It's apparently a slow news day because the wire services are trying to manufacture a controversy:

In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

So it's not the most artful way to get the point across, but Warner Houston at Newsbusters makes it clear that Bush was using Mandela as a stand in for a generic peacemaker, and not saying anything specific about Mandela himself or his current body temperature.

Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren't any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam "killed all the Mandelas" of Iraq?

Rudy Giuliani took the MoveOn.org ad calling General David Petraeus, David "Betray Us," and made it a campaign plus for him. He's gone after them hard and rightfully so. General Petraeus made our esteemed elected leaders look even more buffoonish than usual. He was calm, answered their questions with authority and acted as one would expect a high-ranking military man to act, with class and dignity. MoveOn attacked a good man for partisan political purposes and Rudy is now using it as a weapon:

As for the candidates on the Dems side, Richard Cohen takes them to task today:

Almost instantly, though, it got pretty hard to find a Democratic presidential candidate willing to dispute MoveOn.org. To his credit, Joe Biden did. "I don't buy into that," he said. "This is an honorable guy. He's telling the truth." But lonesome Joe, whose virtues have yet to come to the attention of the vast and apathetic electorate, was seconded only by Joe Lieberman, not a presidential candidate, and John Kerry, a man whose tomorrow is yesterday. When Clinton was asked about the ad, she avoided answering.

It may seem unfair to single out Clinton in this matter when the bunker in which she took shelter was crowded with her fellow quivering candidates. But Clinton is the front-runner, quite possibly the next president of the United States, so it is reasonable to focus on her and wonder if, as some allege, she does indeed have a spine. In this instance, it was nowhere to be found.

This was the opportunity for Hillary Clinton so show that she has what it takes to be commander-in -chief (shudder) of the U.S. military and she punted. A more astute politician -- such as her husband -- would have seen the advantage of defending a career Army officer and highly regarded leader and bent over backwards to make it known that they didn't agree with the offensive ad. Clinton failed and Rudy grabbed the ball and ran with it. That action may have cemented his cred with conservatives who abhor the MoveOn crowd and conservative Democrats who feel Hillary has wandered a little too far into left field for their tastes (note: link to NY Times piece for TimeSelect members until midnight tonight).

MoveOn has accomplished two things with this inane ad campaign, a campaign they will continue to run: they've alienated a good portion of the electorate and pushed them toward Rudy who could hold them with his unique blend of social liberalism and national defense conservatism.

It's happened again. Another foot, another mouth. This time it's Rep. John Boehner, the lead Republican in the House. What did he say? The death of thousands and wounding of tens of thousands was 'a small price to pay'. Seriously.

BLITZER: "Mr. Leader, here is the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure, the loss and blood the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?"

A small price. Tell it to the families. Even other Republicans are not backing him. John McCain said:

With all due respect, every American wounded or sacrificed is the greatest possible price to pay,"

And of course Democrats seized on Boehner's very poorly chosen words. Rather than apologize, Boehner's office said he was talking about the money but the question was how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?" And now, we're supposed to accept the sacrifice of thousands more. A small price indeed.

I know, calling John Edwards a hypocrite and then pointing out that hypocrisy is getting to be fish-in-a-barrel easy, but this latest one takes the cake:

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards has investing ties to subprime lenders who are foreclosing on victims of Katrina, according to a report published Friday.

The Wall Street Journal said there are 34 homes in New Orleans that face foreclosure from the subprime unit of Fortress Investment Group. Edwards has about $16 million in Fortress (Charts), a hedge fund and private equity manager, the newspaper said.

...Rising defaults among subprime mortgages - those home loans given to borrowers with the weakest credit records has triggered a credit crunch and resulted in a wave of foreclosures.

Where to begin? Edwards has $16 million invested in a company that offers mortgages to those with credit problems. Many of those people are the poorer among us or many are the unfortunate such as victims of Katrina. Subprime lenders saw a market niche whereby they could lend to these people -- generally at higher interest rates--and make a lot of money. In essence, they lent money to those who were incapable of qualifying anywhere else and probably shouldn't have received loans and charged a premium for the service.

