Saddam Hussein was found guilty yesterday, of crimes against humanity. He has been sentenced to death by hanging, after his appeal. According to the Iraqi justice system, he will get one appeal, where the verdict can be overturned, though it is unlikely that it will be.

This is a great success for the Iraqi people, and for the war effort, because it is just another example of the success of the mission. Saddam Hussein went from being one of the world's worst and most brutal dictators, do being a smarmy prisoner, to finally, hanging from the gallows.

Bush heralded this success as a great victory for the Iraqi people, and he is right. In any democracy, the rule of law is something extremely important. Our country is founded on the rule of law, but even we did not have to establish this rule during wartime. Furthermore, we had centuries of English common law on our side. The Iraqi's have neither advantage, so any victory is a big one. Saddam has been given a mostly-fair trial, and has been found guilty of crimes against humanity.

The trial wasn't perfect - and the appeal should correct most of these problems - but it was still a large step in the right direction. Furthermore, it shows the American people what is being accomplished in Iraq. Saddam will never again be a threat to the Iraqi people. He will be hung - likely before January - and never heard from again. His days of tyrannizing the Iraqi people are over, and the Iraqi people are rejoicing because of it.

However, the New York Times disagrees. They think, in their editorial today, that Saddam wasn't given a fair trial. They think that, though the appeal process should fix some of these mistakes, that the trial was so disgusting, that a second trial of Saddam should be started.

Do they not realize how stupid the first trial was? Saddam should have taken a bullet to the temple long ago - though admittedly, seeing him hanging will be a plus. This tiral gave Saddam a chance to spread his message through the airwaves, something he never stopped doing, even as the verdict was read to him. A second trial would undermine much of the work we've done in Iraq, as well as turning a victory into a defeat.

A second trial is an extremely stupid idea. Saddam should be hung, and that will be the end of it.

If you stick to reading the MSM, you will hear story after story about Democratic prospects for this election cycle, and you'll hear story after story about why the Republicans are going to lose. You hear stories that the Republican base is upset. You hear stories about swing voters and moderates being upset. And you hear stories about the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and that this will hurt Bush.

I look at the headlines spread all across the MSM, and I can't see much of anything, except a continuous stream of propaganda for the DFL. I read a story from Reuters today, that cited 4 different polls, all of them just totally anti-Republican. One poll says Republicans will lose 30 seats. Another closer to 50.

Most MSM sources seem convinced that Democrats will retake the house, and possibly the Senate. Perhaps it is my optimism (yeah, right), or perhaps it is something else, but I do not feel the same as all these MSM sources. I don't think Republican prospects are really all that bad. Republican's are behind in some races, but ahead in others. I really don't think these midterms are going to be that astonishing. Maybe the Republicans will lose 5 or 10 seats. Maybe they'll gain 2 or 3. Regardless, I do not see the Democrats in control of the Senate.

The Democrats are certainly optimistic about their chances. They are going everywhere, and already talking like they've won the election. The only problem is, no votes (except absentee's) have been cast yet, so in my opinion, they're counting the votes too soon. Many Republicans are excellent closers, and at any rate, all the polls said Bush would lose in 2004 as well.

I'm not saying the Republicans are going to win this election. There is much to be upset with them about, regardless of your political philosophy. Conservatives don't like them because they haven't stuck with many of the conservative values they promised. Moderates don't like them because of their partisanship, and sometimes for their support of the war. Liberals don't like them because... they're liberals.

Indeed, the Republicans may lose, and lose badly. What I AM saying however, is that I haven't seen any evidence to support all these stories that Republicans are going to be crushed. However, I also haven't seen much evidence to support stunning Republican victories either, which is why I think that there will be little (if any) change in the makeup of the Senate or House.

This is especially true because Bush is out there mobilizing the disgruntled base, which is extremely important if Republicans are to win this election. Republicans simply do not stand a chance without the Conservative vote, and to anger those of us with conservative beliefs is to commit political suicide.

Luckily, the Bush administration is showing the US (and specifically conservatives) what the stakes are. They are explaining what will happen with a Democratic house. They are explaining the stakes in the war, and how we will lose if Democrats come to power. Finally, they are showing that, despite their discrepancies from conservatism, the Republicans are far more conservative than the Democrats could hope to ever be.

More importantly, even if the Democrats win, the election won't be the historic landslide victory they'll try to claim it as. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in his editorial today, the average midterm 2nd term loss for a sitting president, is 29 house seats and 7 senate seats. If the Democrats win the most they've been predicted to win - 20 - 25 house seats and 4 - 6 Senate seats - they will still be below average.

