By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 10, 2007; 7:44 AM

Natural disaster strikes. People are killed. Emergency services are rushed in. And political finger-pointing begins.

That's the pattern, and it doesn't take very long to get from A to D.

We saw it in New Orleans, where liberals blamed Bush and conservatives blamed Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco (and everyone blamed FEMA). And the latest example is the tornado that destroyed Greensburg, Kansas.

Think that tragedy has nothing to do with Iraq? Guess again.

The Democratic governor framed the problem, which formed the lead of this front-page New York Times story:

"For months, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and other governors have warned that their state National Guards are ill-prepared for the next local disaster, be it a tornado, a flash flood or a terrorist's threat, because of large deployments of their soldiers and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The piece did quote Tony Snow, but gave heavy weight to the argument of Democratic governors, along with a Democratic state senator in Kansas who invoked Katrina and said this was "becoming a trend."

Conservative bloggers mounted a Category Five response, including John Hawkins of Right Wing News:

"Oh, it's a trend all right. When Republican governors like Jeb Bush in Florida or Haley Barbour from Mississippi have disasters in their state, they handle them fairly well. When Democrats like Kathleen Blanco in Louisiana and Kathleen Sebelius in Kansas screw them up because they're incompetent, they blame George Bush because they know the media will ignore the fact that disaster response is primarily a local responsibility.

"It's really no different with the big cities. Show me the worst run cities in America, cities like New Orleans and DC, and I'll show you cities run top to bottom by Democrats who blame Republicans for their incompetence."

Wizbang also thundered about it:

"Kansas' governor, Kathleen Sebelius, responded in much the same fashion as Governor Blanco of Louisiana did after Katrina: blame the Bush administration. The state's National Guard was unable to respond as effectively as it could because of its involvement in the war in Iraq.

"This time, though, the Bush administration was prepared. They immediately answered her charges with facts, spelling out just what equipment and staffing the Kansas Guard had on hand, just what Governor Sebelius had requested from the federal government, what the federal government had already provided (which was above and beyond what she had requested), and what more they intended to do."

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff:

"The Democrats and their left-wing pals never miss a chance to blame misfortune on the Bush administration and, if possible, the war in Iraq, even if that means making up facts. Thus, Kathleen Sebelius, the Democratic governor of Kansas, claimed that Kansas is missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment because of the war, and has thus been hampered in dealing with the damage caused by the tornado. Barack Obama made the same claim, while somehow managing to state that the death toll was 10,000, not 12. And of course lefty bloggers tried to hammer the point home . . .

"In fact, it's not true that Kansas was missing 60 percent of its National Guard equipment, or that the National Guard was ill-prepared to deal with the aftermath of the tornado. The Democrats' claim is pure invention. According to Randal Noller, public affairs officer for the National Guard Bureau, the Kansas National Guard has 88 percent of its forces available, and 60 percent of its Army Guard dual-use equipment on hand, along with more than 85 percent of its Air Guard equipment. If the Kansas National Guard were short-handed in any way, it could have asked for assistance from other states under a national sharing agreement. It did not do so. Gov. Sebelius has backed off of her comments."

Actually, the governor later issued this statement: "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 equipment shortage will likely slow long-term efforts to recover and rebuild in Greensburg. We can only hope that we not have another significant natural disaster in Kansas. That would put our Guard, and the people of Kansas, in a real bind.

"I appreciate the president's help, quick response and concern in dealing with the tornado damage in Greensburg. But I will not back down on the issue of replacing our National Guard equipment throughout the country."

Obama gets dragged into it as well, as Michelle Malkin explains:

"When there's a crisis, you can count on Barack Obama . . . to say just the wrong thing. First, there was his bizarre rant tying the VTech massacre to Don Imus, Iraq, Darfur, and the kitchen sink.

"Now, this: Barack Obama caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.

"The death toll was 12.

"' In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed,' the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.

