Steve -

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment.

I too have a lot of respect for Tim Roemer, and his editorial certainly rings true, but Democrats (speaking from my own perspective), don't want to hear from our [potentially] elected officials simply that they will bring change - we are an intelligent bunch, and we want a sound policy in front of us, something that has been sorely lacking in the last several years.

"Had enough?" should be an important part of the 2006 and 2008 elections, but much more importantly we want, and deserve, to know how we are going to get there.

Judging from the polls, all the Dems have to do is promise to throw Bush and his band of criminals in the nearest federal prison, and they will win hands down. (If we actually had a valid and uncorrupted electoral process). But alas, the Bush crew isn't finished with us yet, and by the time it comes down to a vote we will be lucky if our backyards aren't glowing in the dark.

It seems fine with me.

Hey, I wouldn't object with a slogan as idiotic as, "Isn't it about time for a change? Vote Democrat!"

Frankly I disagree with Steve (and think more than 60% of Americans do, too); NO party could be worse than what we have now.

The Democrats are the opposition party - why propose solutions so that they can be co-opted, repackaged and spun by the Republicans like so many other ideas?

"Had Enough' as a campaign slogan smacks of negative cringe - Democrats have no other appeal than as appearing to be the lesser of the two devils. It lacks the positive appeal of an alternative that addresses the evident disaffection.

King had a dream. Do Democrats?

Roemer is right in that policy details will not sell. He is off the mark though if he thinks work on policy development is unnecessary.

Democrats as a party don't appear to have any policies re immigration, falling real incomes, shrinking employment base, growing proportion of of the population without health insurance, fiscal and trade imbalances, foreign policy(ies) et al. That speaks volumes to a disaffected electorate to who these issues matter as do ethics rather than sleaze in politics.

Its time for a change. Articulate what the change is to be, not why. The electorate understands why, it wants to know what. Behind the scenes policy development will lend flesh to the changes that the disaffected seeks.

Roemer is right that a 40 page press release of bureaucratese is not a wise campaign strategy. But you don't do it that way. You articulate goals in plain language. You work out how to achieve those goals and thats behind the scenes policy development work backed by research and expertise and open to debate.

Democrats need to inspire and accommodate voters' aspirations to decency. They need to get across images of their candidates being more focused on raising monies when relative poverty is on the rise.

It is time.

voter suppression and 'diebold' manipulation secured 2004 for the republicans. with the exposure of the criminality and amorality of the gop now in blossum, it will require even more drastic measures to secure gop hold on government. couple that with the loss of another american city this coming hurricane season, and i would suggest domestic unrest will give fredo all the rationale he needs to suspend the election to a later date to be determined.

frankly, watching these jackasses -- boxer, schumer, hastert et al -- pander with their cynical photo ops is revolting and i wish there was a way to remove every single one of them to a far off exile -- preferably on one of the ever-shrinking antarctic icebergs.

"Had enough?" may be useful for the opportunity to drag out some well deserved snark and distain for RepubCo's misdeeds and SNAFU's. But this country is seriously adrift and the ongoing game of gotcha politics and tit for tat scorekeeping using cash and connections as points is killing the potential of America. At 22% public approval for congress and 33% for Shruby, it's obvious that many people have had enough. But more than just the name of the party in control and the figurehead at the top is going to have to change to get this country on track. I almost wrote "back on track". But we've been lost and off track for a long time. If major perceptions and goals don't change soon with a boatload of conviction to back them up, "Had enough?" won't amount to a hill of beans.

I totally agree. There has been NOTHING done to fix an election process that has irrefutably been shown to be broken and corrupt. If we see a democratic "victory" through this process we will be handed just another batch of lying sleazy crooks masquerading as the "opposition". I think that is why they are waving this pathetic cowardly piece of shit Kerry in our faces while ignoring the true progressives that have consistantly opposed these bastards, such as John Conyers.

And, in the end, these fanatics were successful in capitalizing on 9/11, (their first "trifecta"). If all else fails, they can certainly kill a few more thousand of us to get us back on the Fear Train. If anyone doubts that they have the potential for such evil, than that person has not been paying attention these last 6 years.

But more than just the name of the party in control and the figurehead at the top is going to have to change to get this country on track.

ed rollins has been appearing on lou dobbs recently and he really looks and talks spooked -- and not in the republicans are gonna lose kind of way. he really seems to grasp the totality of the monumental fuck-ups that this regime has hopped, skipped and jumped this country into. it enrages me to see these same sons of bitches who were instrumental in the degradation of this country's political process, now given even more opportunity to moan publicly about policies they early on enthusiastically supported.

Anybody for traceable paper trail of votes cast? Or proportional representation?

These (at least the first) should be policy goals.

It is time.

oh yeah, one final point: 'had enough' was newt gingrich's coin of the phrase in a recent commentary on the gop state of affairs.

the idea this slogan needs to marry is just as simple and much more powerful because it's true:

HAD ENOUGH? WANT YOUR SURPLUS BACK? BRING THE DEMS & INDEPENDENTS BACK!!"

"Had Enough?" can also be written "Had Enough!" I like it a lot.

The problem for the Democrats, the real problem, is not that they don't stand for anything. Frankly, 'nothing' would be more attractive to the voters than what they have now. Unfortunately, the public is well aware that the

Democrats do stand for something... Unfortunately, these are the same things that the Republicans stand for.

Think about it. The Iraq War? Kerry was all for it. Kerry even announced that if the wmd's had been discredited before the invasion, he would have still voted for the 'war resolution.' Except for Dean, not one Democrat candidate in 2004 was willing to oppose the war or discuss it candidly. Almost to a man, the Democrats filed into lockstep behind Bush.

