Learning about Gun Control From the Anti-Abortion Advocates

Today was supposed to be OneDayBlogSilence day, in honor of the memories of the 32 students and teachers killed at Virginia Tech two weeks ago. I didn't favor silence when it was announced, and I don't now. We don't talk enough about guns and mental illness in this country. So here's a suggestion. Democrats should go back at gun control, instead of cravenly avoiding any discussion of it to stay away from the wrath of the NRA. But they should go back at it the way the anti-abortion forces have fought against Roe v. Wade. One step at a time. Pick an extreme example, the way anti-abortion activists brought the late term abortion case to the Supreme Court. For gun control advocates there are at least two obvious ones. One is, don't let people with known mental illness, who are declared to be a danger to themselves and/or others, get guns. Period. This is controversial, not because the NRA opposes it--they don't--but because mental health advocates see it as an invasion of the privacy and rights of the mentally ill. Sorry, but nobody has an absolute right to a gun, just as nobody has an absolute right to a driver's license (or, in the case of gay couples, a marriage license).

The second example is an absolute no brainer; people on terrorist watch lists can buy guns. And they do. Why? Why is it I can't get on an airplane with a bottle of Prell, but terrorists can buy guns. This is the kind of crazy gun law that can be overcome.

Of course, it's only a start. Reinstating the assault weapons ban would be the next logical step. But at least it's something.

Spare Us All Your “Suffering”, Laura




Gosh, it just has to suck to be Laura Bush. Imagine holidays with her mother-in-law, for starters. And then, of course, there’s her husband, the master of disaster himself. I picture her secretly wearing an “I’m with Stupid” t-shirt under her knit suits, just to compensate.

And now it turns out she’s really bummed out about the war in Iraq, way more than you or I, or anybody else except the Fortunate Son himself. She told Ann Curry on the Today Show (h/t americablog):

“No one suffers more than the President and I,” watching the television reports of endless death and misery from Iraq. If only.

Of course, had she thought for just a moment before emitting Stepford wife-speak, she would have realized how clueless, and how arrogant a statement that was, and how it would sound to the families of the thousands of soldiers killed, wounded, or currently in harm’s way in the endless war in Iraq. But no. Arrogance is the default mode for the entire family. They are entitled to your sympathy and support, because they have feelings, just like regular people, only more so.

No good ever comes of the Bushes trying to demonstrate they’re just like the rest of us, from the robotically delivered “Message: I care,” by GHW Bush in an unguarded moment, to Barbara Bush’s “things are working out very well for them,” as she surveyed Katrina victims in Houston, to The Decider himself, who doesn’t go to soldiers’ funerals, and waited six weeks after the scandal broke to go to Walter Reed (to name just two examples).

Laura Bush wants you to know the burden is heavy on her husband.
Well here’s the deal, Laura: no one should suffer more than he does.
There’s a simple solution—end the damned war.

Secretly Abandoning A Two Year Old Strategy--When the Iraqis Stand Up, We’ll…Still be There.


When Defense Secretary Gates told the Iraqis last week that they had to get serious about reconciliation, who knew he meant reconciliation between al Maliki’s government and the Bush administration?

Yes, once again, in another painful demonstration of the futility of the American mission, al Maliki countermands the US military’s security plan, this time, for the 3 mile long Great Wall of Adhamiyah, meant to protect a Sunni neighborhood from Shiite thugs. You will recall he also ordered American troops last fall to pull down roadblocks around Sadr City when it pissed off Muqtada al-Sadr.

No matter the intention, it was kind of a no brainer that the Sunnis would feel that they were being caged in by a wall. It’s also a no brainer that al Maliki needs the support of other Arab nations, which are mostly led by Sunnis who want to see more Sunnis in his Shiite majority government.

Speaking of standing down, remember “when the Iraqi army stands up, we’ll stand down”? Sure you do. It was the strategy of the United States since 2005. Bush said it repeatedly. So did Rummy and the generals. They even gave us progress reports, none of them true, about the number of Iraqi divisions who were ready to stand up, as it were, and take over for American troops.

Yeah, well, never mind. The Pentagon’s policy has “shifted,” according to an under-noticed but important story by the McClatchy news service.

“Training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of US policy,” it said. The Abizaid/Casey strategy of transitioning from American troops to Iraqis has been ditched in favor of American troops securing the country, defeating the insurgents and sectarian trouble makers.

In other words, getting in the middle of the civil war.

Gates didn’t even mention training Iraqi soldiers when he was in Iraq Thursday to warn al Maliki that the clock is ticking. You see, it’s ok for Gates to threaten the Iraqis that America’s patience is running out, and that he and Petraeus will be evaluating the situation this summer to see whether to end the surge or keep the soldiers there. It’s okay for Gates to strongly suggest that if they don’t make political progress by June 30, including a plan for sharing oil profits and allowing Saddam era Sunni politicians back into government, bad things could happen to the al Maliki government. Like, al Malilki could be out.

But it’s definitely not okay for Democrats to essentially prove Gates is correct by putting a withdrawal timetable in the Iraq funding bill. That would be failing to support the troops.

Proving that he approves of some of the ways the Bush government operates, al Maliki is denying that there is a civil war in Iraq. Maybe he gets his intelligence from Cheney.

If you can read this story, about the torture and murder of one of Iraq’s most prominent television news anchors, a Shiite who was killed because she refused to be pushed out of her home, and conclude that there isn’t a civil war in Iraq, there’s a press secretary job waiting for you.

OneDayBlogSilence--A Lovely Gesture, but...


There is a clearly heartfelt movement afoot to create a blogosphere memorial to the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings, on April 30, called OneDayBlogSilence.

