Rep. John Murtha is really beginning to rue the day he made disparaging remarks about marines involved in the Haditha Incident where Iraqis in a home were killed. Murtha had called the actions of the marines "cold blooded murder" although the facts of the incident were not known at the time. Murtha had stated that the people killed were innocent Iraqi civilians but, again, the complete facts of the incident are not completely known.

One of the marines whom Murtha referenced as a killer, Marine Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich has filed a defamation of character suit against Murtha. Murtha sought to have the case dismissed, but according to the AP the judge, Rosemary M. Collyer, has refused request.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Murtha will now be required to make a deposition in the case.

According to the article, Murtha's primary purpose was to draw attention to the pressure the troops in were under and to show that there were efforts to cover up the incident. What Murtha failed to take into consideration was the fact that the case had not been tried and all the facts had not surfaced. By jumping the proverbial gun, Murtha stated untrue allegations about the marines and did so on television. Ultimately, the charges were outright dismissed against several of the marines.

The decision of the judge not to dismiss the case comes on the heels of Murtha's embarrassing performance when a college student cornered the congressmen and asked him point blank and asked him if he would retract his statements. Murtha responded that the trial was not over yet.

When your campaign is trailing in the polls and your ability to raise money is seriously hampered, there are certain things you should do and certain things you should not do.

Of the things you should do, making the following statement at an MTV/Myspace Forum is not one of them:

"...pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two."

Who would make such a racially insensitive comment? Of all people, it was Democratic Presidential hopeful John Edwards and with that statement, there will be serious repercussions and those repercussions will be deserved.

What was Edwards inferring? In all honesty, only Edwards truly knows and more than likely he misspoke. However, he misspoke in an incredibly offensive matter. Consider the following: for a person to be arrested for a crime, they have to commit a crime. Examining the statement on a surface level, it would seem that Edwards' is saying ALL African-American men commit crimes. Regardless of what Edwards meant or did not mean, he needs to apologize for this statement and apologize immediately.

In the aftermath of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations where he expressed contempt for any potential sanctions against his nation's nuclear program, President Bush has called for stepped up pressure for sanctions against Iran to sway the economically challenged nation to stop its nuclear ambitions, ambitions many believe to be a cover for the development of atomic weapons.

According to the AP, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is seeking a consensus among UN members so as to ratchet further pressure against Iran, but this may prove somewhat difficult.
With the newly anti-Iranian leadership in France as well as a pro-sanctions Germany as members of the UN Security Counsel, the US has solid allies on their side in terms of seeking sanctions against Iran. However, China and Russia are permanent members of the Security Counsel and have the ability to veto any sanctions against Iran. This may lead to a coalition of the US, France, Britain and Germany leading an anti-Iran coalition of sanctions if the perpetually impotent United Nations remains....more impotent.

Senator Larry Craig just does not know when to give up the proverbial ghost.

Craig fell from grace and saw his political career crash and burn in the aftermath of an arrest in a Minneapolis Airport when an undercover police office accused Craig of soliciting sex. Craig eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and has denied he was seeking any sexual favors. Regardless, public disclosure of the guilty plea led to a firestorm of controversy and the embattled Senator has now decided to fight back by seeking to petition the court to have the guilty plea wiped away.

It is doubtful this will be a successful motion. Consider the following excerpt from the AP:

"He's already gotten lots of justice and fairness," said Mary Jane Morrison, a professor in criminal law at Hamline University. "A court will view this as taking not just a second bite at the apple, but a fourth and fifth bite. Because he had the right to refuse to plead in the first place, and put the state to its proof. He had the right to have an attorney help him figure out what was in his best interest."

Craig's actions will serve little purpose than bringing additional bad publicity not only to the GOP, but to the Harry Reid led Senate in general. The public is growing weary of a congress that they perceive as elitist and self serving as indicated by outrageously negative polls. The perpetual continuation of the Craig circus will certainly not help public perception at all.

Recently, video footage has surfaced of two gay Iranian men being publicly executed by hanging in Iran. Their crime was merely the fact that they were gay, and in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death. Also punishable by death is any dissidence to the policies of the dictatorial government. Scholars, political opponents, college students and "enemies of the state" routinely disappear or are outright executed.

Is this the type of government that should be allowed to possess weapons that can incinerate entire cities?

Clearly, the issue of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a goal of the United States. (This is clearly a bipartisan goal as both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress recently voted overwhelmingly to condemn Iran) But what specific foreign policy can be taken towards stopping this regime in its acquisition of atomic bombs?

Fred Thompson has proposed influencing the World Bank from funding Iran. In an article that appeared in the Washington Times, Thompson stated: American taxpayers' money shouldn't be used so that Tehran can divert its own money into a nuclear weapons program." Newt Gingrich has also echoed financial strangulation as a way of curtailing Iran's ambitions. In other parts of the world, more hostile rhetoric has been brought up. France, for example, has been quite liberally throwing the word "war" around in regards to dealing with Iran. (France has a nuclear submarine stationed in the Persian Gulf)

If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons the entire face of the Middle East would change and the repercussions would have dramatic impact on the rest of the world. The nation would have the ability to threaten its neighbors and to deny oil to any country in the world that currently relies on Iranian imports. This would have dramatic impact on Europe and parts of Asia to a degree that most can not imagine and, certainly, neither the US, the European Union or other nations will allow it to happen.

