I myself haven't seen the exit poll results that indicate why voters voted the way they did. Some knowledgable people think that it was the independents that rose up and told the Republicans they were disappointed in what they had become.
Republicans believe this as well.
Many on both sides believe Iraq is a big part of the problem but what about Iraq?.
"I can understand Americans saying, "Come home." But I don't know if they said: 'Come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for Al Qaeda'," Bush said.
"I don't believe they said that. And so I'm committed to victory. I'm committed to helping this country so that we can come home."
Is that what Democrats heard as well? There is little doubt that there are a lot of Democrats who voted to bring the troops home now. But is that what Democrats will try to do?
Democrats have a profound stake in how Iraq plays out, even as many complain that Bush's post-war democracy-building was fatally flawed from the start and leaves policymakers no good choices now.
Long penalized at the ballot box for being "soft" on defense, Democrats are trying shedding that reputation as they turn their sights toward capturing the White House in 2008.
They will not end funding for the war, although they technically have the power to do so. As angry as they are at Bush's post-war handling of Iraq, many Democratic lawmakers are concerned that a premature U.S. departure will ensure the country becomes a haven for extremists.
Still, there are those who are taking credit for the Democrats victory and they want their agenda enacted
"More than anything else, this election was a voter uprising propelled by voter outrage over Iraq," said Eli Pariser of MoveOn Political Action, a grassroots liberal political group.
His group will push hard for an exit, with a campaign that targets not just Democrats but Republicans "who bear the brunt of the responsibility for the mess we are in." Pariser told reporters.
But that needle will not be so easy to thread
"More troops or less troops won't solve the problem. We need a political solution in Iraq that will allow our forces to leave responsibly, with our interests intact and without trading dictator for chaos," [Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, who would chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] said in a statement.
But how will they do that? Perhaps they will simply redefine victory.
...the point is, is that our presence in Iraq, as viewed by the Iraqis and by others in the region, as an occupation is not making America safer. We are not even honoring our commitment to our troops who are there, and we are not bringing stability to the region.
So what is being accomplished by our being there? A responsible redeployment outside of Iraq, at the same time disarming the militia, amending the constitution, so that more people feel a part of the new government, and, again, building diplomatic relationships in the area to bring stability and reconstruction to Iraq is really a path we have to go down.
The president -- victory is elusive. Victory is subjective. What does he mean by "victory"?
But what happens if they force this strategy and it results in bloody chaos televised to every American, with terrorists declaring victory and taking over the oil fields of Iraq?
Iraqi's are happy with the change in America, but they think it means something different yet.
"Rumsfeld's resignation is a good step because he failed to keep security in Iraq," said Saad Jawad, 45, a former army officer who also works at the Oil Ministry.
Many Iraqis blamed Rumsfeld for spurring the emergence of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias by disbanding the former Iraqi army following the April 2003 toppling of the former government of Saddam Hussein.
Rumsfeld's idea, right or wrong, is that providing too many US troops would be detrimental to Iraqi's developing their own capability. He wanted to provide a crutch, not a wheelchair.
If Iraq thinks that the change in the US Government means more security, I think they may be disappointed.
Aides say when the new Congress convenes in January, Democrats plan to call for troops to begin coming home from Iraq and to increase money for veterans and training special operations forces.
And if the change means that the US declares victory and leaves, I'm not sure we will ever get another ally in the Muslim Middle East ever again.
If this is indeed what happens, we'll find out in 2008 if that's what the voters intended when they put Democrats in power.