Furthermore, Republicans all across the country are picking up in key races. Here at home, Minnesota, our governor Tim Pawlenty is making constant gains in the polls, and I think the latest polls have them at a dead heat. And, since Pawlenty was behind in the polls last time he ran, and won by a reasonable margin, I think this election will be the same. Up in the 6th district, Michelle Bachmann is making a good run, and is almost 10 points ahead of the ultra-liberal Patty Wetterling.

The only race that worries me - at least locally - is the Senate seat in Minnesota. Mark Kennedy has run a good campaign, and seems to me to be a great candidate. Yet the latest polls have Amy Klobuchar up by somewhere between 5 and 10 points, something which I have yet to explain - though liberal media bias will go a long way.

Nationally, Republicans are also experiencing gains. The lastest PEW poll says that the numbers are almost even, between Republicans and Democrats. This illustrates the power of the Republican last-minute effort, and the success of their efforts to energize their base. In Montana, Burns is ahead of his opponent, and in Missouri, Talent is dead even with his. George Allen is pulling ahead in Virginia, and Steele is catching up in Maryland. Corker is making a good run in Tennessee, and I think Republicans will take all of these seats.

I don't think Republicans will lose control of the Senate. I don't really think they'll lose control of the house, but it is difficult to predict at this point. I'm banking that they won't lose the Senate though, because I don't see enough democratic gains in enough important places to really effect the balance of power. If anything, the Republican majority will increase, with the addition of a new Republican senator from New Jersey, one of the only seats Republicans stand a chance to gain in. Furthermore, if Lieberman wins in Connecticut, the Democratic numbers will drop from 44 to 43, provided they remain dead even. If the Republicans pick up one seat, it will drop to 42, putting the numbers at 56 Republicans, 42 Democrats, and 2 independents.

Even if Santorum and DeWine lose (Santorum is in a worse boat here than DeWine, who has been catching up quickly in the last few days), this will put the numbers at 54, 44, and 2, provided most everything else stays the same. If Kennedy can pull it off, the numbers will increase by 1 for the Republicans, making the majority 55, 43, and 2.

What's most important, is that EVERYBODY get out and vote for the candidates in your district. The Republicans need your help now more than ever, and every vote will count. With the possible exception of Lincoln Chaffee - you can decide whether to vote for him or not - every Conservative should vote for the Republican candidates, because a vote for any Democrat is a vote for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and other Senate loonies.

This proves that Iran is still a threat. It proves that it is a dangerous nation. It illustrates the resounding need for the "international community" (or just the US) to get together and act to deter Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

In 1979, November 4th, 52 US hostages were taken for 444 days. It was the first act of war by islamofascists against the United States, though no action was ever taken (thanks to the gross incompetence of Jimmy Carter).

Today, Iranians gathered outside the former US embassy - the site of the hostage situation - and burned American flags, while chanting all kinds of anti-American slogans. They are attempting - they say - to send a message to the US, that using force agains them does not work. They say they want to "remind" the US what they were able to do to our hostages.

And this is why it is all the more important to ensure they do not obtain nuclear weapons. Is there any doubt that they would use them against the US or Israel? Their previous stated hostility to Israel (and the US) is obvious in their actions. They celebrate outright acts of war against America - taunting us to act. And we are afraid for whatever reason to act.

And this emboldens Iran, just like it emboldened Hitler. If the dictators get what they want, they presume the rest of the world is weak. Though much of the world is, the US does not qualify. However, we can at times be weak-willed, which is essentially the same thing. And Iran will take advantage of this, exploit US patience, and our unwillingness to act against them, until Iran finally has a nuke, and Los Angeles or Chicago has been destroyed.

Can we really afford to wait that long? Action must be taken now against Iran, to ensure their weapons are dismantled. They don't want nuclear technology for peaceful purposes any more than Hitler wanted poison gas to deal with his mouse problem. Iran is a danger, and Iran is a threat. If we do not act now, I fear what could happen.

And the fact that the Iranians celebrate acts of war against our country - that's just icing on the cake.

This is from a story at Drudge, about John Kerry's '72 comments about the troops. He claimed in 1972, that a volunteer army would be a disaster (an "anathema" in his words) because it would be made up of the "poor and the black and the brown."

Yet a quick look at our armed forces today reveals that this is (startingly) not true. Many caucasian people are in the armed forces, as are members of the middle and upper class. And yes, the army is all volunteer. This is just another prediction of Kerry gone wrong.

So, the only alternative is that John Kerry supports a non-volunteer army, or a conscripted army. Either that or (as is likely the case), John Kerry's position about anything is totally unclear - as has been the case in the past. Remember: He was against the troops before he was for them.

