This is another story that has me upset. If you've ever read my blog before, you know that I'm really into Iran coverage. I spend a lot of time on the issue, and I read a lot about the country, which I believe is the greatest threat to the US on the planet at present. You also know that I've been calling for either open warfare, or overwhelming sanctions against Iran for months. You also know that I don't trust the UN to be able to do it.

And now, the proof. The US State Department announced today that it may consider lessening the scope of the sanctions against Iran, because China and Russia remain opposed to the sanctions, and they have the veto power on the Security Council. The State Department also said that the sanctions should cripple Iranian nuclear production, but not their oil and gas production.

Russia itself came out yesterday, and said that it thinks sanctions aganist Iran are the wrong way to go. A spokesperson for the Russian government said that Russia opposes tough sanctions and favors direct talks with Iran, because they do not think that "revengeful sanctions" are the way to go. They think sanctions will only cause greater discord with Iran, and that the goal is to befriend Iran and persuade them to stop.

I disagree. I think that if the sanctions are to be meaningful - and they must be if Iran is ever going to be made to stop by any means short of war - they must really hit Iran where it hurts. And this is oil. Oil is Iran's biggest export, as well as its biggest import - they can't refine the oil in Iran, so they import their gasoline. If we ban all imports and exports from Iran, the persian economy won't be able to sustain itself very long, and soon Iran will start to feel the heat from the sanctions.

Yet now it seems that the US isn't willing to take the steps necessary to inflict these sanctions. It also doesn't help that a good portion of the UN Security Council is in bed with the islamofascists, or that they refuse to support sanctions. With these kind of problems, how can we ever expect anything to get done in Iran!

Unfortunately, things must get done in Iran, because if they do not, the result will be nuclear war, between a suicidal and nuclear-armed Iran on one side, and the remainder of the world on the other. And this will be, needless to say, catastrophic for the United States. Yet if this is what it comes to, it won't be for lack of Conservatives warning of the problem.

Iran is a serious problem, and they MUST be stopped BEFORE they attain nuclear weapons. Once they do so, it is far too late to do anything about it. Once they attain the level of enrichment necessary to fuel weapons, it is too late. They already have delivery mechanisms which they openly tested recently during war games earlier this month. All they need is the warhead, which North Korea now has, and is likely more than willing to supply (all the more reason South Korea should inspect all cargo going in and out of North Korea).

That the United States government doesn't realize the threat we face from Iran, and isn't willing to do anything about it is both tragic, and scary. Bush generally gets it right on most issues, as does his administration - at least when it comes to National Security. But when it comes to Iran, they fail abysmally. They are right in calling for sanctions. They are right in refusing to negotiate (with terrorists). But they are wrong in hoping the UN works, because the United Nations NEVER works for anything except a propaganda wing for the terrorists and dictators around the globe.

SEND THE UN TO HAITI

This story has me astounded. During President Bush's visit to Asia this week, he is trying to drum up support for increased sanctions against North Korea, as well as for tough inspections designed to curb access by Pyongyang to nuclear supplies to fuel their nuclear weapons. Today, President Bush met with the South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun, and discussed these very sanctions, but the South Koreans could not agree to the inspections.

Though Roh said his country would "support the principles and goals of the PSI [Proliferation Security Initiative]", his country would also "not [be] taking part in the full scope" of it. This is amazing, since the threat posed by North Korea is the biggest danger to South Korea. If North Korea gets their hands on powerful nuclear weapons, and they decide to go to war, the first place they are able to do so will be South Korea. So as far as I can see it, South Korea has a lot to gain by imposing these sanctions on North Korea, instead of offering their "support," and standing on the sidelines while everybody else does all the work.

I understand - to a point - where the South Korean's are coming from. They are afraid that by openly engaging in the search of North Korean cargo, that they will be asking for armed attacks from it's annoying northern neghibor. However, North and South Korea have been at war since 1950 - the only thing keeping the peace is a large US force, and the biggest minefield on the planet. North Korea has also shown that it does not take provocative acts by other nations to get it going - North Korea will go off without anyone's help.

So, though there may be consequences by taking action against Kim Jong Il, and searching the cargo - presumably to prevent further shipments of nuclear materials to go in or out of North Korea, which is DEFINITELY a benefit to the United States, as well as the South Koreans - South Korea needs to sit down and seriously think, wouldn't the potential consequences of NOT taking action be far worse?

It angers me when nations aren't prepared to stand up in their own defense. I'm not against the United States helping out other nations - to a point, too much of it over-extends our powers, and ends up just making things worse - it angers me when those nations aren't willing to bear a part (a sizeable part) of the burden. Iraq is slowly being turned over to the Iraqi's, which is absolutely a good thing.

But the South Koreans need to get it in gear. They aren't in the middle of a war right now - though perhaps they are on the brink of one. Other than North Korea, they face no single threat in the outside world. So their entire national defense budget should be devoted to defending the country against a North Korean attack, instead of relying on US assistance. Again, I have no problem if we step in and lend a hand.

