1) Bush removes provision requiring back taxes from illegal immigrants... Illegal Immigration
2) Using drugs as weapons 'unsafe'... Anti-NonLeathal Weapons
3) Sixties singer, Wayne Fontana, facing jail term... Music
4) Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges, and stop supporting Terrorist... Media/Terrorism
5) Immigration Agency Mired In Inefficiency... Illegeal Immigration
6) Bill Maher Mocks Christianity and Catholics Again... Hate Speech
7) Clinton Aide Forfeits Law License... Politics/Clintons
8) Anti-war activist mother, Cindy Sheehan, quits role... Politics/Iraq
9) John Edwards does not believe there is a War on Terror... Politics


1) Bush removes provision requiring back taxes from illegal immigrants... Illegal Immigration
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/19/bush_removes_provision_requiring_back_taxes_from_illegal_immigrants/

The Bush administration insisted on a little-noticed change in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill that would enable 12 million undocumented residents to avoid paying back taxes or associated fines to the Internal Revenue Service, officials said. An independent analyst estimated the decision could cost the IRS tens of billions of dollars. A provision requiring payment of back taxes had been in the initial version of a bill proposed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat. But the administration called for the provision to be removed due to concern that it would be too difficult to figure out which illegal immigrants owed back taxes. The dropping of the back-tax provision was not made clear in the announcement of the immigration reform proposal on Thursday. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, speaking in reference to illegal immigrants seeking legal status, said, "You've got to pay your taxes." He did not state whether he was referring to back taxes, future taxes, or both.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel, asked in a telephone interview yesterday to clarify Chertoff's remark, said it referred only to future taxes. "It is important that the reformed immigration system is workable and cost efficient," Stanzel said. "Determining the past tax liability would have been very difficult and costly and extremely time consuming." Stanzel stressed that immigrants would be required to pay a fine of up to $5,000 if they want to apply for a green card to become a legal resident, although that fine is not for failure to pay taxes.

Laura Capps, a spokeswoman for Kennedy, said a provision for requiring back taxes was in Kennedy's original bill and that Chertoff called for it to be removed. "Chertoff thought it would be too challenging to accurately determine the amount of an applicant's back taxes," she said. Administration officials said many illegal immigrants do not get paychecks that can be audited, making it difficult to determine tax liability. But Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which says it has 362,000 members, was stunned that the provision was removed. While saying it would be difficult to come up with a precise estimate of the amount of back taxes owed by undocumented residents, he said it would be in the tens of billions of dollars, with a similar amount in fines for failure to pay the taxes. "I can tell you, most law-abiding taxpayers would find that provision totally distasteful," Sepp said about the decision not to seek back taxes. "I doubt that many citizens are willing to swallow that special treatment."

Sepp said he understands that it would difficult to determine back taxes owed by illegal immigrants, and he said that many illegal immigrants would have earned too little to pay taxes. But he suggested that the administration could have come up with a plan requiring at least some tax-related payment from immigrants who are seeking to become legal residents.

Me: And slowly all punishment for the crime of comeing into our country illegally slowly disappear. Can you say repeating the mistakes of the past, I look forward to a future illegals in the number of 50 million or more.

2) Using drugs as weapons 'unsafe'... Anti-NonLeathal Weapons
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6687279.stm

UK doctors fear public safety could be compromised by the growing interest of world governments in using drugs for law enforcement. A report by the British Medical Association points to the example of the Moscow theatre siege of October 2002 where over 120 hostages died. The Russian authorities had used a drug delivered through the air-conditioning system to end the siege. Medics argue the innocent are inevitably harmed alongside criminals.

Indiscriminate
It is impossible to deliver the right drug in the right dose to the right individuals in a way that is both effective and does not cause significant deaths, the BMA's Board of Science concludes. The anaesthetic drug used in Moscow killed one in six of those present in the theatre. It warns that using powerful drugs in this way may constitute a violation of international conventions which prohibit the use of chemical weapons. And future advances in drug development may spawn more sophisticated and sinister agents, it says. Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA, said their concern surrounded drugs that could poison and kill at the wrong dose, rather than less harmful agents used for riot control such as tear gas. She explained: "It is disingenuous of governments to describe drugs as non-lethal - there is no difference between a drug and a poison except the dose. It is virtually impossible to control the amount of a drug delivered or to ensure it acts without producing toxic effects or causing death."

