(and I offer my heartfelt 'congratulations') is that they are taking back the country from the "fearmongers". Did it ever occur to them that there is something to fear?

Radical Islam is metastisizing like a cancer across the world. It was
doing this *before* George W. Bush came to power. “9/11” only focused
our attention on it. George W. Bush, at least, confined this declared
war on us to a battlefield: Iraq -- where we must defeat the forces
of radical Islam.

Everytime we grow a democracy, as we are in Iraq and Afghanistan,
it's a another victory for us against “them”, those they want us
dead . This isn’t complicated.By growing democracies in the mideast –
a difficult but worthwhile endeavor -- we give Muslims that might
otherwise decide to join the expanding jihad (just as decent Germans
in the 30s “joined became Nazi sympathizers) an alternative:
Democracy. This helps defeat Islamofascism – and yes, that *is* the
correct term for it.

Yes, I fear “them”. I feel fear when I hear of the plot to blow up
airliners over our cities. I feel fear when jihadist’s are caught in
Florida or Great Britain or Canad, where they planned on beheading
the Prime Minister. In Oslo, the same fate awaited the Israeli
ambassador until the plot was foiled.

But, I mostly fear that what Osama bet on is true: that the American
people, more precisely, the American Left, don’t have the stomach for
this important war that the terrorists have declared and are waging.
Oh, we can win it, but not with one hand tied behind our backs. Last
night’s election was a victory for the forces of terror as it
confirmed all that al-Qaida, et al, are betting on: that when push
comes to shove, America wants to change the channel.

So, I do congratulate the Democrats on their victory. I hope they use
their new found power wisely, creatively and responsibly though I
honestly don't thnk they will. They are still fueled by anger towards
Bush for having the audicity to win the election in 2000. The Left
still can't believe such an "idiot" was in charge of THEIR country. I
predict, for Democrats, it's revenge time – investigations are coming
but they will never satiate the Left, who believe Bush is the enemy,
not radical Muslims.

And President Bush? I predict he forges ahead with the serious work
that needs to be done: winning Iraq and confronting Iran immediately.
The president justifiably doesn't trust the cut and run Democrats and
won't leave office before the issue of Iranian nukes is dealt with,
most likely, militarily. He allowed the Europeans to try diplomacy
with Iran, but three years of talks produced continued defiance. In
the end, Bush will not leave the fate of the country in Mrs.
Clinton's, or any Democrats hands, should they win in ‘08. When cancer is diagnosed, the best course of action is aggressive not passive. That's the course Mr. Bush took, rightfully, post 9/11. It's not time to abandon the patient now.

Seth, I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry you feel fear. It's a natural reaction to the unknown.

But terrorism really isn't much of a threat to you personally. The statistical likelyhood of you personally being endangered by terrorism is astronomically low.

Learn to have some courage, man.

Commentor, perhaps your current risk of being in a hijacked airliner or suicide-bombed building is low. That's not the real threat of islamism. The threat you should be concerned about is this: islamism is spreading by immigration, demographic trends and 'conversion' (often under duress). And islamism is a world view that no liberal should support. As a woman I am afraid when imams spout misogynist c**p about women inviting rape or gay men deserve death. The fact that these people have influence over the impressionable and hormone-drived young men of their communities does have a real, immediate effect - see the Australian gang-rape situation.

Liberals concerned about civil liberties could also be concerned about islamists wanting blasphemy laws, to be enforced against anyone criticising their system.

All in all, no sane liberal should remain unconcerned about islamism!

I am really flattered. This post is almost exactly like the response to my comment on another post.

I never said that there was nothing to fear, Seth, but the GOP makes everyone scared so they will do the GOP bidding. We are all adults.

Thnak you America for returning the Congress to the people. the GOP sold us out to the lobbyists and the corporations in the name of fear.

I was just sitting there reading HuffPo and realized something. I know you know that I have hated Bush since day one, and I still do, but since we have Congress now, I think I am for the war. How the hell did this happen? Has that ever happened to you Seth?

Stacy, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. If I can, let me just address a few and I look forward to any response you may have them:

We disagree about the level of the threat. I think it's a serious, take-no-prisoners threat that's metastasizing around the world. One of the ways it must be combated is by superior intelligence and there is a cost for that. But, until I see or hear about "everyday" Americans being rounded up for no reason, it's a price I am more than willing to pay.

I disagree. Bush has been that leader. The Patriot Act, agreed to Democrats and Republicans has not been abrogated and there is no indication whatsoever that it will be. I also don't think the Republicans "used fear" -- I think there is something to be feared. So, we disagree here.

There were terrorists way before Bush. There were terrorists before "Israel". Where we disagree I think is, you believe (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) if we hadn't gone into Iraq, if Israel would just placate the Palestinians by going back to it's pre-'67 borders, then there would be less terror. I disagree. I think our enemies want the world, in spite of ""Iraq", or "Israel" or "Bush" or anything.

Our presence in the region has also been quite beneficial: Libya gave up it's chemical weapons program because they feared our presence; Lebanon only was able to kick Syria out after it's hand in Harari's assassination, because of the U.S. presence there. Furthermore, it's better that we're there vis a vis "convincing" Iran to end its nuke program.

Again, they were going to unite anyway. We still outnumber them by a lot and we'll end up winning this thing if just didn't allow the TV cameras in there! War is hard -- who ever said it was easy? But, if we had the amount of visual info during World War II like we do these days, I don't know how we could have stomached the much, much greater carnage then. Turn off the cameras and allow our troops to do what they must to win.

War is hard but it doesn't mean you abandon it.

I disagree. First, it's a very different war than we've ever fought. No Sec. of Defense could have done better. Rumsfeld envisioned the kind of warfare we're dealing with now 20 years ago. That doesn't mean our generals can fight this kind of war. The problem of these IEDs hasen't been cracked. The Israeli's only recently built a wall to keep suicide bombers out. We can't do that in Bagdhad. But it doesn't mean we should leave. If these radical groups defeat an American army of 149,000 people with remote control garage door openers, then they will be in every western city within 5 years. Whether you like or hate Rumsfeld or Bush, agree with the war or not, we MUST secure Iraq. It's the most critical battle of this age.

On the bright side, don't forget that Iraqi's have drafted a constitution -- no small feat, schools are open, their press is free and their stock market is open. Those are tremendous successes and things to build on.

You too!

Reason always eventually wins out over fear. But man , sometimes it seems to take forever. And let cob21 remember that when he talks about Bush he's talking about a man who despite every advantage in life never had the curiosity to leave that comfort to see what life is really like anywhere overseas. No curiosity about the great works of art in Europe. No curiosity for the cultures of Asia or Africa nor feelings for the living conditions there. Nothing. Just toy oil companies and sports teams to play with.

The notion that the President is a "fearmonger" is silly. It comes from people so spoiled by living in America that they have no idea what real fear is. Fear, to them, is if the cable goes out before the fourth quarter of the football game or if they don't get into he college of their choice or if McDonalds might have run out of the McRib before he new they were even back.

So, when the President talks about the world outside their own tiny, narcissitic environment all they can do is call names.

Here's the thing seth- "the left" recognizes that there are threats that exist to the US at home and abroad. The difference is, we realize that combating those threats while maintaining true to what this country STANDS FOR, is not only possible, but necessary. The republicans used fear as a weapon to squander power. It takes a truly great leader to fight the enemy without undermining the very principles of freedom and democracy we are claiming to be fighting for. Bush is not that leader.

Report after report (the intelligence reports, CIA analysis, state dept, Senate intelligence committee findings, NIE etc) shows that the administration's war on terrorism is flawed and that we are at an increased risk as a result. There is no way to spin that in Bush's favor.

Whether or not we should be in Iraq in the first place (we'll never agree on that) it is clear that the failure to understand the ethnic rivalries in Iraq, the methods of the insurgency, the lack of post-war planning, insufficient troop levels and an ignorant belief that we could win this war with technology alone, have increased the risk of terrorism against the US. All one had to do to realize this early on was look at a map and see who borders Iraq and how difficult it would be to secure the porous borders into other not so friendly countries. Also, the failed policy in Iraq has united our enemies against us- Iraq and Al Queda, Iraq and Iran- they were never allies but now we have provided furtile ground for people like the president of Iran to not only come to power, but gain prominence and support. Also, the resurgence of the taliban is troubling. Afghanistan was certainly a justified war, but siphoning off resources and troops there have hurt us in the long run. Just ask the military. Rumsfeld was a disaster but bush was too stubborn to admit this and too blinded by his ego to adapt to changing circumstances. There is an excellent article on time.com or newsweek.com that discusses how Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest of the Cold War crowd squandered billions on military technology that was of no use in the military realities of urban warfare and their cold war mindset has resulted in a military that is woefully unprepared for years of guerrilla fighting in Iraq. Billions spent on high tech weapons systems that don't work but when asked by THE MILITARY why their Humvees are unprotected and their families have to buy body armor, Rumsfeld tells the troops, "you fight with the army you have, not the army you wish you had" or some such nonsense. No accountability whatsoever.

All that Bush had to offer this election was fear. That, in and of itself, is not policy or strategy, it's an abuse of power.

be well

Seth,

I just read a lot of your blogs and have to tell you that I think you are dead RIGHT about everything you say. I don't think I've ever read so many blogs that reflected my sentiments so perfectly...so THANK YOU!

Dig your music too...have a happy Thanksgiving!

James

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/112906.html

Why is Bush so tone-deaf when it comes to understanding what a parent with a child in Iraq might be going through? To me, it kind of kills the whole "we republicans care more about the troops than you [liberals, progressives, democrats etc] do" meme.

If one thing should unite us its the goal of seeing our friends and loved ones in the military returning home to enjoy the freedom they are supposedly fighting for. If partisanship can't be put aside in this instance, when can it be?

And it becomes more clear by the day that Bush's inability to tolerate any hint of dissent, has become a huge liability to him, the GOP and ultimately the nation and our troops. Had Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney listened to the Generals prior to the war, we may have gotten the upper hand in Iraq.

take care