Edwards says he may or may not have known about subprime lending. That's a real endorsement for president, "I can't remember."

Wow. Barack Obama just keeps them coming. Just when you think he's outdone himself:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Now you have to read that carefully, because it sounds a bit worse than it is, but either Obama is saying that our troops are using air rather than ground troops because of a lack of manpower, or that the troops are deliberately targeting villages as part of their strategy.

Let's go with the first option, it's bad enough. Jim Geraghty and Ed Morrissey explode the idea that we don't have ground troops and rely on air support solely. For Obama to salvage his statement now, he must explain that our troops should be doing more house to house searches and less air support, further endangering the lives of soldiers in a country where the Taliban pretend to be civilians themselves.

If that's what he means, he should explain that, but I doubt he's thought it through what it would mean to explain to the American people that more American troops should die to protect the lives of Afghani civilians. Which all adds up to not ready for prime time.

Sometimes it's hard to decide who is more entertaining: John "Bomb" McCain, Mitt Doggie Romney, Fred Lobbyist Thompson or Rudy 9/11 Giuliani. But for today, we'll give Mitt the paid-for-win in Ames, Iowa but Rudy gets the 'I Can't Believe He Actually Said That' award. This doesn't eclipse the BS he handed out the other day about how he worked harder than anyone at Ground Zero (he had to apologize for that documented whopper) and now comes this

"Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

See, to be free you have to give up freedom. Just give it up to the authority (me) and we''ll take care of everything. This continues the line put out by Bush/Cheney and exemplifies how close to a totalitarian state we have come. However, Rudy's full record as mayor is going to come out, Mitt's going to continue to dig himself into one verbal hole after another and Fred Thompson isn't even in the race and his lobbying efforts and being a spy for Tricky Dicky are surfacing. If I were mired in the second tier of the Republican contenders I wouldn't give up too soon because the top tier is embarrassing themselves.

UPDATE: For those still thinking Rudy is a straight shooter and doesn't flip flop more than Romney, think again.

One of the foreign policy gaffes committed by Barack Obama last week was publicly telling our enemies that he's already ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in the War on Terror in any circumstance. Immediately after saying that, Obama backpedaled, saying that the use of nuclear weapons had not been discussed and he wasn't going to discuss hypotheticals. But the damage had been done, and Hillary Clinton immediately pounced:

By the afternoon, Clinton (N.Y.) had responded with an implicit rebuke. "Presidents should be careful at all times in discussing the use and nonuse of nuclear weapons," she said, adding that she would not answer hypothetical questions about the use of nuclear force. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don't believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or nonuse," Clinton said.

Fast forward to today, when the Washington Post is reporting that Hillary did the exact same thing that she criticized Obama for. Last year, she ruled out ever using nuclear weapons against another one of our enemies, and one that we are currently at war with, although no-one here wants to admit it. Iran.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, who chastised rival Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terror, did just that when asked about Iran a year ago. "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she said in April 2006.

Her views expressed while she was gearing up for a presidential run stand in conflict with her comments this month regarding Obama, who faced heavy criticism from leaders of both parties, including Clinton, after saying it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton spokespeople are falling all over themselves attempting to explain that last year's statement was different - that she was merely commenting on whether or nor the Bush administration should use nuclear weapons. Nice try, Hillary.

I slammed Barack Obama on his various gaffes last week so now it's time to take my medicine and smack one of my own. Mitt Romney, a lower first-tier/upper second-tier candidate actually said this today:

"The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it," Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

OK, I can live with that, the military isn't for everyone. While I was in (serving aboard a ship only a crew member could love), there were people I'd never want next to me if it came to a fight. Those who don't want to serve shouldn't. But Mitt didn't stop there, he added this:

"One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Uh, Mitt? I can't believe you actually meant to say that. Let's see, sleeping in the dirt, dodging IEDs and battling al-Qaida versus traipsing around Iowa trying to get people to donate money to you. I see how they are both "showing support for our nation."