Vigilance
She said doctors needed to be aware that their medical knowledge might be called upon for the development of drugs for military purposes, as well as antidotes and treatments. She urged medics to advocate against the use of drugs for law enforcement and not be involved in the training of military or law enforcement personnel in the administration of drugs as weapons. According to the report, some experts in some countries, including America and China, are pushing for legislation to allow the use of chemical weapons beyond the current narrow definition of riot control. Dr Nathanson said: "It is absolutely essential that we do not allow an extension of the use of chemical weapons or a re-writing of the law that bans them. If we do, that will put all of us at risk."

Me: So I wonder how many would have died if they had shot their way into the building. Sure lets avoid seeking methods of stopping conflicts in ways that might leave people alive. Nope can't have any attempts at non-lethal solutions, I guess this OK's Lethal solutions. I recognized problems with using drugs but that is more a issue of refinement not avoidance.

3) Sixties singer, Wayne Fontana, facing jail term... Music
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/6691773.stm

Sixties pop star Wayne Fontana has been remanded in custody after admitting setting fire to a debt collector's car. The judge criticised the former lead singer of the Mindbenders, real name Glyn Ellis, for arriving at Derby Crown court dressed as the Lady of Justice. He had to hand a sword and scales to guards but wore a crown, cape and dark glasses, claiming "justice is blind". The 61-year-old faces jail for arson after he poured petrol over a bailiff's car and set it alight. Judge Andrew Hamilton said: "He regards this whole procedure as a pantomime. He has come dressed as a fool and he wants to act like a fool - I hope they give him a prison uniform at Nottingham Prison to keep him warm."

Bottle of petrol
Bailiffs visited Fontana's home in Glossop, Derbyshire, on 1 February and spoke to the defendant about a warrant, the court was told. After they returned to their cars, parked outside, Fontana emerged with a bottle of petrol and poured it over one of the vehicles. Bailiff Paul Stott told police that he opened his car door and asked the defendant: "What are you doing?"

It is claimed Fontana told the debt collector: "I am going to burn you."

The front of the Citroen became engulfed in flames. "I was in extreme shock and in fear of my life," said Mr Stott in his statement. Fontana denies arson with intent to endanger life, claiming Mr Stott had escaped the vehicle before it set alight. But he admits arson being reckless to whether life is endangered, saying he did ignite the fuel and set the car on fire. Addressing defence barrister Hugh McKee, Judge Hamilton said: "What your client did was a most serious offence. He did not know the car would not blow up immediately and kill this man.

No vendetta
"It seems to me it does not make the slightest bit of difference if he got out in one second, two seconds or three seconds." Mr McKee said his client had no vendetta against bailiffs but admitted he had been "in considerable contact" with a number of them. The case was adjourned until July and Fontana was remanded into custody. Judge Hamilton also ordered a psychiatric report. The judge told Fontana he would be jailed. "The only question is how long you are going to custody for," he added. Fontana shot to fame in 1964 with his band Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders, recording hits including Game Of Love. After he left the group in 1965, the Mindbenders recorded their biggest hit, Groovy Kind Of Love. Details of the bailiffs' warrant were not revealed during the plea and directions hearing, but the court heard that Fontana had previously faced bailiffs over an outstanding parking fine.

Me: Well that is a way go act before a judge.

4) Shift news to successes in Iraq, soldier urges, and stop supporting Terrorist... Media/Terrorism
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/OPINION01/705230371



A tired and disgusted Iowa soldier fired off an e-mail a few days ago, telling family and friends how things are going in Iraq. A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Jim Funk has flown more than 80 combat missions since he arrived there in October. He described his Boone-based unit's successes after 5,000 hours of flying out of LSA Anaconda, a huge American base north of Baghdad. He talked about the tragedies he and his fellow Iowans have witnessed and his worries of becoming complacent as he goes on mission after mission.

