Due to a variety of circumstances, I was unable to blog this past week. I will try to regain my consistency moving forward.

Gerard Baker is still confident about America's power, even though many are trying to write her off as a result of the setbacks in Iraq.

Victor Davis Hanson, as usual, gives us his historian's perspective on the barbaric violence perpetrated by the jihadists.

Fred Barnes reports on the GOP's poor prospects in what he calls, the "blowout belt".

Sometime in the next few days I will post an explanation of my revised thinking about the Iraq War. Later, probably the weekend before the election, I will post my predictions, for whatever they are worth. Which might not be much.

Barron's is predicting that the GOP will retain control of Congress. They are the only people I have seen, other than Karl Rove, who are making that prediction. Their analysis is simply based on money, without considering the polls. For instance, under their scenario, Congressman Charlie Bass (R-NH) will lose, because he has raised less money than his Democratic opponent, Paul Hodes. I am not buying that one. Bass is considered vulnerable every two years, yet he manages to pull out a victory every time. I do not believe he will be held responsible for the ethical problems of some of his GOP colleagues, or for the foreign policy choices that have been made by the President. If he does lose, that will be an indicator that the Democrats really are riding a wave, not that the candidates who raised more money are going to win most of their races. Barron's says their method is very accurate, but I am not so sure it applies in an election driven by emotion, as I believe this one will be. Still, it is an interesting way of looking at the problem, and you should read it.

David Broder has some thoughts on what the Democrats would do if they took control of Congress. While I have no doubt that the men he interviewed (Senators Reed and Levin) are sincere in their reasonable foreign policy prescriptions, I suspect that their more radical colleagues in the House would follow a more confrontational path.

President Bush is talking tough about how he would handle any potential movement of nuclear weapons out of North Korea and into the hands of terrorists. Tough talk will not frighten Kim Jong-Il, I'm afraid.

Here in New Hampshire, the shooting death of a Manchester police officer has led to a decision by the Attorney General to seek the death penalty for the alleged killer. This is creating some controversy here, since we have not executed anyone since 1939. I am in favor of the death penalty, but I do not approve of the way it is used in the country. Killers do not deserve the mercy of the kind of euthanization we reserve for our beloved pets. Instead, they should be hanged. We should also not reserve the death penalty simply for those who kill cops or judges or other special classes of people (as the law is written here in NH and in some other states). Premeditated, first degree murder should be a death penalty offense, no matter who it is that is the victim. Finally, if you are going to have a death penalty statute on the books, then use it. If we do not have the stomach to do it, get it off the books.

Chuck Todd has five reasons why this election will be a repeat of '94 and five reasons why it will not be. I am persuaded that it will not be '94, but it will still result in the Democrats winning the House, however narrowly.

The Iraqi Premier went on a pilgrimage to visit Iraq's senior Shiite cleric and its most militant one. He's trying to make a deal to save his government, I imagine, as their are persistent rumors of a coup in the planning stages. This story indicates that there almost certainly will be a dramatic change of direction in Iraq fairly soon, with several possible "Plan B" scenarios, including a coup leading to a strongman government. It is certainly true that "stay the course" is an untenable scenario, while "cut and run" was never a viable option. Perhaps there is a third way. Remembering my history, I am betting on a coup that leads to a military government. If that government, which will have to be led by a Shiite, like former Prime Minister Allawi, can convince enough Sunni leaders and former military officers to come in from the cold, then it is possible they might be able to at least establish some reasonable degree of security in the country. That would then allow for a drawdown of U.S. troops. It may be the best we can hope for.

Dick Morris believes that the GOP will lose the House, and probably the Senate as well. He thinks that the Democrats are fired up and will turn out in droves, while the Republicans, including Evangelicals, are dispirited and will not show up.

Charlie Cook has a breakdown of the situation, which he believes will fall into the same category as the 1994 and 1974 elections.

