Color me confused about these latest terror warnings. According to the Washington Post's front-page story from today, "Old Data, New Credibility Issues", the White House "failed to make it clear" that the recent terror warnings were based on intelligence information that pre-dated the 9/11 attacks and therefore may not be incredibly reliable when it comes to the possibility of attacks in the near future. I read on the front-page of today's New York Times, however, that "New Qaeda Activity Is Said To Be Major Factor in Alert", leading government officials to believe that another attack is quite likely imminent.

So which is it? Because as someone who works just a few blocks from some of the major targets listed, this is of more than just passing interest. This whole boy-who-cried-wolf routine is not just annoying, but somewhat frightening. I certainly don't have the ability to assess whether or not my city is in any particular danger -- that's kind of the type of thing I'd like to rely on, say, a department of homeland security to do for me. But it's hard to take any comfort in their ability when these terror warnings all seemed suspiciously timed to distract from other news headlines.

You have to wonder how many more of these press conferences reporters have to go to before they respond to Ridge's pronouncements with a big "Oh, come ON." America's favorite journalist, the incomparable Jon Stewart, already does.

"Bush Talks to an Appreciative Catholic Crowd," reads the headline on Elisabeth Bumiller's article in today's New York Times. The article wouldn't be bad if Bumiller had bothered to insert the modifer "conservative" into the headline or anywhere in the piece other than a sidenote near the end. Because while Bush did indeed speak to a hall in Dallas packed with Catholics and they did indeed respond enthusiastically to some of his rhetoric about gay marriage and abortion, the audience represented a small slice of the Catholic community and certainly shouldn't be portrayed as a measure of how the president is playing with Catholics around the country.

"Mr. Bush," Bumiller notes, "drew standing ovations by vigorously promoting his opposition to gay marriage and late-term abortion, in accord with the official position of the church." She does not note that Bush's policies in a number of other areas -- from immigration reform to the death penalty to federal spending on social programs to the war in Iraq -- are at odds with the official positions of the church.

"The president also said," she continues, "that religious organizations would receive part of $188 million in government grants this year for social service programs, the centerpiece of a White House 'faith-based' initiative." What he did not say, she does not tell us, is that $188 million represents a decrease in previous government grant spending on social service provision. So while more churches may be getting into the game, they are displacing other organizations in the fight over a smaller pot of money.

"Not least," Bumiller writes, "Mr. Bush recounted his meeting two months ago at the Vatican with Pope John Paul II. 'It was an awesome experience,' Mr. Bush told the crowd of 2,500. 'He is a true presence.'" Bumiller does not add that shortly after that "awesome" visit with the pontiff, Bush com