Morale?
"We're treading water," the Ames man told the people closest to him. "We continue to kick butt on missions and take care of each other, even though we know the American public and government DOES NOT stand behind us. Ohhhh, they all say they support us, but how can you support me (the soldier) if you don't support my mission or my objectives. We watch the news over here. Every time we turn it on we see the American public and Hollywood conducting protests and rallies against our 'illegal occupation' of Iraq."

His greatest frustration? The performance of the people who deliver the news to the American people. I'll let him say it, in his own words, in the letter, which found its way to me:

"Hello media, do you know you indirectly kill American soldiers every day? You inspire and report the enemy's objective every day. You are the enemy's greatest weapon. The enemy cannot beat us on the battlefield so all he does is try to wreak enough havoc and have you report it every day. With you and the enemy using each other, you continually break the will of the American public and American government. We go out daily and bust and kill the enemy, uncover and destroy huge weapons caches and continue to establish infrastructure. So daily we put a whoopin on the enemy, but all the enemy has to do is turn on the TV and get re-inspired. He gets to see his daily roadside bomb, truck bomb, suicide bomber or mortar attack. He doesn't see any accomplishments of the U.S. military (FOX, you're not exempt, you suck also). Let's give you an example. A couple of days ago we conducted an air assault. We lifted troops into an area for an operation. The operation went well and our ground troops killed (insurgents) and took several prisoners, freed a few hostages and uncovered a weapons cache containing munitions and chemicals that were going to be used in improvised bombs. The next morning I woke up and turned on AFN (Armed Forces Network) and watched the nightly news (NBC). Nothing, none of that reported. But the daily car bomb report was reported, and the file footage was not even from the event. There was a car bomb in the Sadr City area and your news report showed old car bomb footage from another part of town from some other time. So we really set the enemy back that night but all the enemy had to do was turn on the news and be reassured that the enemy's agenda (objective) was still going to be fed to the American public."

"We, the soldiers, keep breaking the back of the enemy. You, the media, keep rejuvenating the enemy. How hard would it be to contact the PAO (public affairs officer) of the 1st CAV, 36th CAB, 25th ID or the Marines and ask what did you guys accomplish today - good and bad? How about some insurgent blooper videos? Now that would be something to show on the evening news. Media, we know you hate the George Bush administration, but report both sides, not just your one-sided agenda. You have got to realize how you are continually motivating every extremist, jihadist and terrorist to continue their resolve to kill American soldiers."

It's a punch in the nose to the news media from Funk, 39, a full-time employee of the Iowa National Guard. Why did he write it?

"I am just tired of busting my butt over here and coming home every night and turning on the TV (Armed Forces Network) and hearing how we are failing miserably," he told me in an e-mail. You may agree with what Funk has to say. You may not. Many in my business certainly won't. But Funk is a soldier, fighting a war, who has earned the right to be heard.

Me: Here is a letter about how the media supports the terrorist that are killing american troops by soully focusing on the successes of the terrorist and never on the successes of the US troops. Does this reach the front page of the Media? Nope instead this story does... I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502032.html?nav=hcmodule... Nice.

5) Immigration Agency Mired In Inefficiency... Illegeal Immigration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701118_pf.html

Last June, U.S. immigration officials were presented a plan that supporters said could help slash waiting times for green cards from nearly three years to three months and save 1 million applicants more than a third of the 45 hours they could expect to spend in government lines. It would also save about $350 million. The response? No thanks.

