Not to minimize this, because it's very important, and the circumstances are very grave, but what kind of a threshhold for moral (not to mention legal) responsibility ought we be holding our high elected officials to?
Since Dick Cheney shot one of his hunting companions in the face on Saturday, it has been said repeatedly by the White House a) that it was accidental and b) that it was Whittington's fault. Now, leaving aside for a moment how it can simultaneously be an accident and someone else's fault, what are the standards for caution when you're handling a gun? I've never hunted, so I need to rely on hunters for my assessment. Based upon my all-too-casual perusal of the blogs on this, it seems that Lindsay sums up the consensus:
Of course, Cheney is responsible. Any gun owner will tell you. If you pull the trigger and hit someone, it's your fault. You're supposed to be looking where you're shooting. I find it hard to believe that Whittington dove into a stream of oncoming fire, especially if he initially came up behind Cheney.
I find it reprehensible that the Vice President's office has worked so hard to blame the victim in this matter, and particularly given that his condition appears to be much worse than we were initially led to believe.
The VP is clearly the responsible party in this, and he needs to step up. I'd go so far as to say that if Whittington dies, Cheney ought to resign. If not, he ought to be impeached. After all, if oral sex is sufficient grounds for impeachment, surely shooting someone in the face should be.
For what it's worth, I've hunted (in the long past) and saying that Whittington is solely at fault (as, at least, I heard Alan Simpson claiming on Hardball) is like saying someone not wearing a seatbelt trumps the other guy's reckless driving as cause for an accident.
When I heard Simpson saying that, I had a vision of Rove's face hovering in the background, cackling with glee, saying, "Yesssss. That's it. Dance my little puppet, dance!"
The question I'd like to have asked is what is the routine procedure for the police in these situations? I'd expect they'd talk to witness and check for alcohol use, but since they were held off until the next morning, I don't expect that happened.
Posted by: John B | February 15, 2006 at 10:17 AM
Well, I've heard suggestions that there might have been beer involved, but nothing solid. As you point out, John, since the Secret Service apparently held them off till the next day, we may never know.
One thing that galls me is the way that they keep referring to Whittington's heart attack as "minor." Is there any such thing as a "minor" heart attack if you're 78 years old? Hell, I don't think that any heart attack is minor!
Posted by: Scott Paeth | February 15, 2006 at 10:21 AM