Henry Sturman - Good posting, but I can see some holes in your argument. Let's look at this:

"The ones who are rewarding terrorism are the voters who changed their vote from the ruling party to the socialists in response to the terrorist attack in Madrid. Those voters are the ones who are making it so that terrorism works."

Undoubtedly, some voters did change their vote from the ruling party to the Socialists in response to the attack. But the attack also provoked a substantially larger turnout than the previous election. So it is quite possible that the election was determinded by Socialists who would not otherwise have placed a vote. So I ask you: Is it a victory for the terrorists to get more voters into the booths? I think not.

"Terrorists commit a terrible terrorist act, and within a week they are rewarded by voters putting a party in charge that will obey the directives of the terrorists 100% by getting the troops out of Iraq."

But they won't be withdrawn until the handover in June and maybe not even then. So what's the problem - we should hope that Iraq can stand on its own feet by then. Could you point out some other examples of how the new government is engaging in appeasement? I think there is a danger in writing off the election result as a victory for the terrorists. For that truly is to encourage them.