Tax cuts by Bush? No matter how damaging, the Democrats voted for it. Budget deficits? Gargantuan military budgets? A unilateralist foreign policy? Export/Outsourcing of jobs? Where are the Democrats on torture? The right wing brought down Harriet Miers, did the Democrats even bother to filibuster Alito? Hillary supports a flag burning amendment. Democrats are lukewarm to dismissive of pro-choice and privacy rights. They're actively contemptuous of black constituencies. They offer nothing to gays and women. They are in the pockets of the same funding contributors as the Republicans and their policies show it.

The Democrats have been so busy chasing 'swing voters' who they seem to define as Republicans and right wingers, that they've largely abandoned their constituencies and abandoned policies or ideas that distinguish them from the Republicans.

It is absolutely shameful that given the most extremist Republican administration in decades, the Democrats have consistently signed onto or endorsed or refused to oppose almost any of Bush's major extremist initiatives.

Social Security is about the only exception that comes to mind. And even there, the Democrats were falling in line to surrender. The opposition to Social Security privatization came not from the Democrats particularly, but from grass roots everywhere, including Republicans.

So what exactly do the Democrats bring to the table in the form of an alternative? Given their history of endorsing or accommodating extremist right radical policies.... They propose to be slighly less extremist right? They'll only be moderate hard right? They'll be hard right, but more competent than Bush?

Give me a break. The problem that the Democrats have is that they seem to stand for the same things that Mr. Bush does, merely with less conviction, less certainty and force, less stridently. Their proposal, pitched modestly and without conviction, is that they would simply do a better job of implementing Mr. Bush's policies.

Why should anyone vote forthat?

Many Democrats ddid not vote for the first bush tax cuts, and most Dems dod not vpte for the later rounds. in the last budget votes the Dems were solid in the House against the GOP budget. Since the 2004 election the Dems have been much more united on a great many issues, from Social Security to the budget. They did not hold strong on the estate tax in the House (it didn't pass the Senate) or the bankruptcy bill. But more and more they are standing together and standing for fiscal responsibility and fairer economic policies. They have forced the GOP to pass the worst programs with no Democratic votes, which is setting up a whole series of issues for the fall. Don't give up just yet.

It is time to stop listening to what people say and observe what they do, how they vote, how much money they get and where it comes from.
Accounting--we are not school children to be put to bed with another story.

Agreed.

"Had Enough" appeals mainly to people who have had enough of "both" parties.

My feelings may change, and I may end up once again reaching for the leaky life preserver, but as it is now, if there is a third party candidate that isn't totally batshit, I'am voting for him/her....useless protest perhaps, but you have to start somewhere.

Sorry Mimikatz. Too little too late. The message is still: Democrats, just like extreme Republicans but not quite as ugly.

Another word. The problem with parties now is that they have sold out the country. The Republicans corrupt and power-mad to corporations, the Democrats rolling over and waiting, incapable of articulating opposition to a Republican party that no third world country would tolerate. Enough!

Just out of curiousity, how many people here think that the public would respond well to a message somewhat similar to Kennedy's..

One that says what America is/should be
That has a simple list of the parts/ideals of "a civil society" and principles of the country.
That lays out what America owes it's citizens
And what it's citizens owe the country
And what citizens owe to "each other" in exchange for the privilage of living in a civil and free society with "individual" rights.

Or are we too far gone for this appeal?

Nearly 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 and billions of dollars in damage were in incurred due to Bush absolutely failing to do his highly marketed "most solemn duty" in 2000 and 2001.

In direct response to these horrific attacks, Bush and his supporters inadvertently fathered a burgeoning fundamentalist Islamic republic with extremly close ties to Iran at the minimum cost of tens of thousands of lives and limbs and $300 billion.

Had enough?

The chaos is just beginning:

Maliki: A paper lid on Iraq's volcano
By Robert Dreyfuss:

The civil war in Iraq won't end with the naming of a hard-line Shi'a as Iraq's next prime minister. President George W. Bush, desperate to find some progress in the violent chaos of Iraq, calls the designation of Jawad al-Maliki "awesome." Zalmay Khalilzad, putting on his game face, says of Maliki: "He is a tough guy," before adding, hastily, that he meant "tough-minded."

But a man in Baquba, the war-battered city north of Baghdad, had a far more appropriate comment on Maliki.

He told The Guardian:"He is a hateful sectarian who has made venomous comments about Iraq and Arabs. Jawad al-Maliki is the final nail in Iraq's coffin."

And so he is.

The Bush administration hopes that Maliki will lead a government of national unity. But in fact Maliki is just a paper lid on the volcano that is Iraq.

"Had enough?" works for me. It's a great lead-in and you can always have the rest ready for talking points afterwards for people who understand "nuance".

What else would you want to use on the 43% of voters that are "dumber than W"...something to confuse them? This fits perfectly for them since many of them are putting their homes up for sale due to too much debt, layoffs, outsourcing, etc. Those wanna-be "Republicans" who can't think for themselves and love to be spoon-fed by their party.

Wise up...you giving the public too much credit for being smarter than they are. No wonder Britain had a parody on the BBC about the great American family "The Lardburgers".

This was said about the Tories, but it's also true of the Bu$hco:
“The most desperate, despicable, seedy, grubby, hopeless, lying, hideously incompetent bunch of third rate, double-dealing disasters this great nation has ever seen, for too many, morality means not getting caught..."

That sort of thing grates agianst the Inside-the-beltway comity necessary for governing. But Republicans have been playing a double game for years. They Swiftboat Democrats outside the builtway and complain about the "Tone in Washington".

Voters won't vote for Dems if they don't stand up for themselves and dish it out as good as they get. Voters hate Republican policies but can't stand wimpy Democrats. It is time to tar and feather all Republicans. Even the moderates keep the likes of Tom Delay and his radical rightwingnuts in power. Look, we have 2 more years of Bush and it will be a whole lot worse without oversight. Dems will still not have the power, but they will have enough power to speak up for those of us that have truly had enough.

Steve you are dead wrong. If you lived in Indiana like I do, you would realize that Roemer is absolutely correct. Had enough sums it up. We need to reestablish checks and balances and pursue a policy agenda that is far more moderate than where the radical Republicans have taken us.