Romney is not polling well and is not a very likable guy. This makes me like him even less and as I said about Obama, this is exactly the type of statement that makes me think that he's just not presidential material.

From this veteran to you Mitt, I thank your sons for their great service to our nation. Their vote-gathering skills will serve the greater good of every citizen of the U.S... or not.

John Edwards implored Hillary Clinton to return any campaign money she received from the evil billionaire Rupert Murdoch. But wait; it turns out that Edwards himself was paid hundreds of thousands of dinero for a book he wrote for the Murdoch-owned Harper-Collins:

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."

The campaign didn't respond to a question from The Post about whether it was hypocritical for Edwards to take money from News Corp. while calling for other candidates not to.

Of course they didn't respond as to whether it was hypocritical or not, of course it's hypocritical.

Anyway, John Edwards claims that he donated the money to charity, which of course would mean economic benefit for him. He couldn't come up with proof of the donation, however. I would suspect that the Post will keep this front and center until he does cough up proof.

John McCain started out the latest campaign as the front-runner and media darling. He will always be the "maverick," the one who took on George W. Bush in 2000 and only lost because of Rovian dirty tricks. He was the guy who was going to win the nomination.

Fast-forward to the present and we see a McCain campaign in absolute shambles; brought down by his outspoken leadership on amnesty and the sham bill put before Congress. He joined with the President Bush and Teddy Kennedy to push through a bill that so many saw as granting rewards to those who broke our laws. He chose the wrong side and it cost him dearly, going from top-tier to third-tier with Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. The media spun his free-fall as the result of his support of the war in Iraq, yet anyone who pays attention knew that was garbage.

As proof of just what tripped up his campaign, he's done a 180 on the illegal immigration issue by sponsoring a bill that will, wait for it...enforce the border and penalize those who break our laws.

The move away from a comprehensive measure is an about-face for the Arizona senator, who had been a leading GOP champion of a bill that included a guest worker program and would have legalized many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. It failed earlier this year.

...Among other things, the bill makes being in the country illegally a criminal misdemeanor and toughens penalties for re-entering after being deported. It mandates an electronic system for employers to check workers' citizenship status and requires illegal immigrants who commit a crime to be held in jail until they are deported.

One of the most enduring questions of the presidential race on the Democratic side is why did both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards vote to go to war in Iraq. Clinton has handled this question much better than Edwards and it's showing in the polls.

This week the issue that won't go away was revived again. According to the New York Times:

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq, but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had "simply misunderstood the question" and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

I find it hard to believe that a candidate of Edwards experience with a background as a lawyer "misunderstood" the question. It's evident he read the NIE and voted based not on what was contained in the document but for political expediency according to 2004 running-mate John Kerry:

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edward's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go.

As I said, he voted not with his heart but with the political portion of his brain. He looked at the blow back and decided to vote for it to increase his chances of becoming vice president.

An AP story from the Santa Fe New Mexican contains an embarrassing revelation about Democratic presidential (or is it vice presidential?) candidate Bill Richardson. It seems he is in the habit of telling a tall tale in stump speeches around the country.

This case of embellishment ironically centers on an accomplishment that Richardson should be proud of, and that needs no further exaggeration. Richardson pushed for legislation to up New Mexico's National Guard death benefits for veterans to $250,000. It was a good measure, and Richardson should tell everyone about it on the campaign trail. But in campaign speeches, especially recently in New Hampshire, he goes further with the story by reporting that he was prompted to raise the benefit by a conversation with the mother of a son who was killed in Iraq:

Three years ago, Richardson attended a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Aaron Austin, 21, who died in April 2004. As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination, the New Mexico governor often recounts an emotional conversation with Austin's mother, saying she thanked him for the federal death benefits she had received and even showed him the government check.

