Whenever George W. Bush gives his didactic speeches, it is always apparent that they are people who we should be fighting against with every ounce of our being; but it has never been very clear as to who they are.

They are the people that we fight against.  They are terrorists.  They are a threat to democracy everywhere.  But where do they come from?

Who knows?  Does it really matter where someone comes from if they want to kill you?  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. 

But they sure have been in the news a lot lately.  Not only do they make headlines in Iraq, but they have been creating a stir in the U.K. as well.  I wonder if they are the same they.  Because if they aren't the same they, should we be fighting a war against them...excuse me...them? 

As a nation, we must keep in mind who it is that has harmed us.  On September 11th, 2001, we were attacked by the Taliban; and people we used to like.

But we extended the definition of terror to reach Iraq, and we must remember that we are an offensive force in Iraq, not defensive. 

And plus, if we go on fighting and fighting, and ostracizing different groups of people, it will not be us versus them.  It will be us versus them.  And there is a big difference.

The question is this, Would a president wear a Bluetooth Headset? Each day new Bluetooth Products are out on the market and consumers wear them proudly. Some people think only geeks wear them, and some people hate the person wearing the headset thinking what a dork. So would a presidential candidate be stupid to wear Bluetooth Wireless Devices? Maybe and maybe not you be the judge.

Today, on cnn.com, a headline that paraphrased Barack Obama as making education and poverty bigger issues than race, and proved what had been brewing in my mind for a few days now. 

Everyone knows that Obama is black; everyone, that is, who is not blind.  And not everyone is okay with that.

If Barack Obama was prominently playing the race card, it is likely that he could reciprocate Jesse Jackson's flop in his run for the presidency.  Jackson, who was also hurt by his apparent, and inexplicable degradation of Jewish people, is famous primarily as an African American activist.  Those who believe in African American equality may support him, but, as the loudest of all those screaming for their rights, those who do not support the cause will use him as a scapegoat.

Barack Obama will not reap any benefits from flaunting his race.  Those who (like me) think it is time for a black president, and believe it to be an embarrassment that we have not had one already, will rally behind him (supposing he maintains stellar viewpoints and seems halfway reasonable).  We know he is black.  But those who are against a black president, aka troglodytes, will view him more moderately than if he was taking to the streets, reciting the absurdly Aesopian Jesse Jackson rhymes, like "It's not about black and white, it's about wrong and right." 

But then again, that's all its really about, right?  Wrong and right?  I believe it is, and that is precisely the reason that the black and white part should be minimalized as much as possible.

The former senator, speaking on the NBC television network, discussed a proposal to withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops immediately and the rest of the US forces by the end of 2007.

"The Congress needs to stand the ground against this president and force a change in policy" in Iraq, Edwards said.

"I think what the American people wanted them to do was stand their ground, force this president to start withdrawing troops from Iraq."

Hundreds of people have been dying each week in insurgent violence there and more than 3,400 US soldiers have been killed since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Edwards was due to present his proposals later Wednesday in a major speech to the independent foreign policy think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations.

He reiterated his calls for legislation forcing a timeline for withdrawing the troops. Legislation with that provision stalled in Congress Tuesday when majority Democrats shelved a bill making a large war funding package conditional on a withdrawal of US troops by next year.

Instead Democrats accepted a bill which would not pull out US forces, but which sets political and security benchmarks for the Iraqi government -- measures which Edwards also backed.

"All of this doesn't depend on us, it depends on the Iraqis, it depends on what the Sunnis and the Shia leadership do," Edwards said Wednesday.

"If they can reach some political reconciliation ... that will help squelch the violence."

"And the question is, how do we shift the responsibility to them to reach a political solution?" he added.

President "George Bush has shown over and over again that he's stubborn, that he's bull-headed, he doesn't think he can do anything wrong. He will not change unless the Congress forces him to do it."

Link to Source