There is a reason why Evan Bayh and George Bush both carried Indiana by double digits in 2004. Evan is not a wimp and not afraid to trash the Republicans when they deserve it. Had enough worked for Bayh when the Republicans attacked prevailing wage and it suits the mood here quite right.

Mitch Daniels is a disaster for Indiana Republicans. Between the Daylight Savings Time fiasco and leasing our highways to foreigners take your pick. There are Republicans that turn blue in the face at mention of his name and refuse to ever vote for him again. Indiana has had enough of My Man Mitch.

Indiana veterans have had enough of Steve Buyer too and are going to send a clear message in November. Even if the Democrat that beats Buyer doesn't get the Vet Affairs Committee, Buyer's replacement cannot possibly be worse. We have indeed had enough.

We have had enough. It is time to re-establish oversight.

The Founders separated the power to conduct war from the power to declare it. Under the US Constitution, it is Congress, not the president, who decides on war. Democrats failed the nation when they empowered Bush and the War Party to invade Iraq. The Administration is now emitting similar preemptory justifications about Iran. To launch a war on Iran without Congressional authorization would be an impeachable offense.
The locus of political co-dependency may again be pinpointed at precisely those coordinates.

Yet another Bush appointed criminal is in the crosshairs of an investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060429/ap_on_go_ot/ex_fda_chief

Steve,

For the first time in 2006, I completely disagree with you and strongly believe that you should think twice about this issue.

Karl Rove's tactic is to let opponents expose their position, then caricature said position and repeat the caricature until 51% of the voters believe it.

Remember "flip-flop" and "global test"?

This tactic is shameful but it is working and if it works in 2006, you'll get 2 more years of an unchecked G.W.B. trying at all costs to improve (save) his legacy, which could be catastrophic (war with Iran, economic wreckage, conservative majority on the Supreme Court, additional destruction of the American dream, ....).

So, The Democrats must first, metaphorically, "carpet-bomb" the Republicans until it has become certain that the Republicans will be the ones looking ridiculous this time.

That has to be the start, especially at a time when so many elements can be used to portray Republicans as bad for America.

Only after they have reached this point, will the Democrats be in a position to describe their project in order to convince those among the voters who are interested by content.

Remember. The majority of voters are NOT policy wonks and will vote for the most "credible-looking" representative.

Plus, when your opponent has that many vulnerabilities, you don't turn the election in a referendum on YOUR proposals.

Nailing Bush & co has to come first. Proposals will follow and this is all the more true when you realise that undoing Bush mess will be so difficult and time consuming that no realist and attractive proposal can actually be made to summarize what is needed.

So, the basic message (which is also the basic truth) must be: don't let them do something even worst; put us back NOW

Bush challenges hundreds of laws
President cites powers of his office
By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

The political system is dead. The people have no effective representation. The fascist warmongers, profiteers, rapturist religious fanaticus in the Bush government have ruthlessly decieved, abused, FAILED, and betrayed America, and perverted the core principles that formally defined our once more perfect union.

The fascist Bush government totalitarian dictatorship usurped complete and total control of the US government and economy, and America is being shapeshifted, morphed, mangled, perverted, and devolved into a government of, by, and for the super rich promoting, protecting, shielding, and benefiting select oligarchs, klans, cartels, cabals, and cronies in, or beholden to the warmongers, profiteers, and rapturist religious fanaticus in the Bush government fascist totalitarian dictatorship.

Democrats have solid idea's and solutions. Any slime to the contrary is part and parcel of the fascist totalitarian dictatorships slime, propaganda, perception influence, and/or management disinformation warfare operations perpetuated by the complicit parrots in the socalled MSM.

If democrats truly desire a voice in this government, - "Had enough?" is a catchy slogan and a good place to begin framing the Bush fascist government totalitarian government in the true light, and factbased reality - as criminal, deceptive, pathologically secretive, traitorous, perverted, imperialist, predatory, corporatist, abusive, deceptive, FAILING, and contrary to, and conflicted with the best interests of the people of America, and the core principles that formally defined America's unique experiment in democracy.

Democratic control of the House and Senate should be sold and mass marketed as a PROMISE to initiate IMPEACHMENT proceedings against the President, the Vice President, the Secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and the Head of CIA.

Until these monsters are painted in their true light and colors, - we are all just wasting time and energy on dim hopes.

The Bush government is criminal and must be unseated, held accountable for a festering litany of deceptions, abuses, dereliction of duty, catastrophic failures, grotesque mismanagement, and wanton profiteering, tried in the courts, - and if convicted - sent to prison.

Democrats should laugh at any rightie sliming or dismissing of democratic policy, inididuals, and/or liberal philosophies - and frame the republican reich and the criminals in the Bush government fascist totalitarian dictatorship in the most negative light and terms, and DEMAND that this government be held accountable, and dethroned.

"Deliver us from evil!"

I think voters will ask themselves, "Do we want incompetence or incoherence?" It's a tough choice.

There are two issues here. One is the Democrats overreliance on policy to win elections. We don't have a policy problem, we have a political one, and we need to learn how to win elections. The other problem is no one knows what we stand for. What Roemer is saying is we have to play politics, and overspecific policy proposals can be torn apart and actually hurt Dems. But at the same time, Dems have to show they can and will fight for something. They have to show they have a core and character. Right now taking a stand on the wrong issue is more important than not ruffling any feathers.

The electorate may be for capitol punishment, but if they understand you're a devout Catholic who firmly believes capitol punishment is wrong, they'll respect you. People will respect your beliefs if they feel they are sincere.

More importantly, the case against the GOP has been made. Right now, the public is looking for a new direction, almost any direction other than the way we're going. In this environment, which way we point is less important than IF we point. They want to see we have the courage to lift our fingers. They will go anywhere --ANYWHERE-- so long as it's not here, but where?