But the South Korean's need to do some things on their own - like inspect cargo coming to and from North Korea, to ensure that there are not materials for atomic bombs being imported - or details about how to make one being exported.

After an increase in rocket attacks over the last several days, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced today that he is ordering his generals to go after Hamas leadership. This is a sharp change from their previous policy, which only focused on targeting those directly involved with the military wing of the organization.

Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Hamas leaders "have to disappear, go to paradise, all of them." He concurs with the decision by Olmert to go after the political wing of Hamas. The Israeli high-command announced in newspapers today that they would no longer allow the political wing of Hamas to "escape responsibility" for the attacks on Israel.

It is good to see that Israel finally woke up and realized they are fighting a total war. They should have gone after the politicians first. The military leaders cause a lot of problems, but the political wing is the greater long term threat. If Israel had been thinking properly when this war began, though would have targeted the politicians first. I know it's not the politically correct thing to do, but war is Hel1, and there's not a lot anybody can do about it.

Either way, it is good that Israel has finally caught on. The political members of Hamas are just as bad, if not worse then the military wing, because they have something the military wing does not - an audience. The military wing of Hamas spends all their time declaring Jihad on Israel, and trying to destroy all the elements of freedom in the mideast. They don't have time for PR.

The political wing has a lot of time to agitate the masses - indeed, that is their primary purpose, since running the Palestinian government has proved to be beyond their capacity to handle. And this agitation of the masses is a problem, because they will become the next wave of suicide bombers to hit Israel. They will become the next generation of kidnappers, who attack and hold hostage two foreign journalists for days.

The military arm of Hamas is weak. If Israel fought a total war, it would be defeated quickly, since the numbers are small, and the weapons relatively unsophisticated. However, Israel is unwilling to fight a total war, and so long as the political wing remains, there will continue to be new recruits for Hamas, ready to sacrifice their lives to kill a few nasty Jews.

Regardless, it is good that Israel is starting to catch on. There is a time when Israel would have just assassinated these political agitators. Look at what they did after the Munich Olympics. The Olmert government has weakened itself, and it is afraid of what the "international community" will think if it goes for total war against the jihadists. Perhaps they have finally learned that the brunt of the "international community" will always hate them, and that they should just make the best of it, and get rid of the jihadists aiming for their destruction.

That will be a step towards peace in the middle east.

The United States House of Representatives made history today, as they elected their first ever woman speaker of the house. Nancy Pelosi, one of the Houses' most liberal members has been elected by a unanimous majority the leader of the House of Representatives when they meet on January 4th for the first time.

However, in her first act as SOTH-elect, Nancy Pelosi demostrated the remarkable nature of her leadership. After she recommended Jack Murtha, the outspoken anti-war congressman from Pennsylvania as majority leader, the man was easily defeated by a 25 year house veteran Steny Hoyer.

Though the democrats tried to play this down, it raises some interesting questions about the leadership of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is unable to get her recommendations accepted by her own friendly caucus. How is she going to be able to function when there is a house full of hostile politicians? The answer is, she won't, and there is a serious chance that nothing will get done.

This is a good thing for both the American people, and the Republican party, if only they can capitalize on it next election. Nancy Pelosi has promised to get a lot of things done in the first few days of her tenure. If there is a deadlock, nothing will get done, and the House will be a pool of failed legislation within days. Though she does have the votes, if she tries to push a bunch of liberal legislation through, some of the more moderate and conservative democrats - feeling increasingly alienated by the woman's liberal antics - may jump sides on an issue or two, and vote with the Republicans.

Deadlock is good for the American people because it keeps the government out of our lives. As conservatives, this is the basis of what we stand for - the principle that less government is good government, and that only on issues of national defense should the government be big. In the private sector, there is almost no reason for government intervention - and this includes raising the minimum wage as Nancy Pelosi wants to do - and in other areas, there is also little reason for government intervention.

Deadlock is good for the Republicans, because they will be able to point this out in '08. The Republicans will be able to run on a platform that says "Here's what the democrats promised," and list a bunch of things. "And here is what they delivered," and have an empty list. Because this is what deadlock will amount to, and this is what will happen if Nancy Pelosi proves unable to hold together her strained caucus.

This is quite an amusing story actually, because Nancy Pelosi has the rug pulled from under her during her first days as SOTH-elect. What is the house going to be like for the next two years? My guess? Chaos.

An editorial in an Iranian paper today, spoke of an upcoming great war with Israel. This is of course wholly in line with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, which openly calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jewish peoples - in Israel and elsewhere.

"Hizbullah destroyed at least half of Israel in the Lebanon war... Now only half the path (to its destruction) remains," an editorial in the conservative Keyhan newspaper declared.

The editorialist in the two papers is convinced that there is a coming great war with Israel, and that Hezbollah has begun that war. "It was proven that, by means of an offensive operation that need not be equal to Israel's moves, it is possible to neutralize the Zionist navy," the article said, speaking about an incident in which Hezbollah attacked an Israeli craft earlier this summer.

