It was going to happen. Here's Mohammed's analysis (ITM) of the election returns. I do have a few comments.

It was obvious that a majority here were in favor of a change, not because they think the democrats have a better agenda but because folks here wanted to see Bush and his party lose.

From previous correspondence with Mohammed and Omar, this is clearly because President Bush has, in their view, failed to address the real problem in Iraq - the Iranian sponsors of the terrorism that's occurring there. They're not pissed at the president for ousting Saddam. They're pissed because he didn't move on to the next target, Iran, where they seem to feel (and I believe rightly so) that our efforts would have been better spent.

There had been attempts to give the public here the impression that the democratic party as a whole is opposed to the war as a whole and not only opposed to the way war was being managed so far. And the media here, pretty much like the media in the west, were focusing on the democrats' criticism of the Bush administration without saying anything about whether the democrats had alternative plans, together with an exaggeration of the idea that democrats are going to go ahead with an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.(my emphasis)

Well, based on things that get said here in America, particularly by the Democrats themselves, I'd say they are, in fact, opposed to not only the war as a whole, but war in general, even for positive purposes. I honestly don't think they give a rat's ass how the war has been managed. They just want out of the idea of war - mainly because, it seems, that people die when there's war.

The media focused on the Democrats' criticism of the Bush administration without saying anything about alternative plans because that's EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE GETTING FROM THE DEMOCRATS. Based upon cut-and-run strategies posed by many Democrats, including John Murtha, I don't think the idea of an immediate, or at least premature, withdrawal from Iraq is much of an exaggeration at all. Just look at what happened in Vietnam (Donk Congress cutting off funds) and Somalia (Donk President). Somalia is even given as one of bin Laden's reasons for calling America a "Paper Tiger". If you want a free Iraq, Mohammed, I'd say it's a good idea to get your troops and police forces ready in a big hurry, or you may have that bloody civil war that has been feared for so long. You have been a wonderful voice of freedom. I pray that you win.

However, this tone changed a bit after the elections were over and now there's kind of a warning tone that suggests that "nothing has changed" and that US policy is one and no elections can change the large image. Media and politicians are back to reminding the public that democrats are even better friends of Israel than republicans are.

I guess you didn't see the footage of Hitlery hugging Mrs. Arafat...

This, I think, is an attempt to put America as a whole back in its place as the enemy regardless of who's in charge in Capitol Hill, which means the regimes and their media here had to put the people back "on track" so they don't go far in their expectations or prepare to deal with anything American ... what happened had to portrayed as a defeat for the American nation, not only for the republicans.

Osama bin Laden's sentiments, exactly.

I would like to remind again that claiming that America's policies are the cause of anti-Americanism is crap, because the hatred is for the nature of the American democratic system which contrasts the nature of regimes here.

Someone had better tell this to John Kerry.

The rulers in the region consider the change in America a victory for them because time is precious right now and many here think the next two years will be stagnation phase rather than action phase for America ... I personally doubt this but I can say Iran, Syria and some powers in Iraq think they just won the truce they need.

Many here in America fear that you may be wrong about this, Mohammed.

Mohammed then goes on to ask a few very introspective questions, the likes of which I could easily see Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams pondering back in the 18th Cenury ...

But is that really good for them? What if the calls for dialogue between them and America over Iraq materialize? And what will the requirements and implications be?

I think Syria and Iran will be in an embarrassing position ... so far they were saying that America doesn't accept dialogue and the administration is one of war and only war but now things will change and we'll see faces in Washington that call for dialogue, so what will they do then?

I tend to think they will accept dialogue as a principal (or pretend to accept it at least) but on what basis?

Will it be like Saddam's dialogue with the UN, or a serious effort to solve a crisis?

Will the Iranians really consider dropping their nuclear program and move to build friendly relationships with America, the west, accept Israel's existence and stop messing with Iraq's affairs? And is Syria willing to consider changing its totalitarian repressive internal policy and stop the interference in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories?

What about some of the radical parties in Iraq, are they willing to replace violence with dialogue and accept the concept of sharing power?

The answers to all of these questions are the very nature of freedom, and the answers as they relate to Iraq have always been the responsibility not of the American liberators, but of the Iraqis themselves.

Only the Iraqis can determine which course of history in Iraq will most benefit those who seek to undermine its progress. Only the Iraqis can determine the implications of anything that passes for dialogue between any parties with regard to Iraq. Only Iraqis can stand up for themselves and make any excuse for "dialogue" between Iran and the US immaterial and irrelevant. ONLY IRAQ CAN SOLVE ITS CURRENT CRISIS. This has always been the case and always will be. President Bush was simply offering some help in the interests of our own nation.

The answers to the questions regarding Iran's nuclear program, relationship with the West, and Iraq, is an emphatic NO. Same with the questions regarding Syria. As far as the radical parties in Iraq, the situation is doubtful, and I wouldn't hold my breath.

We're dealing with terrorists here. The track record is long and clear. Democrats appease terrorists, and the terrorists take advantage. While Republicans don't always make the best decisions, at least the terrorists have fewer opportunites.

I fear the Iraqis may be learning this lesson a bit too soon. I pray I'm wrong.

RWR