Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Record Supports Cheney
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, February 23, 2006

Papers to prove it...
NBC News has obtained new documents regarding the shooting accident involving Vice President Dick Cheney.
[...]
In this case, all the accounts are similar and consistent with how Vice President Cheney has already described the incident. The statements say Cheney and his friend were about 30 yards apart when the vice president shot, aiming for a single bird. The statements all agree this was an accident, and no one places blame on Whittington. Several of the statements say that no one was drinking alcohol during the late-afternoon hunt — again, consistent with the vice president's account.
I'm absolutely certain that two things will immediately happen:

  • The Left, being the intellectually honest and consistent people that they are, will immediately declare the case closed. I mean, we've seen the official records and, never mind a few minor incongruities, That Settles It.


  • The Right, being the intellectually honest and consistent people that they are, will point out that official records don't prove anything, since, after all, the official record itself could've been doctored. In the meantime, these important (to the Republic!) questions about how relatively minor would were incurred Must Be Answered.

Anyway, that was the script circa 2004.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Are you alluding to the Swift Boat Vets?
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
There is no conspiracy. This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone.
 
Written By: Steven Donegal
URL: http://
I’m trying to figure out the reference to "how relatively minor wounds were incurred" was a past Right argument in 2004.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
Are you alluding to the Swift Boat Vets?
Do you need to ask?
There is no conspiracy. This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone.
Mr Whittington dropped back. And to the left. Back. And to the left. Back. And to the left.
I’m trying to figure out the reference to "how relatively minor wounds were incurred" was a past Right argument in 2004.
Do I have to spell this out? The SBV story brought a lot of questions about how Kerry’s relatively minor wounds were incurred. Michelle Malkin took a lot of grief for suggesting they were "self-inflicted". The exploding-pile-of-rice injury story, the 3 purple hearts, etc.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
This was the act of a single gunman, acting alone.
Don’t forget the grassy knoll.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Sorry, Jon, your analogy does not work.

In 2004,"all the accounts" were not "similar and consistent". That was at the root on the contention. The SBVs, many of them either direct or indirect witnesses to the disputed events in Southeast Asia, had entirely different perspectives than the official reports on the actions of Mr. Kerry .

In the Cheney massacre, thus far, "all the accounts are similar and consistent". When one or two people come forward with differing stories, the conditions of your analogy will fit better.
 
Written By: JPSobel
URL: http://
In 2004,"all the accounts" were not "similar and consistent".
In Kerry’s case, the official records were consistent with his story. Meanwhile, some of the initial reports (from witnesses) were at odds with the eventual official report. (it was Whittington’s fault, no beer/beer, etc)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
In Kerry’s case, the official records were consistent with his story.
Not about the Cambodia business or his "lucky hat", they weren’t.
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
Did the records contradict it? No, they were silent on that subject.

Christ, people, settle down. The analogy is not perfectly equivalent. For example, the SBVs did not charge that Kerry had been drinking when he shot a lawyer, either, but the comparison I drew did not require perfect equivalence.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"The analogy is not perfectly equivalent."

The problem is it isn’t even roughly equivalent.

The SBVs had long standing, documentable disagreements with Kerry’s (and in some cases the offical) accounts of events, and in many cases the SBVs have more credibility than either Kerry or the official documents.

There is simply no reasonable comparison to draw between the events involving the SBVs and Kerry and Cheney’s accidentally shooting a hunting partner of his; not either from the standpoint of "coverup" or "controversy".


Maybe you could redraw your analogy and have work better.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
I also didn’t notice Whittington trying to get a medal for the wounds.
It wasn’t the wounds that were the problem, it was the citation, and using the citation as a platform from which to denounce the war, and characterize everyone but him as marauding in the fashion of Jenjhis Khan.
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider