Republican activists acknowledge that the accidental shooting of Cheney's friend is the talk of mainstream America and has made the vice president the butt of jokes. But they do not expect political fallout from the shooting or the clumsy way in which it was disclosed.

"It's hard to believe that anybody can make Dick Cheney a sympathetic figure," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. "That's what the media has done."

Republicans say they are pleasantly surprised that the intense media coverage of the hunting accident has shifted attention from the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff. Libby is accused of misleading investigators about who leaked the identify of a CIA official.

In documents released two weeks ago, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he understood that Libby's superiors authorized him to disclose to the media details of a secret report that is central to the investigation. What does Cheney know? "It's nothing I can talk about," he said in a television interview Wednesday. "I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case."

That's the scandal to watch, Republicans said.

The hunting accident "really has gotten Scooter Libby out of the press," said Deb Gullett, a GOP activist from Phoenix, who is chief of staff to the city's mayor. "But it will come back."

"There are so many things going on that could be a great concern for Republicans, but this hunting thing is not one of them," she said. "Should he have said something sooner about the accident? Of course he should have. But is it the end of the world? Of course not."

Fellow Republicans said growing anti-war sentiment and President Bush's warrantless spying program are bigger political problems for the GOP.

"At the White House press briefing, I think two-thirds of the questions were about this (hunting accident) when we have Iraq and a whole slew of other issues to deal with," including the CIA leak case, said J. Everett Moore Jr., a Washington lawyer and former chairman of the Delaware GOP.

Cole said, "It does look to the average American that this is a self-indulgent exercise on behalf of the press when there are real debatable issues out there."

For now, the focus is on Cheney's shooting ability rather than whether he is shooting straight about the CIA leak case.

"The image of him falling is something I'll never ever be able to get out of my mind," Cheney told Fox News Channel about his friend, as the White House sought to cast him as a sympathetic figure.

The vice president shot 78-year-old lawyer Harry Whittington while quail hunting in Texas on Saturday. "I fired, and there's Harry falling. It was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life at that moment," Cheney said.

Even some Democrats weren't sure whether the latest Cheney controversy was good or bad for the White House.

"The bad news is he's talking about shooting a man, blaming the victim and covering it up," said Democratic consultant Jim Jordan. The White House initially suggested Whittington was at fault for putting himself in range of Cheney's rifle.

"The good news is he's not talking about his indicted chief of staff or ordering the leaking of classified information," Jordan said.

Political scientists outside Washington said they doubted Cheney would pay a political price for the hunting incident, though the case has reinforced his reputation as a secretive and controlling political power.

"It wasn't good huntsmanship, but it wasn't anything of national importance," said Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political science professor. "If it turns out that Scooter Libby is now willing to testify that he got directions from the vice president to leak the name of a CIA agent, that's a far more serious issue and damaging to Cheney."

"That other scandal is the one worth watching," he said.

© 2006 Associated Press

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

The vice president shoots you in the heart and in the face. Then you apologize for all the trouble it’s caused him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Despite almost hysterical warnings the president stays asleep at the wheel. He does nothing about terrorism and 9/11 happens. He responds by running away to Nebraska. Three days later he makes a supposedly impromptu speech with a bull horn on the rubble of the World Trade Center. He is universally cheered as a hero. That’s what it means to be a Republican. The president puts together false claims to go to war with the wrong country. His party universally supports him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration mismanages the war in Iraq so that it creates chaos, a breeding ground for terrorists and political opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists. Along the way, the reasons for going to war are exposed as false. The president runs on national security as his main issue. He is re-elected. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president cheerfully gives away the surplus to the richest people in the country. Then he runs up record debts, just to throw more money their way. He claims it has helped America’s economy. People act like they believe him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration continues it’s magnificent tradition of going to sleep when it is warned of disaster. It does nothing when Katrina is coming. It continues its record of doing nothing when disaster arrives. As New Orleans was lost, just as when the World Trade Center was lost, the president got as far away as possible. But he can’t be blamed for what nature did. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president orders wiretaps without warrants, a straightforward violation of the constitution. When the Attorney General is called to testify, the head of the Judiciary Committee insists that his testimony not be under oath. The head of the intelligence committee suggests that the law be changed, now, to make it legal after the fact. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Alberto Gonzales helped come up with the program that rejected the Geneva Conventions, that permits torture, that says that the president is above the law and that “I was only following orders” should be a defense against a charge of war crimes. Ah, if only the Nazi war criminals who were hung at Nuremberg had Gonzales there to defend them. The president nominates Gonzales to be his new Attorney General. He is confirmed with little debate and no outrage. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

This needs to be understood.

