Williams: Hunter questions Cheney

By DON WILLIAMS, February 17, 2006

Four days after Dick Cheney shot 78-year-old Harry M. Whittington in the face, neck and chest, the vice president sat down for tea and crumpets with the PR branch of the Bush-Cheney administration - otherwise known as Fox News - to finally take a measure of responsibility.
OK, if they didn't serve tea and crumpets, they should've, in keeping with the spirit of Brit Hume's polite questioning and the blue-blood hunting party then under discussion.
Let's face it, if you or I put somebody in the hospital while hunting, the good folks down at the local sheriff's department would've been out in force just to make sure there was no hanky-panky - say, open beer, no hunting after hours, no excessive trophy-bagging, no carelessness with firearms or who knows what?
Ben Brabson says he would've asked some pointed questions. Maybe you've heard of Brabson. The retired Sevier County attorney and former Navy intelligence officer is also a gentleman farmer and quail hunter, and he thinks Cheney's official story doesn't quite pass the sniff test.
"In my youth, I was an experienced hunter, including quail hunting here and on my uncle's ranch in Southwest Florida," Brabson wrote in an e-mail message. "The cover story doesn't ring true. The shooting victim was apparently peppered at a height of 3 to 6 feet at a range of 30 yards, which means that Ole Topgun (Cheney) would've had an aiming point (the quail) of no more than 20 yards from his firing position. That birdshot would have a tough time penetrating a hunting vest at point blank range, much less 30 yards. It would also be very difficult to be knocked unconscious at 30 yards. From the number of pellets the victim had in him, I'd say the range was 10 to 15 yards."
Admittedly, Brabson's speculating, but then almost every aspect of this case is open to speculation because there was no immediate investigation of the kind that would've ensued had you or I pulled that trigger. Apparently a guard turned away a deputy sent to investigate at the gate of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, near Corpus Christi, Texas.
Brabson's puzzled by other aspects of the story. Witnesses quoted in the media say Whittington had just made a double - two birds with one shot - and had gone into the bush to bag his quail, before reappearing unexpectedly in front of the business end of Cheney's gun.
"Nobody in their right mind would go into the bush on foot to pick up a dead bird - the danger of rattlesnakes is too great, and that's what trained bird dogs are for." That and flushing out the prey.
"You turn the dogs loose, and they crisscross in front of the vehicle until they point or set a covey," Brabson explained. "When a covey flushes, it rises to a height of 20 to 30 feet and then settles. By the time it drops below 10 feet, you have no shot because of the underbrush."
I've heard other hunters mention a horizon rule - you don't shoot at birds below the horizon.
Brabson has other questions, and so do I.
Why did the Cheney team haul the bleeding Whittington an hour and 20 minutes north to a branch hospital in Kingsville, rather than have him flown directly to the more resourceful Christus Spohn Memorial Hospital in Corpus Christi, where he wound up about three hours after the event?
Why did guards turn away a deputy who drove out to interview the hunting party? In other words, why did no authorities take a statement from Cheney until some 14 hours after the incident?
Why did Katharine Armstrong, who phoned the local newspaper, say there was "no, zero, zippo" drinking before Cheney acknowledged drinking beer with his lunch only a couple of hours before?
Why did the Secret Service not know the whereabouts of everyone with a loaded gun in the vicinity of the vice president?
Why are there three versions of how the news broke: one in which Armstrong claims she made the decision to phone the local media, one in which Cheney asked her to phone the paper, and Cheney's answer to a question from Hume, which suggests Karl Rove had input into how to handle the media?
Still, those who say this story has received comparatively more media attention than it merits are right - though not in the way they imagine.
Stay tuned.