But he continually botches the story, and even has lied about the conversation:

In speeches in New Hampshire, Richardson has gotten Austin's name wrong at least once and age wrong at least twice. He also has called Austin the first New Mexico soldier killed in Iraq - instead of the third.

But that's not what bothers the Marine's mother, De'on Miller, of Lovington, who says the conversation about money never took place. "I didn't exchange words at all with the governor there except when he gave me the flag. And those few words - whatever was exchanged when he handed me the flag and the Spirit of New Mexico award - certainly had nothing to do with money," she said Thursday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

The scenario is similar to another event in his life that he's long told stories about, but turned out not to be true -- his being drafted by baseball's Kansas City Athletics (Richardson was forced to retract the claim). That case, like the one reported today, is yet another example of a politician, this time Bill Richardson, lying about something that he or she didn't have to lie about to look good. Is their need for self-aggrandizement that pathological?

This is just Richardson shooting himself in the foot needlessly. And it doesn't help his political aspirations at all, be they presidential or vice presidential. People uneasily view politicians as habitual liars in the first place. Leaving such a paper trail of the lies, however, is particularly unhelpful in overcoming that perception.

When Sandy Berger was caught stealing classified documents from the Nation Archive, it was a huge story around the blogoshere. It was tailor made for the one-hour news cycle that we now have: a former National Security Adviser to an impeached president who was at the helm while terrorist elements were planning the largest attack on American soil in history. The lurid details -- Berger stuffing the docs in his socks and pants -- were akin of satire or a fiction novel. You just couldn't make this stuff up if you'd wanted to.

When it became clear that the documents removed and shredded lost were documents dealing with the run-up to 9/11, the laughing stopped. It became clear that this was a major breach of national security and, more importantly, made the Iraq Study Group report a sham. How could the report be accurate without all the available information about what we knew and when we knew it?

Well, we still don't know what was taken and who it would implicate. Berger was given a light sentence and just this past week was forced to surrender his license to practice law for a year. He did this instead of having to testify about the events, or worse yet, continually "plead the fifth," which always makes someone look guilty.

Opie and Anthony have been suspended with pay for thirty days by XM satellite radio. On their show last week, they conducted a skit with a homeless man in which he said he wanted to have sex with Secretary of State Condi Rice. Yesterday XM released this statement:

"Comments made by Opie and Anthony on [Monday's] broadcast put into question whether they appreciate the seriousness of the matter. The management of XM Radio decided to suspend Opie and Anthony to make clear that our on-air talent must take seriously the responsibility that creative freedom requires of them,"

That's pretty lame, suspending them because they don't "appreciate the seriousness of the matter." What seriousness? They were hired to do shock radio and they did shock radio. This is nothing new with these guys. Besides, the show is on pay radio, not the public airwaves (in fact, CBS will continue to broadcast a "clean" version of the show). The old rule applies; If you don't like what you're hearing, shut it off.

Questions like "Who's the greatest quarterback ever in the NFL?" should be a no-brainer for a political candidate. Just pick the best QB in the history of the local team. But Senator Brownback, a second-tier candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, muffed it. Trying to make a bad analogy to politics and football, he mentioned that Peyton Manning, probably, was greatest QB in NFL history.

Unfortunately, he was in Wisconsin. Home of the best, most storied NFL franchise of all time, the Green Bay Packers, and their future hall of famer and current starter Brett Favre. (Yes I'm a proud Packer-backer.)

Sam tried to recover, but it was too late:

Realizing what he had said, the Kansas Republican slumped at the podium and put his head in his hands.

"That's really bad," he said. "That will go down in history. I apologize."

His apology brought a smattering of applause and laughter. He tried to recover, saying former Packer Bart Starr may be the greatest of all time, but the crowd was still restless.

"Let's take Favre then," Brownback said. "The Packers are great. I'm sorry. How many passes does he complete without a line?"

"All of them!" more than one person yelled from the back.

Maybe he will blame his staff, Obama-style, for mixing up his Indiana and Wisconsin speeches.