittington is saying "With friends like these..." We should all be saying that.

An Olympic event that reminds me of something else

NBC is currently televising the Nordic Combined from the Torino Olympics. I'm a ski jumping fan, so I like this event, but its name reminds of something I like even more, namely a different kind of Nordic combined, as defined by my favorite writer (and great Texan) Dan Jenkins. ;-)

Oh so exciting news about Cosmic Wheel

I am in the process of making an index for this site. Organization will be by subject matter, and some level of cross refering will be used. The index will be on a separate site with links to every post listed therein.

As I stated back in November 2004, this site is not really a blog--at least in the ways that used to characterize blogs. I also said that "I want people to use my posts as a resource. I want to provide a package that compiles and analyzes information in a way that is useful not just for now, but in the future...I'm just trying to offer something in addition to what is already out here." In other words, I started this site in part to provide a research and information resource for others. While my own views are definitely expressed here, I generally provide facts--and my sources--to support my views.

To be useful as any kind of research tool, this site needs a topical index. The truth of the matter is that I also need such an index because I sometimes have trouble quickly locating something I just know that I wrote. :-)

Anyway, the index is a work in progress (and work will be ongoing), and I should have some of it posted on the other site late this weekend.

I can just feel the anticipation out there...