The article goes on to explain that, since 1/2 of Israel has already fallen, the other half will likely fall in another great battle, and that this battle is not that far off, and indeed is just around the corner.

"The great war is ahead of us, (and will break out) perhaps tomorrow, or in another few days, or in a few months, or even in a few Years... Israel must collapse," the newspaper said.

I ask, what more evidence do we need that Iran is an imminent threat to the national security of the United States, and to the security of our closest ally Israel, and that Ahmadinejad is an apocalyptic madman hel1 bent on destroying everything to summon the 12th Imam!!!

The leaders in our government need to wake up. Ahmadinejad isn't going to go away. He will be around for a long time, and his positions aren't going to change. He will openly call for the destruction of Israel until the day he dies (which if I had my way, would be tomorrow evening). He is a radical jihadist, and Jihadists don't change. They can't be reasoned with, they can't be talked to.

The liberals who now control congress would try to force us to talk with Iran. I ask, what do we have to talk about? Nuclear energy? Ahmadinejad want's nuclear power like cows want milk. He's sitting on a sea of oil. His country does not need any more energy. Plus it is a desert. Solar power would be very useful in Iran. Regardless, nuclear power is not needed at all. The only reason Ahmadinejad wants it at all, is because it will quickly and easily destroy the "second half" of Israel - the part that Hezbollah didn't get earlier this year.

We tried to appease Hitler, and look where that got us. 6 years of warfare, fought on 6 different continents. We learned during the Cold War that we cannot appease the enemy, and that is why we were successful in the Cuban Missile Crisis, and why we won the cold war. We outlasted our enemy, and refused to give in.

The same must be true with Iran. We cannot appease Ahmadinejad. If we do, he will only ask for more. And if we appease him again, he will become nearly invincible. What nation would dare act against him then? Besides the US, very few - and the US would be very hard pressed to intervene.

I've said it before, that the US is quickly approaching war with Iran. This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory, and this isn't because I'm a bloodthirsty, depraved person. It is the reality. Ahmadinejad wants war. He has said he wants war. The Iranian government declared war on us in 1979, when they took the hostages for 444 days and refused to release them into US custody. They declared war on Israel the second they attained power.

Israel is our ally, and we must help Israel if we are to be successful in this war against islamic fascists. The IF's won't go away unless we make them - by tons of US explosive ordinance. I don't like it, but that's the reality. Unless we eliminate them, they will destroy our country, and the entire western world with it. We simply have no other option than war.

Diplomacy has failed repeatedly, between the US and Iran, the UN and Iran, the EU and Iran, Russia and Iran, France and Iran, China and Iran, Iraq and Iran, and various combinations of nations from around the world. None of them have resulted in anything conclusive, and Iran continues to operate their uranium enrichment sites.

The only other option to curb Iran, and prevent them from attaining the ultimate weapons of destruction, is to go to war with them and see that they cannot develop the bomb. Tactical airstrikes are a must, as well as special OP's attacks to take out Ahmadinejad, and the Ayatollah Khameini. They must both go, along with many other lesser figures in the Iranian government.

I don't like it, but I fail to see any other option. Are there any? I doubt it.

Despite testimony from General Abazaid, head US commander in Iraq, that premature withdrawl from Iraq would put us in the same state as we were in during Vietnam, and despite the fact that withdrawing would put our troops in permanent danger, our country in permanent danger, and destroy all we have worked for in Iraq, some House and Senate democrats are already demanding a withdrawl within 4 to 6 months.

This is led by Senate Armed Services Chairman-to-be Carl Levin, who said today that: "We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months."

What Carl evidently fails to understand, is that removing the US troops prematurely would cause a catastrophe in the mideast. Iraq is a mess, no doubt about it. I'm upset that Bush and company have insisted on fighting a limited war with "measured responses." I've said since the beginning that the war must be total war if we are to secure victory, and this is precisely why. Limited responses get us bogged down and stuck.

That said, we cannot leave now. If we do, Iraq will plunge into civil war. They are not in civil war now, though they are most certainly on the cusp of plunging into one. Furthermore, the terrorists have (again) made their goal exceptionally clear. They will not stop until they have blown up the whitehouse.

There are no preconditions to their threat. They don't say "If you leave Iraq, we will leave you alone." They simply say, "We want to kill you and destroy your government." Whether we are in Iraq or not, the islamofascists will continue to come after us. And if we are not in Iraq, then we will be at home. I've made the case before, that no matter how bad the fighting in Baghdad gets, it's still better than doing the fighting in Boston.

What the house and senate democrats fail to understand, is the consequences of withdrawl. They see only the political aspect of the war - that the American people are losing support for the war. Or rather, that the American people are tired of being bogged down. The American people supported this war, and they still support the mission. But as evidenced by the elections, they are tired of Bush's handling of the war. I myself am tired, as mentioned previously, because I want a stronger, more total war that will demolish the enemy and make it safe for us to start rebuilding the country.