David Ignatius has some thoughts about what the American people want from politics. He thinks they want practical problem-solving, which is probably right. Bruce Bartlett says Republicans should not worry about the consequences of a Democratic take-over, as they will make all sorts of plans, but will succeed in accomplishing very little, running into the same wall the Gingrich revolutionaries ran into in 1995.

As for myself, I will certainly go out and vote as I always do. I will vote for Jeb Bradley (R-NH) in my district, and I think he will win re-election. But, I know that I am a political junkie and a hard-core, rock-ribbed Republican. This election will not be decided by people like me. It will be decided by the people who pay only a modest amount of attention to the political scene, and who have been known to miss an election or two. Their behavior and political inclinations at this time will, as happens in every election, determine the outcome. Right now, if you believe the polls, that means a big advantage for the Democrats. The only hope the GOP has is that the pollsters are getting less accurate over time and, therefore, have either missed the real trends or are over-stating the trends that are out there.

Frank Gaffney says there was more to the comments from that British general than simply a desire to get British troops out of Iraq. Like anything else, context is important.

This column from the Jerusalem Post suggest that the President should set a timetable for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, so that the Shiites and Kurds can then be free to fight the Sunnis in an all-out civil war, Middle East style...which would mean defeat and massacre for Iraqi Sunnis. This column from the New York Times indicates that many of our top anti-terrorism officials and the congressmen who oversee them cannot even tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. Meanwhile, the Shiite militias continue to battle the Sunni insurgents in a most brutal fashion.

George W. Bush had a sit-down with some influential conservative radio talk show hosts at the White House. It is clear that the Rove plan for this election is to rally the base, something Rush Limbaugh has already started doing. If independents come out in droves and vote overwhelmingly against incumbents, it will negate any increased turnout by GOP base voters.

One British politician has awakened to the threat posed by Islamofascism. Unfortunately, too many of his countrymen have not, as yet.

Jay Cost has a unique analysis of the conventional wisdom concerning a Democratic takeover of the House. He thinks the GOP is in better shape than most pundits believe. Michael Barone also does not think this election will result in a political realignment.

My gut still tells me that the Republicans are going to lose the House. I do not believe that is good for America, but I think it will happen. Bill Quick has this post which explains why so many on the Right are so exasperated with the President and the Congress, especially concerning the war. Scroll down through yesterday's posts on Instapundit to read an excellent discussion between Glenn Reynolds and his readers about the issue. The Democrats are energized and the Republicans are discouraged, while the Independents have been convinced by the MSM that the GOP is the party of Washington corruption and, more importantly, failure in Iraq. It feels like 1994, only in reverse.

THE REPUBLICANS FACE DEFEAT

Fred Barnes thinks it is going to happen. Ralph Peters thinks it ought to happen. Robert Kuttner wonders if it will really be good for the Democrats if it does happen. The polls seem to confirm it. The Republicans are going to lose control of the House, and might even lose the Senate.

What, as a practical matter, will it mean? First, you can forget about President Bush getting any more Supreme Court nominees appointed. Even if the GOP manages to retain control, it will only be by one or two seats. That will not be enough. Second, you can expect that the Administration will spend the majority of its last two years in office fighting off the numerous investigations that zealous House Democrats will instigate over all sorts of matters large and small, justifiable or not. Third, the Democrats will pass a slew of bills that the President will veto, so do not expect much progress on the legislative front. Finally, without the support of Congress, the President will be under a great deal of pressure to withdraw from Iraq, and refrain from any aggressive action against Iran or North Korea.

Gridlock. Division. Weakness. Our enemies must be salivating at the thought of an America divided and in retreat. I wonder if George W. Bush realizes that he has only himself to blame.

One writer calls the proliferation of nuclear weapons a "countdown to apocalypse". Gerard Baker calls it "the price of shillyshallying". While there is still some doubt about whether or not the North Koreans actually exploded a nuclear weapon, there is little debate over the fact that the entrance of North Korea to the nuclear club changes the dynamics of security policy in the region and increases the danger of nuclear weapons being used. The South Koreans and Japanese are already beginning to shift their attitudes, which will lead to shifts in policy. The Chinese lost face. It is hard to predict what they might do to make that right. In Iran, the mullahs have, no doubt, had their policy of nuclear intransigence re-affirmed by the impotence of the world's response to North Korea's provocation. It all adds up to an even more dangerous world.

