Is there *ever* a time we can believe these guys???

When I first heard about Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" my immediate reaction was that someone needed to mash Chertoff's statement:


with this video:


However, the day after he made his remarks he said he hadn't meant to alarm anyone and Official White House Spinmeister Tony Snow responded as following in a presser:

Q: Does the White House and the President share that same gut feeling?
MR. SNOW: I don't want to try to get into gastrointestinal descriptions.

Fine.

So we were told: "Don't worry, be happy" only to discover later that night that:

"The al Qaida terrorist network has rebounded and is at its greatest strength since it was expelled from Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a new top-level U.S. intelligence assessment concludes..."

And, then there's this:

The White House has called an urgent multi-agency meeting for Thursday to discuss a potential new al Qaeda threat on U.S. soil, ABC News reported on Tuesday.

[snip]

The unnamed official told ABC the level of concern of a new attack in the United States was now higher than it had been in some time.

So which is it?!?

Do we believe the Bush Administration or the Bush Administration???

Maybe it's because the NeoCONs are so completely conflicted about a possible terrorist attack themselves, they can't keep their stories straight.

After all, they tell us we're in Iraq because "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and that they are the only ones who can save us, but then they have to periodically scare us into submission with terrorist warnings every time Bush gets some bad PR.

So who's a poor girl supposed to believe?

Then to top it off we have this from Virginia's own (he never moved back to PA, did he?) batshit crazy Rick Santorum:

Santorum Suggest New Terror Attacks Will Change View Of War

[...]

Santorum went on to clearly imply that terror attacks will occur inside America which will alter the body politic and lead to a reversal of the anti-war sentiment now dominating the country.

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public's going to have a very different view," said the former senator from Pennsylvania.

Yep, that's Lil Ricky getting all misty-eyed about how another big terror attack on US soil will bring the American public back around to the right way of thinking.

[sigh]

So, to review, according to the Bushies:

Run! Run! We're all going to die!

It's all cool! :-)

Run! Run! Only we can save your sorry asses!

We're creaming our jeans for a big BOOM from al Qaeda to put you bitches back into line -- our only hope for November '08.

Got it?

Good!

So, what's the only things that we do know?

1. According to our own government, the Iraq War has created more terrorists.
2. Al Qaeda is now as strong as ever.
3. Bin Laden has still not been captured "dead or alive."

Heck of a job, Bushy!

(h/t to Bram for emailing me the Santorum quote.)

National Guard Shortages - Not Much of a Surprise

From the NYTimes.

I'll begin at the end of the article:

Late Tuesday, in a statement, Ms. Sebelius repeated her message:

“I have said for nearly two years, and will continue to say, that we have a looming crisis on our hands when it comes to National Guard equipment in Iraq and our needs here at home.”

The "Ms Sebelius" quoted there is Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas. Kansas is where on Friday a tornado touched down and basically wiped the town of Greensburg (pop. 1574) off the map. The National guard was called in to help, but:

“As you travel around Greensburg, you’ll see that city and county trucks have been destroyed,” Ms. Sebelius, a Democrat, said Monday. “The National Guard is one of our first responders. They don’t have the equipment they need to come in, and it just makes it that much slower.”

For nearly two days after the storm, there was an unmistakable emptiness in Greensburg, a lack of heavy machinery and an army of responders. By Sunday afternoon, more than a day and a half after the tornado, only about half of the Guard troops who would ultimately respond were in place.

It was not until Sunday night that significant numbers of military vehicles started to arrive, many streaming in a long caravan from Wichita about 100 miles away.

Tornado hits on Friday, and it's only Sunday night that military vehicles of "significant number" began to arrive.

And of course, the White House deflected any criticism:

Ms. Sebelius’s comments about the slow response prompted a debate with the White House on Tuesday, which initially said the fault rested with her. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said the governor should have followed procedure by finding gaps after the storm hit and asking the federal government to fill them — but did not.

“If you don’t request it, you’re not going to get it,” Mr. Snow told reporters on Tuesday morning.

While things have settled down between Kansas and the White House, the problems with the Guard remain. From Jennifer Lowen of the AP:

Sebelius has long spoken out about the fallout from sending National Guard units and equipment overseas. She says the war in Iraq is damaging domestic disaster readiness, because needed manpower is drained from states and the Pentagon is not replacing equipment at a fast enough rate.

And across the nation, the problem seems to be one of equipment rather than personnel. From the GAO this past January:

The high use of the National Guard for federal overseas missions has reduced equipment available for its state-led domestic missions, at the same time it faces an expanded array of threats at home.

Just some more fallout from dubya's mistake.

Ruth Ann Responds

Here's Ruth Ann Dailey's defense of her offensive Pelosi Smear column.

Turns out her defense isn't very strong either. She sets out via a timeline to support a position that only she (and a few other wingnuts to the right Tony Snow) still seems to think is true. We know Ruth Ann can do better than this. We've seen Ruth Ann do better than this. But I guess she doesn't want to admit her mistakes and this column is just a complicated dance to make her charges seem less out there than they actually are.

Here's how she starts the column. She probably doesn't get the irony at the end of the first paragraph (but then again, she probably wouldn't):

It's rarely worthwhile to revisit a recent topic, but the writing of, and response to, last Monday's column is too interesting to pass up. It gives unusual insight into a modern irony: Despite the Internet's vast resources, people can find as much news, or as little, as suits their agenda.

Many people first noticed the flap over Rep. Nancy Pelosi's military airplane around Feb. 7 or 8, when the nation's bigger media began covering it. But good and undisputed reporting had been under way for a full week.

