The AP reports:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will visit Syria, a country President Bush has shunned as a sponsor of terrorism, despite being asked by the administration not to go.

"In our view, it is not the right time to have these sort of high- profile visitors to Syria," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters Friday.

Pelosi arrived in Israel on Friday in what is her second fact-finding trip to the Middle East since taking over leadership in the House in January.

Her repeat trip, an indication she plans to play a role in foreign policy, is also a direct affront to the administration, which says such diplomatic overtures by lawmakers can do more harm than good....."

 
(Speaker Nancy Pelosi)

My only question is, do we have to take her back?

Commerce decided to impose new tariffs on Chinese goods in reponse to decades of unfair trade practices, reports Bloomberg.com.  I understand the sentiment and the need to respond but, as a great-grandson of Senator Reed Smoot, co-author of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, I am not a big fan of tariffs, especially in a delicate economy.

           (Reed Smoot)

.......Less Americans, apparently.  Jihad Watch has linked Der Spiegel which has a poll showing 48% of Germans think America is more dangerous than Iran.

Interesting considering Mohammed Atta and the main 9/11 planners used Hamburg as their base of operation for several years,


        (Mohammed Atta)

and Europe is being overrun by Islamic radicals that despise the West.

 I only hesitantly criticize those who are in positions I've never been.  However, it seems that, unless there is significant coercion going on behind the scenes that the British sailors and marines captured by Iran recently are obliging their captors quite nicely and a little too easily based upon my impression of the situation.  A second, now a marine, has offered up a confession and apology to be used by Iran, presumably, as propaganda against coalition forces.


(Royal Marine Nathan Thomas Summers apologizes on Iranian TV.)

Within a week sailors and marines are assisting Iranian criminals by writing letters critical of the US and British governments and apologizing for "trespassing" in Iranian territory, a claim that the British government denies and has disputed through the release of GPS data from the incident.

It seems to me, as a sideline commander, that the British commanders have done a very poor job of preparing their troops for such a circumstance, which had to be considered as a possible risk, given this is not the first capture by Iran of British troops and they were working close to Iranian waters.  If they were not prepared to defend themselves with either the proper firepower or rules of engagement, I wonder why they were there at all.  And certainly there must be some set of rules in the British military equivalent to the ones I learned in the Army regarding issuing statements from captivity that can be used as propaganda or making derogatory statements about their commanders and government.  I ask, "what ever happened to 'name, rank, and serial number'?"

I also have to wonder what size force the Iranians used to capture 15 armed royal marines and sailors operating in fast-moving patrol vessels.  I seem to recall a petite female american transportation soldier from West Virginia and her Native American best friend from Arizona who were severely wounded or killed, respectively before they were taken.  I wonder what their take on this would be.

The longer the hostage-taking (let's call it what it really is) in Iran of the British military personnel goes on, the more it comes to resemble the 1979 hostage situation -- funny how the same players are involved.


(Recognize any current Iranian presidents in this photo?)

The AP reports:

"TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Thursday rolled back on a pledge to release a female British sailor, and a top official said the 15 captives may be put on trial.

Iran's foreign minister had said Tehran would soon free Faye Turney, the only woman among the sailors and marines seized last week while searching a merchant vessel in what Iran says were its territorial waters near Iraq.

But Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, Iran's military chief, said that because of the "wrong behavior" by the British government, "the release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr reported.

Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani also told state television that British leaders "have miscalculated this issue" and if they follow through with threats, the case "may face a legal path"—presumably putting the Britons on trial."



(I wonder if this Iranian "protester" can write that well in English or if he got some official "help".)


They have reneged on their promise to free the female sailor and are threatening again to put the sailors and marines on trial for espionage.  Meanwhile the UN Security Council is expressing "grave concern".  (And if Iran is not careful, they may escalate matters and express "very grave concern".)

(Others blogging on Iran:  The Jawa Report, Jihad Watch, Ace of Spades, and Redstate)

Update: The Captain's Quarters, "Blair not in a haggling mood".

The New York Times is reporting this shocking bit of "news" today.  Federal prosecutors are critical of Gonzalez for firing their fellow federal prosecutors.  What's next?  "Democrats Don't Like Bush" or "Toddlers Agree: Toys Are Fun"

 ....and apparently it's a secret because as Michelle Malkin points out, the MSM isn't going to tell you.



Dianne's "I am not a crook" pose.

Are you surprised?  Oh, yeah, isn't this the same Dianne Feinstein who was implicated in dirty Chinese money?  Hmmmmmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.....

CNN March 1997 - "WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, March 10) -- As Republican calls for a special prosecutor intensified, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she already has taken steps to assure that only U.S. citizens make political contributions to her.

Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that Feinstein was among at least six members of Congress who were warned by the FBI about a possible Chinese government plan to funnel money to their campaigns...."