What it implies is that Republicans can’t be dealt with as if reason and facts will sway them. Because it wont. It’s hard for reality based people, regular Democrats and Liberals to understand that.

What it let’s us know is that reality based people, Democrats, Liberals, real Conservatives, old-fashioned Republicans and non-profit Christians have to take more vigorous and rigorous stands. Or reality and real American values and the American landscape will disappear, not just temporarily, but forever.

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin.

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

Of course the jokes are flying all over Texas—what’s the fine for shooting a lawyer?—and so forth. Dick-Cheney-shooting-Harry-Whittington is fraught, as they say, with irony. It’s not as though the ground in Texas is littered with liberal Republicans. I think the vice president winged the only one we’ve got.

Not that I accuse Harry Whittington of being an actual liberal—only by Texas Republican standards, and that sets the bar about the height of a matchbook. Nevertheless, Whittington is seriously civilized, particularly on the issues of crime, punishment and prisons. He served on both the Texas Board of Corrections and on the bonding authority that builds prisons. As he has often said, prisons do not curb crime, they are hothouses for crime: “Prisons are to crime what greenhouses are to plants.”

In the day, whenever there was an especially bad case of new-ignoramus-in-the-legislature—a “lock ’em all up and throw away the key” type—the senior members used to send the prison-happy, tuff-on-crime neophyte to see Harry Whittington, a Republican after all, for a little basic education on the cost of prisons.

When Whittington was the chairman of Texas Public Finance Authority, he had a devastating set of numbers on the demand for more, more, more prison beds. As Whittington was wont to point out, the only thing prisons are good for is segregating violent people from the rest of society, and most of them belong in psychiatric hospitals to begin with. The severity of sentences has no effect on crime.

Texas still keeps the nonviolent, the retarded, senior citizens, etc. locked up for ridiculous periods—all at taxpayer expense. If we could ever get to where we spend as much per pupil on education as we do per prisoner, this state would take off like a rocket. In 2003, we spend nearly $15,000 per prisoner, while average per-pupil spending was just over $8,000.

I am not trying to make a big deal out of a simple hunting accident for partisan purposes—just thought it was a good chance to pay tribute to old Harry, a thoroughly decent man. However, I was offended by the never-our-fault White House spin team. Cheney adviser Mary Matalin said of her boss, “He was not careless or incautious [and did not] violate of any of the [rules]. He didn’t do anything he wasn’t supposed to do.” Of course he did, Ms. Matalin, he shot Harry Whittington.

Which brings us to one of the many paradoxes of the Bush administration, which claims to be creating “the responsibility society.” It’s hard to think of a crowd less likely to take responsibility for anything they have done or not done than this bunch. They’re certainly good at preaching responsibility to others—and blaming other people for everything that goes wrong on their watch.

Of course the Cheney shooting was an accident.

But is it an accident if your home and your life are destroyed by the flood following a hurricane? Especially if the flood was caused by failed levees, a government responsibility?

Is it an accident if you are born with a clubfoot and your parents are too poor to pay for the operation to fix it? Is there any societal responsibility in such a case?

Is it an accident when your manufacturing job gets shipped overseas and all you can find to replace it is a low-wage job at the big-box store with no health insurance, and your kid breaks his leg, and you can’t pay the bill, so you have to declare bankruptcy under a new law that leaves you broke for good, with no chance of ever getting out of debt? Or was all of that caused by deliberate government policy?

Cheney is much given to lecturing us about taking responsibility. When and where does societal responsibility come in?

Cheney has a curious, shifting history on issues of blame and responsibility. He was vice chair of the congressional committee that spent 11 months investigating the Iran-Contra affair and author of its minority report. As John W. Dean highlights in a recent essay, the 500-page majority report concluded the entire affair “was characterized by pervasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy.” But Cheney’s report said the Reagan administration’s repeated breaking of the law was “mistakes ... were just that—mistakes in judgment and nothing more.”

Those of you who saw Cheney’s interview with Jim Lehrer last week may recall the passage on Darfur that ended with this:

His head still tilts over more to the right when he lies.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including "Who Let the Dogs In?"

