PastaJoe

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.

I have no problem with using undisclosed "terror alerts" for military and civil personnel, as it gets them to a certain level of preparation in case they are needed. But I never thought they should be made public; all it did was raise concerns among the general public but never told us what we should do differently. In the end I believe it was mainly a feable P.R. attempt to show the public that the gov't was doing something, and it turned into an on-going late-night talkshow joke.

All the Justice dept. and administration officials had to do from the start is tell the truth. Libby got in trouble by not doing so. He was even given a chance to change his statements and he declined. Rove was given the same opportunity by Fitzgerald and did change his statements, and that's why he wasn't charged. If they're not willing to tell the truth, then the truth must be worse than the consequences of lieing. It will come out eventually, as it always does, so why not just cut their losses now and get it over with. Even if they aren't charged with crimes, the court of public opinion will view them as guilty due to this continual resistance to answer questions in public, and therefore they will no longer have to confidence of the public to represent us in the Justice department. At the end of the day they're supposed to be working for us, not Bush.

Liver cancer is pretty bad. Snow and Edwards; it puts things in perspective. Just last night I saw a repeat of the final episode of the show "Six Feet Under". It showed how each of the cast ends up dieing in the future. No matter what, in the end we all die, it's just a matter of when. It makes you think.

Of course the most disturbing aspect of this is that you actually watch "The View".

You'd rather have Americans dieing, when regardless of when we leave the Sunni and Shite will continue their fight for power? Our foreign policy and standing in the world is already in the toilet, and hopefully can be repaired by the next administration. And get serious, how do we end up killing "millions of Iraqis" if we're not there? That would be Iraqis killing Iraqis, just as they are now.

If you were a terrorist, especially Al Queda, you would want a continuation of the current Bush policies, since your strength has grown since the Iraq invasion and your leaders are still safe and sound in Pakistan. Your ranks are growing due to the decisions made by the Bush administration, and the worldwide support for the U.S. that really threatened your influence in the Muslim world has be squandered so that a large portion of the world now see's the Bush administration as a bigger threat. The relatively moderate government in Iran was replaced by a more radical one less willing to negotiate, the Palistinian issue that helps you gain recruits has made little progress in being resolved and again because of Bush unwilling to support the Palistinian moderates more radical leaders are now in charge, and in Afganistan the Taliban and terrorists are making a comeback because Bush redirected forces to Iraq. So bottom line, find the Republican that most believes in continuing the Bush policies, and you'll be assured of another 4-8 years of progress towards your goals. Don't forget to add in a rubber-stamp Republican Congress and you'll really be in good shape.

There aren't enough votes to bring them home now. The majority of Democrats are representing the views of the majority of Americans who don't say bring them home now, but begin the process to draw down combat troops by next year, which is what the appropriation calls for. And this is no longer a U.S. military conflict, it's playing referee in a shooting civil war. Our military conflict ended when Saddam was ousted and there were no W.M.D. found. It's now up to Iraqis to step up.

I agree Bush is a dolt, but regarding the so-called pork, it's actually funding for drought, hurricane, and flood relief that was promised by Bush and the Republicans in their soundbytes but never funded until now. Just another instance of the Democrats making Bush put the money where his mouth is. Regardless, Bush and the Republicans would have opposed the appropriation to fund the troops anyways.

By threatening to veto the House appropriations to fund the troops, Bush will be responsible for them not getting the funds he says they need. Bush is like a bad credit risk, his past actions have shown that he can't be responsible for having a blank check, so the House is asking him to follow rules, some of which are already in place regarding military training and readiness that he has disregarded. So the balls in his court, veto the bill and he's the reason they don't get the funds that the House has appropriated.

I don't know the man personally so liking him isn't an issue. I respect all White House Press Secretary's because it takes skill to make lemonade out of lemons, which is their main job. By default you can't really trust any press secretary to give "the whole truth", they only give the spin they're told to give. But with Tony Snow in particular he comes across as a smart-alack who is prone to make faces whenever he doesn't like the questions.

Of course as you know the issue isn't that firings occurred, but whether the firings were done because the political advisors in the White House through the Justice dept., and some Republicans in Congress like Heather Wilson and Pete Dominici were trying to influence attorneys regarding who they were or weren't investigating, and not because of performance issues which was the reason given by the Justice department. And if they fired those 8 because they wouldn't bend to political influence, were there other attorneys who did get influenced to change their priorities based on political pressure in order to keep their jobs.

Here we go again. The White House wants Rove to testify to Congress without being under oath, behind closed doors, and with no transcript, on an issue that doesn't have to do with national security. But they have nothing to hide and promise to tell the truth. Yeah, sure, because the White House has been so honest about everything else they tell us.

The Dems have only been in the majority for a few weeks, and look at all the problems already uncovered by turning over a few rocks that have been left alone for the past 6 years. Imagine all the issues about this administration's actions that will be brought to light by next year.

Since home openers are usually a sellout, they should play a less attractive team like the Lions or Cardinals who wouldn't draw as well in cold weather or if the Bills are out of playoff contention, and play against more interesting teams later that would draw more fans to the games.

1. Hillary 2. Biden 3. Richardson They're the only candidates that I would feel excited to vote for, other than them my vote would be against whoever least represented my views. If everything were equal I think Biden is the best qualified. But given that money talks, I see Hillary running with someone like Richardson or Wesley Clark. If Gore entered he'd be on the list, and the only potential Republican I would feel comfortable with as president is Chuck Hagel. The other Republican frontrunners are falling over each other trying to appease the evangelicals, and I've had enough of their influence on policies.

Worst 1. Browns 2. Colts 3. Dolphins 4. Lions 5. Jets Best 1. Rams 2. Steelers 3. Raiders 4. Chargers 5. Seahawks

DAs can be removed for good reasons, or no reason, but when they're removed for bad reasons such as politicians thinking they're going too slow to investigate Democrats and too fast investigating Republicans, and politicians are trying to influence them, then it does require Congress to do their oversight job. These were Republican appointees, but I would like to think that when a DA takes office they will make judgements based on facts and not political views. Otherwise we can't trust their decisions. Seedy Gonzalez has lost credibility and can no longer be trusted to make judgements just on the facts.

But that's the new reality; it's the Dems fault that we're stuck in Iraq because they went along with Bush's push to invade with the Republican majority in Congress at the start of the war, and now it's the Dems fault because they won't defund the war to stop it, but if they do defund it it's the Dems fault because they're cutting and running, and even talking in opposition to Bush's plans is bad for morale (at least the White House's morale). So get the talking points clear; no matter what has or will happen, it's the Dems fault!