Even the man's flip-flopping is flip-flopped. It is a good thing he isn't our president. Could you imagine someone this incompetent, and this indecisive leading our country in a time of war?

This is an interesting political story. After the Mark Foley scandal, in which he sent sexually explicit emails to several underage pages and was forced to resign, the MSM was predicting that Republican prospects were doomed. They claimed that because of the Foley scandal, the base wouldn't turn out, and Democrats would surely seize control of congress.

Now, the race to keep Foley's seat is dead even between the Democratic challenger, and the Republican picked as a last-minute replacement to Mark Foley. This is in a heavily Republican district that went overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004. It is no surprise Republican's are popular there, even after Foley's shenanigans.

What is interesting, is the spin the Media put on it in the initial days of the scandal. All the pundits felt sure that Republicans were doomed because of Mark Foley. Now, the opposite seems true. Foley's seat isn't in danger of being lost any more - a seat I'm sure Democrats felt was their's after the Foley mess hit the media.

This raises another interesting question. If Republicans can come back in a district that was scandal ridden, it is safe to assume they'll place reasonably well across the country, isn't it? It think so. That's why, despite all the media buffoons who are sure Republicans will lose (and are in fact, cheering for it), I do not think the Republicans will lose. I don't think they'll lose the house, and I definitely don't think they'll lose the Senate.

I don't think they'll increase their majority unfortunately, because they won't be able to get a cloture vote in the Senate. Their majority may even decrease slightly. But I do believe that they will maintain power in Congress, because Americans are starting to realize what electing Democrats would really mean.

It would mean an end to the war on terror, an end to the Bush tax cuts. It would lead to an increase in spending and a decrease in revenue. It would lead to impeachment proceedings against Bush, and it would lead to a total halt of all government. A democratic congress would be a nightmare for the troops, for the conservatives, and for America.

They wouldn't be able to get anything beneficial to this country done, and would in fact do much harm. And now, just before the elections (with the help of John Kerry who, as David Letterman pointed out last night, is capable of losing elections he's not even in), Americans are starting to get this message (which explains why Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been hiding for two weeks), which will drastically improve the odds for Republicans.

 I post this image because it's a great response to John Kerry.

John Kerry is a fool, and somebody that is rooting for America to lose. His attacks on the troops prove it.

Luckily, these Minnesota (YEAH!!) soldiers had something to say about it. The result, is this widely published photo, first put up at Drudgereport.

It's freezing outside today in Minnesota. And it was freezing yesterday. And it will be freezing tomorrow. And it will likely be freezing for the rest of the year, until about March or so.

Global warming is such a pain isn't it? Bundling up in early November/late October isn't my idea of a warming Earth.

Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in a speech given today, compared George Bush to Richard Nixon, though he claimed that unlike Richard Nixon, Bush is incompetent.

He also compared Vice President Cheney to Nixon's Veep, Spiro Agnew, with the following line: "They're both using the IRS for political purposes. They're both spying on people they don't like and not just terrorists, but also American citizens. Neither one of them particularly believes in judicial rights. They've both been dishonest with the American people."

The fact is, Howard Dean is just an idiot. He defended John Kerry yesterday - after his inexcusable attack on the American troops - and he is so left wing that... It doesn't matter. What's important is that this man is the head of the Democratic party. And who voted to put him there? Democrats, of course.

It is scary to think that a man this un-American is in a position of power - great power - within one of this nations two major parties. It is scary, because if this party ever attains power, these kind of people will be the leaders of our country. And I truly do fear for our country if men like Howard Dean become leaders in our nation.

American Politics wasn't always like this. In the past, both parties had similar goals - advancing America, and making America the greatest nation on Earth. Their ends were the same, though their means differed at times. But even when their means differed, they always kept the same goal in mind, and were willing to compromise to achieve those ends. This is how politics SHOULD be run.

But it cannot work like that today, when one party is openly rooting for America's defeat. Liberals are calling for US withdrawl from Iraq, and this would lead to one thing only - defeat by the islamofascists that have taken hold in that country. The consequences of pulling out are deadly and devastating, but the liberals do not understand this, because they only want one thing - America to lose.

The ends are dramatically different. Republican's want to fight and end terror, so that we no longer have to live in fear of it. Democrat's barely acknowledge that it is a threat at all. It would be much different if Democrats were as committed to destroying terrorism as the Republicans are, and proposed reasonable and different methods of doing it. In fact, I think it would be a good discussion for this country to have.

But we cannot have it, because the Democrats are insistent upon America's defeat. They do not believe in fighting terrorism, as the Republicans do. So any American (which is most) who wants to fight and defeat terrorism, the Republican's are the only logical choice. They are the only party with the hopes of getting anything done in this great war we are fighting. And to give up now would be national suicide.

