NationStates Jolt Archive

Can the democrats stand strong and refuse to offer any other funding bill? will Bush find some loophole? will the soldiers be coming home this summer? Will the prez relent? Will someone trigger an infinite improbability drive, turning Iraq into a beautiful democratic freetopia? What's next?

1# Can the democrats stand strong and refuse to offer any other funding bill? 2# will Bush find some loophole?
3# will the soldiers be coming home this summer?
4# Will the prez relent?
5# Will someone trigger an infinite improbability drive, turning Iraq into a beautiful democratic freetopia? What's next?for #2  the answer is No.

Question #1 automatically answers all the others.

for #2  the answer is No.

Question #1 automatically answers all the others.If the democrats stand strong ..
The soldiers come home this summer..
Bush totally loses face.. and so does the War party.

They'll cave. Or already have, I've been busy. The administration still controls too much of the discourse that the Democrats don't want to be painted with the 'don't support the troops' brush having just taken the legislature.

Not that it's true, it's just what they're going to do.

I'd be happier if they just sent him another one of the same, but they haven't been in the business of making me happy...

Bush blames the Dems for not giving the troops what they need when he is the one who vetoed the funding. The Dems will probably cave in even if the majority of voters want us out of Iraq ASAP. They are too worried about looking weak. But maybe the Dems will surprise us and stay strong. Still time to find out.

The hints right now involve just enough money for 60 days, which will get them to the next regular appropriation, and the next "progress report" from Gen. Petraeus. There are apparently some Republicans who are saying that if things don't improve immensely by then--and there's no reason to expect they will--that the Senate will fracture. Too many Republicans are running for re-election and they're looking at President 28% and shitting their collective drawers.

The hints right now involve just enough money for 60 days, which will get them to the next regular appropriation, and the next "progress report" from Gen. Petraeus. There are apparently some Republicans who are saying that if things don't improve immensely by then--and there's no reason to expect they will--that the Senate will fracture. Too many Republicans are running for re-election and they're looking at President 28% and shitting their collective drawers.

That's kind of interesting. I'd like to see that play out.

Bush blames the Dems for not giving the troops what they need when he is the one who vetoed the funding. The Dems will probably cave in even if the majority of voters want us out of Iraq ASAP. They are too worried about looking weak. But maybe the Dems will surprise us and stay strong. Still time to find out.

One could also say that Congress knew that the war spending bill was going to fail from Day One, and yet they sent it up to him anyways, full knowing that he was going to Veto it, so one could blame Congress for this.

One could also say that Congress knew that the war spending bill was going to fail from Day One, and yet they sent it up to him anyways, full knowing that he was going to Veto it, so one could blame Congress for this.

And one would be completely full of crap as well. The only way that works out is if Bush had been negotiating with them and they refused to budge, but Bush said from the beginning "my way or fuck you." Congress is exerting its authority and slapping Bush down. Besides--the power game here, as long as the Democrats are willing to play it, favors them. They want the war to end, and Bush needs money to keep it going. The Democrats don't really need a bill. Bush does.

One could also say that Congress knew that the war spending bill was going to fail from Day One, and yet they sent it up to him anyways, full knowing that he was going to Veto it, so one could blame Congress for this.

I don't follow. Congress made the President veto it?

To send the troops home now would be foolish. The war was an incredible mistake on America's part. However, if we leave now we will condemn all of Iraq's inhabitants. Its too late to turn around and leave, we have to ride out this shit storm that our excuse of a president has so graciously ripped.

Skaalmere;12613663']To send the troops home now would be foolish. The war was an incredible mistake on America's part. However, if we leave now we will condemn all of Iraq's inhabitants. Its too late to turn around and leave, we have to ride out this shit storm that our excuse of a president has so graciously ripped.

Tell that to the president, who vetoed a bill that would have seen the soldiers staying there for at least until the end of the year and possibly some more important ones for even longer.

Now, if the democrats do indeed send the same bill back and he vetoes it again, the military is going to run out of funds.

I would be rather happy with this outcome, but in all fairness, this is the President's fault for failing to negotiate.

Skaalmere;12613663']To send the troops home now would be foolish. The war was an incredible mistake on America's part. However, if we leave now we will condemn all of Iraq's inhabitants. Its too late to turn around and leave, we have to ride out this shit storm that our excuse of a president has so graciously ripped.

