So you will have to imagine my amusement with:
This morning, Scarborough publicly addressed the story, for what appears to be the first time. But what he talked about was his own past ties to an anti-abortion killer. And his comments -- which seemed designed largely to minimize those ties -- appear to conflict with other reported facts about the incident.Not that I would want to say anything that was tooo schadenfreude here...
In 1993, David Gunn was killed in Pensacola, Florida, and Michael Griffin, an anti-abortion zealot, was accused of the crime. (Griffin was later convicted and jailed.) And Scarborough -- who the following year would run for Congress as a Republican abortion foe -- made several court appearances, pro bono, on Griffin's behalf.
Speaking this morning on Morning Joe, Scarborough didn't mention having represented Griffin. Rather, he said he was asked by Griffin's family, who knew his own family, to find a lawyer for Griffin. ("The family hired me and they wanted me to find him a lawyer, to make sure he didn't use the Bible as his self-defense in court," he said) He implied that a number of people expressed interest in taking on the case in order because of its political implications ("for all the wrong reasons") and that he was wary of such people. Eventually, he said, he found a "progressive, pro-choice" lawyer who nonetheless understood that everyone has the right to counsel. Scarborough went on to talk about the need to return to civility in American politics.
But when the Village Voice dug into the episode for a cover story on Scarborough last year, it found evidence suggesting Scarborough had sought to play a large role in the case.
But it makes us wonder: Did Scarborough, planning a run for Congress from a deeply socially conservative Florida panhandle district, sought to get involved in the Griffin case as a way to associate himself with, and build support among, the anti-abortion movement? In other words, was Scarborough's political career launched in part by exploiting the dangerous strain of right-wing extremism that views the defense of an accused killer of an abortion provider as a cause celebre?
At the very least, it's worth asking...
[ cf Report: Before Congressional Run, Scarborough Represented Killer Of Abortion Doctor ]
What truly concerns me in the most recent attack by TeaBaggers is that suddenly there is a growing mythology that we need to leave these domestic terrorist incidents to the mere law enforcement process. As if suddenly it was no longer safe to defend the Bush Doctrine that only Massive No Bid Contracts, with some troop stuff would be able to defeat the WhateverOnWhomever.
If there are force reductions in IranqiStania, will americans be able to sleep safely knowing that we no longer have the level of No Bid Contracts in country to keep america safe....
As our troops come home, how many of them will be able to cope with the grave conflict that is arising CONUS between the pre-invasion rhetoric, and the current poseur posturing? How long will they be able to go on blaming Kerry for the fact that Rush, Cheney, and all the rest were betting on the Homeland Investment Security Bubble, while play acting like they cared about the 'troops' in the sand?
Ultimately on that front we have a socio-cultural problem. How do we help troops, both the actual members of the american armed forces and their contractors, but also all of those who have become so emotionally entangled in their web of "supporting the president to support the troops"?
Those of us who bet on the return to the RULE of Law CONUS are pleased that we do not have to be trading our skill mix for food and water. We who supported the FM-27 series, and the established laws of land warfare have less to worry about in terms of 'keeping our skirts' clean.
But how are we going to turn this mess around?
My expectations unfortunately remain that we will still see more violence.