The Washington Post editorializes about Senator Harry Reid's suspect land deal.

The GOP is re-directing funds as hopes fade of winning certain seats, and fears increase of losing others. Now some operatives are conceding that the Republicans could lose anywhere from 12 to 30 seats. It is really beginning to look like we will have to get used to saying "Speaker Pelosi".

Here is the latest on the reaction to the North Korean nuclear test. There is still some question as to whether or not the North Koreans actually exploded a nuclear device. It may have been a test that fizzled. It may have been a conventional explosive device. We may never know. The true significance of this event is in how the international community through the offices of the United Nations reacts to it. This may very well show, once and for all, that international institutions like the U.N. are simply incapable of dealing with rogue regimes in any kind of effective way.

Jimmy Carter thinks he knows how to solve the North Korean crisis, one step at a time. If you guessed that it does not involve military force, you would be right.

Simon Jenkins thinks the solution is either to learn to live with a nuclear North Korea, or bomb them. If we are willing to risk getting hundreds of thousands of people killed, including American soldiers, in a bloody resumption of the Korean War, then bombing is an option. I do not think we are willing to take that risk.

In Washington, Republican officials are now privately saying that they may lose between 7 and 30 House seats in next month's election. If they lose 15, the Democrats will take control of the House.

In Europe, according to this New York Times article, many mainstream, middle-of-the-road people are beginning to wonder if Islam is compatible with their way of life. If Muslims continue to embrace the more traditional, and even extremist, versions of their faith, then certainly they will not be able to intermingle in peace and harmony with their secular European neighbors. Better to figure that out now then to wait until the population of Muslims has reached a critical mass that will result in a bloody civil war.

NORTH KOREA GOES NUCLEAR

Here is the latest on the North Korean nuclear test. The test, which was announced by the North Koreans last night and is being verified by seismic readings from various quarters, is drawing lots of condemnations from nations around the world, and from the United Nations. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be much that anyone can do about it. It is hard to punish a country with sanctions when that country is already one of the poorest and most isolated countries on Earth. It is even more difficult to deal with North Korea militarily, as this article (about the possible consequences of a North Korean collapse) from Robert Kaplan points out.

Kaplan may be right in that these recent provocations (his article was written before the actual nuclear test, but he was aware of the missile tests and the threats of a nuclear test when he wrote the piece) are a manifestation of the weakness of the regime. This weakness may lead Kim Jong-il to do something rash, which could result in a devastating war. Even if he does not, the fact that he now definitely has nuclear weapons will surely force the Japanese and South Koreans to respond. The Japanese now have a more right-wing, pro-military Prime Minister who may feel it necessary to launch a significant arms build-up and initiate a nuclear program of their own. It all makes for an even more unstable and dangerous world.

North Korea could test a nuclear weapons as soon as tomorrow, according to this story from Reuters. Of course, most of the MSM will pay more attention to the Foley scandal, at least until the bomb goes off.

Stuart Rothenberg and Dick Morris both believe that the Foley scandal has sealed the fate of the Republican majority in Congress. This New York Times story seems to confirm their view. Bill Kristol thinks that, in the end, the issue of which party will be stronger in the fight against terrorism will trump the scandal. He may be whistling past the graveyard, but there is still time for the issue of the war and terrorism to take center stage again before the public goes out to vote.

The Kurds continue to work toward a permanent separation from Iraq.

Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post has some interesting details about Russian participation in the re-building of Lebanon's infrastructure.

Melanie Phillips, writing from the UK, has some thoughts about the rise of Islamic radicalism in Europe. This story, about Jack Straw's criticism of the wearing of the veil, and this story, about the divide between Arabs and Frenchmen in a dying French farming community, both provide some evidence that the cultural divides are growing deeper and, potentially, could lead to more violence.