The Iraqis were condemned the moment the United States military overthrew a stable if despotic and brutal regime, dismantled vital infrastructure like utilities and bureaucracy, and uncorked the stopper on years and years of sectarian animosity.

Now, if the democrats do indeed send the same bill back and he vetoes it again, the military is going to run out of funds.

I would be rather happy with this outcome.I would be happy too.
.. as happy as having sex with the twins FukMi & FukYu :fluffle:

One could also say that Congress knew that the war spending bill was going to fail from Day One, and yet they sent it up to him anyways, full knowing that he was going to Veto it, so one could blame Congress for this.

I don't agree. Even if Congress feels there are poor odds in getting their legislation signed into law it doesn't mean they shouldn't bother. One would hope that they would stick to their beliefs and try to institute change no matter how poor the chances of succeeding. Being able to stand up to the president is part of their job after all. Why else did we elect them if all they would do is shrug their shoulders and say that there is no hope so they won't even try. If Bush chooses not to do any negotiating then he is the one at fault. I can only hope that some miracle will happen and the extra votes can be found to override the veto. It would make my month. Possibly get me through most of the year.

Don't worry: I'm sure the next president will surrender to the terrorists so that thousands more Iraqis will have the chance to suffer a grisly death rather than enjoy their democracy. Our only hope is that Bush is able to win the war with Al-Qaeda prior to a Democratic president cutting and running like a scared schoolgirl.

Mike Gravel knows what to do.

Pass legislation making it a felony for the president to not withdraw troops from Iraq.

The president vetoes it.

Now, daily, you hold a vote to override the veto. Now, republicans are left with two options:
1. Don't override the veto, show the American public who is keeping the troops in Iraq (the President and the republicans who won't override the veto)
2. Override the veto. Now the president can either withdraw, or become a felon.


I don't think the bill will make the president withdraw, but now, he's committed a felony charge, and congress can impeach him.

Once again, Republicans will be stuck with two options:
1. Support Mr. 28% and show American who is really keeping the troops in Iraq (the President and the republicans who won't get him out of office)
2. Get Mr. 28% out of office.


Now, ultimately, it doesn't necessarily do a whole lot immediately in terms of getting troops out of Iraq, but it at least shows that the American legislature is serious about withdrawal. It will put more pressure on the President (assuming whoever is in office after Bush actually cares about public opinion), and we might get out of Iraq sometime soon.

Don't worry: I'm sure the next president will surrender to the terrorists so that thousands more Iraqis will have the chance to suffer a grisly death rather than enjoy their democracy. Our only hope is that Bush is able to win the war with Al-Qaeda prior to a Democratic president cutting and running like a scared schoolgirl.

All you can do now is squawk "cut and run!", eh? Ignoring the fact that the majority of Iraqis and Americans both want us gone. But I suppose that doesn't matter does it? Bush has dug himself a nice little hole about not leaving until the "job is done" so he would look like an idiot if he actually compromised. He will never do what is right. So yes, I can't wait for a Democrat who will actually do something to extract ourselves from that clusterfuck of a conflict.

Don't worry: I'm sure the next president will surrender to the terrorists so that thousands more Iraqis will have the chance to suffer a grisly death rather than enjoy their democracy. Our only hope is that Bush is able to win the war with Al-Qaeda prior to a Democratic president cutting and running like a scared schoolgirl.
Right.

Well at the US forces killing about 200 iraqis to one US soldier, I don't see how pulling them out is going to cost any lives, to be honest.

Ignoring the fact that the majority of Iraqis...want us gone.

Well, obviously, a most Iraqis do not want us to permanently remain in their country with any significant amount of troops. However, the majority of Iraqis are opposed to immediate withdrawal, especially the persecuted Shias and Kurds.

Well at the US forces killing about 200 iraqis to one US soldier, I don't see how pulling them out is going to cost any lives, to be honest.

Who do you think is causing the lion's share of Iraqi casualties? Terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, not American troops or sectarian militias. We are playing a fundamental role in preventing them from carrying out their fiendish schemes. And if we kill 200 of Osama's cronies for every American that dies, that is an extremely welcome statistic.

Well, obviously, a most Iraqis do not want us to permanently remain in their country with any significant amount of troops. However, the majority of Iraqis are opposed to immediate withdrawal, especially the persecuted Shias and Kurds.

