he world’s liberal governments and mainstream media are crying foul over the execution of Saddam Hussein. Most governments simply kneejerked from the perspective of being anti-death penalty regardless. Some used the “not on the Sunni holy day” excuse to circumvent the principled discussion about the legitimacy of capital punishment. The discussion didn’t get any easier when a cell-phone video started circulating that revealed that Shia militia’s were more or less in charge at the execution, with guards taunting the condemned man with references to Shia terrorist leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Of course, in kneejerk-liberal Europe, as well as in some quarters in the US, people responded to the hanging as basically a US affair. Saddam’s execution, they claimed, was just another instance of US colonialism enforcing the same Cheney/Rumsfeld gung-ho morals on the poor Iraqi people. Nobody believes that it is even conceivable that Saddam was tried and convicted fair and square before he was led to the gallows.

So, what do I think about the hanging? No marks for performance here, but I have no doubt that Hussein got what he deserved. The crimes of which he was accused were proven, and confirmed in appeal. Don’t give me any of that nonsense that the Baghdad Butcher didn’t qualify to have his neck lengthened. Tried, convicted, executed. So there.

et’s be very clear: the Iraq Study Group Report is not worth the paper it is printed on. I cannot but agree with conservative commentators who have expressed their outrage at the hyped up media coverage of the presentation of the report while the report itself presents nothing useable.

For all you liberals who believe that this report provides the “weighty” or “intellectual” basis for a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, you need to wake up to the actual contents of the report. Have any of actually read it and considered the reasoning in it? The report is not intellectual at all—in fact, it is barely a mediocre college student project. It presents nothing new and it misinterprets and misanalyzes myriads of facts related to Iraq. The basic problem with the Iraq Study Group is that James Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton agreed from the start that they would only look for recommendations that would lead up to a quick withdrawal. All facts were interpreted in that light, all counterevidence or competing views were methodically ignored or downplayed.

The members of the Iraq Study Group are all amateurs and their advice is not worth two hoots. Their belief in a “political” and “diplomatic” solution in Iraq is not merely naive, it is outright dumb. You cannot sit down with terrorists and ask them nicely to stop killing innocent citizens. That goes for the terrorist within Iraq (mostly Sunni insurgent groups, but also some Shia groups) as well as for the terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria. While diplomacy would certainly be preferable over military action, the sheer logic of the current situation rules out diplomacy. There can only be a military solution to Iraq. Any other course of action will inevitably lead to a regional war, probably drawing in Iran and Syria openly into a conflict they are already supporting behind the scenes.

Real military experts, such as Frederick Kagan, make a compelling case for a last-ditch military effort. They reject the notion that it’s too late and that the US should cut and run, even in the supposed gracious way proposed by the Baker-Hamilton commission. While it is clear that the US is currently losing in Iraq and that the country is in a civil war, it is not time to throw in the towel and retreat yet. Kagan and co make clear that victory can still be achieved if the US manages to create confidence in the stability of the country among Iraqi citizens. As all people crave security, they will seek help from whomever offers it. If the Iraqi democracy can be seen to carry out the basic functions of any democratic state, citizens might pin their hopes on it rather than on the militias.

The recommendations from the Iraq Study Group will inevitably lead to a regional war as the militias will fill the power vacuum left by retreating US soldiers. The recommendations are unworkable, naive, and dangerous. The only hope for Iraq is an increase in US (and allied) troop levels to provide real, visible security on the streets of Baghdad and other major cities. The best model to aim for is probably that of Israel, where security is not nearly as high as in the US, but nevertheless provides a basic stability of a kind that would be a great improvement for Iraq.

inneapolis, the most liberal congressional district in the country (thanks to some gerrymandered districts out in Massachusetts and California), has not had good representation in Congress for ages. The retirement of Congressman Sabo opened up the way for whichever Democrat could secure the party nomination. Other parties are non-starters in this district—people always blindly vote for any candidate with a “D” next to his name.

Newly elected Keith Ellison is no different from this pattern. Mr. Ellison has a somewhat shady past, including his association with Louis Farrakhan. But despite this, he is hailed as an example for others, simply because he is the first Muslim elected to Congress. I am sure that his refusal to meet with President Bush (a well-established custom of the current president is to meet with newly elected representatives) is hailed in some quarters as conscientious and “the change this country really needs.”