Whatever direction we choose, they will follow. But we have to choose.

In 5+ years the Dems have had opportunity after opportunity served up on a platter for them, and what happened...nothing. Maybe a short moment of capitalizing on it (like Reid shutting down the Senate), but then right back to being the weak-kneed, "go along to get along" crew.

Nader had it right 20 years ago when he said he wished there was two parties. What does it say about a party that has lost twice to W. Not a lot.

Don't overanalyze what the strategy should be. Most people could care less. Most people are "meat and potatoes" gimme short & simple answers. The same people that voted for Republicans the last 25+ years because they got conned by sloganeering.

You'd think after Reagan and Bush 1 put the country in the ditch, people would have learned. NOPE!!! You'd think after 8 years of a great economy and peace with Clinton (liberal Republican), people would learn. NOPE!!!

Stop giving the public too much credit about being smart and hoping they'll finally wise up...they won't.

Getting the Republi-cons out is the first step. Democrats are NOT the answer, only the first step to getting the lesser of two evils removed.

A Democratic Dictatorship
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 26, 2006
Given all the discussion and debate about whether President Bush will order his military forces to attack Iran, now would be a good time to review the state of liberty in America.

No one can deny that we now live in a country in which the ruler has the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative. To use the president’s words, when it comes to declaring and waging war against another country, he’s the “decider.”

It wasn’t always that way. The Constitution brought into existence a government in which the powers to declare war and wage war were vested in two separate branches of the government. While the president had the power to wage war, he was prohibited from exercising it without a declaration of war from Congress.

The idea behind the Constitution itself was that a free society necessarily entails restrictions on the power of the government, especially its ruler.

Yet we now live in a nation in which the president has the omnipotent power to ignore all constitutional restraints on his power. That might not be the way the president and his legal advisors put it, but that is the practical effect of what they are saying to justify his powers. They effectively claim that the Constitution vests the president — as military commander in chief during the “war on terrorism” — with such extraordinary powers that he is able to ignore restraints on his powers imposed both by the Constitution and by Congress.

No restraints on declaring and waging war against other nations. No restraints on the power to secretly record telephone conversations of the American people. No restraints on the power to kidnap and send people into overseas concentration camps for the purpose of torture and even execution. No restraints on the power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and punish them — even torture and execute them — without due process of law and jury trials.

If all that isn’t dictatorship, what is?

“But President Bush is a good man. He’s trying to protect us. He’s waging war against the terrorists. He’s not evil like other dictators in history. He was elected. He can be trusted.”

People who say that are missing the point. The suggestion is not that Bush is an evil man. The point is simply that Bush now wields the same omnipotent, dictatorial powers that other dictators in history have wielded. That is not a small transformation in American life when it comes to freedom.

“Well, then, where are the mass round-ups, and where are the concentration camps?”

Again, people who ask that type of question are missing the point. The point is not whether Bush is exercising his omnipotent, dictatorial power to the maximum extent. It’s whether he now possesses omnipotent, dictatorial power, power that can be exercised whenever circumstances dictate it — for example, during another major terrorist attack on American soil, when Americans become overly frightened again.

Unless the American people figure out a way to reverse what has happened to their country — and have the will to do something about it — they will earn the mark of shame reserved for those people in history who voluntarily relinquished their freedom in exchange for the aura of security. Like all others in history who have chosen such a course, they will ultimately learn that they have lost both their freedom and their security.

A Democratic Dictatorship
by Jacob G. Hornberger, April 26, 2006
Given all the discussion and debate about whether President Bush will order his military forces to attack Iran, now would be a good time to review the state of liberty in America.

No one can deny that we now live in a country in which the ruler has the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative. To use the president’s words, when it comes to declaring and waging war against another country, he’s the “decider.”

It wasn’t always that way. The Constitution brought into existence a government in which the powers to declare war and wage war were vested in two separate branches of the government. While the president had the power to wage war, he was prohibited from exercising it without a declaration of war from Congress.

The idea behind the Constitution itself was that a free society necessarily entails restrictions on the power of the government, especially its ruler.

Yet we now live in a nation in which the president has the omnipotent power to ignore all constitutional restraints on his power. That might not be the way the president and his legal advisors put it, but that is the practical effect of what they are saying to justify his powers. They effectively claim that the Constitution vests the president — as military commander in chief during the “war on terrorism” — with such extraordinary powers that he is able to ignore restraints on his powers imposed both by the Constitution and by Congress.

No restraints on declaring and waging war against other nations. No restraints on the power to secretly record telephone conversations of the American people. No restraints on the power to kidnap and send people into overseas concentration camps for the purpose of torture and even execution. No restraints on the power to take Americans into custody as “enemy combatants” and punish them — even torture and execute them — without due process of law and jury trials.

If all that isn’t dictatorship, what is?

“But President Bush is a good man. He’s trying to protect us. He’s waging war against the terrorists. He’s not evil like other dictators in history. He was elected. He can be trusted.”

People who say that are missing the point. The suggestion is not that Bush is an evil man. The point is simply that Bush now wields the same omnipotent, dictatorial powers that other dictators in history have wielded. That is not a small transformation in American life when it comes to freedom.

“Well, then, where are the mass round-ups, and where are the concentration camps?”

Again, people who ask that type of question are missing the point. The point is not whether Bush is exercising his omnipotent, dictatorial power to the maximum extent. It’s whether he now possesses omnipotent, dictatorial power, power that can be exercised whenever circumstances dictate it — for example, during another major terrorist attack on American soil, when Americans become overly frightened again.

Unless the American people figure out a way to reverse what has happened to their country — and have the will to do something about it — they will earn the mark of shame reserved for those people in history who voluntarily relinquished their freedom in exchange for the aura of security. Like all others in history who have chosen such a course, they will ultimately learn that they have lost both their freedom and their security.

Steven Colbert just dropped a giant turd in the White House Press Correspondent's punch bowl. Watch it on C-Span if you dare.