The majority definately says within 6 months. Which sounds appropriate, we can't just drop everything and go. But we need to have a serious transfer of responsibilities right now and get out in accordance to the wishes of both sides.

Don't worry: I'm sure the next president will surrender to the terrorists so that thousands more Iraqis will have the chance to suffer a grisly death rather than enjoy their democracy. Our only hope is that Bush is able to win the war with Al-Qaeda prior to a Democratic president cutting and running like a scared schoolgirl.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

At least the Brits could see the only way to end their civil war in 1776 was to immediately withdraw.

Can't imagine what would happen if England just kept shipping over soldiers to die to American terrorist and guerilla tactics.

All in the name of taking down George Washington and his freedom hating cronies that only want to destroy glorious Britain...

But we need to have a serious transfer of responsibilities right now

What the hell do you think we've been doing for the past few years? We're gradually passing on the task of maintaining the peace to the Iraqi military and police force, region by region. However, they lack the capacity to defend the whole country as of this moment. In the meantime, until they are ready, the duty of guarding Iraq against nefarious butchers rests on us.

the duty of guarding Iraq against nefarious butchers rests on us.

To what end?

Why does America have to defend Iraqis from the terrorists that are out to destroy...America...

...or so goes the propaganda.

Well, obviously, a most Iraqis do not want us to permanently remain in their country with any significant amount of troops. However, the majority of Iraqis are opposed to immediate withdrawal, especially the persecuted Shias and Kurds.

Neither the Shi'a nor the Kurds are being persecuted now. The Kurds are doing reasonably well in the north and the Shi'a are the largest group in the country and pretty much in control of what passes for a government there right now. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. You never have before.

What the hell do you think we've been doing for the past few years?
Fucking up the place?

The Kurds are doing reasonably well in the north

Sure, they're doing reasonably well, but they have not escaped from Al-Qaeda's grasp. There have been heinous bombings in major cities such as Kirkuk, killing many. Interestingly, the relatively prosperous Kurds are the ones who most want to keep US troops around for their protection; obviously, they don't think they are as "safe" as you would have people believe.

and the Shi'a are the largest group in the country and pretty much in control of what passes for a government there right now.

The Indians by far outnumbered the British in colonial times, but that did not stop the British from ruling them harshly. Similarly, the large majority of Iraqi deaths are Shias who have been butchered by Sunni terrorist organizations; they lack the power to stop Al-Qaeda cohorts from detonating explosive devices in their regions.

Fucking up the place?

No, rebuilding it and installing a successful democracy. We shouldn't allow the country to fall into disrepair by letting Al-Qaeda fuck the place up.

The Indians by far outnumbered the British in colonial times, but that did not stop the British from ruling them harshly. Similarly, the large majority of Iraqi deaths are Shias who have been butchered by Sunni terrorist organizations; they lack the power to stop Al-Qaeda cohorts from detonating explosive devices in their regions.Comparing the Shi'ites now to the Indians during the Raj is beyond pathetic--it was more appropriate to the situation under Saddam Hussein. That you pull it out in this circumstance just shows how bereft of intellectual honesty you really are.

No, rebuilding it and installing a successful democracy. We shouldn't allow the country to fall into disrepair by letting Al-Qaeda fuck the place up.
Excuse me for a second here -

*laughs in your face and at your pathetic beliefs which are nothing but idealism in the face of rising racial tensions, which have fuck all to do with Al-Qaeda*

Who do you think is causing the lion's share of Iraqi casualties? Terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, not American troops or sectarian militias. We are playing a fundamental role in preventing them from carrying out their fiendish schemes. And if we kill 200 of Osama's cronies for every American that dies, that is an extremely welcome statistic.
Right, right...

Err are you quite sure that a terrorist organisation has a membership of over half a million?

That'd be pretty bleeding impressive, but let's be honest - it's not about AQ any more. At all. It never was. Stop being a dumbass.

Right, right...

Err are you quite sure that a terrorist organisation has a membership of over half a million?

No, it doesn't, because you were incorrect when you stated that US troops kill 200 Iraqis for every single US soldier that is killed. That's why I said "if"; your statistic was of dubious veracity, but I nonetheless logically extended it to prove a point.

...let's be honest - it's not about AQ any more. At all. It never was. Stop being a dumbass.

