I think we need to be a bit careful here. The Arabs don't like their current group of secularist leaders (most of whom are lousy dictators). Islamism is the most powerful alternative to these secular leaders. I'm not sure, however, that Islamism is really quite so popular with the majorities in the Arab world. Most Palestinians I know are very secular--and from what I've heard, most of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza voted for Hamas more because it was seen as the only viable alternative to a corrupt and ineffective Fatah than because they like the idea of living in a repressive Islamic state. This is not to say that there is not a strong Islamic movement--it's just that the popularity of the Islamists is in part attributable to the fact that they are the only viable opposition, not to their more extreme ideas.

Ms. Rice pointed out that the election results surprised just about everyone. "I don't know anyone who wasn't caught off guard by Hamas's strong showing," she said

She seems to live her life getting caught off guard, even when the evidence smacks her in the face.  She was a zero as a NSA, and now she's a zero as Sec. of State.

So, say it loud and say it proud--in future elections Islamists will prevail over secularists.  Got it?

That's what Bush's spreading freedom is all about, isn't it?

I would say that Ms. Rice has a dangerously narrow circle of acquaintances ("I do not know anyone...")

I comes fron the manner you make a carrier as a GOP pail-bearer.  It is not only imprortant to flatter the right people, but it is also important to utterly ignore the wrong people.

Powell did not ignore "the wrong people" so he became a wrong person himself.  Mrs. Rice avoids that error, but at the expense of making about every other error possible. 

But it doesn't matter that they didn't think it would happen.  The fact of the matter is that they knew it could happen.  Sure, no one was willing to bet the house that Hamas would take over.  But no one was willing to bet the house that Hamas wouldn't take over, and I think that's what's really important here.

For the billionth time, hope is not a plan.  This Administration continually refuses to prepare for worst-case scenarios, even when those worst-case scenarios are reasonably likely!  

They simply never anticipated the breech of the levees election of Hamas.  Ugh, they're like a goldfish swimming in circles who every two minutes gets surprised to see the castle in his bowl.  Just the worst Administration ever.    

Secretary Rice has never said anything with substance, or I would remember something other than "I think the heading said, Osama determined..." or "No one could have imagined...".

I listened to her testimony for the 9/11 hearings and it was all empty teacher-pleaser blather.

Purple State

Let me go one step further.  My cousin is a Middle Eastern expert and fluent in Arabic.  She has been to the Middle East speaking to many of the Islamists.  She makes two points.  First, related to the one you made is that many of the Arab leaders suppress the secular opposition.  Therefore it is very hard to know what the Arab people really want.

The other point she makes is that the Islamists are very isolated from the rest of the world. As she pointed out it is possible for an Islamists to go from Egypt to London and never be outside of a Mosque or meet anyone who is not a Muslim.  She is a big advocate of engaging Islamists.  She thinks whether it is businesspeople, lawyers or other such civil groups there are a lot of opportunities to broaden the horizens of Islamists.

Well Wallace, I posted my prediciton from 16 December.  I got it right.  Where is your mighty prediction?  Oh, that's right, you're not capable of such mental heavy lifting.  I encourage you to review my blog postings and note the ones that are "wrong".  Good hunting Scooby Doo.

Well Wallace, I posted my prediciton from 16 December.  I got it right.  Where is your mighty prediction?  Oh, that's right, you're not capable of such mental heavy lifting.  I encourage you to review my blog postings and note the ones that are "wrong".  Good hunting Scooby Doo.

Dude, I'm not the one who claims to be an "expert" on terrorism, that's you. As for spotting your mistakes how about "July 10 2001" 

As for my predictions, when DeLay is aquitted and the Dems lose again in November, I'll be around to gloat.

Checked out your "prediction" didn't notice anything about Hezbulah winning an election. I did however pick up this gem

"Despite our economic prowess and alleged sophistication, religious fundamentalists in our own country have succeeded in bringing great pressure to bear on our government and our media."

The problem you guys have is equating the two. Christians in America don't seek to destroy the rest of the world I guess we could title this as "Why y'all keep losing #79"  when will you guys get a clue?

SFC, why are you here?  You clearly don't agree with anything that anyone else here has to say.  It would be my guess that a lot of us are quite concerned that Christian fundamentalists are very nearly the same to our society as Islamic fundamentalists are to their society.  Perhaps you have forgotten the Michigan Militia and the Oklahoma City bombing?  We haven't.  Fundamentalists come in scary, very scary, and down right frightening.  The monsters who lead these groups are self appointed scum, and their followers seem like willing dupes.  Getting the dupes to wise up is a lot of work especially when people like you keep defending the monsters.

You can make some valid general social evolutionary assumptions, and one is that countries at the technological level of the ME will prefer more fundamentalist religion than countries at our technological level. I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, and they’ll eventually work through it. This is where a little old fashioned principled isolationism might be a good thing. Not to say we can avoid global realities and their effects on us, but we shouldn’t rush to judge or muck around in other people’s countries and cultures unless there is a real travesty we can prevent or a serious national interest we must defend. But we should be a lot more cautios than we have been regarding where national interests, and perhaps more generous with our aid in regards to genocides and other humanitarian holocausts.

On the MS: their religiosity is a form of technology just as our culture is to a large degree a product of technology. By technology I include education, the ability to travel and port cities with international airports and multicultural mixing and tolerance which it produces. We have the internet, universities, and ethnic diversity as a result of technology, they have homogenous communities, mosques and cohesive extended family structures as a result of technology. We were once exactly as they are now, and we were just as fundamentalist. In fact, our Crusades, Inquisition, slavery and genocides were as xenophobic, fundamentalist, and terrifying as it gets. So was the authoritarian and unambiguous social order and clearly defined gender and class roles also parts of fundamentalism which many once enjoyed.

To a greater degree our modern technology thrives on and is appropriate to diversity, and to a greater degree their technology thrives in and is appropriate to fundamentalism which is just another word for cultural homogeneity. Yes they have satellite dishes and cars and some overt symbols of modern life, but culturally much of the ME, especially the lower 90% in terms of wealth, is still in another age culturally and technologically.

BTW, we still have plenty of religion in our culture, because zeal is a timeless human trait. I don’t just mean the Christian fundamentalists, but other forms of social identity taken to degree that becomes religiosity.  There is the business culture that worships the invisible hand of markets. The left movements who worship the "spirit of love" and take up various new agey beliefs without skepticism. There are plenty of other examples, so we shouldn’t get too haughty about the ME when deciding what we ought to do.

In fact, if you could pull your head out of your ass for a minute,

Dude, I know you are not used to being questioned here, and you are usually fawned over, but you don't always have to resort to call ing me names, simply state your case, whether it's strong enough or not your minions will continue to fawn.

You said:
"Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.

"None of these beliefs are based in fact. ... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."

That was wrong. (notice I did that whithout mentioning where I think your head is). 

SFC, why are you here?  You clearly don't agree with anything that anyone else here has to say.

Not true, I've agreed with many points made by different authors, and rated many highly. I don't agree with alot that's true, but I thought Liberals were the "idea guys" you know all that "toleracy" stuff you preach when you are in public.

They simply never anticipated the breech of the levees election of Hamas.  Ugh, they're like a goldfish swimming in circles who every two minutes gets surprised to see the castle in his bowl.  Just the worst Administration ever.

And they whooped the best you had to offer...twice...God!!! It must really suck to be a Democrat!