Sunday School 2/4/24: Extra Credit

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan made at least four classroom appearances. I'm amazed at his ability to withstand the assault of a lot of repetitive - and often dumb - questions.

I tried to find at least one reasonable exchange from each classroom, starting with State of the Union where he spoke with Dana Bash. I also included a few ridiculous exchanges, like the first one below.

DB: You said it's just the beginning. And I just want to clarify, that means that there will be more strikes coming in the next few days?

JS: What it means is that we will take further action. I'm not going to, obviously, describe the character of that action because I don't want to telegraph our punches. But there will be further action.

DB: Inside Iran? Would you rule that out at this point?

JS: Look, sitting on a national TV program, I'm not going to rule in and rule out any activity anywhere. What I am going to say is that the president will do what he thinks needs to be done and again reinforce the point that he's going to defend our forces and also that he is not looking to get into a war.

A more reasonable exchange occurred regarding Sullivan's oft-repeated comments that we don't want this to become a regional conflict. Bash said there are "10 countries, at least, four major terrorist groups" involved, suggesting it was already that. Sullivan worked hard to explain that the different actions we're seeing, including the Israeli-Hamas war, "are distinct but related challenges."  As such, we'll continue working 

to deal with the challenge of escalation and continue to work to ensure we're responding forcefully, but at the same time staying out of the prospect of the United States getting pulled into a broad war in the Middle East of the kind that we have seen in the past.

Bash said that all of the conflicts lead "down one road, and that is the road to Iran."  He agreed, noting that he'd explained the Iranian connection many times before, including in this classroom and from the podium during briefings.

So, we make no bones about that. Iran has a significant and pernicious responsibility for much of the instability in the Middle East, and that has to be factored into how we approach everything that we're doing and how Israel has to approach everything it's doing.

In the Meet the Press classroom, several ridiculous exchanges were initiated by Kristen Welker. For example, she referenced GOP comments about the Biden administration waiting too long to respond, and how it "telegraphed to the world, including to Iran" our response. How would Sullivan respond to that, she asked. In a nutshell, we did what we said we'd do (retaliate if attacked) and added

...of course, there will always be armchair quarterbacks, but we are confident in the steps that we have taken so far. And we are confident in the course that we are on going forward.

As Dana Bash did, Welker tried to pin Sullivan down on our future responses - except she did it right after asking about the 'telegraphing' complaint.

KW: Have you ruled out strikes inside Iran?

JS Well, sitting here today on a national news program, I'm not going to get into what we've ruled in and ruled out from the point of view of military action. What I will say is that the president is determined to respond forcefully to attacks on our people. The president also is not looking for a wider war in the Middle East.

KW: But is it off the table? Are strikes inside Iran off the table?

JS: Again, Kristen, sitting here on television, it would not be wise for me to talk about what we're ruling in and ruling out.

KW: So, you're not ruling it out?

JS: I'll just say the same thing one more time, which is I'm not going to get into what's on the table and off the table when it comes to the American response.

Did Welker redeem herself after that embarrassing exchange? Well, not really. Moving to the Israel-Hamas war, she said there was a sticking point in the hostage negotiations about "whether this should be a six-week pause in fighting or a permanent ceasefire. What is the United States pushing for?"

JS: Well, what we're pushing for is an outcome in which every hostage gets home, in which Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza –

KW (interrupting): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire?

JS (trying to answer her first question): – and not threaten Israel in the way –

KW (interrupting, again): Would you like to see a permanent ceasefire today?

JS: Well, Kristen, everybody wants to see an end to the war. Nobody's rooting for the war to continue... 

But wait - there's more! Here's how the interview closed.

KW: Okay. Let me ask you, finally, Jake: Our new NBC news poll, which we were just discussing, found only 29% approve of President Biden's handling of the war in Gaza. Sixty percent disapprove of his handling of foreign policy, overall. Should the President be factoring the public's disapproval into his foreign policy decisions?

Obviously, he said no, but part of me wanted him to say, "Why yes - yes he will!" just to see the look on her face. 

In the This Week classroom, George Stephanopoulos did better than his counterparts. For example, he asked what our initial strikes on the terror groups had achieved - which is different from 'Did we kill any bad guys?' Sullivan said, "...we believe they had good effect in reducing, degrading the capabilities of the militias and of the Houthis."

He also reiterated that this was just the start of our response, and said there'll be "more actions taken to respond to the death of the – the tragic death of the three brave U.S. service members."

