PastaJoe

If it was against the Constitution for members of Congress to speak to foreign leaders, then they could be charged with treason. It isn't, they're not, and that's the end of the story. You can not like Congress making Bush look like a petulant child who's kicking and screaming about not getting his way, but it's legal and in my opinion long overdue that someone in Washington try to bring about diplomatic and political solutions, not just military as Bush continues to try.

Dick Cheney and OCinPhilly must be disappointed that they're losing this opportunity to advocate military action against Iran. Negotiating a peaceful settlement is such an impediment to the neo-con agenda.

That would be the case if we had a competent administration, but since we don't someone has to be the adult and not just talk to the people we like. Nixon talked to North Vietnam and China, Carter talked to Egypt, and Reagan talked to the Soviet Union, but Bush and Rice can't talk to Syria or Iran. Even the Israeli PM wants to have regional talks including Syria and Iran, and Bush is opposing it.

If I had to choose it would be the Brits, but it doesn't matter what we think. The people this is intended for, Iranians and the Middle Easterners, will believe Iran. Of course after all the misinformation we've been given in the past few years, it's hard to believe anyone anymore.

Other than showing their citizens and the Middle East that they're willing to stand up to the West, in the short term it's helping them make a nice profit on the oil market. The price of oil has gone up $5 since this started. Imagine how much it would go up if there was a shooting conflict and the Strait of Hormuz (sp?) was closed to shipping.

My bad, the report I heard yesterday said it was an Iranian ship. But the Iranians still dispute where the ship was. Of course both sides will say they were in the right. It's not hard to manufacture pictures or documents to support their statements. Opie and Anthony? That might be worse than watching The View!

Ask Wacka for the popcorn, The View is over so he doesn't need it anymore.

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...