I guess he has "had enough" as well.

Colbert Does the White House Correspondents' dinner

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/WH-Dinner-Colbert.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/WH-Dinner-Colber.mov

Thus Spake Colbert:

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The president makes decisions, he’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know fiction.

Gee, think Monkey Boy will invite Colbert to another press dinner??? I thought you had to hang your balls in the hatroom to get into one of these things.

Did somebody say....QUAGMIRE?!?!?
Giggity, Giggity.

Well Steve got his wish. Biden just rolled out a Democratic alternative for Iraq. How long before the Republicans smear Biden and call him a traitor for not supporting the president?

BIDEN???? You gotta be kidding. Now they are going to offer HIM up to us as a great savior?? Gads, he has had a veritable TRAIN of issues he could have spoken out about in "opposition" to these bastards, and he has ROLLED OVER on every issue. Stop buying into this shit. If you are offered one of these mainstream recognized clowns as a solution, you are being sold a bill of goods. Just like Bush, if Biden's lips are moving, he's lying.

Joe Biden vs Juan Cole

Biden, weighing in at a beginner's level of proficiency in Arabic language and a beginner's level of proficiency in Mid East languages, literature, culture, religion, etc.

Cole, weighing in at an expert's level of proficiency in Arabic language proficiency and an expert's level of proficiency in Mid East language, literature, culture, poiltics, religion, etc.

Juan Cole:
A renewed debate on the possible partition of Iraq is emerging.

Let's get one thing out of the way. As for letting a civil war rage, deliberately, I don't understand. Everyone is (rightly) complaining about world inaction on the genocide in the Sudan. But here you want to provoke a genocide (maybe a million dead and 5 million displaced) and have troops in the region and not intervene? Doesn't that make you worse than Khartoum? It is despicable. And, remember that such a war a) would not stay inside Iraq--it would become regional; and b) a full-scale war in the Persian Gulf region will lead to a big increase in your gasoline prices (as in, you ain't seen nuttin' yet).

I think Biden and Cole are on the same page. Semi autonomous regions are a carrot and tying oil revenues to cooperation as a big stick. The Biden proposal is not to form separate countries but to put in place strong incentives to cooperate.

They are already lying about the Biden proposal. The Biden proposal supports a strong central government, not a weak one.

"A partition government with regional security forces and a weak central government, as you are referencing, is something that no Iraqi leader has proposed and that the Iraqi people have not supported," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

This is the problem, Steve. We cannot have an open debate about Iraq policy because the Bush administration will undermine it.

Here's someone who's had enough. As the mother of a US Army MP who served in Iraq, I would like to say: I too have had enough. Enough of you liberals who have obstructed every darn thing this nation has needed to do to maintain our security and independence. While my son fights this war, you encourage Al Qaeda to keep it up. Al Qaeda's manifesto says that it will be the American left that wins this war for them and your are busy making it so. Your unwarranted criticism encourages the terrorist to take more shots at my son and I resent it and so do the soldiers. Why don't you just wave a sign showing your support for Bin Laden, you may as well.

You have obstructed drilling for new oil in our own country. You won't allow the building of new refineries. You are against nuclear power. Your main man, Sen. Kennedy, is opposed to wind power in his back yard. Now, you want to whine about the price of gas. It is galling to witness your hypocrisy. We are in this bind because you have done nothing but tie our hands for the last 40 years.

As for Katrina, I am a long time Florida resident who has survived many hurricanes. When my governor or mayor tells me to get out, I do. I take the recommended three days supply of food and water and I get the heck out of Dodge. Hell, they tell you it's coming three days in advance. What do people want? The people of New Orleans and their wretchedly incompetent Mayor and Governor didn't do the least bit of preparation to help themselves. They had as much warning as anyone else up and down the Gulf Coast. You don't hear those from Alabama or Mississippi or Florida whining about what they haven't been given yet. And, if I recall, there were 100's of drowned buses in New Orleans. There was no food at the evacuation sight and most of the population showed their normal laissez fair attitude and decided to ignore the warnings.

Sympathy? Yeah, right! You can find in in the dictionary right between suicide and syphillis. It was a natural disaster of epic proportions and epic screw ups. Yeah, FEMA could have been better but, the first responsibility lies with the State. We here in Florida take care of ourselves and so should they. If a train is coming at you, will you blame George Bush if you don't get out of the way? Maybe you can blame him for the tusnami, how about bird flu?

Why don't you guys put up some ideas or shut up?

"Had Enough?" also has the virtue of giving Democrats an excuse to postpone the intra-party struggle about what Democrats stand for until after the election. That doesn't do them a lot of good unless Bush's approval numbers continue to crater and the GOP loses at least the House. But this might happen, and a lot of Democrats -- Roemer is one of them -- are desperate to put off this fight as long as they can.

But Roemer's argument is not just about that. It's also about Democrats' willful blindness as to why so many Americans don't trust them even as public approval of Republicans steadily diminishes. Democrats in general think Bill Clinton did a great job, producing the prosperity of the late 1990s, keeping the peace, and so forth. This is standard campaign rhetoric; every incumbent, in any office, claims credit for everything when things are going well. It's a pitch that only has to work for a short time -- traditionally from Labor Day until the election.

You get yourself in trouble if you start believing it actually reflects reality. Because most Americans don't identify Clinton's party with any "good old days." The Republicans' traditional attack lines against Democrats still work because they reflect things about Democrats that are at least partly true. Republicans can sell voters on the idea that Democrats are weak on defense because Democrats are weak on defense -- Bill Clinton had eight years to do something about Osama bin Laden, and didn't, and most Democratic officeholders are transparently uninterested in national security even now, four and a half years after 9/11. Republicans are persuasive that Democrats are the party of special interests because Democrats are the party of special interests -- specific interests with specific agendas to which nearly all Democratic candidates must pledge total loyalty to make it out of Democratic primaries. Republicans can even talk voters into suspecting that Democrats are hostile to religion and families, and if you can't figure out why this is you just haven't been paying attention.

