PastaJoe

I wouldn't raise taking detainees in a border dispute to the level of a nuke strike on Israel, they're not even close. It happened before in 2004 and it was resolved without military action, as will this one. I blame the British for this one, how stupid is it to send a group of marines to board an Iranian vessel without sufficient backup support in contested waters where tensions are high. Did they think the Iranians would just sit back and be pushed around? This is just what the Iranian leaders were hoping to happen for their domestic consumption and the Middle East to show that the West is threatening Iran's borders. I doubt the U.S. military would make a similar blunder.

They're all for fighting the war on terrorism, what they're trying to bring to an end is the Iraq Occupation; two different issues. Yeah, 5 years later since Bush said he'd get OBL dead or alive, go figure. If only the Democrats hadn't prevented him from invading Afganistan and capturing him. Oh wait, they did allow it. How did that turn out?

And that's why I'm glad it wasn't Americans, because it would be just the excuse the neo-cons in this country would use to start a war with Iran. Having 2 carriers in the area is bad enough because it only increases the chance of a confrontation. Did you consider the fact that the British aren't in a position to take military action in Iran, and perhaps they want to get the detainees out alive? I expect they will be released in the next couple of weeks. It may require the U.S. giving back the Iranians that were taken from their consulate, but it is preferable to a military exchange and bombs going off in England.

What was the joke, I didn't hear it. I only saw the Rove clip. And the way things are going I think Pelosi is going to have the last laugh, so to speak.

It's not an argument, it's about stating facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts. And how do you know that the Iranians aren't being stripped of their dignity? Nobody knew what happened at Abu Garab either. Stick to facts, even if they don't support your opinions.

Now you attributing quotes to me I didn't make? Where did that 2nd one come from, I never wrote that. I structure my sentences better than that. Most people refer to it as the Iraq War, but in fact the war ended years ago, and the proper designation should be the Iraq Occupation. "Mission Accomplished" gave the mistaken message that the need for the large number of troops was over, and that we could bring the majority of troops home. That is what most people interpreted it to mean, and what the administration mistakenly thought was true.

It's an emergency spending bill, where does it say it has to be for one specific issue? The Iraq war ended when we toppled Saddam, this is now playing policeman to sectarian violence, with some actions against al Queda that came into the Al Anbar region after we invaded. A majority of Americans and Democrats don't want to just leave right now, they are mature enough to realize that it has to be a phased redeployment and want to put more resources towards training Iraqis, border control, and chasing al Queda in Al Anbar. So the Congress is already doing what the majority of Americans and Democrats want.

So why was it OK with Republicans then but isn't now?

From the BBC News: US forces have stormed a building in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six people said to be Iranians, prompting a diplomatic incident. Iranian and Iraqi officials said the building was an Iranian consulate and the detainees its employees. Irbil lies in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north, about 350km (220 miles) from the capital Baghdad. Reports say the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6251167.stm Of course the U.S. said it wasn't a consulate, so I guess we don't care what Iraqi officials say about consulates in their own country.

It's not quite true that the House bill wouldn't have passed without the domestic emergency spending. There were at least 8 Democrats, possibly more, such as Maxine Waters who voted against it because they wanted to go farther and have a quicker timeline to stop combat operations. If it came down to them, they would probably vote for the appropriation. And where does it say an emergency spending bill has to focus on one emergency? The lack of funding for drought, flood, and Katrina relief that was promised by the Republicans but never appropriated is an emergency for those people waiting for that relief. And how many who oppose it would switch their vote if it was taken out? I doubt any would, it's just a red herring. What I want to know is why after 5 years do the military still have to get emergency spending in such amounts? You can't believe the military and White House can't anticipate the need for additional hundreds of billions. By now it should be part of the regular budget, and hopefully will be after this one. Of course the answer is Bush and the Republicans want to keep using our credit card and not have to face paying the bill by giving up tax cuts or offering real offsetting budget cuts. Bush will have quite a legacy of vetoes; denying funding for stem cell research and denying funding for the troops.

But Rove can bust a move. Did you see the video of him rapping and dancing at the correspondent's dinner last night? Bush likes homeys that can entertain him.