Leaders of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services rejected key changes because ending huge immigration backlogs nationwide would rob the agency of application and renewal fees that cover 20 percent of its $1.8 billion budget, according to the plan's author, agency ombudsman Prakash Khatri. Current and former immigration officials dispute that, saying Khatri's plan, based on a successful pilot program in Dallas, would be unmanageable if expanded nationwide. Still, they acknowledge financial problems and say that modernization efforts have been delayed since 1999 by money shortages, inertia, increased security demands after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the disruptive launch of the Homeland Security Department. As the nation debates whether, and how, to legalize as many as 12 million illegal immigrants living here, the agency that would spearhead the effort is confronting its reputation as a broken bureaucracy whose inefficiency encourages more illegal immigration and paradoxical disincentives to change. Under the Senate's proposed immigration legislation, Citizenship and Immigration Services would vet applications and perform security checks for those illegal immigrants -- a surge that would be almost triple the agency's annual caseload of 5 million applications. Each application could generate fines and fees of $1,000 to $5,000, a windfall of $10 billion to $15 billion over eight years, Homeland Security officials said. The money would dwarf revenue from a previously announced agency plan to increase fees on immigration and employment applications by 50 percent as early as next week, to raise $1 billion a year.

Former U.S. officials, watchdog groups and immigrant advocates warn that Citizenship and Immigration is ill-positioned to make the best use of the money. Instead, they say, Congress must change how it funds the 16,000-worker agency and provide tough oversight if the agency is to move past its legacy of shoddy service, years-long delays and susceptibility to fraud. Liberals and conservatives say relying on user fees to upgrade the agency is a recipe for disaster. "If the USCIS fails once again to meet the challenge, the laws of supply and demand will overtake U.S. immigration laws," driving workers and employers to bypass the law, said James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Given the nation's history of weak enforcement at the border and against companies that hire illegal workers, Citizenship and Immigration's record as gatekeeper for legal immigrants often goes overlooked. Each year the agency, once known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, awards 1 million green cards, 700,000 naturalizations and 1 million temporary work permits. Delays have plagued its efforts, however. After peaking at more than 5 million applications in 2003, the agency's backlog stood at 1.1 million last summer after a five-year, $500 million reduction effort. That includes 140,000 cases not awaiting action by another agency. Citizenship and Immigration's troubles stem from the nation's 1986 amnesty. Acting on the principle that citizenship is a benefit that immigrants, not taxpayers, should pay for, Congress required immigrants to cover the cost of citizenship examinations, then about a tenth of INS's budget. But what started as a reform became an addiction. Hooked on fees, Congress allowed the growth of a Turkish bazaar of levies, through which immigrants now pay for 90 percent of the agency's budget. They subsidize even non-paying applicants such as refugees, asylum seekers and U.S. military members. As workloads grew, fees, last revised in 1998, did not keep up. Without money to invest in technology and management improvements, the agency continued to rely on a paper-based filing system from the pre-computer age. That carried $100 million a year in costs for archiving, retrieval, storage and shipping, as well as lost paperwork and delays. The 2001 attacks prompted costly new mandates for background checks, security upgrades at more than 100 offices and subsidies to strapped enforcement operations and the new Homeland Security Department.

By 2004, Citizenship and Immigration was "looking at maybe $500 million or more in the hole," said William Yates, then head of domestic operations. As backlogs and deficits grew, the agency ratcheted up charges to cover its budget. The longer applicants waited, the more they paid. "We were really operating a Ponzi scheme," said Yates, who retired last year after 31 years at the agency. "The money that current applicants were paying, we were using to adjudicate older cases. For example, Citizenship and Immigration set up a Chicago office strictly to accept signed applications and checks, even though most applications are not approved. Officials said they created the system because the Treasury Department offered to set it up at no cost, and the agency doesn't like to process applications before being paid to do so. In 2005, it raised $230 million by charging green-card applicants for about 1 million temporary work and travel permits they needed while waiting for their cases to be processed. About 325,000 interim permits went to people whose applications were later denied, creating a security risk, Khatri said. The agency raised another $139 million by charging a separate "premium processing" fee of $1,000 -- three times the normal fee -- that is now used by a majority of applicants to speed up the process.