Venezuela and Guatemala have been fiercly contending for a seat on the UN security council in the last few months, and the decision has gone to 47 separate ballots in which there was no clear winner, though Guatemala was often ahead.

Both sides agreed to a compromise candidate, Panama. Venezuela, which was backed by all the anti-American regimes in the world, and Guatemala, which was backed by the US and other freedom-friendly nations, are now both agreeing to stop contending for the spot.

I've personally stopped caring about what happens on the UN security council at this point. I did not want Venezuela to get a spot on the Security Council, but besides them (and other obvious nations, like Iran, Sudan, North Korea, etc), I really don't care who is and who is not on the Security council. My reason? The Security Council is worthless, and cannot get anything done anyway. What exactly will the addition of one more member really achieve? Likely, nothing.

So, this news isn't good news or bad news. It's just news. Make of it what you will. As I said, I've personally stopped really caring, because anything that comes out of the UN is bound to be bad news.

The Bush administration announced today that it accuses Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah - which is funded by both nations - of trying to topple the democratically elected government of Lebanon. This fits in with my earlier point about the dangers of Hezbollah, that was overlooked in the "peace" treaty this summer.

In a speech today, White House Spokesman Tony Snow, said that there is "mounting evidence that the Syrian and Iranian governments, Hezbollah, and their Lebanese allies are preparing plans to topple Lebanon's democratically elected government."

John Bolton, meanwhile, accused Syria and Iran of violating the terms of the peace treaty signed between Israel and Lebanon earlier this summer. I really like John Bolton, but on this issue, should he really be surprised? I mean, did anybody really think Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran would follow the terms of the agreement?

Of course not. They are terrorists, and terrorists do not abide by international law. And of course, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah itself claim they are not in violation of anything. Because we all know that Hezbollah is just another organization of disgruntled farmers, who just want political change, and have no hostility towards Israel at all.

Gimme a break.

This is another piece of news that shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you who either read my blog, or watch any news program at all. There is a call (by the US) to draw up a draft resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for their noncompliance with the earlier UN resolution ordering them to cease their nuclear enrichment activities by August 31.

Russia is concerned that imposing sanctions against Iran might further alienate them from the international community, and make the jobs for inspectors even more difficult. "We cannot support those measures which in fact aim to isolate Iran from the outside world, including the isolation of the people who are charged with leading negotiations on the nuclear program," the Russian foreign minister said today.

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the point? Iran is in violation of the will of the "international community." Shouldn't isolating it be the next logical step? If they will not comply with the resolutions willingly, then a path of systematic alienation from the rest of the world is necessary, until the sanctions are strong enough to force Iran's hand.

If they want to declare themselves outside international law, then so be it. But they shouldn't get to follow the provisions of international law that best suit their needs. Lincoln said something similar during the Civil War, when southerners wanted the Union to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. He told them that they cannot neglect some parts of the Constitution, and choose to use others.

It works the same with International law. If Iran wants to declare itself outside the law, then so be it. But then we must totally isolate them from the "international community," and have no business at all with them. It is the only way to get them to cave.

Russia also announced their desire to open negotiations with Iran over the nuclear program, expressing their belief that the diplomatic option has not been exhausted. Evidently, the UN, EU, Russia, US, and multiple contingents of other nations, ALL failing to successfully negotiate with Iran isn't enough evidence for the Russians.

Nevermind that the Russians themselves have failed to produce anything out of their multiple sets of negotiations with Iran. Nevermind that Iran has proved itself unwilling to negotiate about their nuclear program. The fact is, Iran wants a nuclear weapon, for use against either Israel or the US, whichever opportunity presents itself first. It is a rogue nation of islamofascists that must be dealt with now, before it is too late. And puny UN resolutions won't cut it. There must be substantive action taken, with at least a credible threat of force if Iran is to be caved, and forced into submission.

Anything less is, simply, stupid.

Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah - that terrorist organization which attacked Israel over the summer, and fought a wide-scale war against them - has said that the Lebanese government was implicit in calling for a UN peacekeeping force in the region. He is also extremely upset about this, because he considers it giving in to the enemy.

Yet who did the Lebanese government support? HEZBOLLAH! Am I the only one who sees how stupid it is to support people that don't support you? Support is a mutual thing, and Hezbollah most certainly does not support the Lebanese government. These new comments by Hassan Nasrallah only serve to emphasize this point.

He is also calling for a new Lebanese Unity government (which would presumably have a greater role for the terrorist organization, and have a greater antagonism of Israel), claiming that the existing government is only a puppet of the "Israeli-American alliance."