According to the Bush Administration, the Social Security Administration is approaching a potential deficit of 13+ trillion dollars and an overhaul of the system is needed. This is not the first time the Bush Administration has attempted to address the problems associated with Social Security as this was a major campaign issue in both his first and second term. So far, it has stalled completely and remains, like immigration reform, a domestic agenda that has very little support.

Reforming and fixing Social Security was a major aspect of Bush's domestic agenda, but it never gained much traction. In 2005, as the AP notes, Bush had pushed a privatization plan that would provide accounts for younger voters. This proposal never even came up to a vote in congress as it lacked Democratic and Republican support. Now, Bush is attempting to promote a variant of this plan, but it does not seem there is much progress being made on amassing more supporters. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone on record opposing any plan that would involve privatization so if Bush's plan includes any aspects of involving the private sector, it will be dead in the water.

Hillary Clinton picked up a key endorsement from Indiana Senator Evan Bayh this week and some are saying that this could greatly help her acquire a number of votes in more conservative states as Bayh, a moderate Democratic from a heavily conservative state, could help sway moderates and center right voters towards Clinton.

According to The Politico, Bayh is quoted as saying the following about Clintom:

"Deep down she cares more than anything else about progress - and that progress in our system can only come by forging consensus...Her national security approach will be more effective than the current administration, because it will be more comprehensive."

The question is will it be possible for Clinton to pick up votes from center-right voters? It depends. If the voters see her health care plan as an intrusive form of big government, no moderate or center right endorsement will change certain members of the voting public's opinion of her as a radical leftist. Ultimately, to pick up these voters Clinton will have to disassociate from traditionally leftist policies such as high taxes and an intrusive government. At this time, it does not appear she has done much in this regard.

Drudge is reporting that President Bush has gone on the record stating that he believes Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic presidential nomination, but she will lose the general election to a Republican challenger. This comes from an excerpt in the forthcoming book The Evangelical President by Bill Sammon, in which Bush states: "She's got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary...And therefore the person with the national presence, who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites, has got a good chance to be nominated."

While it seems a certain that Clinton will win the nomination, the certainty that she would lose is, well, not so certain at this stage of the game. The comments by Bush that a Republican will win the White House are not necessarily echoed by those close to the president. Former adviser Karl Rove feels the race will be too close to call and this sentiment is basically repeated on the record by Vice President Dick Cheney in the following comment: "[The election] could go either way."

The race for the Republican nomination for president is a field that is still too tough to call. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson are in the lead and very close to one another in most polls. Mitt Romney and John McCain are well behind Giuliani and Thompson, but they are not so far beyond that they can not make a great leap forward. (No relation to Chairman Mao's Great Leap Forward.) Of course, there is also the possibility that Giuliani and Thompson may drop in the polls at some point in the future. As such, the primary states are taking on critical importance in the eyes of the candidates.

According to The Politico, Michigan has taken on significant importance in the eyes of the nominee hopefuls and with the January 15 (early) primary rapidly approaching the Republican contenders is spending more and more time there. Michigan is a huge state and has the potential to be a swing state despite being very blue.

The Politico's take on the contenders' positions in the race is as follows:

Romney has the best organization, Giuliani is late putting his team together but appears strong in the polls, Thompson is as much x-factor as he is a threat and McCain is in a precarious position.

You can't get a more accurate assessment than that.

Mitt Romney has launched a new campaign strategy in which he is positioning himself as the true conservative outsider of the pack of Republican presidential nominee hopefuls. This is not all that much different than the way Reagan campaigned in 1976 and 1980 and, to a lesser extent, Ross Perot in 1992. According to the Washington Times, Romney has stated: "Washington is failing us...The blame doesn't all belong to the Democrats. We Republicans have to put our own house in order."

If there was one person who could stymie this particular strategy of Romney's it would be Fred Thompson. What Ronald Reagan had working in his favor was that there really was no other Republican running against Reagan in the primaries who has a staunch conservative than him. Thompson, however, is perceived by the public as being more conservative than Romney.

What hurts Romney (and Rudy Giuliani as well) is the fact that Romney has "flip-flopped" on a number of conservative issues such as abortion. There is a certain unfairness of this criticism towards Romney mainly because he was a Republican governor in a very liberal state (Massachusetts) and this would require significantly more compromise with voters and the legislature than Thompson would be required as a senator from Tennessee.

Currently, Romney is trailing behind Giuliani and Thompson and his move sharply to the right is a decent strategy although it may endear him more as a potential vice presidential candidate than the party nominee.

"The Baghdad of today is different from the Baghdad of yesterday."