"If you're a good-government agency, why are you trying to cheat or fool the public into thinking they have to go into first class?" Khatri asked. Yates said he proposed the premium charge in 1999 to pay for modernization efforts, but the money was tapped after the 2001 attacks for operations. Under a proposal issued Jan. 31 and to be made final as early as this week, Citizenship and Immigration seeks to boost fees by more than 50 percent on average and to dedicate $139 million in premium fees to modernization. The cost of applying for legal permanent residency, for example, would nearly triple, from $325 to $905. The plan has drawn 39,000 comments, including criticism from a wide range of interests. Critics say it proposes punishingly big fee increases on immigrants and their employers but promises just a 20 percent improvement in services. Khatri's proposal to slash green-card waiting times was to assign staffers to weed out ineligible applicants and to ensure that others' forms are complete at the time of filing, cutting down caseloads and processing delays. However, officials determined that while "up-front" processing improved customer service at small offices, it would cost more and worsen service in busy offices because managers cannot anticipate how many people will show up, nor predict political or other circumstances that drive surges in applications.

Agency spokesman Chris Bentley declined to comment specifically on proposals pending before Congress and cited Yates as an authority on Khatri's past reports. Business transformation is "not something that can be done overnight," he added. "We're building an immigration system to last 30 years." The Senate proposal would allow Congress to appropriate money in advance to Citizenship and Immigration. The funds would be repaid by legalization fines and fees, and would not be counted toward the federal deficit. Yates said the clock is ticking. "If they do not start to modernize, they're going to be at a really severe disadvantage when the impact of this comes in," he said. "It means they should have already started."

Me: So here we have a story on how messed up the Government dealing with illegal immigration and now we can depend on them to take on ever more dealing with illegal immigration... can you say repeating failure?

6) Bill Maher Mocks Christianity and Catholics Again... Hate Speech
E-mail Alert

The anti-Christian bigotry gets more and more sickening. Bill Maher, host of the talk show "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO, recently showed the hatred Maher and the other Hollywood types have for Christianity and Christians. Just three days after Rev. Jerry Falwell's death, Maher began his weekly HBO program with a verbal assault on Rev. Falwell and then escalated into a vicious attack on Christianity in general and Catholics in particular.

Maher: "We weren’t having sex, officer. I was performing a very private Mass, here in my car. I was letting my rod and staff comfort him. Take this and eat of it, for this is my roommate Barry...and for all those who believe there is a special place for you in Kevin."

Please click here for earlier comments of Mr. Maher calling Christians crazy. Time-Warner, owner of HBO, issued no apology for the on-air explicit homosexual mockery of Scripture and Catholic theology. Neither did the mainstream media bring it to the public’s attention as they did with Don Imus. For the mainstream media, Christians are the only religious group in America against whom such bigotry is allowed.

Me: I wonder if we will be able to use Hate Crime laws to put Maher behind bars? Or is it only to protect homosexuals and minorities?

7) Clinton Aide Forfeits Law License... Politics/Clintons
e-mail Alert

Clinton White House National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, who was convicted of taking classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, has agreed to surrender his license to practice law. In a written statement issued by his attorney, Larry Breuer, Berger, 61, said: “I have decided to voluntarily relinquish my license. While I derived great satisfaction from years of practicing law, I have not done so for 15 years and do not envision returning to the profession. I am very sorry for what I did, and I deeply apologize.”

Berger, national security adviser from 1997 to 2001, was convicted of removing documents from the Archives in 2005 while preparing to testify before the 9/11 Commission. He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to 100 hours of community service, the Washington Times reported. The documents taken by Berger pertained to a terrorist assessment from 2000, before George W. Bush was sworn in as president. Specifically, they dealt with a report detailing the Clinton administration's response to so-called millennium terrorist threats — a highly secret assessment that was, according to some reports, less than stellar. The report was compiled by Richard Clarke, the same counterterrorism czar under Clinton and President Bush who criticized the latter's handling of intelligence prior to 9/11. Byron York, White House correspondent for the National Review, wrote: "Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck — a border agent in Washington state who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car — and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work."

By giving up his law license, Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel and possibly disclosing further details of his theft.

Me: Ok it is final Clarke has had to give up his law license.. big deal he should go to jail but he is a Democrat and a Clinton axe man so jail will never come up for his theft of classified documentment and obstruction of justice in investigation of 9-11 and what the Clintons knew or didn't know.