I predicted this would happen. I felt that if the Democrats gained power, they would immediately start attacking the Iraq War. I have no problems attacking how the war is being fought, as long as all sides have the same objective in mind, victory. If one side is not interested in winning, and only in leaving, then the debate is worthless, because having America lose is simply not an option.

The Democrats fail to draw this distinction. They believe that in order to criticize the war, you must be against the pretenses under which the war began - that is, to depose an evil dictator, find WMD that are undoubtedly now in Syria, liberate millions of people, and above all, establish a geopolitical and military/strategic base of operations in the heart of the mideast, from which to prosecute our war on terror. The democrats failure to understand this is why they are all against the mission. And their objective is not victory. Their objective is simply to run and hide and "hope" that the terrorists don't come after us.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't want to sit around and wait to be attacked. The terrorists have made their goals and objectives abundantly clear, and every action they have taken proves that they are sincere.

The UN Security Council has scheduled a Saturday vote on a resolution - drawn up by several Arab nations - condemning Israel for their war against Gaza militants, and calling for Israel to pull all troops out of Gaza, and cease all hostility with the terrorists in the region (though the resolution doesn't call them terrorists).

The initial draft of the resolution called on Israel to engage in an immediate ceasefire, and called for a UN peacekeeping force to be sent to the region - much like the extremely successful UN peacekeeping force sent to Lebanon earlier this year. But of course the resolution isn't totally biased against the evil Jewish state. It calls on Palestine to "take steps toward ending violence."

So Israel has to pull all their forces out, and just sit around waiting to be attacked again, while Palestine simply gets to "take steps toward ending violence?" Does anybody else see a problem here? Peace is not a relative term. It takes an agreement by both sides. When one side is forced to make peace, especially when that side has not lost, it will never turn out well.

Furthermore, Israel should not sue for peace. It was the islamic jihadists who started this war against Israel, way back in 1948. It is up to them to end it. Israel is not an evil nation. They are a freedom-loving, western-style democracy in the middle east - the very first in the region. Furthermore, they have been attacked over and over again by islamic militants for virtually their entire existence.

I was mad when Israel pulled out of Lebanon earlier this year. I felt that the UN resolution calling for "peace" was deceptive and failed to address the important issues, like Iranian and Syrian arms trafficking. I was right about that resolution. It failed, and Israel is no closer to peace than it was before the war. I felt that Israel had a chance to deal a major blow to the islamofascists, but that it failed to do so because it evidently (like some in the US government) lacks the stomach to do what is necessary - heavy bombing and extensive ground operations.

I am upset now, because the UN Security Council should not be voting on such garbage. The UNSC is supposed to keep the peace. You don't keep the peace by ordering peaceful nations to stop their defensive wars against islamic aggressors. This will never result in peace because you are going after the wrong side. If the UNSC could convince the terrorists to drop their arms, that would be an accomplishment. It will never happen, but if it did, it would be an accomplishment all the same.

That said, it is likely the US will veto this piece of garbage. The resolution is a joke, written by several angry Arab governments, condemning Israel. Of course, this is nothing unusual, since these same nations spend most of their waking day condemning Israel for various crimes.

I said the US will likely veto this. The US better veto this junk, because it is not fit (even for the UN) to be voted on. It is a hateful resolution attacking a nation that has done little (if anything) wrong, save defend itself. Israel is in the right here, and the UN (once again) is completely and totally wrong.

SEND THE UN TO HAITI!

The US based Center for Constitutional Rights - a far left organization out of the ACLU mold - is trying to seek criminal charges against Rumsfeld in Germany, for his role in the conduct at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. This is the second time in 3 years they have tried to bring charges against Rumsfeld, but the previous charges were dropped by German prosecutors.

In Germany, private citizens can file criminal charges against individuals, but it is up to prosecutors whether to pursue the case. The Center for Constitutional Rights hopes that German prosecutors will pick the case up under their "Universal jurisdiction" law, which allows the German government to try certain cases no matter where they originate. The request for criminal charges will be forwarded to German prosecutors later this week.

I actually find this quite funny. First, there is no way charges will ever get filed against Rumsfeld. And even if they do, what incentive does Rumsfeld have to show up to the trial? I wouldn't. It's way over there in Germany - I'd just make sure to stay out of Germany. This is just another attempt by the far-left to push their anti-war message through. What strikes me, is that no matter who you are, if you have anything to do with war you are considered a war criminal. It used to be that war criminals were the ones who committed egregious violations of rights - Nazi's for example. Common soldiers weren't charged with war crimes, and US commanders weren't.

Rumsfeld hasn't committed any crimes. He wasn't responsible for Abu Ghraib, and there is no illegal treatment going on in Guantanamo. There are a few harsh interrogation techniques being used, but they are not only lawful, and they have precedent. The Far Left just wants to attack Rumsfeld because he is out of office now.