I support Mr. Ellison’s position on using the Qur’an to be sworn in. The way I see American law, including the First Amendment, the federal government cannot enforce the use of the Bible exclusively. If a holy book is required, a Muslim using a Muslim book seems logical. But his oath will not be worth any more. After all, regardless of what he is using to swear on, he has already sworn allegiance to looney leftism. Don’t expect anything from him but the same old liberal nonsense.

ownhall columnist Michelle Malkin describes the situation aptly. When John Murth’s shady involvement in the 1980 Abscam is brought up in the media, liberals fume that this is underhanded and “old news.” Of course, bringing up the 1973 National Guard duty of the “Current Occupant,” to borrow a phrase from liberal activist Garrison Keilor, is considered relevant criticism of the president’s fitness for office. Malkin calls this “liberal math.”

MSNBC played the FBI undercover video snippet this morning, but Malkin luckily reminds us that Murtha’s willingness to entertain a bribe from the undercover FBI agent went much further than “well, let me think about it.” The size of the donation involved made him very eager to try and justify the offer.

So it must have come as no surprise that today the Democrats formally announced that they intend to cut and run from Iraq. Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan) put himself forward as one of the chief pin-heads on Iraq, claiming he favored a phased pullout, while incoming majority leader Harry Reid (Nevada) said on CBS that he hopes he can start bringing back the boys “within the next few months.”

There really can be no excuse for this plan. It’s surrender, it is cowardly and it is a strategic mistake. The main reason the Democrats are proposing this plan is because “it will be something different for a change.” Correct. This move does indicate a change in policy and while no-one with any sense is denying that the current Bush policy toward Iraq is a mess, doing the polar opposite of current policy is not necessarily the right answer. What person, who has been convinced that he doesn’t need to shoot the burglar he has just trapped in his house, is going to decide, “Well, okay, I guess I’ll just shoot myself then.”? The answer appears to be: the Democrats.

“Redeployment,” a euphemism for withdrawal, is a cowardly suggestion for a bad situation. I do not doubt that the anti-war crowd feels very compassionate towards the poor soldiers who are “stuck in Iraq,” to quote a prominent Democratic senator in one of his recent celebrated speeches. The Democrats want to bring back the boys (and girls) because these poor soldiers are being shot at. We have to save the soldiers from those mean terrorists and bring them back home safely. It’s a cowardly attitude. I have nothing but respect for the armed forces but if you enlisted with the idea that being shot at is against your rights, you just be glad that general George Patton is no longer in charge. No need to be crass, but I can suddenly understand the outrage he felt when he found soldiers cowering in the infirmary and ordered them sent to the frontline. Hello! Soldiers are supposed to do the shooting! We didn’t send in the 4^th infantry regiment of tea cake ladies. Let’s talk constructively about how best to arm and prepare the soldiers, rather than keeping them all safe and tucked away with mommy.

Finally, the move is not only cowardly, it is also a tactical mistake. After all, if we can’t afford to have our soldiers shot at and bring them back to mommy’s apron, the terrorists are going to fill the vacuum and eventually start firing at mommy and her pretty apron. The soldiers are exactly what stands in between the terrorists and mommy. Things may well be going badly. Iraq is in a civil war. US soldiers cannot solve all inter-ethnic sensibilities. But pulling out the last vestige of military power is going to create a complete power vacuum and will cause Iraq to collapse. We will have another Somalia: an undefined plot of land where militias vie to control a few square miles of turf and powerful terrorist groups will butt in and control, either directly or through puppet organizations, large parts of the area. That is what you have in Somalia. That is what pulling out will create in Iraq. We are not there yet, though it’s getting closer every day.

I’m gratified to see confirmed now that all the political ads put out by Republicans and conservative groups against the dangers to Homeland Security if Democratic were elected turned out to be true. The Democrats are going to get us blown up with these policies. Let’s hope that the terrorists still need some more time to prepare and that in 2008 America will have come to its senses again. Let us not waste any time in preparing to turn back the tide toward a sound Defense and Homeland Security policy as soon as the Democrats get voted out in 2008. It may not be too late yet.

[By the way: What stupid district could ever vote a former Nation of Islam racist candidate into power as the first Muslim congressman? Oh, I forget: Minneapolis, the bluest district in the country. What does that say about liberals and their principles? What does that say about Minneapolis?]