So were the words of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon after a meeting in New York where the two discussed a possible future role for the UN in Iraq as a means to aid economic and political reforms. The Washington Times reports that al-Maliki has assured the Secretary-General that Iraqi Security Forces will be more than capable of protecting UN Delegates while in Baghdad citing that levels of violence in the city have decreased.

To be sure, political reconciliation remains the most difficult goal to be achieved and the UN's ability to be successful in a role designed to facilitate reconciliation can be somewhat questionable. (The United Nations has not proved itself very successful on a number of issues in recent years) However, it is still a very positive area of contention to note levels of violence in Baghdad have reduced greatly. If anything could be pointed at as being the major obstacle impeding political reconciliation it would be the violence in the capital. Hopefully, as the violence diminishes – along with political corruption in the Iraqi government – the goals of stability are attainable.

Despite the negativity in the air on the campaign trail there is mercifully still some room for levity and the humor has centered on the first true, major question of the 21st century...If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, what will everyone call Bill? Will he be the First Man? The First Spouse? The First Laddie, as Mr. Clinton previously joked?

The topic of Mr. Clinton's role in the White House pops up now and then and this week Fred Thompson jokingly mentioned that NRA convention that his wife would make a better "First Lady" than Bill Clinton. Mitt Romney has said that in terms of First Ladies, his wife would be much prettier than Bill Clinton. In a recent interview on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, said that he would "slit his own throat" at the prospect of being called the "First Husband." (Ouch).

The campaign trail has heated up recently in terms of inflammatory rhetoric as the controversy over the Move On advertisement has led to a great deal of animosity on both sides that has resulted in a lot of terse exchanges. Because of this, the campaign trail has taken on a somewhat grave tone. Thankfully, there exists some room for levity and it is appreciated.

Another Iraq withdrawal proposal has failed in the Senate due to the fact that it lacked the required number of votes necessary for moving it forward. The vote was a plan that would begin to move a significant number of troops home from the region within 9 months. According to the Washington Times, the failure of the bill marks a very bad week for Democrats as they were unable to press forward with their anti-war platform leaving them somewhat stymied. The bill was stalled at 47 -47. The votes were basically on party lines although Republicans were joined by Joseph Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Christopher Dodd. (Dodd, a presidential candidate, wants nothing less than rapid de-funding of the war) Democrats were joined by GOP members Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith and Chuck Hagel. It would require 60 votes (two thirds majority) in order to break a Republican filibuster. It does not seem likely that mustering 60 votes on any anti-war legislation will be possible unless more and more Republicans join the fold.

It does not seem that this type of gridlock will change unless the violence security levels in Iraq get worse or there are decided political failures or deterioration in the Iraqi government. So, for the foreseeable future the Democratic leadership in Congress can do very little to end the war.

Public approval ratings: President Bush: 29%. Congress: 11%.

That is the result of a recent Zogby Poll.

So what can you say about a situation that words can not aptly describe? In essence, you have two competing forces -- the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress -- in control of the Executive Branch and the Legislature whom the public absolutely despises? How about "You need to get your act together. Both of you."

It is difficult to pinpoint any one particular issue that has led to this drop because most of the problems are so voluminous that it's getting to the point where the public is longing for the good old days when King George ran the show. You have the emergence of a mortgage crisis that no one seems to know how to address; the current attempt to pass a piece meal amnesty program, the DREAM Act, in bold defiance of the public's will; the Democratic leadership getting lumped in with the far, far left due to the now legendarily disastrous "Betray Us" ad; the President planning on vetoing the bill that will de-fund the incredibly anti-union/anti-middle class Mexican truck program; refusal to deal with the importation of unsafe goods from China; and on and on and on.

While few assumed that President Bush's approval ratings could get worse, they have and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has been an absolute, unmitigated failure. 11% is the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States.

Let's put that into perspective: Bush is right up (down) there with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and this Congress is less popular than the Congress that served during the time when half the country seceded from the union and a war broke out that saw 600,000 casualties.

Will things get better? Can they get any worse?

While news regarding Israel's successful air raid in Syria remains somewhat murky (it is widely believed that the bombing served the purpose of destroying nuclear material that had been acquired by North Korea), it has recently come to light that on July 23, 15 Syrians and several dozen Iranians were killed in a explosion involving a disastrous chemical weapons experiment.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the accident occurred when a warhead containing chemical weapons materials was being mounted on a SCUD missile. This, of course, raises a number of questions regarding the recent allegations of North Korea allegedly supplying Syria with nuclear material. If the allegations are true, was Syria in the process of acquiring a nuclear warhead or material that could be used to construct a "dirty bomb" of radio active material?

This disaster shows a clear collaboration between Iran and Syria regarding a weapons of mass destruction program that, in light of Iran's current nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East to escalating even further. It is no secret that Dick Cheney has been pushing President Bush for military action in Iran and incidents like this do not exactly calm anyone's nerves about Iran and Syria's threat to U.S. troops or allies.