"At the end of the speech, he recognized the flub:

" As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe. 'There are going to be times when I get tired,' he said. 'There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.'(TM)"

Cut him some slack. He was only off by 9,988.

Rudy has apparently decided that being kinda, sorta pro-choice isn't working:

"After months of giving ambiguous signals on abortion," says the NYT, "Rudolph W. Giuliani is planning to offer a forthright affirmation of his support for abortion rights in public forums, television appearances and interviews in the coming days, despite potential consequences among some conservative voters already wary of his views, aides said yesterday.

"At the same time, Mr. Giuliani's campaign -- seeking to accomplish the unusual task of persuading the Republican Party to nominate an abortion rights supporter as its presidential candidate -- is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani's social views than voters in states like Iowa and South Carolina. They said that approach became more appealing after Florida, another state they said would be receptive to Mr. Giuliani, voted last week to move its primary forward to the end of January."

The problem is the giant slingshot that states like Iowa and South Carolina provide.

Who would have thought that Planned Parenthood would become a wedge issue:

"Former Gov. Mitt Romney's wife, Ann, gave an $150 donation to the abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood in 1994, at a time when Romney considered himself effectively 'pro-choice,' the Romney campaign confirmed today," ABC reports.

That, of course, was before he flipped on the issue.

Here's what Rudy gave up to run:

"Republican 2008 hopeful Rudy Giuliani snared more than $11 million for his paid speeches last year - an eye-popping figure that outpaced former President Bill Clinton's earnings, The New York Post has learned."

I thought that by now Rudy's family issues were old news. But Slate's Emily Bazelon eviscerates the former mayor over his personal life:

"Giuliani's character problem is supposed to lie exclusively with conservative Christians. The religious right, already skittish over the former New York mayor's acceptance of abortion and gay marriage, reputedly sees his divorce-strewn past as further proof that he doesn't share their values . . .

"But the fact that Giuliani has been married three times hardly captures his transgressions. You can be unfazed by divorce and still despair of Rudy's treatment of his family. This is a man whose life is filled with poisoned intimate relationships and who appears to be responsible for much of the poisoning. It's not only the religious or the uptight that can be put off by an utter lack of personal morality in a presidential candidate.

"Let's haul out the Rudy sin list. His first marriage, to Regina Peruggi, was annulled on the grounds that they didn't get the dispensation from the Catholic Church they needed to marry as second cousins, once removed. Annulments are a religious fiction--the obvious reason to get one is so you can be married in the church again--but after 14 years of marriage, Giuliani's can only seem squirrelly. That's a venal sin, though, compared with the crash and burn of his second marriage, to Donna Hanover. She found out Giuliani was divorcing her during a press conference and then accused him of carrying on a longtime affair with one of his staff members. Giuliani's defense was that she'd fingered the wrong woman: He was involved with Judi Nathan. The mayor's flameout with Hanover led a judge to bar Nathan from the mayoral residence at Gracie Mansion and to reprimand Giuliani for letting his lawyer call Hanover 'an uncaring mother' who was 'howling like a stuck pig' over leaving the mansion. Giuliani retaliated by publicly stripping Hanover of her first-lady duties and insisting that the judge was wrong to keep Nathan apart from his children. Giuliani finally moved out of Gracie when he couldn't move Nathan in.

"This isn't a divorce--it's a conflagration. Giuliani inflicted lots of pain on the people in his family, the people he was supposed to protect, in a manner that was both public and, to all appearances, unnecessary. To hear him shrug this episode off with 'I don't think any of us have perfect lives,' as he did to Barbara Walters, is like watching Tony Soprano play down his little violence problem. When you humiliate your spouse in public, you humiliate yourself. You also hurt your kids . . .

"Giuliani isn't a dad trying to do right by his kids who just happens to be twice-divorced. He's a father who burned his ex-wife to such a degree that his son hasn't forgiven him six years later or made peace with his father's new wife."

Does that mean someone with an ideal marriage and good parenting skills is perfectly suited to be president? Or does it only work as a disqualifier?