Nasrallah and Hebollah cannot be allowed to have a greater support in the Lebanese government. They are a terrorist organization, and should be disarmed. But don't get your hopes up. The UN peacekeeping force is totally unable to do what it is supposed to - keep the peace. Israel failed to disarm Hezbollah, as did the United States.

This means Hezbollah will grow in power, until they are strong enough (if they are not already) to wage war against Israel (and possibly the United States). I fear for the mideast.

The US is following the order by Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to end the blockade of Sadr City, a blockade that has been in place over the last week, after attacks picked up, and a violent Shia militia took over the city.

I have mixed opinions about this. First, it angers me that the US military is taking orders from people who have no business or authority ordering our troops around. Our commanders and our president have the authority to give orders - not the Iraqi's. So, if we lifted the blockade, it should be because our commanders determined it was the best strategic action, not because the Iraqi government doesn't like it.

We cannot fight a war if we take orders from our politicians, let alone foreign politicians. HOWEVER, that said, it is also an interesting act on behalf of the Iraqi government. They need to exercise as much autonomy as possible, because this is how they will develop into a functioning government. They need to exert their authority on their own soil, because otherwise the country will descend into civil war when the US leaves (which we will do eventually).

So, though the US needs to exert the amount of authority we need to in order to defeat the islamofascists and win the war, we must also be careful not to totally circumvent the authority of the Iraqi government, especially since the militia in Sadr city were instrumental in his election.

It is a difficult situation, and one that needs to be handled delicately, lest it break out into an international fight. The US cannot afford to upset the Iraqi government, but we also cannot afford to make decisions against our best strategic interest. What this illustrates above all, is the importance of electing Republicans. Republicans, for all their weaknesses, generally understand the threat we face, and I would trust them to make the right decisions in this delicate situation.

The Democrats - as proven by John Kerry on Monday - would totally screw up the entire situation, and destroy all the hard work we've been doing in the last several years.

Hillary Clinton has come out and announced what her program for foreign policy is. I think it's clear at this point that she intends to run in 2008 (Lord help us). But what's more important, are the serious flaws in her foreign policy plan, which would have us engage in diplomatic, bilateral talks with enemy nations, and seek the "international community's" support in most of our actions.

"First, and most obviously, we must by word and deed renew internationalism for a new century." She said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations. My question is, wasn't "internationalism" the entire problem of the last century? When we try to do things internationally, we run into problems.

Internationalism was totally unable to stop the Cold War. The United States was largely responsible for eventually besting the Russian's, and leading to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and of communism across the globe.

Internationalism tried to appease Hitler. This was one of the singularly stupidest acts of the 20th century. The belief that people can simply give evil dictators what they want, and then be left alone is a ridiculous notion. It is still ridiculous, but most liberals think that if we only "talk" to them, everything will be alright.

I have news. It won't. Hitler wanted more, and he eventually started a war. Will Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il be any different? Of course not. They're dictators, and Ahmadinejad is virtually a clone of Hitler. If we appease them, they will ask (and get) more, and when that finally doesn't work, we will have empowered them so much that the war will be brutal, long, and extremely difficult.

Some things are meant to be international. Others are not, and foreign policy, under most circumstances, is qualified under the "not international" category.

I think it is apparent at this time, that John Kerry has no career left in politics. After his comments, in which he blatantly insulted every member of the armed forces, all the events he was scheduled to attend today have been cancelled. Even Democrat's can't get far enough away from John Kerry.

John Kerry, is quite honestly, one of the best friends Republican's could have. Every time elections reach a critical moment, John Kerry says something stupid and turns the tide towards Republicans. This latest act of idiocy could very well serve to propel Republicans into another 2 years of control of Congress.

What makes me upset, is that Kerry is allowed to get away by insulting our armed forces. The men and women in the military risk their lives on a daily basis, to keep us safe. They know intricate details of military tactics, and they go through intensive training to get where they are.

They are far from the uneducated rednecks Kerry tries to portray them as. The military has doctors and lawyers too. Are they stupid? People graduate from college, and then go to join the military. Are they stupid? What about the military members who have graduate degree's? Are they stupid?

Are the people who pilot F-14's stupid? The people who land on aircraft carriers? The officers that command our soldiers? No. They are not stupid, and they are not uneducated. The soldiers are an extremely educated bunch, and not only should they be honored, but insulting them is despicable.

The problem is, John Kerry thinks that, by virtue of his being a left-wing elitist, he knows better than all America. He thinks that he's smarter than all of us, and more important than ordinary American's.

The fact is, John Kerry is a benighted boob.