No, it's all about Al-Qaeda. Who do you think is responsible for all the car bombings? Sunni militias? American forces? Santa Claus? No, it's Al-Qaeda -- they are the ones stoking the fires of sectarian hatred.

No, it's all about Al-Qaeda. Who do you think is responsible for all the car bombings? Sunni militias? American forces? Santa Claus? No, it's Al-Qaeda -- they are the ones stoking the fires of sectarian hatred.

Argument/proof, please.

No, it doesn't, because you were incorrect when you stated that US troops kill 200 Iraqis for every single US soldier that is killed. That's why I said "if"; your statistic was of dubious veracity, but I nonetheless logically extended it to prove a point.
Right, well my claim is an overestimation for sure, but it's about 100 so called "insurgents" for every US soldier at the moment, let's say 50-1.

Do you think that those people could actually kill 50 Iraqis and not get shot in the process by their own countrypeople?
No, it's all about Al-Qaeda. Who do you think is responsible for all the car bombings? Sunni militias? American forces? Santa Claus? No, it's Al-Qaeda -- they are the ones stoking the fires of sectarian hatred.
Hmm, or maybe you're some kind of retarded drone, who doesn't know what happens to ordinary people when their neighbourhood gets shot at by some foreigners who aren't present for any good reason.

Hypothetical situation :

Let's say The World's Most Brutal Socialist Dictatorship In The Universe (Who Are Also Liberals) takes control of the US when you're living there. Life is hard, times are grim, but if you fought back, your whole family and all of your friends are going to be killed, so you don't think it's much of a good idea.

Although life is hard, they do keep the trains on time, water running and some degree of food supply going, which is pretty helpful.

Things are crap and the EU has basically had enough and invades.

On the eve of this invasion, the American Fascist movement starts up, as a secret network of fighters that's seeking to start Nazism in the US, but to overthrow the current government, which you also really, really hate.

For about ten seconds, I'm sure you're thinking "woohoo, now we can have free and fair elections, and a return to better days", right.

Now five seconds later than this thought, French troops sweep through your neighbourhood, backed up by Pumas mounting grenade launchers, as well as some tanks. Not only do they blow basically your whole street up, but they then manage to shoot your partner, claiming that they were a part of this terrorist network.

Seeing as you've got some guns and ammunition around, as well as a hell of a lot of anger and adrenaline, what do you do?

Seeing as you've got some guns and ammunition around, as well as a hell of a lot of anger and adrenaline, what do you do?

I'd demolish the entire French army Rambo-style and train their pumas as pets to help me in my quest for world domination. But I don't see what that has to do with Iraq.

I'd demolish the entire French army Rambo-style and train their pumas as pets to help me in my quest for world domination. But I don't see what that has to do with Iraq.

Here, let me help. Replace yourself with an Iraqi.

I'd demolish the entire French army Rambo-style and train their pumas as pets to help me in my quest for world domination. But I don't see what that has to do with Iraq.
Then you're a member of the American Fascists and you're actively working for their goals, exactly like all Iraqis who are fighting the US are members of Al-Qaeda.

By your logic, that is.

Here, let me help. Replace yourself with an Iraqi.

Yeah, but you're missing the fact that I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American.

Yeah, but you're missing the fact that I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American.
Oh Jesus you are stupider than I thought.

...exactly like all Iraqis who are fighting the US are members of Al-Qaeda.

No, I never said that. Although Al-Qaeda is actively engaged in the insurgency, it is only a minor component thereof. However, it is responsible for the vast majority of car bombings targeted at civilians (ie, non-insurgent acts of bloodshed).

And so Means To An End keeps spewing, and spewing... and spewing...

:gundge:

No, I never said that. Although Al-Qaeda is actively engaged in the insurgency, it is only a minor component thereof. However, it is responsible for the vast majority of car bombing targeted at civilians (ie, non-insurgent acts of bloodshed).
Right, right.
No, it's all about Al-Qaeda. Who do you think is responsible for all the car bombings? Sunni militias? American forces? Santa Claus? No, it's Al-Qaeda -- they are the ones stoking the fires of sectarian hatred.

Yeah, but you're missing the fact that I'm not an Iraqi. I'm an American.

That's nice but irrelevant unless you can prove that Iraqi culture calls for a different response.

And so Means To An End keeps spewing, and spewing... and spewing...

:gundge:
Err interesting use of the gundge.

I was also unaware that it was MtaE.