(Update: Other Townhall bloggers on this:  More Feinstein and Feinsteins class on business and Congressional ethics.)

Many things seem to be happening at once in the Iran/Britain standoff over the captured British sailors and marines so I'll try to summarize them in one thread today:

From the AP (via the Seattle Times) - Iran puts images of captured Brits on TV:

"TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian state TV showed video today of the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized last week, including a female captive who wore a white tunic and a black head scarf and said the British boats "had trespassed" in Iranian waters.

The British government protested Iran's broadcast of the captured crew as "completely unacceptable." The British military had earlier released what it called proof that its boats were in the territorial waters of Iraq — not Iran — when they were seized...."




I agree with the Brits this is unacceptable, but not just the airing of the images.  The entire situation is unacceptable and Iran needs more than a slap on the wrist for this latest outrage.  (Notice the treatment of the female POW - forced to wear Muslim attire.  This tells you all you need to know about how "civilized" our enemies are.)

The International Herald Tribune reports that Britain has escalated its dispute with Iran:

"...Britain froze all "bilateral business" with Teheran today to retaliate for the seizure of 15 naval personnel six days ago in what the Royal Navy insisted were Iraqi territorial waters...."



According to News24 in South Africa Iran is demanding an apology and "compensation", whatever that means.

The AP is reporting that the female captive is to be released and rumors of a military confrontation between the US and Iran caused oil prices to rise to $64 per barrel.

As reported previously, Britain insists it's forces were captured in Iraqi waters, not in Iran, and has released the GPS coordinates to prove it.



Britain seems to be taking a no-nonsense tack with Iran but I seriously hope that words precede actions this time or it will only embolden Iran to more and more dangerously confrontational behavior.  The question in my mind is what does Iran hope to achieve?  Is this a North Korea-style approach using provocations and threats as extortion for concessions and money?  At some point I have to believe that Iran will push the British too far.

Some Britons are starting to urge a bit more forceful response, which I think is a good sign.  Perhaps the common man in the UK will realize now how serious this war against Islamic terrorism and rogue nations really is.

(Others blogging on this:  Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey wonders if Blair will be "Carter or Thatcher", Threatswatch.org, RightWingNutHouse feels "Britain Yawns as Iran Declares War".)

No longer confined to bolts, witches and nerdy role playing gamers, the "hex" makes its presence known to the universe in one of the oddest sights in the solar system on Saturn, reports the UK Daily Mail (H/T Drudge)




Weird.

Those of you hopeful that the Senate would show some of that famed maturity and dignity so lacking in the Democrat-controlled House, prepare to be disappointed.  In an act of short-sighted political cowardice, the Senate passed another funding bill with a date-certain timetable for withdrawal attached.  MSNBC reports the bitter news:

"WASHINGTON - Defying a veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March."



What message do they think this sends our terrorist enemies?  What message does it send to Iraqis who are trying to establish a nation?  This is one of the most shameful examples of political opportunism at the expense of the nation I can remember.  Are there no statesmen left in the Democratic Party?  I do not exaggerate when I suggest that their actions are unpatriotic and despicably cynical.

(Ed Morrissey weighs in.  Also Mary Catherine Ham.)

Recent provocations by the Iranian government toward the West leading to the recent capture of British sailors and marines in what Britain claims was Iraqi waters, seem to be rousing outrage in Britain (H/T Drudge):

"Tony Blair on Tuesday stepped up calls on Iran to free 15 naval personnel it has held since Friday, vowing a “different phase” of overt diplomatic pressure which will include publication of what London claims is proof they were seized from Iraqi waters."



The AP reports that Blair is sending signals that the tension is escalating in this standoff and further action may be warranted:

"Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Tuesday that his government could make public evidence that a British navy crew was in Iraqi waters when it was captured by Iran, saying he was prepared to take the standoff to a "different phase" if diplomacy fails to win their release."



I hope that the British public will see a little clearer picture of what our enemies in the Middle East are capable of and wake to the threat sooner rather than later.  These provocations may yet work against Iran if they miscalculate the patience of our friends across the Pond.

OK, the NYT has an article (H/T Drudge) on Hillary's potential for positive relations with the nation's military and I just don't see how they can either believe it or write it with a straight face. Here's one of the quotes that I just can't believe the author really believes:

“I think eight years in the White House, traveling the world and seeing the United States military doing the nation’s business, and now her time in the Senate, has given her a significant appreciation of the military that maybe her husband didn’t have before the White House,” said Jack Keane, the retired general and former Army vice chief of staff who has become close to the senator.

Significant appreciation of the military?  Maybe as props for photo ops or aerial bus drivers but I don't see Hillary as having any significant appreciation for the military.  Certainly she can't be oblivious to the pervasive lack of respect many in the military have for her.

