Sigh...

I've heard people talking about how "the BUCKshot missed his heart by a fraction of an inch", to he was hunting illegally because he did not have a hunting license. The misinformation is mind boggling. I'm surprised the moonbats aren't calling this an 'assault weapon' attack.

Why is this still news? The media and democrats have had a field day making asses of themselves. Cheney is genuinely upset. I believe that if he had put the story out sooner, there would have been just as much hysteria in the news, just for different reasons.

Aren't we at war or something?

Kevin: while I certainly hope that I'm not a member in good standing of the conspiratorial left, I too question the circumstances under which Cheney could claim to not have seen Whittington.

As I posted, if (1) Cheney was looking at the bird, and (2) Whittington was, as reported, some 30 yards away from Cheney, then how could Whittington have been outside of Cheney's vision as he was tracking the bird but still inside the range of the birdshot?

Nobody describes the mechanics of shooting more accurately than Hunter. Bob Lee would be proud.

Mr. Sturm (above), take a minute to read Hunter's piece. He's right. You're dealing in fractions of a second, and you tunnel in or you miss the bird.

I think the real point everyone is missing about the accident is that the girl in the "Those Shirts" Conservative T-shirt ad to the left is super-hot.

Why wasn't the WH press told about THIS?!?

As a hunter for over 20 years now, I can say without a doubt that the account by Steven Hunter is right on. As youare swinging to the left you make a decision to shoot in the next second, not right then. You lead your shot anticipating where the bird "will be" not "where it is now". Unfortuantely for Whittington he was right where Cheney was leading the bird.

I usually make this type of statement, but if you don't know the mechanics of upland bird hunting (which is incredibly fast paced) then you really shouldn't try to offer an opinion on what should have happened.

Here is a post I made last year when I went on a similar "pen raised" hunt.

http://www.meckz.net/?p=4

"I usually make this type of statement, but if you don't know the mechanics of upland bird hunting (which is incredibly fast paced) then you really shouldn't try to offer an opinion on what should have happened."

Sorry, meant to say "I usually DON'T make this type of statement..."

I could buy the fact that Cheney got lost enough in the shot not to see Whittington, but there is one thing that no one has mentioned: dogs. No way in hell those guys went out there without dogs to flush the birds, yet there has been absolutely no mention of them. That's a problem, because if Whittington had downed a bird, a least one dog would be retrieving it, not Whittington. And unless they had 10 dogs they probably would have waited for the dog to bring the bird back before letting the other dogs continue on to find coveys. Something just doesn't add up.

Why didn't Cheney get a fine for not having a bird stamp? He claims he didn't know he needed one, come on. How can a bird hunter not know he needed a stamp? Like Cheney I've been hunting over 20 years and I've always needed a stamp. Did HE alone not need one the last 30 years either? I'm sure as hell that I would have been fined, why is he above the law?

Your're right, Mark. The real story is that they were hunting aliens that escaped from Area-51. In the confusion, Cheney shot what he thought was a replicant (the aliens are metamorphs, you know) but it was actually the REAL Whittington. Of course, the case of beer he drank immediately prior to the incident, the crack he also smoked, and the super-soldier serum he injected may have affected his judgment.

Milkshake, you're hilarious. And I'm not some conspiracy theorist whack-nut who thinks that Cheney did this intentionally. However, I want to know why not one recount of this story mentions the fact that they were hunting with dogs. If someone comes out and says they didn't have dogs then I will shut up, but until then it sounds like part of the story is missing.

Hmmm.

1. *shrug* I didn't read about dogs at all. Normally I'd agree with you about hunting quail with dogs, something I haven't done more than a decade, but who knows how this is set up. Maybe they only had a couple dogs. Maybe the dogs couldn't find the bird and this gentleman went looking for it himself.

2. Cheney's office asked for all of the necessary paperwork. The stamp wasn't included. So someone, either in Cheney's office or whomever they asked, screwed up.

*shrug* it's a $7 stamp. It's not the end of the world.

The stamp is a new addition to the area fish & game laws. Hence, the warning and not a fine. The department is giving hunters the benefit of the doubt with a 'grace period' of sorts.

Whittington didn't have a stamp either. I suppose some one should be down at the hospital writing a citation...

Ok, there were dogs with the group:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0216061cheney1.html

The dogs may not have been trained to find downed birds or Mr.Willington took it upon himself to get his own birds. Either way, I'm satisfied.

Maybe Josh's eyes don't move. Mine were rolling!

Oops, make that John.

As for the dogs non-issue. Remeber Whittington broke form teh group and most likely the guide kept the dogs under shi command as the "group" continued on to where the covey was.

As for the stamp, I seriously doubt Cheney goes down to the hunt shop himself to secure these things. I can only imagine there is a staffer somewhere sweating bullets (no pun intended) over his/her job for not getting the right stamps. They could ahve simply erred on the side of caution and grabbed every stamp required for about $40.

>>If you could see him the split second AFTER you shot him, then you could see him the split second BEFORE you shot him.

Just finished the book "Animals in Translation : Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior" by Temple Grandin (Highly recommended). She points out that the human brain has a great talent in blocking distractions. Tells of an experiment where people were asked to watch a video of a basketball game and track the number of shots by a particular player. Midway through the video a woman in a gorilla suit came out on the court. When asked after if they had seen it Half of them had no recollection of the event.