In response to a question on whether we've thought about Iran making a direct response against us, Sullivan acknowledged that was a threat that we're prepared for, adding

And I would just say, from the perspective of Tehran, if they chose to respond directly to the United States, they would be met with a swift and forceful response from us.

He also said we've passed messages back and forth, but "in the last few days, the message that we have sent to Iran has been through our action, not through our words."

Last, we visited the Face the Nation classroom, with Margaret Brennan. Very early on, she asked whether Iran has "done anything to rein in the militias they fund and arm?" since our strikes. The question came barely two days after we launched them, so was it reasonable to think we'd have an assessment on that yet? I'd guess no, but maybe it's just me.

Her next question? 

There are reportedly civilian casualties in Iraq and in Syria as a result of these strikes. Does the U.S. assess that any of those hit in these strikes were actually Iranian Al Quds Force personnel? Or did the fact that this was so telegraphed in advance give those personnel time to go to ground?

Sullivan said he "didn't have anything to report...this morning" on who exactly was killed, but said assessments were continuing. And he refuted the "so telegraphed" comment, as he did in other classrooms. 

And when three service members were killed, of course Iran knew that the United States would respond. So the idea that somehow this was telegraphed, I think, is a bit more of a political talking point than – than a reality. 

She had no reaction to that, of course. And she, too, turned to the polls showing Americans aren't happy with Israel's military campaign - or with President Biden's handling of it. She wondered

At what point is this open-ended Israel conflict in Gaza not just a political problem, but a national security one for the United States to be so closely associated with the Netanyahu government's war, with the civilian casualties that we've seen to date, and the starvation of women and children in Gaza?

In part, he responded, 

...I'm glad you put the question in those terms, because we don't design our policy towards Israel or Gaza or the Middle East based on politics. We do it based on the national security interests of the United States.

We've been clear, he said, that we won't ignore "the immense and terrible suffering" of Palestinians. We'll continue to pressure Israel on that, and it'll be a "top priority" of Secretary of State Antony Blinken when he meets with the Israeli government.

Brennan referenced an interview with Israel's National Security Minister, who seemed to be on a different page than his boss. She asked, "Does Benjamin Netanyahu have control of his government?"  Sullivan rightly responded that it's not up to us to say. 

Look, I'm going to let the Israeli government and Israeli politicians speak for themselves. They certainly have no trouble doing so, as you just related. 

He also explained that a deal allowing for a "sustained pause" so assistance can reach the Palestinians who need it is in our national security interest, and is "a paramount priority for us."

The Israeli government can answer whether it's a paramount priority for them. And depending on that answer, they'll also have to answer to the Israeli people.

So, of course, she turned back to the guy who was "threatening politically the prime minister..." after Sullivan had just said the Israelis could speak for themselves. It was a zero-value question, but he was gracious and answered it anyway.

If you feel so inclined, drop your best shot and ask a dumb question multiple ways; I'll collect and publish any that come in.

See you around campus.

Ranting and Raving (v9): Getting Away with Murder

I almost don't even know where to start with this one, it's so horrifying and so incredibly painful and so insanely stupid, it's hard to even talk about. 

Back in February, in Texas, of course, a nine-year-old girl was shot and killed by a guy who was robbed at an ATM. Here's the story from Houston's KWTX.

Police said the victim of a bank ATM robbery, Tony D. Earls, 41, is in custody charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after Earls fired his gun at the wrong vehicle, striking and killing an innocent 9-year-old girl.

Earls, the robbery victim, was at the bank’s ATM drive-through making a transaction when an armed robber appeared on foot and robbed Earl at gunpoint.

According to investigators, Earls took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect, but it’s unknown if the suspect, who is still at large, fired back.

The robbery victim then fired several rounds “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into,” police said.

The vehicle’s occupants, a family of five, were not involved in the robbery, police said, adding a stray bullet struck a 9-year-old girl in the backseat of the pickup. She was taken to Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center, where she later died.

 Earls did not know the stray bullet struck the girl when he called police to report the robbery.

It goes to show that anytime there are guns involved, the danger to innocent bystanders is extremely high,” said Houston Police Executive Chief Matt Slinkard.

And then, in July, this happened.

HOUSTON — The family of a 9-year-old Houston girl who died after she was shot by a man who had opened fire when he was robbed at an ATM said Wednesday they remain angered by a grand jury’s decision to not indict the man.

“That was not an accident. That was not self-defense,” April Aguirre, the aunt of Arlene Alvarez said during a news conference as a photograph of the girl as she lay in a hospital bed bloodied and bandaged shortly before her death was shown.

