Of you? Always.
Hanley isn't the only source of these observations, and you have done nothing here but reiterate your own opinion. You also make fun of Hanley because he writes well, implying that, if one writes well, it stands to reason that one must have nothing to say.
You deliberately picked this article because you thought that you could discredit the arguments by discrediting the author. It doesn't work that way.
If the Administration's statements didn't change every 10 minutes, they might have a decent chance of defending their position. In the absence of consistency, by all means, attack the style of the critic's delivery. It distracts from the content, which is of course the whole idea.