There’s a legal adage that goes something like this:

If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If neither is on your side, pound the podium.

As The Daily Show pointed out last night, that’s what Bush seems to have resorted to . . . literally. Take a look at these excerpts from his speech Monday at Oak Ridge:

America is safer because of your service at Oak Ridge.
. . .
Today, because we acted to liberate Afghanistan, a threat has been removed, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because we’re working with the Pakistani leaders, Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and has joined the war on terror, the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because the Libyan government saw the seriousness of the civilized world, and correctly judged its own interests, the American people are safer.
. . .
We have ended one of the most dangerous sources of proliferation in the world, and the American people are safer.
. . .
Today, because America has acted, and because America has led, the forces of terror and tyranny have suffered defeat after defeat, and America and the world are safer.

We might be safer these days, or maybe we aren’t. It’s hard to tell. So what is the criteria the president is using to reassure us that we are safer? The number of times he can repeat himself? Perhaps he thinks that by pounding the podium enough times he will discourage al Qaeda and they will opt not to attempt any more terrorist attacks.
See, that’s one of the major problems with this whole “war on terror.” Since there aren’t many meaningful gages with which we can measure the government’s performance, officials can make all sorts of claims, issue warnings, change color codes, and the public won’t know the difference. We’ve ratcheted trust in government to a higher plane.

Kevin Drum makes a great point here regarding the pre-war intelligence problems in Iraq: they had become irrelevant by the time Bush launched the invasion. Once the UN weapons inspectors went in, the faulty intelligence became a moot point because we could verify it directly:

The fact is that by March 2003 we didn’t have to rely on CIA estimates or on the estimates of any other intelligence agency. We had been on the ground in Iraq for months and there was nothing there. There was nothing there and we knew it.
Did the CIA screw up? Probably. Did it matter? No. George Bush invaded Iraq in March 2003 not because he was convinced Iraq had WMD, but because he was becoming scared that Iraq didn’t have WMD and that further inspections would prove it beyond any doubt. Facts on the ground have never been allowed to interfere with George Bush’s worldview, and he wasn’t about to take the chance that they might interfere with his war.

I’m not sure that Bush knew the weapons weren’t there, but it’s pretty clear that he didn’t care whether they were or not. If he did, he would have invested a lot more into the UN inspections, rather than treating them as a distraction.

Ernie The Attorney quotes guitarist Chris Cortez, who offers a little perspective on life:

My general philosophy is one where we embrace things that bring us together and reject what separates us. Race and religion, gay or straight, republican or democrat, nationalism. These are examples of differences. In the overall scheme of our evolution, it’s what we have in common that moves us forward. The differences become scapegoats for the little minds who need to blame someone for their own failures.

Okay, I don’t exactly come to this with clean hands. But I like to think that my criticisms of politicians center on incompetence and partisan craziness, and that I don’t just spew out the “X group is bringing on the end of civilization,” like you hear on radio and elsewhere these days.
Anyway, we now return to regular programing.

I was going to comment on this matter of terrorism potentially delaying the federal elections, but jeff-perado (stutz [at] unlv.nevada.edu) sums up the major issues for me:

I certainly hope that Republicans out there are paying close attention to this latest development. Because it is not only especially unnerving, but it borders on the absurd as well. This is of importance to Republicans because how can they trust the people in charge if they are making such ridiculous statements.
The question then, is what makes these allegations so preposterous? First there is the idea implicit on the statement that the elections could be put off due to a terrorist attack. What that says, if reworded, is that these people in homeland security and the election assistance commission will disrupt the democratic process IN RESPONSE TO A TERRORIST ATTACK. The reason they give as motivation for planning for this is that TERRORISTS WANT TO DISRUPT OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS!!! So, if they disrupt our democratic process in response to terrorism, then the terrorists will GET EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT courtesy of Bush and his inept administration. That is the zenith of absurd rationalization.
Then there is the next issue. What form of terrorist attack could cause such a national disruption as to affect the entire national election process? I cannot answer that one, no one can. It could disrupt one or two cities (ala 9/11) but not the whole nation. So must all election sites be closed? I would have to answer no. The affected areas would most likely have to delay elections, but those results could be tallied and included at a later date. This implies that the final results could possibly be delayed, but not the actual democratic right to vote in the first place. There has never been a time in the entire history of this great country when national elections were postponed. Not during the two world wars, not the Civil War, not during the Cuban missile crisis. Never. There certainly is no provision in our U.S. Constitution for forgoing elections in favor of maintaining the status quo in government officials. If this is done this November, not only will it be unconstitutional, but it will amount to nothing short of a coup by Bush and Co. Even if you are Republican, do you really want this country to forgo democracy in favor of a self-imposed dictatorship? Our very Declaration of Independence and Constitution not only forbids such actions, it states that it becomes the sworn duty of Americans to rise up and overthrow the government.
Now I’m not prognosticating here about the future of democracy, and a counter-coup would not be the preferred course if the elections were just put
off a matter of days or a week or two. This would only result from Bush declaring an end to elections for the foreseeable future. Now as a realist, I
do NOT think even Bush in his all-consuming zeal to remain president would resort to this. Martial law and dictatorship are for countries like Iraq, not for the uber-moral and supremely democratic United States.
Okay, returning to reality, there is not a rational explanation for even delaying national elections even one day. As evidence of this, I give you Bush’s own words. He told New Yorkers (and all of America for that matter) to “go about your daily lives, buying stuff, spending money, and living your usual lives. If you let this [9/11] disrupt your lives, then the terrorists win.” This was his response to the attacks. Based on this statement, then America must go about its normal lives once again if another attack occurs on or near the elections of 02 November — and vote.
The final point I wish to make is the least important, but certainly one worth keeping an eye on, if you treasure your freedom and your country. This is that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission is heading up by a Baptist minister. Bush appointed the man to the job. So, I have to wonder what qualifications he has to hold such an important job as ensuring democracy and fairness in our elections. I will not delve into a deep theological discussion of this matter. Simply, I will say that it seems a bit odd that Bush has been pushing for campaign assistance from churches, and claims his strongest base is that of religious fundamentalists and large corporate types. Now the person in charge of fairness in national elections is handed over to a fundamentalist Christian who fought to have a middle-class neighborhood plowed under so it could be used by a large corporation for bidnez’. If you like the idea of this country’s democratic process being hijacked by Bush’s cronies who have an agenda of destroying freedom and liberty, and desire nothing less than the grab for all the power and wealth for their personal class then welcome George Orwell’s vision with open arms. As I see no less than that coming if we allow ourselves to fall victim to this level of personal control.

I do think some contingency plans should be made for worst case scenarios. For instance, if there there is another 9/11-type attack on Election Day (or its eve), then I don’t think it’s practical to have voting in that area. But the drastic step of canceling an election should be limited to the vicinity immediately surrounding disruption (e.g., New York City). There’s no need to halt voting elsewhere; such a move is likely unlawful and begs for mischief.

President Bush
July 14, 2003:

I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence. And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence.

As it turns out, Ann Richards’ assessment is more accurate:

[F]ormer Texas governor Ann Richards got things going early. She joked that with “one if by land” and “two if by sea,” Paul Revere & Co. had better information about the impending war with the Brits than the current administration did before going into Iraq.

Now, after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence releases a blistering report, Bush sings a different tune:

I look forward to working with members of Congress to put out reforms that will work. A couple of ideas that I think make sense: One, we need to bolster human intelligence. In other words, one of the best ways to figure out what the enemy is thinking is to get to know the enemy firsthand, I guess is the best way to put it — is to have as much human intelligence as possible. Good quality intelligence and enough human intelligence agents, assets out there so that we can cover the globe.
Secondly, one of the key ingredients is to use our technologies to listen and look better. And so we’ve got to always make sure our intelligence agencies are on the cutting edge of change. And thirdly, there are quite a few intelligence-gathering agencies within Washington, and there needs to be better coordination between the agencies.

We are only now learning how questionable and unreliable some of the sources for the pre-war WMD claims were. But didn’t Bush, at the time he was talking of mushroom clouds, have an opportunity to press the CIA and the Pentagon’s own special intelligence outfit on the reliability of the sources? He could have said: “Going to war is such a momentous decision. I want to make absolutely sure that the sources for these are rock solid.”
Knowing what we know about Bush’s intellectual curiosity, and his desire to go after Iraq dating back to the start of his administration, do you believe he viewed the “darn good” intelligence with an adequate degree of skepticism?
I don’t.