It can always get worse...

We were already familiar with Condiliar from her National Security Adviser days, so it probably didn't surprise too many people that she would be an even worse and more embarrassing SecState than Colin Powell. But surely many were surprised that Bush could find an attorney general even worse than John Ashcroft, but, lo and behold, he certainly did. But Donald Rumsfeld? Surely that's a limbo bar so low that nobody could possibly get under it.

Well, maybe not. From yesterday's press conference with Secretary of War Gates:

Q: Mr. Gates, there's been a lot of increased rhetoric in Washington about the activities in Iran, in Iraq and around the world. Yesterday there were a couple of provocative acts, but you said it was just another day in the Persian Gulf. Do you think that the rhetoric in Washington is sometimes harmful and that maybe it should be toned down a little bit?

SEC. GATES: Well, I -- my impression, frankly, in the last few weeks is that there's been an effort in Washington actually to tone down everybody else. I don't know how many times the president, Secretary Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iraq -- Iran; that the second carrier group is there to reassure our allies, as well as to send a signal that we've been in the Persian Gulf for decades and we intend to stay there. And I think these are fairly modest statements, frankly.

Imagine if Ahmedinajad announced that Iranian warships (with planes capable of attacking any place in the US) had been in Chesapeake Bay for decades and intended on staying there. I'm guessing "modest" wouldn't be one of the first words used by Bush, our bloodthirsty Congress, or our state-run media to refer to Ahmedinajad's bluster. And as Jonathan Schwarz points out:

BUT SERIOUSLY: The U.S. is almost certainly doing things within Iran that would cause us to invade any country doing them to us—such as supporting separatist groups engaging in terrorism.

Of course, Gates knows more about Iran's involvement in trying to overthrow Iraq's Iran-friendly government than you do:

[I]t's the sophistication of the technology. I think that there are some serial numbers. There may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found. I'm just frankly not specifically certain myself of the details, but I understand there is pretty good evidence tying these EFPs (explosively formed projectile) to the Iranians.

Rummy couldn't have flaunted his ignorance any better.

You've got to wonder about these serial numbers. Do Iranian munitions manufacturers actually put serial numbers on their shells, and if so, how does our famously inept "intelligence" community know what they are? Unless, of course, these are shells left over from the decades when the US sold weaponry by the boatload to the Shah, or maybe from the '80's when Ollie North was secretly selling weapons to Iran so their war with Iraq could be just that much bloodier. If the shells are American made, THEN I can see how they could track the serial numbers.

Most likely, though, it's just like Iraq. They're making stuff up out of thin air--pulling it out of their Cheneys, if you will. Iran is next on the agenda--any lie in a storm for these guys.