Things are getting fishier and fishier.
As you know, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man this weekend, and according to the most recent reports, his victim was in critical condition for a good long while. That means Cheney likely nearly killed the man.
Putting aside the question of how and why he shot the man, the more we learn, the more troubling this becomes.
1. The White House now claims Bush was informed on Saturday night (the accident happened on Saturday) that someone in Cheney's hunting party had been shot, but Bush was not told that the victim was shot by Cheney. How do you leave that detail out, and why would you leave it out? Especially when we now find out that the victim was in critical condition - that means within a few hours it was possible the victim could have died, and THAT would be news if Cheney had killed someone. And you don't give the president a heads up? This is fishy as hell.
2. The White House seemingly never intended to tell the press that the incident happened at all. The public found out a day later, and only because a reporter got wind of the story. Why was the White House hiding this story, again, if the victim could have possibly died?
3. New questions are being raised as to whether the White House staff contacted the local police immediately after the shooting, as required by law.
In an online chat at the Washington Post site, the paper's White House reporter Peter Baker said reporters in D.C. are "flabbergasted" by the shooting. He indicated that the Post was looking deeply into whether it was reported to the local sheriff and the exact condition of the victim....4. Cheney isn't sorry and says he did nothing wrong. Huh?
In response to another query he revealed, "we are looking today into the issue of the local sheriff's office and what involvement they had in this. Stay tuned, more to come."
" 'The vice president was concerned,' said Mary Matalin, a Cheney adviser who spoke with him yesterday morning. 'He felt badly, obviously. On the other hand, he was not careless or incautious or violate any of the [rules]. He didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do.' "You mean, LIKE SHOOTING AN INNOCENT MAN?! What is it with Bush and Cheney? I mean, I get that they're never going to admit making a mistake in invading Iraq, but how hard is it to admit you made a mistake when you shoot someone and almost kill them? And what does it say about someone who can't?
What all of this suggests is that the White House was more interested in a cover-up than the health of the victim or the public's right to know. Their number one issue was hiding the story, or else they would have told the president at least what happened, and they didn't.
This is downright bizarre. And honestly, someone needs to dig a little deeper into exactly how this "accident" occurred. Usually hunting accidents are accidents, but sometimes they're not. But usually when they're accidents, the shooter has nothing to hide and hides nothing. In this case, the White House was intent on hiding something. And that is bizarre.