Sorry Means, but you're kind of being rubbish now, instead of properly thinking your arguments out and all.

Right, right.

That's exactly what I said in the previous post! Al-Qaeda is responsible for the car bombings and the stoking of sectarian hatred! I never said anything about the insurgency there.

I was also unaware that it was MtaE.

Nah, I'm not him. Although we share similar economic and foreign policy views, I am more conservative than he in a religious sense.

Instead of properly thinking your arguments out and all.

It doesn't take much to refute the Democrats' timeline for surrender. Hell, the thing practically refutes itself.

Nah, I'm not him. Although we share similar economic and foreign policy views, I am more conservative than he in a religious sense.
Ah right.

That's a shame, to be honest, because he used to be quite good for a debate.
It doesn't take much to refute the Democrats' timeline for surrender. Hell, the thing practically refutes itself.
Oh please. When you've been confronted by adversity in this topic, it just moves onto "but... but!" instead of anything of any real value.
That's exactly what I said in the previous post! Al-Qaeda is responsible for the car bombings and the stoking of sectarian hatred! I never said anything about the insurgency there.
I don't see why it's Al-Qaeda doing either of those two exclusively - both kind of happened in their own time, mainly because of a lack of a dictatorship keeping all of the groups down, which is what Iraq and its ilk need (see also Russia).

That's exactly what I said in the previous post! Al-Qaeda is responsible for the car bombings and the stoking of sectarian hatred! I never said anything about the insurgency there.

Wow. Reason for those who do not understand: Inherent overlook of sarcasm. I'd type it in black, but it should be obvious.

Wow. Reason for those who do not understand: Inherent overlook of sarcasm. I'd type it in black, but it should be obvious.

It is commonly thought that they were responsible for the Samarra bombings. So the sectarian bit can be construed as completely true.

It is commonly thought that they were responsible for the Samarra bombings. So the sectarian bit can be construed as completely true.
Because Samarra was the only thing that brought up sectarian issues?

Because Samarra was the only thing that brought up sectarian issues?

Obviously not but it was a major flash point for sectarian violence. It spiked hugely after it.

What the hell do you think we've been doing for the past few years? We're gradually passing on the task of maintaining the peace to the Iraqi military and police force, region by region. However, they lack the capacity to defend the whole country as of this moment. In the meantime, until they are ready, the duty of guarding Iraq against nefarious butchers rests on us.

As of the moment. They don't seem to be gaining this ability at all during our occupation. I wonder if this should tell us anything? We need to give the Iraqi government a hard shove by announcing our intention to pull out, that we won't be there to prop them up anymore. Give them a little incentive to get their shit together and try to be able to stand on their own two feet without continuing to lean on the United States. If they can't manage to do this I don't see why we are bothering to keep them in power.

Can the democrats stand strong and refuse to offer any other funding bill?

Apparently not.

As of the moment. They don't seem to be gaining this ability at all during our occupation. I wonder if this should tell us anything? We need to give the Iraqi government a hard shove by announcing our intention to pull out, that we won't be there to prop them up anymore. Give them a little incentive to get their shit together and try to be able to stand on their own two feet without continuing to lean on the United States. If they can't manage to do this I don't see why we are bothering to keep them in power.

Bingo. Either they can stand on their own or they can't. It doesn't matter if we stay for another 10 months or 10 years; if they can't stand on their own, they can't stand on their own.

Apparently not.

Have they offered any other bill yet? And has said bill eliminated troop withdrawal dates?

Have they offered any other bill yet? And has said bill eliminated troop withdrawal dates?

They're currently negotiating a bill with no withdrawal dates.

They're currently negotiating a bill with no withdrawal dates.
No need for the Democrats to back down?

Question (http://americanresearchgroup.com/):

Do you favor or oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 70% 17% 13%
Republican PV 17% 77% 6%

Question:

Do you favor or oppose the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq even if it means an increase in violence among the Iraqi people?

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 53% 31% 16%
Republican PV 16% 77% 7%

No need for the Democrats to back down?

Question (http://americanresearchgroup.com/):

Do you favor or oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 70% 17% 13%
Republican PV 17% 77% 6%

Question:

Do you favor or oppose the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq even if it means an increase in violence among the Iraqi people?

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 53% 31% 16%
Republican PV 16% 77% 7%

You can post polls all you want.