Nothing will come of this of course. Rumsfeld is just as safe as he was before. It is an interesting thing though, to notice how angry the far left is. It is also interesting to realize how much they hate America. They hate us trying to capture terrorists. They hate our war against the terrorists. They hate our country for existing. They hate us for supporting Israel. It's both amusing and sickening to see their hatred for this great nation.

There is a new audio recording out there, that features the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq taunting the President about the elections. He also gloated over the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, and claimed it was a great victory for the terrorists.

He also said that there are 10,000 armed soldiers in Iraq ready to fight the US, and 12,000 more ready to be armed if need be. He promised to battle it out against the United States for as long as it took, and said his resolve is rock solid.

"I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground," he said in the audio recording, released today. It is very recent, because it talks about the resignation of Rumsfeld, and the departure of Republican rule from Congress.

"I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we...blow up the filthiest house known as the White House," the voice said on the recording.

This shows us what the terrorists want. They want to blow up the White House, kill our president, and destroy our country. It couldn't be any clearer then this - but I doubt Nancy Pelosi or her left-wing friends would understand this even though it is so obvious. They won't rest until they've killed every last one of us.

And they consider Iraq the central battleground to the war. They're not confused about what is going on. They know what kind of war they are fighting, and you better believe they know the stakes. They fully understand the consequences, and they believe they are prepared to meet them - or that the United States will not use the force necessary to stop them.

So far they have been right. The US is trying to fight a politically correct war against an un-politically-correct enemy. The result are nearly 3000 US casualties, a multi-year long insurgency, and the anger of the American people. I still believe most American's support this war, but they are frustrated (like myself) at the handling of it, by both the administration, and Congress.

Don't get me wrong - a democratic congress will be no better, indeed it will likely be a lot worse. However, the fact remains that Iraq needs to be finished so the US can move on to more important battles against more powerful enemies. I doubt the insurgency numbers 10,000 active duty fighters. Even if they do, we have much more men then they do, and they could be crushed - if we use the requisite force. And we won't, and we haven't.

This is troubling, and it is partially why the Republicans lost the election. They're responsible for fighting a war that should have been won in a year and a half. Instead, it is taking many years to the frustration of the American people - myself included. I don't like being bogged down in Iraq - there are other, more important fights. Iraq is a necessity to the war on terror - to establish a beachead for our war, and to give us a springboard in the middle east - but I'm upset it is taking so long.

We need to remove the political correctness from the equation, and wage war the way it was meant to be waged. Patton understood this, and he won all his battles. W.T. Sherman understood this, and he destroyed the morale of the southern people and helped win the Civil War.

With a Democrat controlled congress, it is highly unlikely that this will happen. The result, will be more US deaths, increasing anger by the American people, and further strengthening of the global jihad. This war is crucial, necessary and must be fought. But it is also crucial and necessary that it be fought right.The US has been mistaken in their approach so far, but it is not yet too late to turn it around and fight like we can.

We've got superior power, and greater strength. We should use it, and put the full force of it in the enemies face. They will not be able to ignore it, and they will quickly fall, one by one. That is how war needs to be waged against this type of enemy if we are ever to be successful. Bush understands this somewhat, but I don't think he believes that he has the political will to wage this type of war.

But you can bet that the Democrats in congress certainly don't understand how to wage war.

Though most Americans thought we were rid of this blustering fool after the 1972 landslide presidential victory against him, McGovern has stayed in the news since then, though only marginally. Now however, he has his name in the news once again, as he plans to meet with a now democratically controlled congress - and specifically, the "Congressional Progressive Caucus," to discuss policy.

This also coincides with the release of his new book, in which he compares Iraq to Vietnam, and gives a "strategy" for immediate withdrawl, the kind of thing that would make John Murtha types pround.

"I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said today, speaking about the meeting with Democrats.

The message from the election? The message from the election was "we're mad at Republicans because they didn't deliver." I doubt very many people voted Democrat because they're really enthused about democratic candidates, or extremely excited about a particular democrat. It is mostly just frustration with Republicans, that they've had a total hold on the Senate and House, and the Presidency for at least 4 years, and have been unable to get the things done that they said they would.

McGovern shows us his expert foreign policy analysis when he says Vietnam and Iraq are both "foolish enterprises," and that the current threat the US faces from terrorism is a result of the invasion of Iraq, and did not exist beforehand. Apparently the goon totally forgot about 9/11, which certainly shows that there was indeed a terrorist threat well before the invasion of Iraq.

Maybe Mr. McGovern forgot about the Iranian revolution and hostage crisis (odd, since during his tenure in office it is one of the few things he got right, when he advocated the use of military force against the hostage takers). This happend in 1979, and was definitely a threat of terrorism before the invasion of Iraq.

Perhaps he forgot about the wars Israel has been fighting since... Moses. Perhaps he has forgotten about all the terrorism that took place in the mideast during the 70's, 80's, and 90's. The Olympic bombings, the USS Cole. The Beirut bombings in 1982. Did McGovern just forget about all these?