The goal is to cause everybody who reads and/or writes blogs to stop and think. No words, and no comments, just silent reflection about the dead in Virginia, and, if you like, victims of violence everywhere.

It seems these days that the unexpressed thought has gone the way of the buggy whip, thanks to the web, 24/7 cable, blackberrys, etc. And yet, as much as I admire the OneDayBlogSilence gesture, I don’t think silence is the best way to share our heartbreak and support for the families of these victims.

Because of the Imus situation, there’s been a lot of talk about the “national conversation,” as it relates to race relations. That phrase always makes me roll my eyes. Far too often what passes for a national conversation is no more than we the people watching television as other people speak, presumably, but not necessarily, for us.

Invariably issues that deserve a national conversation are ignored until there’s a fresh incident. Then we watch people talk at each other, or yell at each other, for hours and hours, until the producers and the hosts and the home audience are exhausted, and move on to the next hot issue.

One day it’s race, another day it’s guns. There’s an event, an easily digestible moment, and if there’s video to go with it, yippee. Television coverage, however, does not equal a thoughtful “national conversation,” since it lacks participation by any of the actual people who are the “nation.”

The blogosphere, on the other hand, can do a better job of providing a forum for an honest dialogue. (It often doesn’t, for a variety of reasons, but it certainly can). And as the shootings this week remind us, we need to talk about our country’s fascination with both real and fictional violence. The second amendment and the availability of guns are only part of the equation. Any position you can reduce to a prefix, pro- or anti-, is easy to grasp. This issue isn’t that easy. Conversation is only a start, but it can at least lead to consensus. Democrats have been so afraid to even talk about guns that it’s hard to know exactly what the consensus opinion is.

Senator Harry Reid is quoted as saying that before tackling the issue we should all take a breath. Fair enough. But while we’re waiting to exhale, I would say devoting April 30 to wrestling with the national appetite for violence, that issue and no other, would be an equally fitting memorial to the horror that occurred at Virginia Tech. That’s what I’ll be doing on my blog.

Wanted: One Scapegoat For New “War Czar” Position


Because some of the generals they’ve approached have begun to talk about it, we’re now hearing about the Bush war machine’s efforts to hire a “War Czar.” The problem is, for some reason, nobody wants the job.

I know, I know, you’re thinking we already have a war czar. It’s the guy who likes to dress up in flight suits and call himself a war president (and who in fact is the Commander in Chief).

The War Czar is supposed to direct the Iraq and Afghanistan war efforts, issuing orders to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies.

The job, according to the Washington Post, has been offered to at least three 4 star generals, who’ve all turned it down. One of the generals is ret. Marine General Jack Sheehan. He describes a White house torn between delusional Cheney’s hard line “al Qaeda is there and we’ve got to fight them" attitude, and the pragmatists who see a catastrophe for Republicans in 2008, and want to find a way out.

The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," Sheehan is quoted as saying to the WaPo.

If you’re not sure how you feel about the idea, consider that it’s enthusiastically endorsed by Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, who was the author of the surge plan:

“Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon.” Gosh, that means it's a great idea.

So let’s help them write a want ad.

Wanted: Scapegoat with high threshold for pain, low self-esteem to act as mouthpiece/puppet for Bush war. Must be willing to provide “guidance” to the President on the conduct of the war, in the form of stating to him what he already wants to do so that he can say it was Czar’s idea. Must be able to take responsibility for mistakes and disasters. Must be prepared to leave job suddenly and without warning.

On the other hand, they could just give the job to McCain. He loves the shopping.

Al Gonzalez and Al Capone--Two of a Kind




As the Washington Post reports today, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, our very own Alberto Gonzalez, has “retreated from public view this week” to rehearse his upcoming testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary committee about the US attorneys purge. They’re planning three days of “rigorous mock testimony.”

The first question, of course, is why do you have to rehearse if you intend to tell the truth? (The second question is, when they rehearse, who plays the role of Senator Orrin Hatch—a cocker spaniel?)

Sure he’ll be asked detailed questions, but it’s not like he can’t refer to notes. So what’s the problem?

Other than the discomfort of having to acknowledge that he lied or was inexplicably able to remember exactly how much he was involved in the purge as it was unfolding, he’s got another hurdle.

He can’t talk to his crew so they can get their stories straight ahead of time. From the Washington Post:

“Justice officials and outside experts said the effort is further hampered by legal conflicts among Gonzales and his senior aides. Top Democrats have also accused department officials of misleading Congress in previous testimony, leading Justice lawyers to insist on limiting contact between key players to avoid allegations of obstructing a congressional investigation, officials said.”

It was put more plainly by former Senator Dan Coats, a Republican who helped prep Justice Alito (and, sadly, Harriet Miers) for their confirmation hearings.

“You don't have the ability to coordinate with other organizations or individuals that are going to be testifying, and there will be a lot of people looking for inconsistencies. It is no small challenge for the attorney general.”

The icing on the cake is the presence of Timothy E. Flanigan as one of the guys who is prepping Gonzalez. Flanigan was a deputy White House counsel who left to become chief counsel at Tyco. When Tyco wanted to kill tax legislation that would have barred them from receiving federal contracts, Flanigan hired Jack Abramoff to lobby for them.

He was nominated to be a deputy attorney general by Bush in 2005 but withdrew his name when it became clear he’d have to talk about Abramoff.

Flanigan also helped Gonzalez write the book on the Bush administration’s torture policy.

Gonzo should stop wasting his time—he’s toast. And when he goes down, it won’t be for helping the Bush administration shred our constitution and moral standing around the world. It will be for an “overblown personnel matter,” to use his own description.

You know, like Al Capone going to jail for tax fraud. Fitting, that.