So it's probably true that just saying the Republicans are worse won't get Democrats anywhere. Sadly, though, establishing the Democrats as a party that will stand for something may require identification of that "something" with a specific personality, probably a Presidential candidate. That doesn't point to anything wrong with the Democratic Party as such, it's simply the way American politics seem to work today. Most potential Democratic Presidential aspirants appear poised to seek the White House following a blend of the traditional strategy of Democratic nominees (assemble a coalition of interest groups, convinced you belong to them, large enough to get nominated, and then hope for the best in the general election) and George W. Bush's 2000 strategy (count on name recognition and massive fundraising to get you the nomination, and then hope for the best in the general election). That's probably logical for potential candidates like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. The Democrats future beyond 2006 would be brighter and clearer if someone better -- a lot better -- emerged.

One more thing, which should not really need to be said....it can't possibly not be obvious to anyone more than 16 years old and possessed of a grain of political sense that calling any President of the United States a fascist and a criminal is not a sound campaign tactic.

In low-turnout elections -- which nearly all American mid-term elections are -- the last thing you want to do is give partisans of the other side a reason to go to the polls, because small changes in turnout are more likely to be decisive. That's true when the other side's guy is President, and popular, and you're just trying to hold on to your own seats. It's really true whether the other side's guy is President and things are going badly for him.

And not for nothing, but people who can't criticize an American President without reference to European ideologies really need to lay off politics until they've completed a remedial course in American history.

"Why don't you guys put up some ideas or shut up?"

Posted by Patti Sayer

Your indignation would be almost believable if you weren't defending these fascists with the same old stale bullshit we have been listening to for 6 years. SECURITY???? Who the hell are you kidding? Are you an IDIOT?? How has this bumbling criminal asshole in the Oval Office made this nation safer??

You're a FRAUD. I have seen your brand of scripted troll crap on every blog I have ever visited, and you have presented it almost verbatim to every other time I have seen it. The same old tired SHIT.....

1) A family memmber in the service....(implied partriotic sacrifice)

2)Anyone that opposes Bush supports terrorism, and is on Bin Laden's side.......(Never mind the fact that Bush has done more to ENCOURAGE and ADVANCE the recruitment efforts of the Al Qaeda boogie man than Bin Laden could have ever imagined.)

I could go on, but instead, why don't I simply ask you why you have to defend these lying treasonous sons of bitches by drooling scripted bullshit under a false personna? (Are you posting from a teepee too?)

BTW, go to hell. I am not only NOT going to "shut up", I am rapidly being treated to the spectre of a HUGE SEGMENT of America getting JUST AS PISSED OFF as I am. You will be lucky if your masters aren't perp walked into the nearest federal holding cell, (if the inept bastards don't start a nuclear war first).

Heres an idea for you....

.....impeach these lying evil bastards and turn them over to the Hague.

My father in law was a WWI vet. My father and my husband are WW II vets and my brother in law is a Korean vet. I am outraged that the US Constitutional checks and balances have been treated with such unspeakable disdain by the current leadership. In a family of soldiers, I feel that we have a responsibility to be outraged. A lady wrote about her soldier-son in this forum -- I can understand her sentiments. I think of the backward reach of priests and the forward reach of prophets. I think of opposing tensions of violin and bow.

Actually, Roemer's right. We should come up with our policy proposals at the last minute and be vauge. Because the Republicans have created a media culture that is more concerned with atmopherics than substance, any proposals the Democrats are going to make at this point will merely be big fat targets to make the election about what scary things the Democrats are going to do if they get in power. We don't need to play that game. Make them walk the plank instead of us this time.

Steve, I fear you misread the purpose of the "Had Enough?" slogan... As Roemer wrote: "Democrats will also need the artillery of a disciplined, focused set of core principles to complement their criticism of Republican excesses." This is not a campaign platform... it is a battering ram to get through the gate of public perception. Once inside, you have the opportunity to challenge voter misconceptions with that artillery.

I also fear you take a narrow view of the slogan's connotations. "Had Enough?" contains not only the condemnation of the status quo, it also holds the implicit promise that the alternative is better.

Certainly Ms Sayer has a right to her opinion, but there is NOTHING to back up the contention that going into Iraq in anyway makes us safer and there is much evidence to indicate that our Iraq misadventure is making us less safe. Most Democrats supported going after bin Laden and would have preferred staying in Afghanistan to finish the job rather than creating chaos in Iraq.

As for hand tying, it seems to have been useful. The last 5 years of unchecked Republican power has diminished the status of the US in the world. At least Clinton policies worked. Bush policies don't work and he won't admit it. The public deferring to Bush and pretending that everything is rosy is no good for our country or our troops that Bush has placed in harms way. The best help for our troops would be for Mr Bush to get a better Iraq policy.

Had Enough? is a great bumpersticker.

But the Dems need to back it up with solid policies, and stop backing down from the GOP spin and lies machine.

When the GOPers LIE and say the Dems have no plan, say YES WE DO and break their balls.

The GOP threw out the rules 6 years ago and the Dems are still trying to play Mr Nice Guy.

Time to take off the gloves and kick the living shit out of those lying, cheating GOP crooks.

Dear Patty Sayer,

You are a brainwashed idiot. You still believe the LIES coming from Bush and his crooks.

It is dumbasses like you that got us into this mess.

Don't drive anywhere near me with your W sticker or I will run you off the road, you cunt.

Looks like I got some goats with my comments. My my, how you squiggle when someone confronts you with an alternate truth. To Zathras: The only idiots I can see are people who can't see how we ARE safer. To my line of thinking, everyone of the terrorists our military kills is five more we won't have to confront when they procreate. Further, Bin Laden and his buddies are so busy trying to stay alive over there to plot too much over here. Pretty easy to figure out for me.