© 2006 TruthDig, LLC

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK 

WASHINGTON - February 13 - Saturday’s shooting of a fellow hunter by Vice President Dick Cheney was just one more addition to the more than quarter million Americans who have been injured by firearms during President George W. Bush’s tenure. From 2001 through 2004, the most recent year available, 252,076 Americans were injured by firearms according to federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Center (CDC) data. From 2001 through 2003, the most recent year available, nearly 30,000 Americans a year were killed by firearms according to information from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Unlike the administrations of George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton, both of which supported gun control measures such as banning assault weapons, the current Bush Administration has, in fact, allowed measures like the federal assault weapons ban to expire while at the same time rolling back other portions of federal gun control policy.

Cheney has been the Administration’s most vocal pro-gun voice, addressing the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting in 2004. In his speech to NRA members, Cheney described himself and President Bush as “lifelong gun owners, hunters, and anglers—and strong believers in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Like many of you, I grew up close to the land, learned from my dad how to handle a gun, and still look forward to every chance to join up with friends to go hunting.” (Please see http://www.vpc.org/cheney.htm for a copy of the speech from the NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom Magazine.)

Josh Sugarmann, Violence Policy Center executive director states, “The Cheney shooting punctures the pro-gun argument that `knowing guns’ and `having respect for guns’ are enough to overcome the inherent hazards of firearms. Vice President Cheney’s victim is now just one more sad statistic in America’s annual gun toll.”

Violence Policy Center

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK

I’ve seen you around. I’ve seen you driving your gas guzzling SUV with the “Support Our Troops” ribbon on the back. I’ve seen you wearing your pro-war/pro-bush t-shirts as you walk right past me in my Iraq Veterans Against the War t-shirt as if I don’t exist. And I’ve seen you at anti-war rallies and meetings where I often speak, as you wave your American flag and call me a traitor. In this country we have freedom of speech. But you owe me and every other veteran of this war the respect of listening to our experience.

Your magnet says “support our troops,” but what have you done for us? Not a penny of the proceeds go to us, instead they go to sweatshops in China. You say that I am not supporting the troops when I say that they should come home. But I am, because I know that there was no threat to our nation from Saddam Hussein, I know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, and I know that we were not welcomed in Iraq as liberators. I know that the Iraq war was not worth fighting. I know, because I fought there. You say I’m confused. But what do you know about Iraq? You’ve never been there.

You have the audacity to claim that by not supporting the president, I don’t support the troops. Yet, the president chose to send over 160,000 of us to Iraq unprepared and without a defined mission. We had no body armor, no vehicle armor, and poor supplies of ammunition. Our families spent thousands of dollars that they did not have to supply us, while President Bush did nothing. In fact he didn’t even scold his Offensive Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, when he told our forward deployed troops, “you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had.” Moreover, the mission was originally about weapons of mass destruction, but there were none. Then it was making Iraq a democracy, but yet the “insurgency” worsens. Now the president has decided that in order to honor those who died for nothing, more must die for nothing.

At present, 2,241 of my brothers and sisters in arms have died. In some way, they may be the lucky ones. Over sixteen thousand others have been wounded in this war, thousands more than planned. The term wounded sounds sterile, bland, and inoffensive. But, in reality, many of them have been so horribly damaged that medical science had to create a new word to describe their wounds: polytrauma. These people would have died in earlier wars, but because of the gallant efforts of brave doctors and medics, they get to live. They get to live with teams of ten or more doctors just trying to get their broken, mangled bodies through another day, as their families look on in horror. They get to live in a physical and emotional hell, not able to recover and not able to voice the pain they feel or the psychological demons they face. All the while suffering with a Veterans Administration under funded by nearly three billion dollars and unable to care for them in the manner they deserve.

So which one of us supports the troops? You, who has never set foot in Iraq and wants to leave my brothers and sisters there until they complete whatever the undefined mission of the week is, or me, the veteran of this war who has seen the carnage of battle, the rampant indifference of my countrymen, and just wants to bring my brothers and sisters home alive and care for them when they get here?

Keep coming to the rallies. Maybe I’ll get through your thick skull eventually. But remember I waved my flag in Baghdad, so you can sit down, shut up, and listen to me.

Charlie Anderson served in Iraq with the Marine Corps’ Second Tank Battalion. He is the Southeast Regional Coordinator of Iraq Veterans Against the War. He can be contacted at iraqvet4peace@yahoo.com

CHOICE AMERICA NETWORK