It is an absolutely ridiculous statement to say that the threat the US faces from terrorism today is a result of our invasion of Iraq, and that it did not exist beforehand. It did exist beforehand, the only difference is that it was well concealed. Now, the islamofascists have no choice but to attack us, because we are right at their doorstep. Iraq is a counterattack by the islamofascists, because they know that if they lose, we will come after them and destroy them until they cease to exist. The threat was still there beforehand, it's just more obvious now.

"Never let the new class of Democrats forget that they're there in considerable part because of the war the American public has now turned against," he said. Despite this statement being relatively unclear, it is also a gross misrepresentation of what happened in this election.

A majority of voters didn't come out against the war in Iraq, as McGovern and the far-left wing of the democratic party would believe. They voted against Republican handling of it. Lets face it, Republicans have worked us into a hole in Iraq. They did not understand how to wage total war, and because of that, they took a minor beating at the polls this Tuesday. This is not to say the Democrats will handle it any better. They'll handle it much worse. But the American people decided to give the Democrats a chance to prove themselves - and will soon realize what a mistake it was.

George McGovern is an idiot now, and he was an idiot in the 60's when he was against the war in Vietnam. His analysis of US foreign policy starts on the foundation that the US is always wrong, and that any action we take therefore is extremely suspect, and probably just unjust and unlawful. That is why he was against the Vietnam war (before it was "cool" to do so). This is also why he is against the Iraq war (and was before it was "cool" to do so).

His analysis of US foreign policy and current world affairs is fundamentally flawed, and fundamentally wrong. When he talks about it, he makes himself look like a further example of an idiot. Furthermore, by speaking to the Congressional "Progressive" Caucus, he is reinforcing the belief of many Americans that the Democrats are a party of cut-and-runners. Though this is a good thing for the Republican party, and for Conservatives (provided the Republicans can stick to their conservative message and get their butts in gear), it is a bad thing for Democrats (and I would think Democrats are looking to win elections, but I could be wrong).

In light of the recent elections, President Bush has asked for Rumsfeld's resignation - I'm sure with Rumsfeld's compliance - and will appoint a new Secretary of Defense, to be approved by an increasingly democratic Congress.

This comes after Bush said he would not fire Rumsfeld, or ask for his resignation, and this comes after Rumsfeld served admirably for 6 years on the Bush staff. He really modernized the military, and some of his reforms of the Pentagon will be long lasting. However, recently, some generals are upset with Rumsfelds handling of the Iraq war, and Democrats and Liberals have long been calling for his head.

Bush has refused to comply, until now, when he has caved into Democratic pressure to fire the defense secretary. However, I have to say I agree with Bush on this one. Rumsfeld, regardless of how he ran the Pentagon, or the Iraq war, is becoming a liability to the Bush administration. Democrats made Rumsfeld the villain this past election cycle, and it worked candidly - because the Democrats now control one, and likely both houses of Congres. Too many people dislike Rumsfeld, for better or worse, and the time has come for him to go.

I personally like Rumsfeld, and what he has done for this country. But the Iraq war isn't getting better, and change is needed, especially with Democrats in control of congress. This will put fresh faces in the Bush cabinet, and possibly change the mess in Iraq. Democrats have said they won't push for immediate withdrawl, or slash funds for the war, at least not right away, but we'll see if they stick to that. The John Murtha's of the House will undoubtedly push for an immediate cessation of funds to the war, but hopefully some of the new "conservative" democrats will prevent this from happening.

I'm trying not to be too glum. Democrats won, probably in both houses, but the country will rebuild. Republicans will purify their message of conservatism, and we should be able to come back. That said, we need to take a serious look at what has happened. We are conservatives first, and only then Republicans. If the Republicans cease to be conservative, then I know I (as well as most of you readers) will cease to be Republican.

And in these latest elections, Conservatism won. The Democrats realized that by running far-left candidates like Ned Lamont and Nancy Pelosi, they would only ever win on the West Coast, and the East Coast. If they ever wanted to win a majority, they had to moderate their message, by nominating conservative democrats and moderate democrats. Regardless of which party, more conservatives and moderates in congress is a good thing, even if I believe they are on the wrong party.

Additionally, the ballot initiatives were wholeheartedly conservative, and almost all of them passed. This shows that conservatism is not dead, just that 2004-era Republicanism is. The Republicans have to change and modify their message, nominate more true conservative candidates, and when they achieve power, stick to their guns and get the things they say they will get done, done. If that happens, they will be an immensely popular party.

I haven't posted since last night about the election results, and a lot has happened since then. For one, Allen is now slightly behind in Virginia, by anywhere from 1000 to 5000 votes, depending on who you ask and consult. However, not all the votes have been counted, and I believe absentee's have not yet been counted either, which could push Allen ahead. Look forward (riiiight) to a month-long recount and election battle coming out of Virginia.

Virginia is important for both sides, because it could be the key race in determining who controls the senate. In Montana, Burns is slightly behind Tester, and it isn't looking like he'll be catching up, though I still have some hope. If Burns loses, then it comes down to Virginia. If Democrats get control of both houses of congress, then there will likely be he11 to pay for the President and his administration.

