insurgent49
  updated weekly
 home - submissions - donate -  message board - events - links - contact us - archive
February 17, 2006
The Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford

The Cheney Doctrine

     I have some unsolicited advice for Harry Whittington.

     You’ve heard about him. Harry is the guy that Vice President Dick Cheney blasted in the face and upper torso with a shotgun during a recent hunting trip in Texas. According to CNN, Cheney had his gun cocked, and whirled around to shoot a bird. I can see why Cheney would promote that story. It would be much worse politically if he had gone off half-cocked.

     My advice to Harry is this: “Run for your life, find a remote location with lots of caves to hide in, and don’t come out of hiding. Ever.” Some readers may think that I am overreacting. They need to understand that Harry was shot by the living embodiment of the Cheney Doctrine.

     The Cheney Doctrine is the policy of shooting the other guy before he can shoot you. That doctrine was Cheney’s justification for the invasion of Iraq. We had to attack Iraq before Iraq could attack us. It is also known as the pre-emptive war doctrine.

     It applies just as well to Cheney’s shooting of Harry. After all, Harry was carrying a gun. This was a hunting party. Under the Cheney Doctrine, Cheney was justified in shooting Harry before Harry could shoot Cheney. Never mind that there was no evidence that Cheney was actually going to be shot by Harry. Cheney could not allow the first warning sign to be a smoking hole in his chest, located where other people would have a heart.

     Now some Cheney supporters may scoff, and claim that Cheney was just the victim of bad intelligence. But I have to ask those supporters: Why is it that both the Secret Service and Cheney’s office immediately refused to release information about this incident? If Cheney has nothing to hide, he should not have objected to a full disclosure of the facts. If we have learned nothing else about the Bush/Cheney administration, we have learned that when they screw up, their first reaction is to withhold the relevant facts. This case fits that pattern perfectly, and has all the earmarks of a cover up.

     Harry has been treated for his injuries, and has survived them. So why should Harry still need to fear for his life? It is because a major corollary of the Cheney Doctrine is that it does not matter why the shooting started. Once the fighting begins, you need to finish what you started, even if it was a mistake to start in the first place.

For example, we now know that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, but under the Cheney doctrine we still have to fight and fight and keep on fighting until we win. The same principle applies here. It does not matter if Harry was an innocent bystander. As long as he is still alive, Cheney has not finished the job.

     Sure, there has been a temporary lull in the shooting, but that does not mean that the war is over. We are all familiar with the line “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” The official line that this incident is over simply doesn’t wash. Cheney is a very determined man, and will not stop until he finishes what he started. There are already reports that Cheney has been spotted skulking around the hospital where Harry was being treated. He’s obviously casing the joint.

     No, Harry’s only chance of survival is to take a page from Osama’s book, and hide in some remote location where he can move around frequently, live in caves, and have a lot of friends who will help him keep a look out for Cheney.

     Otherwise, he’s a goner for sure.





























Kevin Morford is a political activist and an attorney in private practice in the Anchorage area.  He can be reached at kmorford@insurgent49.com.
- Columnists -

Editor's Desk
by Aaron Selbig

Red Alert
by Soren Wuerth

Alaskan In Exile
by Neil Zawicki

The
Bramble Bush
by Kevin Morford





Copyright 2005 Insurgent Media. All Rights Reserved.
in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership.