So why did the Republicans lose?

- dissension in their ranks.
- picked on by the MSM. Rumsfeld the 1st casualty.
- Bush didn't explain that it's a war of civilizations. It's us vs. the Muslim world.
- Dems really voted for conservatives, not liberals.
- the leftist Dem leadership is faking us out.
- watch out!

Give me a break.

Surely "premature withdrawal" from Iraq isn't possible: the country has been well and truly f*cked already.

Rob, that's exactly the kind of perception I am talking about. You've just written off 25 million people as fucked. I haven't. We had a 300k boat people after Vietnam plus 1 million in "re-education" camps. What do you think is going to happen if we leave Iraq before they can stand up for themselves?

I love how you human rights advocates are so eager to throw people under the bus, if they are people the West supports. The Iraqis deserve much better than the Palestinians, who you get so enraged about. Save some of that concern for people who really are trying to build a civilized country, under great odds.

Read the next post - that's what's at stake.

If we are lucky the moderate Dems will realize this and keep the nuts like Pelosi from stampeding us off a cliff.

F.u.c.k Y.o.u,
Crazy Zinonist B.i.t.c.h.e.s!

Er, read the next post. Entertaining though Van is, if the number of Princetonians in government is what's at stake there isn't too much of a problem.

I've read the other posts as well, though, and they all make sense if you take the paranoid view that everyone in the whole wide world is out to get you because you're American/Jewish/Republican/whatever. And as that world-view is clearly Kesher Talk's Unique Sales Proposition, I'm not surprised you're hurt that the rest of America (and the world) does not, in general, see things your way.

The Iraqis, it seems to me, are standing up for themselves by fighting against an invasion they didn't ask for and which has brought them nothing but grief. Sure, the place is a hotbed of Islamic extremism and terrorism NOW: it wasn't before Bush and the unlamented Rumsfeld invaded it, but the USA has fixed that. When in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging. In other words, as you're not improving the situation one bit, and have no solutions to offer, get out and at least save some American lives.

Apologies if this resembles an earlier comment: I screwed up my email address on it and it seems to have been blocked as part of the Campaign for Real Rob.

The next post seems to be mostly about Princetonians so I doubt that's the one you had in mind. If you mean Ben's piece, I've commented on it. Otherwise, all the posts on KT make perfect sense if one buys into the Kesher Talk worldview that "Everybody out there hates us because we're American/Republican/Jewish/the only people in this place who REALLY know what's happening". I have to say that I find your colective paranoia highly amusing, which is one of the reasons I continue to visit. From a European perspective, you guys are a hoot.

Re the Iraqis: they're already standing up for themselves by fighting off an invasion they never requested and which has brought them nothing but grief. Yes, Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic extremism and terror NOW, but it wasn't until Bush and the unlamented Rumsfeld decided to play God in someone else's country. U.S. troops are doing no good in Iraq now, and nobody (Democrat or Repblican) has anything constructive to offer the Iraqis other than getting the hell out of their country. You've done as much damage as they can take already. When in a hole, rule one os to stop digging. If you stop now, it won't make things better for the Iraqs but it will at least not make them worse. And you can save a few thousand more American lives. What's not to understand?

That's disingenuous Rob.

The reason why Iraq wasn't a hotbed of Islamic extremism before the US/UK invasion is because Saddam violently suppressed all such influences with real torture and death. Much worse than the spectre of what became so notorious at Abu Ghraib. You've only to watch the videos that came out afterwards of his guards throwing men off roofs, cutting off their limbs, whipping them, etc. Or are you too squeamish to watch? So, yes, Iraq was relatively free of such extremism, but there was a cost to maintain Iraq in that state. I suppose that weighs nothing on you. I find in general that many leftists think little of it.

And, in fact, the reason that such extremism and complete murderous thuggery among the populace has also broken out now among the Shi'ites is because all of this was so violently repressed for so long.

This period is a bit like the French Reign of Terror - with the Baathists as the aristos and the Shi'ites as the seething French peasantry cutting off their enemies heads with the guillotine instead of by hand, as they do among modern radicalized Moslem communities. Imagine what that would have looked like covered by foreign media. Although, since the murderous thuggery of the peasantry was "leftist" perhaps they would have merely been sympathetic.

But this societal violence was always going to break out once Saddam's government toppled until it was replaced by another strong man dictator equally violent. There was always going to be a period of severe chaos in Iraq - not a peaceful transition from government to government. David Kay warned of precisely such a thing in his report. But since it was an inconvenient truth, that's that part that was left out of the headlines and soundbites.

It is quite likely, though now unknowable, that it would have been far, far worse without the aegis of foreign troops there.

Alcibiades:

It goes further than Saddam's mere suppression of the Shia and Kurds during his rule. As the potential for his ouster became more and more likely, he invited Sunni Islamist movements into Iraq to help him out, particularly in the semi-autonomous Khurdish north.

How much sectarian violence would be going on in post-Saddam Iraq without all the assistance being provided by Iran and various Sunni actors is rather difficult to quantify. And heaven only knows how much less instability would have followed Saddam's ouster had his various oil-for-food friends on the UN Security Council sent in troops instead of taking money and supplying arms that have, in all probability, helped fuel the "insurgency".

Democrats showed they are a bigger tent than the Republican Party likes to claim they are. Mimikatz correctly pointed out that candidates such as Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, and Jim Webb are populists, ran as populists, and hold a range of positions on the liberal/conservative axis. I observed that the Republicans were winning these close races on the basis of populism. Now the Democrats are taking this away from them and can win some of them.

Good to see things more or less cheerful around here. I have not dared to visit Seraphic Secret because Robert is probably eating his liver.

To the charming asdf: Did anyone say anything about Israel? Oh, that's right, it's all part of the International Jewish Conspiracy and Judith and I control the universe. Cue the diabolical laughter!

As for Rob, I have no idea where "paranoia" is being expressed here, except by Mr. asdf. And likewise, from an American perspective, you Europeans are a hoot. Watching the decline of western civilization's a barrel of laughs!

And to all the other lefty, dictator/terrorist-loving posters on this thread, your buddy Saddam's going bye-bye soon so that "final solution" for Iraq is out. Guess you'll have to find a new hero.

4jkb4ia wrote: Democrats showed they are a bigger tent than the Republican Party likes to claim they are.

Yeah that was the brainchild of the extremely pragmatic Rahm Emanuel, who is going to be absolutely critical in 2008 in getting Hillary nominated and then elected.

I'd say, to use a sport's analogy, we better have people on our team marking him at all times in the upcoming game.

Funny though, on TalkLeft - often quite a sane site for Democrats because it's proprieter, Jeralyn Meritt, is quite sane herself, they are already sharpening their knives for him - the day after he led them to victory.

"Good to see things more or less cheerful around here. I have not dared to visit Seraphic Secret because Robert is probably eating his liver."

LOL. We're not that cheerful around here, but we are keeping a stiff upper lip. But I had to talk a friend of mine down from a metaphorical ledge this afternoon. We agreed that when the nuke explodes here in Manhattan we won't suffer, because we are so close to the epicenter.

I have been reading some about the Dem party fracturing as a result of success and then having to live with themselves. Heh.

I'm pretty cheerful. But I've been in the opposition before. And it is true, from the POV of being on the attack rather than on offense, it is much more fun.

And I cheered right up on Tuesday night after two bowls of pesto several hours apart and 4 glasses of red wine while contemplating how Joe Lieberman - Iraq hawk and now entirely beholden to Republicans voters for his current job - is now the lynchpin of the Senate - when it didn't need to have been that way.

I did have a few scattered thoughts about moving South, though. Might be much, much better from a dating standpoint, if we can only locate a posse of southern, gun-loving, Jewish hawks.

Or maybe we could just do field trips!