For example, my own guess is that the Baker-Hamilton commission is going to come down with a withdrawal timetable that will be completed next year, coupled with negotiations with Iran, Syria, Turkey and probably others.The Democrats and George Bush are both going to sign on. That would be seen, correctly, as a sign of weakness, but it may be the best we can do.

There are two current theories of Diplomacy. One is called Containment. That is the type of diplomacy espoused by people such Gen. Zinni, President Clinton and so forth. It did work against the Soviets. The other theory of diplomacy is what many people refer to as “nation changing”. This theory, often credited to the Neo-Cons, holds that it is impossible to contain terrorists like one can a nation-state therefore the governments of countries which breed them…and hence the _culture_ also…must be changed.

This does tend to piss off hardline Fundies.

When Neo-Cons refer to “changing the face of the Middle East” they mean changing the way those nations govern themselves. Which, theoretically Containment theory says will happen over time with diplomatic pressure. Except that _it hasn’t happened_ over the course of time. All it does is produce dictators like the Shah and pictures of people like Rummie shaking Saddam’s hand. Neo-cons say that therefore such nation changing (regime change) must be done more aggressively using everything from funding internal groups to military action.

Buried in this WaPo piece about how the election was a “rebuke” for Bush, the war, and Republicans, was this gem (emphasis added):
The complexion of the Democratic presence in Congress will change as well. Party politics will be shaped by t…

The terrorists come from cultures that can only be described as “macho.” They treat the women like crap, male children are unimportant until they reach an age where they can be taught to fight, female children are treated as a liability, and family and clan are far more important than nation.

They will view us leaving Iraq as a sign of weakness, period. We will suffer in the long term, because beating “The Great Satan” will only validate their position. That would be a significant recruitment tool. “They can be beaten!”

I created the following worksheet to compare the actual election results to the poll data including the early exit polls. I’ve put boxes around the pollsters whose numbers came closest to the actual result. Three observations: 1) The early exit…

Yet we are supposed to believe that the terrorists are going to be happy that Democrats are elected?!? Let’s look at this rationally-

1. Bush’s policies increase the threat of terrorism
2. Democrats were elected as a repudiation of Bush’s policies
3. Democrats will decrease the threat of terrorism

Maybe you are right, Quilly Mammoth, but I have a different point of view. I believe the Republicans’ macho, aggressive, unilateralist foreign policy has played into the hands of the Islamic jihadists. The Republicans have done for them what they could not dream of doing for themselves. Or so I think, but maybe I’m wrong.

Quilly Mammoth, I am not an Islamic terrorist and neither are you, so have a bit of humility. I don’t really know what terrorists think and neither do you. And I doubt that all terrorists think alike.

What I do know is that a dividing a country makes it weaker. Believe that Democrats are wrong if you like — maybe you are right. But don’t use rhetoric that identifies a Democratic victory as a cause for terrorist celebration. Sowing hatred makes America weaker.

“There’s nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide.”

Well, lets see if they have nothing to hide. Me? I’d like to find out where 2.8 Trillion of deficit spending went, and personally, I think a lot of people may be going to jail.

Emanuel and Schumer went out of their way to recruit candidates that could put the party’s best face forward in otherwise-hostile territory. Despite pressure from various interests, they refused to impose ideological litmus tests. The result? Democrats did the opposite of what Republicans have been doing (and what losing Democratic campaigns usually do). Instead of shrinking their tent, Democrats made their big tent a lot bigger.

http://www.slate.com/id/2153167/?GT1=8805

The winners were often Clintonesque in the centerist appeal. Not surprising coming from clintonista Rahm Emanuel. Running candiates like that the Democrats avoided mobilizing the Republican base to come out and vote _against_ lefty ideologues.

However, it is surely true that the terrorists are dancing in the street.