Pawlenty is now definitively ahead, though only by a very slim margin. It looks like he will be governor of Minnesota for another 4 years, though Hatch has yet to concede (as far as I know). Michelle Bachmann won up in the 6th district, defeating the annoying Patty Wetterling - a woman who previously announced being too liberal for Minnesota.

John Kline beat out Coleen Rowley in my district, the 2nd. That's two holds for Republicans, because Kline is a returning congressman, while Bachmann takes the seat vacated by Mark Kennedy in his failed Senate run. Unfortunately, across the state Republicans lost in several areas, which is extremely unfortunate.

The Minnesota State Senate and State House are now firmly in Democratic hands, which likely means our taxes (property, state, and otherwise) will go up as ridiculous new social programs are implemented. Also, even though the ridiculous transportation amendment now seem to have failed, the democratic legislature will likely try to push something through anyway.

But it is important now for Republicans to get together and discuss what went wrong. What in our message didn't resonate with Americans this time, that has resonated for the past 6 years. It is important that we figure out what went wrong, and fix the problems before 2008, because that election is going to be brutal, and the Republicans must come out on top.

First, I don't blame the American people. It is a persistent democratic tactic to blame those "ignorant American people" when they lose elections. I have great respect for the American people, regardless of who they vote for, and anybody who blames them is an idiot. They are not responsible. The American people are a smart people, and an educated people. They simply made the decision of who they thought would better govern this country. So I refuse to blame them, even though I think their decision is a wrong one, that could end up being harmful for this country.

Second, I don't blame a powerful democratic campaign. They ran decent, even good campaigns in many areas, but they also ran many poor campaigns (and in the case of Hatch or Wetterling, outrightly awful ones). Republicans did the same. As far as campaigning goes, I think the parties are about even, with neither side having an advantage.

Also, I do not think the Republicans lost because the Conservative message doesn't resonate with the American people. The fact is, the only message to successfully win elections in America, is a conservative message. Nixon won on a moderate/conservative platform in 68 and 72. Carter, though he was anything but a conservative, ACTED conservative during the campaign, and deceived the electorate. Reagan speaks for himself, as does Bush 41. Clinton, though not a conservative, wasn't really a hard-line liberal either, and ran on a moderate platform, which is largely why he won. Bush won twice on conservative agendas, and the Republican congress won since 1994 on conservite ideals.

So the Republicans did not lose because the conservative message doesn't resonate. I believe the conservative message still resonates, but that voters are upset that the Republicans cannot stick to their promises. Newt Gingrich was a genius in 1994 when he seized the election for Republicans. Unfortunately, in the last 12 years, Republicans have drifted further and further away from the conservative message they won on, and voters have had enough. The Democrats, at least in theory, provide something new.

I believe the Republicans lost this election because they did not stick to their conservative message. Going forward, the Republicans have two choices. 1) They abandon the conservative message, and become more like the Democrats. This would be political suicide. First, they wouldn't be able to retake control, because they would be indistinguishable from Democrats, which would give existing Democrats no reason to change. Secondly, the conservative base would totally abandon them, and with it, all hope for Republicans of winning elections.

The second viable options for the Republicans, is to do another "Contract with America." It should be a reasonably sized document that outlines the Republican plan for the next 2 years following the 2008 elections. It should retain conservative principles of smaller government, less government spending, and victory in the war on terror.

And Bush shares some of the responsibility. Anger about the Iraq war is huge in this country, and may have cost the Republicans this election. This is because the Bush administration has done a disgraceful PR job about this war, telling the American people what the threat we face is, why we are in Iraq, why we must win, and what comes next. On my radio show, which I give for my university's radio station, I outlined a good justification for the war in Iraq. The problem was, I've never heard the President - the man people trust to prosecute this war correctly - say anything remotely close to what I spoke, the one exception being the Axis of Evil speech, in which he vaguely spoke about many of the points I used to justify Iraq. Bush never brought them up again, and the American people have forgotten. This is understandable, because most Americans aren't politically interested like I am (thank god, otherwise, this would be an awful place to live).

In conclusion, the Republicans must solidify their conservative message if they wish to win. Look at the important democratic victories this cycle. Almost NO far left liberal democrats smashed their conservative opponents. Most democratic gains came from so-called "conservative democrats," who are in reality, marginally more moderate than Nancy Pelosi (who in turn, is only marginally more moderate then Karl Marx). This proves my point about the conservative message, and emphasizes what Republicans must do to win more elections in the future, particularly 2008 when the stakes are much higher.

So, though there is cause to be dissapointed, there is not yet cause for despair. I think the Republicans can yet pull it off, and successfully take back the house, and possibly the Senate come 2008, as well as win another 4 years of the presidency, if they nominate the right candidates, campaign right, and outline the important conservative positions that the Republican Party (is supposed to) stand for.