8) Anti-war activist mother, Cindy Sheehan, quits role... Politics/Iraq
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21817412-38198,00.html

US anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan has announced she no longer wants to be the public face of the movement against the US-led invasion of Iraq, a cause she spearheaded following the death of her soldier son. Ms Sheehan, best known for camping out at US President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, said she has become disillusioned with the struggle, which has ravaged her bank account, wrecked her marriage and strained her relationship with her surviving children.

"This is my resignation letter as the 'face' of the American anti-war movement," Sheehan wrote in a blog entry posted yesterday titled "Good Riddance Attention Whore". "I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost." She said she made the decision to abandon the movement after about a year of deliberating.

"The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing," she said in reference to her son, who was killed in Iraq in April 2004. "I have tried every (day) since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most." She said she had lost faith in the anti-war movement's ability to make change and even in Democrats, who are largely opposed to the war and who took control of the House and Senate last year.

"Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity," she said. "I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. Goodbye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realised no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it," she concluded. Sheehan camped near Bush's Prairie Chapel ranch in August 2005 while he was on summer holiday there and spent much of that time asking in vain to meet with him to ask why her son had to die. She also protested near the site after purchasing a five-acre plot near the president's Texas homestead, and led numerous other anti-war demonstrations across the country.

Me: Well this was about years past here prime. She was only used as a political tool by the liberal left to hope to gain power, and that includes the media. She does not love the USA... fine with me, she thinks here son died in vien... I don't but she is welcome to think what ever she wants about her son. She hurt alot of other parents, wives, and children of military people who died helping in Iraq by devalueing their loved ones deaths. For that which she has not asked forgiveness for I can not forgive. Good bye Sheehan and I hope to never hear your name again.

9) John Edwards does not believe there is a War on Terror... Politics
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275028,00.html

NEW YORK — Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards, in a major foreign policy speech Wednesday, minimized the Bush administration's War on Terror as nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan" used to justify the war in Iraq and "bludgeon political opponents."

"It is now clear that George Bush's misnamed 'War on Terror' has backfired — and is now part of the problem," Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. "The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan." Edwards proposed foreign policy changes from the direction taken by the Bush administration, calling on Congress not to back down to White House pressure for a bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without requiring a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces. Congressional leaders said Tuesday that they are close to a deal that would fund the wars without a timetable for withdrawal. "Every member of Congress should stand their ground on this issue and do everything in their power to block this bill," Edwards said. "Congress should send President Bush another bill funding the troops, supporting the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal. If the president vetoes that bill, send him another one."

Republican presidential contender Rudy Giuliani, campaigning in New Hampshire, said Edwards is in denial. "I don't understand why a Democratic candidate would be in denial of what's actually going on," Giuliani told FOX News. "This global War on Terror is going on whether John Edwards recognizes it or not. It's not like it's controlled, there are people planning to come here and kill us all over the world."

Edwards, who lost his bid in 2004 to become vice president, said Bush's strategy has backfired. "He’s used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the biggest abuses of his administration," Edwards said. Edwards proposed his own strategy — withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq in less than a year, closing Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and working to rebuild the U.S. military. In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats — including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel — who said they did not believe there was a global War on Terror. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq but has since become a harsh critic of the conflict. In his speech, he reiterated his call to remove American combat troops from Iraq within a year and vowed to "restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place."

Anticipating the speech, the Republican National Committee sent out a research document titled "Edwards' Troop Profiteering," noting that his campaign routinely solicits donations to help Edwards pursue his anti-war efforts. "One can't help but wonder how John Edwards is comfortable beefing up his campaign coffers at the expense of our troops," RNC spokeswoman Summer Johnson said. "Edward's profiteering isn't only in poor taste but it also illustrates his hunger for the White House trumps his sensitivity toward those serving America."

Me: And people wonder why Democrats are seen as being weak on defense and poor against terrorism. The sad thing is there once was a time I considered voting for him, man sometimes getting to know someone better is a bad thing.