From today’s NYT:

Mr. Reid fired back directly at Mr. Cheney on Tuesday, appearing at the same microphones just moments after the vice president.

“The president sends out his attack dog often,” said Mr. Reid. “That’s also known as Dick Cheney.”

Defending the legislation up for a vote this week, he said, “We believe the troops should get every penny they need and we have put our money where our mouth is with supplemental appropriations, but we believe there must be a change of direction in the war in Iraq.”

Mr. Reid said he was not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with the vice president. “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating,” Mr. Reid said.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The pungent commentary about VA Tech is inevitable, of course, but I was not so prepared for the not-apparent-to-me connection to the War on Terror. Oliver North was good enough to elucidate:

On April 18, as the potentates of the press were discovering stories of courage and compassion at Virginia Tech, [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates, standing beside his Israeli counterpart, Amir Peretz, declared that they had decided to “deal with the Iranian nuclear problem through diplomacy, which appears to be working.” He went on to note that the international community is “united” in this approach. This sounds eerily like urging deeply disturbed, homicidal students to seek counseling and talk about their problems in lieu of more stringent measures that might deter them from committing mass murder.

Unfortunately, the homicidal Islamic radicals running Iran are arming themselves with weapons far more lethal than handguns, and the mass murder they plan to perpetrate will kill millions. And yet, if the advice being proffered by Messrs. Gates and Peretz is followed, we will continue to ignore all the warning signs and “talk” with Iran until it is too late.

The killers at Columbine and Virginia Tech repeatedly denied that they were potentially destructive to themselves or others — until they acted. They hid their weapons and their intentions while plotting mayhem. That’s the same pattern of behavior that the Ayatollahs in Tehran have followed.

The clandestine Iranian nuclear program was underway for nearly 18 years before being discovered. When International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors finally investigated, the Iranians lied and destroyed evidence.

I am tempted to ask Mr. North whether he knew anything about clandestine Iranian nuclear programs when he was selling them arms, but then that would just be an ad hominem attack, and I’m above that.

Aside from the rather odd notion that the behavior of a disparate group of mentally unstable individuals is reliably on par with the actions of a nation-state with millenia of history, a modernized population, and a nutjob government, I would like to ask what “more stringent measures” he proposes for said mentally unstable individuals. Should we go back to the geek-profiling of the post-Columbine days, but add a touch of Gitmo? I know, I know, North’s whole point in bringing up VA Tech is to artlessly segue into what he already wanted to say about Iran. Please stop, Ollie. You’re only embarrassing yourself.

Lest I be seen as being too flippant or somehow minimizing the tragedies of all that happened in the world today, please believe that this is not my intention. I haven’t seen the full coverage yet, but some sick bastard gunned down at least 32 people in Virginia today.

Two things strike me about this story, aside from the typical people-are-bastards reaction I usually have.

One is that this further underscores the strange insistence of the Bush Administration to undermine only 9 out of 10 parts of the Bill of Rights. In the face of unspeakable tragedy, they had this to say, apparently:

“As far as policy, the president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly, bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting numbers — I don’t want to say numbers, because I know that they’re still trying to figure out how many people were wounded and possibly killed. But obviously, that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for. “

Remember when, shortly after 9/11, Ashcroft et al resisted all efforts to incorporate gun registries into the broader law enforcement effort against terrorism? The arguments advanced at the time were bemusing then, but they are hilarious now. For the record, I am in favor of gun rights, but to somehow elevate that right above all others is absurd.

Second, put bluntly, this sort of tragedy happens almost every day in Iraq. For a time, possibly continuing to now, more Iraqi civilians were dying every month than there were deaths on 9/11.

What happened today was a senseless tragedy. I would hope that it might make people (the White House) more reflective about senseless death. I’m naive that way.

In keeping with my pontifications regarding neoconservatives (I still like the term “conserfascists”) and their self-perceived, uh, inadequacies, here’s a bit from Newt Gingrich, via Hugh Hewitt, via Glenn Greenwald:

HH: Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran

…

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%.

Emphasis added.

Now, to be fair to the former Speaker, I suppose it is worth considering what it means by “you’re tiny and we’re not.”

Compared to America, Iran is quite tiny in terms of land area. I mean, the U.S. ranks 3rd or 4th with its 9,629,091 square kilometers, compared to Iran at #18 (1,648,195 square km? Ha! Even Greenland is bigger!)

In population, the good ol’ U.S. of A’s 301,600,000 people (we’re number 3!) easily trounces Iran’s 70,049,262 (again, they’re number 18 somehow). Iran has a whole lot more Muslims, for what it’s worth.

In terms of age, though, Iran has us beat, if you count from the original formation of the Persian Empire as a political entity around 500 BC. Next to that, what’s 1776 got to offer?

Anyway, I somehow doubt Speaker Gingrich is addressing the issue of land area, population size, or longevity. I think he’s looking at something more, ahem, substantial when he says “you’re tiny and we’re not.” Maybe the thought of having to actually talk to the Iranians instead of blowing them up, just like in Halo, causes an unfortunate Freudian response.

Seriously, though, is our country really being run (I know Newt isn’t in charge of anything at the moment, but he seems to be the favorite of many who are) by people who are willing to bomb various others into oblivion to prove they aren’t hung like light switches? Not to belabor a point, but this is pretty damn scary. Maybe what we need is more blowjobs in the Oval Office and halls of Congress. Think about it (preferably without a visual, ew.)