Hume: "No Evidence" for Cover-Up
Media Blog
Stephen Spruiell Reporting
Expose the Left is taking a look at how MSNBC liberals are floating the conspiracy theory that Cheney was drunk when he accidentally shot his hunting partner and the White House tried to cover it up. Here's the theory as summed up by liberal blogger Kevin Drum:
<<< Cheney's party had been drinking. Maybe Jack Daniels, maybe a few beers. So Cheney has a bit of a buzz, it's near sunset, and Harry Whittington has dropped behind the main hunting party. Suddenly, a covey of quail flushes and Cheney wheels around to track them. Unfortunately, Whittington comes into his line of fire, no more than 30 feet away by the looks of his subsequent injuries, but the sun is in Cheney's eyes and his reflexes are dulled from alcohol, so he pulls the trigger anyway.
An interview with a sheriff — or anyone else — is considered imprudent at that point, so the sheriff is told to come by the next morning after Cheney has sobered up. Karl Rove decides that silence from the White House is a good idea too and the president goes along. Scott McClellan isn't even informed. That's the way Dick wants it, so that's the way it's going to play.
Unfortunately, there are several witnesses to the shooting, including Whittington, and there's no telling what they're going to say. So Cheney decides to hide. If he doesn't answer questions, after all, he can't be caught in a lie. Once everyone has gone on record and the White House is sure that Whittington isn't going to contradict the VP's story, Cheney will take questions from the press. >>>
Like most inane theories, the brilliance of this one is that it's impossible to disprove. But for those of us who prefer journalism based on facts and evidence, Brit Hume — who spoke with Cheney this afternoon — points out that there is "no evidence to that effect. None."
<<< HUME: He is utterly unapologetic about the way this was handled in terms of getting the information out, and I've gotta tell you, I think based on what I've heard and picked up, the public isn't very upset about this.
Now there are partisans who are, and the usual Cheney- and Bush-haters write in and say, "He was obviously drunk and they're trying to cover this up and they had to get him sobered up," and all that. Problem with that is there's no evidence to that effect. None. >>>
Earlier in this interview with Shepard Smith, Hume reported that Cheney said he had a beer with lunch, but that the group went back to the ranch house to relax before going out hunting later that afternoon. He said no one was drinking. Of course, the conspiracy theorists can (and will) accuse Cheney of lying, but there's no evidence that he's not telling the truth.
He also said that Cheney insisted that the way the information was released to the public was appropriate. Hume said,
"A lot of people would disagree with that, including
members of the White House press corps. I think a lot of
the public will tend to be sympathetic to the vice
president, not least because of the behavior of the White
House press corps."
Video here.
www2.nationalreview.com
media.nationalreview.com
exposetheleft.com
washingtonmonthly.com |