They're negotiating a bill with no timelines. "Benchmarks" yes, but probably without any real teeth.

They're currently negotiating a bill with no withdrawal dates.
No need for the Democrats to back down?

Question (http://americanresearchgroup.com/):

Do you believe that the United States can win the war in Iraq, or not?

Can win No Undecided

Democratic PV 17% 70% 13%
Republican PV 75% 20% 5%

Question:
Do you favor or oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 70% 17% 13%
Republican PV 17% 77% 6%

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq even if it means an increase in violence among the Iraqi people?

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 53% 31% 16%
Republican PV 16% 77% 7%

And so Means To An End keeps spewing, and spewing... and spewing...

:gundge:
FreedomAndGlory = MTAE???

At least the Brits could see the only way to end their civil war in 1776 was to immediately withdraw.

Can't imagine what would happen if England just kept shipping over soldiers to die to American terrorist and guerilla tactics.

All in the name of taking down George Washington and his freedom hating cronies that only want to destroy glorious Britain...

This is a lousy and disengenuous analogy. First, Iraq is not populated by former American Colonists. Second Britain was fighting the primary occupant of the territory they were fighting over (which Britain felt was theirs), Britain was not fighting French Ground forces who were flooding the Colony borders just to fight them (regardless of the French Navy's role). And most importantly, the American colonists did not have a religious belief that is so intertwined in politics that it would have caused the Americans to leave the colonies and attack Britain using terrorism once Britain withdrew. Please do not say you are foolish enough to believe that if whenever we leave Iraq, that Islamic Fascists are not going to follow us home. It is no accident that there have been no major terrorist attacks against American civilians on the homefront. Their resources are tied up fighting our soldiers (who are proud to do it) rather than our civilians who are ill prepared to do it (save for some hero's on Flight 93).
As for the Democrats, if they really believe that the American people want out of Iraq, why dont they just pass a bill to withdraw forces right NOW? Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, Obama, and the leadership want it, what are they afraid of? Why not be honest and just do it! The answer is that they are too cowardly in their beliefs to do it, they know they will be in for a public smackdown that will make them look bad. That said though they are invested in defeat in Iraq, and will do whatever they can without losing political power to gain an advantage by using Iraq, our troops, and their families as pawns. Democrats are trying to walk a political tight rope, by satisfying their fanatic Base who wants OUT, but not alienated those who will and have gotten them elected (moderate conservatives) who will not stand for immediate troop withdrawal. Logically, there is no reason for Conservatives to believe in prolonged participation in this war except for conviction, as prolonged war is rarely politically beneficial too American political leaders because of rediculous media coverage and the American People's ADD. If you want an end to this war, get your leaders who you elected to end it, to pass legislation to openly end it, and be done with it! Then the American people will clearly see who wants it done and sees no long term reason to fight terrorism on foriegn shores, and those who believe its important to do so, and the next election will be determined one way or the other by the outcome.

They're currently negotiating a bill with no withdrawal dates.

The Washington Post reported that, but both Pelosi's and Reid's offices denied it. Right now, there is no indication that they are negotiating a bill with no withdrawal dates.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't a flying **** about the war. I would give Bush this advice: "either get the damn war done with, or get the hell outta there!"

No need for the Democrats to back down?

Question (http://americanresearchgroup.com/):

Do you believe that the United States can win the war in Iraq, or not?

Can win No Undecided

Democratic PV 17% 70% 13%
Republican PV 75% 20% 5%

Question:
Do you favor or oppose setting a deadline for the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 70% 17% 13%
Republican PV 17% 77% 6%

Question:
Do you favor or oppose the withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq even if it means an increase in violence among the Iraqi people?

Favor Oppose Undecided

Democratic PV 53% 31% 16%
Republican PV 16% 77% 7%

Whoever did this poll left out a huge portion of the population. Those of us that are independent are not even considered.

Honestly, this current democratic congress has done nothing so far to let me down. my only possible complain is that they haven't repealed the patriot act and military commissions act yet. I think they'll stand strong. I'm seriously hoping for that. Maybe the Dems have finally grown a spine.

FreedomAndGlory = MTAE???

Notice how both have hyperbolic account names and they both spew unbelievably dehumanizing Bushevik rhetoric?

Notice how both have hyperbolic account names...

Well, MTAE's name could be abbreviated. FreedomAndGlory's on the other hand...