Tony Earls, 41, had been charged with aggravated assault, serious bodily injury, in Alvarez’s Feb. 14 death. A Harris County grand jury in Houston on Tuesday could have indicted him on this charge or several others, including manslaughter and murder, but declined to do so.

And this is not a surprise - at least, it's not a surprise in Texas, where everything is bigger, including the stupid stuff. 

Texas law “gives very, very broad self-defense rights for people carrying guns, even if the person makes a mistake,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The murderer's attorney said the robber fired and the murderer "fired back in self-defense," and the murderer "continues to grieve for Alvarez but that the grand jury made the right decision and that the person responsible for her death is the robber." The murderer, they said, 

did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done. We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for (the murderer).

I'm sorry, but there is zero justice being served here, 

• Unless you think that an idiot who's so dumb he'd shoot at a random vehicle in the ATM line deserves justice. 
• Unless you think that an innocent nine-year-old little girl is acceptable collateral damage for a robbery. 
• Unless you think that a person who shoots at a stranger's vehicle in an ATM line is acting in self-defense, when he doesn't even know whether the person who robbed him is in that car, or any other car in the ATM line.
• Unless you think that someone's going to rob a guy at an ATM by driving up to it, getting in line behind other cars, parking his car, getting out, walking up to the car at the head of the line, robbing the drive, going back to his car, getting in, starting it up, and sitting in line until cars move and he can get out of line and drive away. Maybe ATM robbers are that dumb in Texas, but up here, they'd have come on foot, hidden in the bushes, approached your car, stolen your money, and run away. 

There's also especially zero justice being served here if you believe that the only person or entity responsible for a murder is the person who pulls the trigger, which of course is what you tell us all the time. It's never anyone other than the shooter himself, 

• unless it's bad parenting;
• unless it's video games and movies;
• unless it's not saying prayers in school;
• unless it's too much screen time;
• unless it's woke corporations;
• unless it's socialism and critical race theory;
• unless it's red flags that were missed;
• unless it's red flags that weren't missed.

Yeah, unless that last bullet. 

Rick Ramos, the attorney for the Alvarez family, said Wednesday that (the murderer's) actions were reckless and he questioned whether (the murderer) was capable of carrying a weapon as his lawyers had indicated in court records that he had suffered from mental illness before the shooting.

Chew on that for a second. The guy had known mental health issues? The things we're supposed to be worried about?

Aren't we always told that we need to make sure that there's plenty of money that "may" be used for mental programs, and that schools and teachers and coaches and friends and classmates and neighbors and scout leaders and pastors (oh wait, it's never the pastors' fault, what was I thinking?) and everyone else need to identify these issues and make sure they tell someone?

And don't we know, for certain, that mental health issues are why we have so many shootings here? 

Heck, even the NRA tells us that - here's some of what they were telling us back in 2013:

Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence. As we noted then, “the time is at hand to seek means by which society can identify, treat and temporarily isolate such individuals,” because “elimination of the instrument by which these crimes are committed cannot arrest the ravages of a psychotic murderer.”

Of course, the NRA also said this, and yes, the emphasis is mine:

A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment. Doing so would actually discourage troubled people from getting the help they need.

Chew on that for a second. Keeping a person from having a gun will keep them from getting the mental health care they need?

What the actual hell? Isn't the very decision to get a gun instead of getting treatment for a mental health problem enough of an indication that the person shouldn't have a gun? 

Nope - not in Texas. 

Because Texas doesn't have red flag laws. 

Because Republican legislators Texas, last year, made it possible for anyone, regardless of anything, to carry handguns without a background check and without any training. 

In a nutshell, a person in Texas needs to do exactly as much to get and carry a gun as a nine-year-old little girl needs to do to go with her parents to the ATM: absolutely nothing.

But have no fear: while justice was served here for the murderer, the 'real' killer is still out there... you know, like the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson is still out there.

... investigators planned to focus on finding the unidentified robber and holding him responsible for Alvarez’s death, with authorities now offering a $30,000 reward for information leading to his arrest.

Clearly, the person responsible for the murder of a child is not the person who murdered her. It's not the shooter, like we've always been told. It's not the guy who has known mental health issues, who "took out a weapon and fired several rounds in the direction of the suspect" and then fired several more “at a pickup truck he thought the robbery suspect had gotten into.” 

It's the guy who robbed the guy who did all of that.