Both views and/or positions are wrong. The shooting of 78-year- old Harry Whittington by Dick Cheney on Saturday showed 3 things.
First, it unveiled the fallback plan by the Administration in the event that Social Security "privatization" fails again.
Take that AARP!
In taking the action, Cheney exhibited the "bottom-line" approach he touted in 2000 by referring to his background as CEO of Halliburton (now a subsidiary of U.S. Taxpayer Inc.)
During his tenure, the only spot on his record was leaving it teetering on the brink of bankruptcy because, as CEO, he bought Drexel during a hunting trip having done no "due diligence", and leaving Halliburton absorbing Drexel's asbestos litigation which, as Dana Milbank of the Post reported in 2002, "Investors . . . are betting the liability is $8 billion to $9 billion".
Note* Watch the progress of the long- stalled, now quickly moving, Asbestos Trust Fund Bill (asbestos "reform" bill) going through Congress. It will become another subsidiary of U.S. Taxpayer Inc. (kind of like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and some other fancy names for federal entities that step in when corporation "leaders" raid the ... never mind).
Second, he showed why it is always important to stay "vigilant". After all, apparently, the 78- year- old was sneaking up on him. He didn't announce himself and was dressed in orange camouflage.
Taking into account the facts that:
!) Mr. Whittington managed to penetrate the security surrounding Dick;
2) He had a weapon;
3) He gave no warning;
4) He must have been sufficiently familiar with Western culture that, just like in cowboy movies (which depict places like Wyoming but were shot in Italy- "Linguini Westerns" or some such thing), he apparently knew enough to approach Dick with the sun at his back; and
5) Our security agencies failed to "connect the dots" again as Cheney's phalanx of Secret Service agents, the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, and the Starship Enterprise all failed to note Mr. Whittington's ominous "lurking". All of which proves the point that the NSA should've been inside Mr. Whittington's head- just to be on the safe side.
Lastly, the man is (hopefully- not "was") a millionaire attorney. This shows how seriously the Administration takes "tort reform".
While there is a confusion as to the gentleman's field of specialty in the law, it is unlikely (or not) that he was an attorney that represented the "average person" (low to middle-class).
1 | 2