ABC News has obtained stills of the Sept. 16 Blackwater shootout.

“I don’t have the time, the energy or the inclination to psychoanalyze the president’s thought process.”

–GOP Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, one of the 45 Republicans supporting the SCHIP expansion, on Bush’s opposition to it.

TPM Election Central has learned that Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) will introduce a resolution Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh’s remarks about “phony soldiers.”

Sigh.

Spy chief Mike McConnell’s spokesperson has provided an extended written response to TPMmuckraker about its reporting on the sketchy episode where FISA allegedly delayed surveillance of Iraqi insurgents who kidnapped American soldiers. McConnell is not retracting his account–which our sources say is inaccurate–but he’s not exactly standing by the account either. Make your own judgment.

It didn’t take too long for Rush Limbaugh and his allies to come up with a defense for the “phony soldiers” flap. While the transcript makes it rather clear that Limbaugh was referring to troops who oppose the president’s Iraq policy, Limbaugh, the Weekly Standard, and others, have argued that the far-right blowhard was being literal. In other words, when Limbaugh trashed “phony soldiers,” he was referring to actual frauds — those who claimed to serve but didn’t.

I think an honest reading of the transcript shows otherwise, but that’s the defense and the right is sticking to it.

Indeed, Limbaugh parroted the line on the air yesterday, telling his critics, “I never said what you think I said.” As part of his explanation about being literal, and not metaphorical, Limbaugh cited Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) as one of the veterans who deserves the “phony” label. That would be the same Murtha who earned the Bronze Star with Valor device, two Purple Hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal.

Got that? “Phony soldiers” was a literal reference to those who’ve lied about serving, a list which Limbaugh believes should include decorated war hero Jack Murtha.

Note to Limbaugh: quit while you’re behind. You’re cutting off your supporters at the knees and making yourself look even worse.

There was an interesting tidbit buried in the latest poll (.pdf) from Fox News. Respondents were asked whether they have a “generally favorable or unfavorable opinion” about a variety of groups and institutions. The poll included MoveOn.org in the mix and found these results:

Favorable: 11%
Unfavorable: 22%
No opinion: 11%
Never heard of: 56%

In fact, the numbers were relatively steady among self-described Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, with a majority of each saying they had no idea what MoveOn is.

The poll was conducted on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, following more than two solid weeks of intense media scrutiny of the group, and condemnations from the House, Senate, White House, and Republican presidential candidates.

It looks like the aggressive conservative push-back hasn’t amounted to much. Even now, most folks just don’t know, or don’t care, who the group is.

Much of the political world arched an eyebrow last week when Rudy Giuliani interrupted a speech to the NRA to chat with his wife, a shtick he has pulled a couple of times on the campaign trail.

In an interview posted yesterday, Giuliani told TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network exactly why he answered his phone: 9/11.

For Rudy Giuliani, it’s always about 9/11 — even when it comes to his wife’s ill-timed phone calls.

Elaborating for the first time on why he interrupted a speech to the National Rifle Association this month to take a cell-phone call from his wife, Judith, Giuliani explained that, since 9/11, he and the missus always chat before flying.

“Quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other,” the Republican presidential hopeful told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

First, I know Giuliani has an acute case of “9/11 Tourette’s,” but this just isn’t healthy.

Second, it’s interesting that Giuliani makes this reaffirmation with his third wife before air travel “since Sept. 11,” given that on Sept. 11, Giuliani was married to someone else.

And third, Giuliani is trying way too hard to convince people he’s a good husband. We’re talking about a thrice-married candidate who, among other things, married his cousin, was a serial adulterer, and marched with his mistress in a St. Patrick’s Day parade. If Giuliani doesn’t want to be the subject of ridicule, he probably should stop talking quite this much about his personal life.

I’ve always thought the constitutional language was straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution is entirely secular — there’s no mention of God, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or the Judeo-Christian tradition.

With this in mind, one wonders what Constitution Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has been reading.

A recent poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. What do you think?

I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation. But I say that in the broadest sense. The lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door doesn’t say, “I only welcome Christians.” We welcome the poor, the tired, the huddled masses. But when they come here they know that they are in a nation founded on Christian principles.

John McCain has been in Congress for several decades, and he’s sworn to uphold the Constitution on more than a few occasions. One would like to think he’s read it enough times to know this is nonsense.

Indeed, what BeliefNet did not mention in the question is that the poll was conducted by the First Amendment Center, which released the results on Constitution Day. The accompanying report noted that far too many Americans are confused about the Constitution.

Apparently, it’s not just the electorate that’s mistaken.

It’s Sept. 29; do you know where your Larry Craig resignation is?

Based on a self-imposed deadline announced a month ago, the Idaho Republican, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after making advances towards an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men’s room, was supposed to step down from the Senate tomorrow. That’s clearly not going to happen.

As of Wednesday, Craig said he would await a judge’s ruling on his request to withdraw his guilty plea, before making a final decision on whether to resign. That could take a couple of weeks, and perhaps longer depending on appeals and any possible new charges prosecutors may file.

But in a “Hardball” interview the other day, Craig lawyer Stanley Brand suggested the senator may disregard the outcome of his case in Minnesota, and may very well stick around regardless.

MATTHEWS: Stan Brand, is your sense that the senator may well be able to hang on until the end of his term?

BRAND: I — think that’s conceivable, especially if he gets some type of relief in Minnesota. But I don’t think it depends on that.

For those keeping score at home, as of a couple of weeks ago, a favorable ruling in Minnesota was the only thing that would keep Craig from resigning. Now, the senator may decide that a misdemeanor charge on his record isn’t the end of the world.

Craig seems to be nearing the point in which he tells his colleagues, “If you want me to go, you’re going to have to expel me.”

On Thursday, Newt Gingrich told supporters that if “they pledge at least $30 million to his campaign over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21, he will compete for the nomination.”

Today, the effort is over before it begins.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will not run for president in 2008 after determining he could not legally explore a bid and remain as head of his tax-exempt political organization, a spokesman said Saturday.

“Newt is not running,” spokesman Rick Tyler said. “It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president.”

Gingrich decided “to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges” as the group’s chairman, Tyler said, “rather than pursuing the presidency.”

Gingrich must not have had too much confidence in his chances; he’s ending a likely presidential campaign to stay on as chairman of a non-profit that no one’s ever heard of. (Running “American Solutions” is, apparently, a lucrative gig.)

As for the GOP presidential field, Republicans hoping for a credible, compelling presidential candidate, who can swoop in and save the party from electoral ruin are just about out of time. Fred Thompson was supposed to be that guy, but he’s proven to be a surprisingly awful candidate — prompting the party faithful to give Gingrich a look.

So much for that idea.