Typically, you libs resort to name calling when you can't validly argue a point. Boo hoo, same old crybaby stuff.

Tom, what a masterful command of the english language you have. And excellent debating skills I might add. That's the best you can do? Does calling me a nasty name make you feel all better? And threatening a woman. Boy what a man you are. Also,Thanks for proving my point that when faced with facts they cannot deny, people like you resort to name calling, all the while offering no alternatives. No wonder Bin Laden thinks he can beat us, with countrymen like you, who needs enemies?

I trust you can

I think you mean Osama bin forgotten. When is the last time Bush mentioned him? Bush has had over 4 years now. Why hasn't he got bin Laden? BTW- Congress has given Bush EVERYTHING he has asked for. Bush doesn't seem to be able to box himself out of a paper bag.

Alternative truth? Do you mean "truthiness'? Is this "truth" that is not reality based?

Gee Steve, you mean you still want more?

Hmm, Patti, yep, it really feels safer here in Washington with moats and blast fences going up everywhere.

To Eli: IF the moats and blast fences weren't everywhere, wouldn't you be more concerned? At least we are prepared to shoot down the next group that wants to kill you right where you stand. At some point we have to trust our fellow American's to do what's right. We're real sorry you have to live in a war zone but, guess what? We ARE at war. If we lay down our arms tomorrow and play nice with Osama and his ilk, do you actually think they will stop wanting to kill us? I don't think they will. In fact, that will only give them a good belly laugh at your and ultimately my expense. If you aren't willing to fight, it's a sure bet you're gone lose.

GIve me a break Patti. A small group of nuts hijack a plane and we are at war? These people are an international criminal gang that require an international police effort to irradicate them.

Instead of working with other countries to rid the world of bin Laden the US is screwing over innocent Iraqis. Not only does this not get us any closer to bin forgotten, it creates a lot of pissed off people. This is bad policy. It is no way to end a terrorist threat.

BTW Patti, Osama is most likely in Pakistan. Pakistan is no where near Iraq. It is the height of stupidity to justify the chaos in Iraq with the need to get bin Laden. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

How about you give me a break bakho. Here's a sound philosophy to which I ascribe: When a man hits you, hit him back hard and then wallop the heck out of the guy who's thinking about joining the fight against you. Saddam Hussein was shooting at our planes every day. He allowed Al Qaeda safe haven in his country. Witness Zarqawi. He would have loved to hit us and we just hit him first. Now he's facing the wrath of his people. Boo Hoo. Next is Iran.

Here you are worried about people being pissed off at us. I've got news for you. People were already pissed off at us. They just generally don't like us and they never have. What's the difference if they are a little more angry? What will they do? Stymie us at the UN perhaps? The UN joined by American's who think as you do wish to do nothing but debate the issue while danger gathers. I don't get how you don't get that. I personally like it that we are in Iraq killing the bad guys. My philosophy is give 'em a place to show up and we'll shoot 'em. Iraq's as good a place as any. Further, we are in a perfect strategic position to deal with Iran in that we are now positioned to their east and west. I wonder if they're feeling the heat?

It's a pretty sure bet that if you had to deal with them, most American's would either be dead or subjugated which is exactly the terrorists wish for all of us.

News for you Patti. Zarqawi was in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurds. Bush had numerous opportunities to take him out but did not do so. This is because Bush wanted to use Zarqawi as an excuse to take out Saddam.

Now that Bush has let Iraq dissolve into chaos, it is much harder to catch Zarqawi. I agree that a more permanent solution to Saddam was necessary. However, to invade Iraq without enough troops, without proper planning, without enough allies, without much international support, without securing the weapons depots, was pure stupidity.

After toppling Saddam to stay on as occupiers instead of leaving it to the Iraqis was pure arrogance. To try to sell off Iraqi assets to American corporations was pure corruption. We will spend about a $Trillion dollars on Iraq lose several thousand of our soldiers and leave Iraq worse than when we started. This misadventure has made us less safe wasted our resources lost international standing and been an unmitigated disaster.

I thought you guys believed Bush used weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to War. Now it’s Zarqawi? I don’t care where is Iraq he was at the outbreak of the war He’s beside the point. The fact is we are in Iraq now and regardless of any stupid mistakes we may have made, all your whining won’t make the situation any better. We ARE winning in Iraq. We are kicking their collective rear ends anywhere we can find them. You seem to think this is a good old-fashioned war. You know, like tanks all lined up in a row and we shoot at each other. The people we are fighting are cowards who don’t line up to fight other armed men. Instead they murder innocent women and children in an effort to scare the crap out of the rest of us. It seems to be working on you. It seems to me that your strategy is “run and hide.” We are in a geopolitical game of chess and the other guys are doing everything they can to win. For them, winning is the defeat of America. We are in WW III . Why are you tearing down American’s and America? Why aren’t you standing front and center with the rest of us who believe it is incumbent upon us to kill the other guy before he kills us? I can guess. You’re probably still bitter over losing the 2000 election. Thank God you did lose otherwise, we’d still be sitting in a corner, nursing our wounds and hoping it didn’t happen again. Maybe we could pass a resolution in the UN.

The Islamic Fascists are after us wholeheartedly now and we’ve been trying to avoid the fight since1979 when the Iranian mullahs took over Iran and held our citizens hostage for 400 some long days. And how did we react under the benevolent aegis of good old Jimmy Carter? We wrung our hands, tried to negotiate with terrorists and whined all the way to the UN. When JC tried to rescue the hostages, he made sure that our military’s hands were completely tied with ridiculous parameters and consequently, they crashed and burned in the desert. Good work Jimmy but, he had a resolution passed at the UN.

In the early 80’s over 300 US Marines were murdered in their beds in Beirut Lebanon. They were under the aegis of the good old UN. What did RR do? Nothing. He pulled us out of Lebanon. And, we had a resolution passed at the UN>

The bombed our embassy in Kenya. They bombed the World Trade Centers. They bombed the USS Cole. What did Bill Clinton do? Why, he had resolutions passed at the UN.

