There are plenty of interesting questions surrounding the Cheney shooting, but one over-arching question remains: what was Cheney thinking? ABC News’ Claire Shipman has some sources in the VP’s office who gave her a behind-the-scenes narrative. It’s an interesting take, if you believe it.
Sources close to the Vice President say that there was actually a statement prepared either by Cheney, or with his help, to be delivered Sunday morning after the accident. It was something the White House suggested — and might have been prepared with some White House help. But it was determined by his advisors and by him that morning that it was too “convoluted,” and might not be the best way to proceed.
They decided it might be best to have somebody who actually witnessed the accident explain what happened. For some reason, they thought that would seem more “credible,” hence, the involvement of Katherine Armstrong. They now see that this was likely bad judgment.
Far too much of this just doesn’t make sense. The White House and Cheney’s office have some pretty accomplished writers — they couldn’t write a simple statement explaining a hunting accident without Cheney rejecting it as “convoluted”? And if the first copy was overly-complicated, why not just re-write it?
And why on earth would Cheney and his aides decide that a ranch-owning lobbyist no one outside Texas has ever heard of would be more “credible” in explaining what happened? Granted, Cheney’s reputation for honesty is almost laughable, but why would the Vice President decide that Katherine Armstrong would more believable than him?
This is just bizarre, and the fact that the VP’s office is telling tales like this to ABC further suggests that these guys’ mendacity is rivaled only by their incompetence. What I said a couple of days ago stands: Leave it to the Bush gang to take a story in which the Vice President shot a guy and make it look worse.