Another General is quoted with a laughable statement:

Donald L. Kerrick, a retired general and former deputy national security adviser to President Clinton, acknowledged that some people inside and outside the military were skeptical of Mrs. Clinton’s intentions and wary that she would shift federal dollars to domestic programs like health care.

General Kerrick, who is close to Mrs. Clinton, said he believed that her appreciation of the military was genuine, but that it would take time and effort for that to come across.

“If, as president, she treats commanders and troops the same way she does now, she will quickly gain their support and respect,” General Kerrick said. “Military people are very loyal to the chain of command, and to people who understand them.”

Well he got the last part right but that's about it. 

I don't understand.  This seems to be a puff piece for Hillary by her allies in the media but who is the target audience?  The military?  They aren't stupid enough to go for this spin.  The liberal base she needs in the primaries?  I really don't think they care too much as a group what the people in the military think.  In fact, for a true liberal, I would think having military support would be a detractor.  Is this just a feel-good piece of spin for it's own sake?  I just don't get the point of this obvious piece of malarkey.

(Sister Toldjah is blogging on this and if you can stomach it, here's the Daily Kos.)

Update: Michelle Malkin beat me to the punch.

Update II:  Besides the clever name, "Rounds Out" appears to be a good blog.  He's covering this too.  Looks like everyone beat me to this story today.  I guess the sheer audacious ridiculousness of it all was too much for the blogoshpere to silently stand by and take.

Update III:  The famous photo that has been widely re-posted on blogs today.  (Notice the soldier crossing his fingers as he poses with Hillary in this photo op moment.):

I actually nearly choked upon reading this quote:

"I think one of the hallmarks of our democracy is we have a devotion to the rule of law," Clinton said.

She also said that when she and her husband fired 93 US Attorneys for political reasons, that was "different" than when the Bush Administration fired 8 last fall.  Yes, I would agree.  That was different by the count of 85 additional firings by the Clinton Administration.

Links to others blogging on this: Blogs Against Hillary, Captain's Quarters, Redstate, and Dean Barnett.

The 15 uniformed military personnel captured at gunpoint in Iraqi waters mat be prosecuted by Iran for espionage according The Sunday Times of Britain.  Not only is this a complete farce, as were the so-called "confessions" that the Brits had illegally entered Iranian waters, but even if they were guilty of "spying" in Iranian waters as Iran presumably claims, they'd still be afforded the rights of any other "prisoner of war" and would need to be returned safely.

"FIFTEEN British sailors and marines arrested by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards off the coast of Iraq may be charged with spying.

A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted.

Referring to them as “insurgents”, the site concluded: “If it is proven that they deliberately entered Iranian territory, they will be charged with espionage. If that is proven, they can expect a very serious penalty since according to Iranian law, espionage is one of the most serious offences.”...'

For one thing, when I was taught the Laws of Warfare as a junior officer, uniformed troops are not considered spies.  But to expect "justice" from a country that has such a poor record on Human Rights is probably wishful thinking even though they are, however, signatories to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The Geneva Conventions prohibit the "passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Even if it were true that they were in Iranian waters gathering information as I suppose Iran is claiming, Article 46 of the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977." states that  "A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces..."

Iran's belligerant and ignorant acts would be amuzingly absurd if they weren't so dangerous.  They are truly run by madmen.

Update:  Ed Morrissey on the "confessions".

Update II: Other links:  Jihad Watch, Wizbang, and justamarine.

Reports are in now that the pet food scare was likely cause by rat poison-laced wheat gluten from China:

"Investigators, meanwhile, are looking into whether the rat poison came into the United States on an ingredient used in the recalled food. ABC News has learned that Menu Foods bought wheat gluten, the only ingredient changed in its plants, from China. That possibility raises questions about the safety of pet and other food products in the United States." [emphasis added]

I have a few points regarding this topic:

1.  Western foods, American in particular, are far too processed which in many cases leads to consumers not really knowing what they're feeding themselves, their families and their pets.

2.  Foods with less-processed ingredients are far more healthy and less fattening, and while they would likely be more costly, when weighed against the hidden costs of healthcare and obesity, probably would save us more.

3.  These hidden processed ingredients, often with chemical additives, are causing increased rates of food allergies and sensitivities which, in many cases can go undiagnosed for years but cause chronic and debilitating illnesses in kids and adults (and even pets).

4.  This scare just points to how vulnerable our food, water and other delivery systems are.  I hope the terrorists are not taking notes (although I know they are).

Bottom line, do yourself a favor and feed your family (and pets) more "real" food without rat poison-laced processed Chinese wheat gluten.  You'll be healthier and you'll have a better idea of what you're actually putting in your, your family's and your pet's mouth.