Minnesota has made some serious mistakes in this election, but we've also made some good decisions. First, we elected Keith Ellison in the 5th district, something that I have opposed greatly in the last few weeks. Ellison has ties to the Nation of Islam - pretty close, intimate ties - and this is certainly worrisome.

Our governor's race is much closer than I would have expected. I thought Pawlenty would easily win, buy he is basically in a dead heat with Mike Hatch, a total nimrod. I was at a Hatch rally yesterday (I didn't have a choice, unfortunately. He came to my campus), and he didn't seem to have great numbers of support.

The bottom line is, that it is just a bad year to be a Republican. Conservatives are angry with Republicans that they don't support the conservative cause enough. The Democrats are mad just because they're not in power. Anybody with an (R) next to their name suffered, as evidenced by several governor races across the country, as well as by the losses by DeWine in Ohio, and Santorum in Pennsylvania.

Voter turnout was likely the biggest problem for Republicans. They couldn't mobilize their increasingly disgruntled base, and they couldn't rouse moderate voters to their side. Moderates were persuaded more by the Democratic message of "change" (which we all know is nonexistant), than by the Republican message of "fear Nancy Pelosi."

The Republicans campaigned poorly, from the White House on down.

Republican prospects for maintaining control of the House and the Senate are definitely looking low. Fox is saying that the Democrats need only 1 house seat, and 3 Senate seats to be in the majority. I fear that this is not good for our country, and it will greatly jeopardize our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

However, not all the news is bad. Allen seems to be maintaining a lead in Virginia, as does Talent in Missouri. I'm not sure about the statistics out of Montana, but I predict Burns will be victorious at this point. Though these aren't necessarily gains for Republicans, it illustrates that the Republican cause isn't really dead. It's just what usually happens at midterms - average.

Additionally, Fox is being really weird about Maryland. They have been calling for Cardin for the last 2 or 3 hours, but Michael Steele remains ahead by 4 to 6 points in the polls. And he has been ahead all night. As an African American, he will be able to pick up much of the Maryland black vote, which may be able to put him in the lead and into congress. This would be an important win for Republicans, though I don't think it will be enough.

However, there are two seats in Georgia that are possibly shifting Republican, which will pick up two gains in the House. If these two races come through, Republicans will be in a slightly stronger position, though I suspect they will still lose at the end of the night.

Lieberman won out in Connecticut, but it is an extremely important victory for those that support the war. Furthermore, Lamont lost which is also an important victory for those of us that support the war.

I don't think this is a referendum on Bush, but merely the average movement of power in midterm elections for 2 term presidents.

However, we must keep in mind that Republicans are not likely to lose the Senate. They must win 3 of 5 seats, in Montana, Virginia, Tennessee, Arizona, and Missouri. Arizona was just called for the Republicans, and Corker has a stable lead in Tennessee, so the Democrats must win 3 of the 3 remaining seats in Virginia, Montana, and Missouri. At this point, Allen seems to be far enough ahead to win in Virginia, which would ensure that the Republicans keep their majority (if only slim) in the senate.

There is troubling news coming out of Nicaragua. The deposed revolutionary marxist leader Daniel Ortega, ejected from power in 1990 thanks to the first Bush Administration, and the previous efforts of the Reagan administration, has likely won the election to be his country's president.

Ortega, likely took 40% of the vote, which, though not a majority, would give him a plurality, and make him the president. In the system down there, the candidate who gets more votes then all the other candidates wins. Ortega likely has 7 points more than the second place candidate, and will hence become president once the election results are released later this week.

This is a very interesting and troubling development. Ortega asserts that he is a changed man, but I'm inclined to doubt it. One does not simply "change" from revolutionary marxism. Though admittedly, he won power somewhat-legitimately this time, I don't believe he is a changed man. He is just as revolutionary, and just as much a communist now, as he was when he first took power in the 1980's.

Though, with the fall of the Soviet Union, there are few allies left for communist regimes any more. China is reluctant to back countries in other parts of the world, for fear of alienating the US. No other communist nation is strong or powerful enough to back weaker South American nations, and so the possibilities of international backing are very slim. This should help to keep Ortega in line, though it may not work.

There are however, worse allies than Communists. Terrorists are worse. Drug runners are worse. If Ortega allies himself with these types, he will likely be as much a problem as he was in the 1980's. And this is my big concern about this problem. Will Ortega ally himself with the wrong people? My guess is probably. As I said, revolutionary marxists don't simply change overnight - or over sixteen years. I find it very hard to believe that Ortega has changed his politics much. Perhaps he has mellowed out somewhat, but his politics are the same.

We also have to fear that he will seize power. Nicaraguan law currently holds that a president cannot hold consecutive terms. However, Venezuelan "president" Hugo Chavez has said that he wants to change his country's election laws allowing him to serve longer. What's to say that Ortega won't do the same in Nicaragua? Nothing.

It is a dangerous and potentially volatile situation, and one which the US should keep a close eye on during the next few months (and years). We should be careful of developments in the region that may lead to terrorist attacks on US soil, or an increase in drug smuggling.