Stick to facts if you're going to make affirmative statements. Yes, that taking of the Iranians would be kidnapping. If the British were in Iranian waters then they would be detainees like illegal Mexicans in the U.S., not kidnapped, which was my original point. Words count in how actions are perceived by the public.

Other than avoiding extremists like Rush, Rosie, and Coulter, I try to read as many varied views as possible so I can see what all sides of a debate are saying, and see who provides the best case for or against an issue. Usually you'll only get one side of the story from any one columnist.

Are you bringing the popcorn over to Wacka's today to watch The View?

You would follow the Bush policy of shooting first and asking questions later. I'm just trying to set a good example for others. What would Jesus do?

It wasn't in Baghdad, it was in the north, and the U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate, which was considered sovereign territory which can't be entered without permission, like an embassy.

I saw the same picture, but it will be disputed as phony or inaccurate. Who's to say if the picture was taken at the same time of the incident, or if the ship had moved, or if the equipment was manipulated to show that data. Or great things can be done with photoshop. All I'm saying is that it can be disputed as being doctored by Iran because it's not from an independent source.

Customs extend beyond religious buildings. Some countries that are more diverse are more liberal with their customs than others. When in Rome...

They weren't kidnapped, they're detained because they're accused of crossing into Iranian territorial waters, just as Mexicans who cross our border (except the Iranians are better at defending it). Would you call the 5 Iranians that the U.S. took out of their consulate in Iraq (which is supposed to be soverign territory) and are still being held kidnapped hostages? Put the jingoism aside and try to be objective. What I can't believe is that the British would leave a group of Marines alone without any backup support so close to disputed waters in the first place. That's just asking for trouble in a bad neighborhood.

Not quite. This all started because the Justice dept. said they fired the DAs because they were underperforming. The DAs (all Republican appointments by Bush) took exception to this slander on their performance and said there was no notification or documentation to them stating that they underperformed, in fact they did quite well on their performance reviews. It just so happened that these DAs were recently or in process of investigating Republicans and Democrats. In one case in California the DA that prosecuted Duke Cunningham was just about to indict a couple more Republicans, and was fired before she could do so. In another case in New Mexico the DA was called by both Sen Dominici and Rep. Heather Wilson, who inquired about the status of an investigation on a Democrat before the election, and wanted to know if an indictment would occur before the election. Shortly after the conversations the DA was fired. In Washington state the DA who was eventually fired was called and asked by Harriet Myers "why are so many Republicans in the state mad at you?". The bottom line question is not IF the president can fire DAs, but was it done after trying to apply political influence in what and how fast the DAs should be investigating political corruption against the respective parties. It also opens up the question of if these DAs were fired because they didn't follow the political desires of the White House, are there others that kept their jobs because they did. And if that's the case, what confidence can any of us have that in the future a DA will make an indictment based on the facts, not for political advantage. As John Ashcroft said, once a DA takes the oath, they have to be objective and not do the White House's bidding, but serve the nation.

Diane Sawyer was not "made" to wear it, she chose to wear it as a sign of respect for their customs, as do other women reporters in Muslim countries when meeting with officials. Just as non-Jewish men wear a yahmaka (sp?) when in a Jewish temple. If you don't want to respect others customs, don't go there. The British woman detainee is not there by choice, so in her case I'm sure they insisted she respect their custom.

Normally I would take offense and respond, but I have to go watch Wheel of Fortune. Big money, big money.

That must be what Dick Cheney was doing during the Vietnam War when he said he got multiple deferments because had more important things to do. Now I know what he meant when he said he was out standing in his field.

I wish we were smart enough to realize how smart you really are. Now that the Senate has joined with the House in approving funding for the troops, all that remains is for a compromise on language and for Bush to sign it and the money can get to the military. Otherwise Bush will be denying the funds he says they desperately need. And since we were told the surge is supposed to be a short-term tactic with results by the end of summer, it should be over before 2008 anyways, so the deadlines will be met. No way to spin it, the balls in Bush's court to fund or deny funds.

Ann Coulter and the U.S.S.R.; two great ways to check facts.