She uses the word "undisputed" here. Remember that.

She begins her defense of her smear where it began, with this article in the Washington Times. Hardly a credible source nowadays. That quote by Abraham Lincoln had been debunked last August, and yet the paper that Ruth Ann Dailey is relying on for its journalistic credibility took more than two days to issue a correction after it was reminded that Lincoln never said it.

Good choice, Ruth Ann.

Anway, this is what Ruth Ann Daily wrote:

The Washington Times, widely considered a conservative newspaper, was the first to break the story on Feb. 1, when both Pentagon and Bush administration sources revealed details of stalled negotiations with the speaker of the House.

"The sources ... said she is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives. ... The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks." [emphasis in original]

Watch carefully those ellipses. She's combined two different sentences (from two different paragraphs) into one. Here's the source of the first:

The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request "carte blanche for an aircraft any time."

Why omit the phrase between those commas? I'm not sure. This is the second paragraph of the WashTimes article, by the way. Four paragraphs later (the article's sixth) there's the other half of Ruth Ann's sentence:

Sources said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what Mr. Hastert received. The speaker's legal counsel is spearheading the talks.

Looks like she's lumping all the "sources" into one pile and then attributing any of the information from one to any of them. But the first quote is obviously from a political source and the second (owing to it's placement in the article) is obviously a defense source. Why? Just take a look at this. It's the previous two paragraphs in the Washtimes article:

Mrs. Pelosi's request is not new for a speaker, who is second-in-line in presidential succession. A defense source said the speaker's regular access to a military plane began after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, who was speaker at the time, started using U.S. Air Force planes for domestic travel to and from his district for security reasons. A former Hastert aide said the congressman did not use military planes for political trips or regularly transport his family.

The defense source said Mr. Hastert requested a plane with good communications so he could conduct legislative business. The military flights increased to the point the speaker used a military plane for many, if not all, flights to his Illinois district, the former aide said.

It's a small point, but take a look at the detail that isn't there. The sources are all unnamed and are from the administration and Congress (can we guess which party?) and much later the Pentagon. Lumping them all together makes them all seem to fit together.

Eventually in her time line of sources she gets to some actual names:

Also on Thursday, House Sergeant-at-Arms Bill Livingood stated that the initial request for Ms. Pelosi's airplane had come from him, as well as an insistence on nonstop flights.

An Associated Press article on Mr. Livingood's role and on the White House's defense of Ms. Pelosi adopted the tone of breezy dismissal apparent in Tony Snow's word, "silly." Most irate readers I heard from e-mailed a copy of this article, often via political blogs, as if AP's brief, tardy coverage was definitive.

You may not think the AP coverage is, but Livingood's statement certainly is definitive, Ruth Ann. Far more definitive than the "unnamed sources" of the Washington Times' coverage. For those who may have missed it, here's Livingood's statement (in its entirety):

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Also, I'd think that this does dispute the Washington Times' story, doesn't it? Something Ruth Ann failed to point out. Here's more of what Tony Snow said:

Well, I'll reiterate our position. The question -- the RNC has put out a statement on Speaker Pelosi and travel arrangements, and I'll just repeat our position, which is, as Speaker of the House, she is entitled to military transport, and that the arrangements, the proper arrangements are being made between the Sergeant of Arms office in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Department of Defense. We think it's appropriate, and so, again, I think this is much ado about not a whole lot. It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of protection and travel. It was certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert. So we trust that all sides will get this worked out.

So when she says that the stuff that's in the Washington Times is "undisputed" she's, well, wrong, isn't she? Tony Snow himself said that the arrangements were being made by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the DOD, not Pelosi's office, not Murtha's. Looks like THE WHITE HOUSE is disputing the story that Ruth Ann Dailey is on the record saying is "undisputed."

Nice going, Ruth Ann.

And yet she valiantly continues:

Close reading of all the news available, however, reveals that none of the reports cancels others out. For instance, Mr. Livingood's initiation of the request doesn't mean that Ms. Pelosi, her staff and Mr. Murtha didn't also make requests -- or, in Mr. Murtha's case, threats. They did. This reporting has not been disproven; indeed, Ms. Pelosi's first statements on the conflict confirm her involvement, and Mr. Murtha has boasted of his role.

It's also not disproven that the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. No proof of it either. Too bad she doesn't include any quotations to support what she's asserting. Here's one:

Pelosi said she would be happy to fly on commercial airliners but said the House sergeant-at-arms office urged her to continue Hastert's practice of using Air Force transport. She said she was informed on her first trip home that her plane would not make it across the country.

"I said well, that's fine, I'm going commercial," she told Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren. "I'm not asking to go on that plane. If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're going to have to get a plane that goes across the country, because I'm going home to my family."

Her nest part is pretty egregious.

But people who would savage George Bush for asserting the sky is blue fell all over themselves to embrace the White House's support of Ms. Pelosi, forgetting that it might simply be savvy political posturing: The White House got to speak softly while some House Republicans wielded a medium-size stick, just as Washington headed into congressional debate on the Iraq surge.

My god, is she saying the White House is lying? Well she uses the phrase "savvy political posturing" but "lying" covers it. She wants us to think that Tony Snow played "good cop" to the Congressional Republicans "bad cop" and that 1) the "bad cops" are speaking the truth and 2) the "good cop" (i.e the White House) knows that it's manipulating the truth.

This is how far Ruth Ann Dailey, faithful Republican, had to go to support her smear: The White House is lying about it.

I'll leave it at that.