Here is an article from Time magazine about the influence of Fox News on TV news in general.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has an op-ed piece in the Washington Post about the progress being made in Afghanistan.

In France, some police union leaders say they are facing an "intifada" in the Muslim neighborhoods, with an average of 14 officers a day getting injured in clashes with the locals. There is disagreement, however, as to the motivations, with some insisting that this is a result of criminal gangs fighting back against aggressive police tactics and others saying that the violence is being fomented by radical Islamists.

Those of us who thought we were getting a border fence when Congress passed legislation authorizing the construction of a 700 mile long barrier along the Mexican border are mistaken, according to this article in the Washington Post. Apparently, there are a lot of loopholes that will allow the Department of Homeland Security to get away with doing just about anything they want with the money rather than using it to build a fence.

Also in the Post, an excellent article about the new media's impact on politics.

Harlan Ullman, writing in the Washington Times, says that even if Don Rumsfeld did get fired, it would not make much difference in solving our problems in Iraq or Afghanistan.

James S. Robbins wants the North Koreans to go ahead and test a nuke. It would certainly clarify things in that part of the world.

Here is an excellent article from the New York Times about the U.S. Army and Marine Corps' efforts to develop a counter-insurgency doctrine based on their recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Clearly, the military did not have the necessary doctrines or training in place when they went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is one of the reasons why the situation in both places is deteriorating. The other major culprit, IMHO, is the paucity of resources that we have committed to both countries. Not enough troops, not enough money, not enough civil affairs personnel. As in Vietnam, our political leaders have taken us to war without the total backing of the American people and without the willingness to expend whatever resources are necessary to win. Which means we probably won't.

The Washington Times is calling on Speaker Hastert to resign as a result of his actions, or his inaction, regarding the Mark Foley scandal. In the end, it may be politically necessary as well as the right thing to do. The Republicans were making up ground in the polls until this scandal broke, which has outraged people across the political spectrum. The scandal plays right into the Democratic campaign narrative of an out-of-touch Republican Congress that has grown lazy and corrupt while in power. It could have the effect of dampening GOP turnout while flipping some independents toward the Democrats. Certainly, we are close enough to the election now for this to have some effect on the outcome, unless something else breaks between now and then.

Arnaud de Borchgrave has an interesting column about the predictions of a foreign policy expert concerning our military plans regarding Iran. He says this expert got everything right in the run up to the Iraq War. The bottom line? Sometime in the next two years, after diplomacy has played itself out, the President will order a comprehensive bombing campaign against Iran to not only destroy their nascent nuclear capability, but to also cripple their military and political structures to bring about a collapse of their regime. If he is right, it will be a political and economic disaster for the country which will ensure a Democratic take-over of the Presidency as well as Congress in 2008. It will also, in all likelihood, fail from a military standpoint.

Here is another excerpt from Bob Woodward's new book. This one is about the efforts by then Chief of Staff Andy Card to convince the President that Rumsfeld should go.

Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter, himself a Vietnam vet with a son currently serving in the military, urges the American people not to give up on Iraq.

The political situation in the Palestinian territories continues to deteriorate, as Hamas and Fatah are now openly engaging in gunbattles. They are teetering dangerously close to the edge of a real civil war.

Suzanne Fields decries the surrender of a German opera company to the intimidation of the Islamofascists. I expect this pattern to continue as peace-loving, agnostic Westerners continue to try and appease the Islamofascists until, eventually, their lives and properties seem so threatened that they will have to react.

A letter from an Al Qaeda official to the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, found in the rubble of Zarqawi's safehouse after it was blasted by American bombs, has been translated, leading to this story in the Washington Post. It appears that Bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri were still trying to convince Zarqawi to change his tactics to avoid alienating Sunni tribesmen in Iraq, as well as the Shiite population. It also appears to confirm that Al Qaeda's leadership is hiding in Waziristan, which is part of Pakistan. If the Democrats win control of Congress, do you think they will urge the President to invade Pakistan as part of their "leave Iraq and concentrate on getting Bin Laden" strategy?