For good measure, Slate has a photo gallery of Rudy in various cross-dressing guises.

A number of papers are reporting that the White House got a stern message yesterday:

"A group of congressional Republicans warned President Bush in person this week that their support for the Iraq war could evaporate if conditions don't improve there by September," says the Chicago Tribune.

"Eleven GOP moderates, led by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), met with Bush and top administration officials Tuesday to deliver what one participant called a 'strong signal' about the electoral dangers that "war fatigue and war weariness" pose for Republicans in 2008."

This is what happens to a potential candidate when you bomb:

"Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson acknowledges his coming-out speech in California last weekend didn't live up to expectations, advisers say, and he is planning a tighter and sharper message dubbed 'Stump Speech 2.0' for a Saturday night event to be attended by key conservative leaders."

The surge may not be temporary, and Americablog's John Aravosis is steamed:

"What a surprise. Now the surge of only 21,000 troops -- now 30,000 troops -- is a permanent escalation that may last to the end of Bush's term. In other words, Bush is running out the clock, he has no intention of ever leaving Iraq, and plans on handing his disaster off to the next president. This is atrocious."

The Pentagon, meanwhile, is putting restrictions on which officials can testify before Congress. I didn't know you could do that.

Kargo X at Kos hammers The Hammer:

"What is it with Republican crooks and their need to hide behind the skirts of their women?

" Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) is calling on the Justice Department either to drop its investigation of his wife and former political associates or else to bring charges quickly.

"DeLay said he has given the FBI documents exonerating his wife, but an associate of the former lawmaker said that agents have followed up with a fresh round of subpoenas.

"The inquiry appears to be focused on determining whether DeLay's wife, Christine, earned her pay from two organizations controlled by Ed Buckham, a lobbyist once closely affiliated with the former Republican leader, according to sources interviewed by federal investigators. Several former employees of the groups have received subpoenas for documents, some in the past few weeks.

"That's reminiscent, of course, of the recent FBI raids on the businesses of the wives of fellow Republicans Rick Renzi and John Doolittle.

"I haven't really figured out yet whether my position on graft is more the 'traditional values' kind -- from the days when men were men, and they didn't hide their bribes in their wives' petticoats -- or the 'progressive' kind, where women on the take get to keep their ill-gotten gains for themselves, instead of just being a pass-through to support their husbands' foppish Euro-golfing and Freudian cigar puffing habits."

Did Nancy Pelosi do anything wrong when she sponsored a $25 million earmark for a waterfront-redevelopment project near several properties in which her husband has a financial stake? National Review takes a look.

So does TPM's Greg Sargent, who considers the story hogwash:

"The GOP is hammering Pelosi for including a provision for $25 million in waterfront improvements in San Francisco in a big water redevelopment bill passed by the House in April. The GOP is insinuating that the provision was included by Pelosi because it could boost the value of land her husband owns in the city.

"The AP jumped at the GOP's accusations late Tuesday, moving this story about the GOP's attack.

"As the AP story noted, Pelosi's aides are defending her by pointing out that 'the waterfront improvements were requested by the Port of San Francisco,' not by Pelosi, and noting that the rental properties owned by Pelosi's husband are at least a mile away from the project."

Now this strikes me as outright entrapment, not to mention cruel and unusual. The Hill reports:

"The minds behind TMZ.com, the Hollywood gossip site that attracts millions of readers a month by chronicling the misadventures of Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and other celebrities, are contemplating a juicy prank for Washington's less-dazzling glitterati. To attract viewers and buzz to a proposed D.C.-based gossip site, TMZ's brain trust has batted around the idea of a 'cleavage cam,' according to a source who discussed editorial plans with TMZ.

"Their idea is to conceal a camera in the cleavage of a gal who is -- how shall we put this? -- well able to conceal it, and then send her to events and receptions on Capitol Hill and around town to catch celebrity Washingtonians failing to keep custody of their eyes."

You've been warned.