Then, as if that weren’t enough, we get to deal with North Korea. Why are they such a big threat? Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright, along with the help of the wise and brave Jimmy Carter decided that it would be better to bribe NK than to deal with them. We built their nuclear reactor for them and all they had to do was promise to be good boys and girls and not to process the fuel for nuclear weapons. And where are we now, thanks BC, MA and JC, North Korea has a nuclear weapon and is threatening us. Maybe we can pass another resolution at the UN with our good friends.

After all of this, now that we’re in the middle of the fight of our lives, half of our own countrymen still think we should do negotiate our way out of this. At the very least they think we should make sure all of our good “friends” agree with us.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, our good “friends”, like Russia were busy telling us that they really were our good buddies while they were actively subverting and thwarting every effort we made to get the UN to help us, all while they were whispering in Sadaam’s ear and telling him not to worry as they would make sure America didn’t make him pay any price whatsoever for his defiance. And how about France? Chirac was busy selling Sadaam arms and making back door deals with him in the Oil for Food program. Recently sold French arms were found in Iraq, in spite of the embargo. Germany? Schroeder was busy being buddies with Sadaam too. You know, the Oil for Food deal. China? Anything that’s bad for America is good for their ambitions. They want to be the world’s major player. They too subverted the oil for food program and are currently selling long range missiles to Iran. You can’t honestly be saying that the people who were and are actively working against America should be counted as friends and their approval sought, are you? Like I said, if these are our friends, who needs enemies? These other countries I mentioned would love nothing better than to see us have a hard time and fall on our faces. And all of your nanny nanny boo boo’s at George Bush for perceived failures just add fuel to their fires.

I wonder, how many licks do we have to take before we all get it? Do we need a nuclear lesson right here at home? Here’s the ticket, why don’t we just beg our enemies not to pick on us. That’ll work. Maybe the UN will pass a resolution. Maybe if we say we’re sorry, they’ll forgive us and not want to kill us. Yeah, right. Wake up!

Here’s the situation right now, in your grand scheme, Sadaam would never have been deposed and what would he be doing right now, were he not? My guess is he would be actively aiding and abetting the Taliban. He would be plotting to kill more American’s. He would be still be shooting at our fighters who were trying to protect the Kurds and Shiites. Our “friends” would still be bribing him. He would still be killing his own people. He would still be harboring Al Qaeda operatives. He would still be paying Palestinians to blow up Israelis. I don’t give a darn what the “excuse” was for going into Iraq. We had good reason and it was about time we did.

Yeah, we made some mistakes in the war but that doesn’t mean we pack up our bags and go home. No wonder the terrorists free to keep taking swipes at us. Until 9/11 when they flew our planes, filled with fellow American’s into the WTC and in the process killed 3000 American’s, we did nothing and today, the only solution I have heard from people like you is to do nothing. Wait, maybe if we get hit and 3000 more of us die, you’ll be willing to run from your hiding places and bitch slap whoever did it. These people who wish to kill us need to be taught a lesson about messing with America and thank God George Bush has the stones to do it in spite of all of your caterwauling and obfuscation in an attempt to run from the problem. But you can keep on worrying about out international standing with all of our good “friends”.

Iraq does not have a military solution. Iraq requires a political solution. During the US Civil War, General Sherman recognized that the war would not end with a battle, but a return of the Confederacy to respect for the rule of law.

What we have in Iraq is lack of respect for rule of law. We don't have enough force to command respect for the barrel of our guns. What we need is a POLITICAL settlement that gets enough agreement for Iraqis to move forward as a peaceful society. Iraq is not a military failure. Mission was accomplished in May of 2003. Iraq has been a political failure because Bush has tried to game the system and install a Big Business friendly puppet government in Iraq.

This is the Bush political failure. Of course, Bush refuses to admit failure, so he won't listen to other ideas and he won't change course. Bush intends to tough it out no matter how much it costs or how many of our soldiers are wounded or killed and then hand the failed project over to his successer in 2009.

Bakho: Would that be before or after he burned his way through Georgia. The South did return to the rule of law under conditions of absolute surrender. But there sure was a whole lot of bickering and resentment going on for a long time afterwards. Heard of carpetbaggers? Quantrell’s Raiders? Reconstruction The victor makes the rules. The North won and the nation survived but she won't if we don't get our heads out of our rears and recognize that the threat to us is not from our own leaders but from Islamo-fascists who desperately want to kill as many of us as they can.

In Iraq, we are indeed winning this war. There have been two major elections wherein 8 to 11 million people voted for the first time in their lives. They have formed a unity government. The have a constitution. Their military is more and more capable of taking care of their own country every day. People are no longer being slaughtered en masse by a murderous dictator. Perhaps you missed those photos in Time and Newsweek of the thousands of gassed Kurds and Iranians, all perpetrated by none other than Sadaam Hussein. Although Iraq is a long way from perfect, it’s a darn sight better than it was. It would seem to me that these would be things all American’s could cheer and recognize as success.

If you need a historical marker, look at Germany and Japan. After the loss of 400,000 American lives, in a long war, where we bombed the heck out of their cities, killed a great many of their people, tore down their nations and their governments we occupied them lock, stock and barrell. Then, did we keep them subjugated? Did we steal their resources? Are we still telling them what to do? No, we turned around and helped them create new governments and helped them rebuild their cities and their lives. Heard of the Marshall Plan? What a horrible fate for the Germans and Japanese. The very people who started a war against us and killed so many of our people. This is what America is doing with Iraq right now. It took Germany 5 years to come up with a constitution and Japan about the same. Would you consider them a failure? By the way, WWII ended 60 years ago and we are still occupying bases in Germany and Japan. Oh yeah, and in the process of kicking the Germans and Japanese to kingdom come, we liberated the most ungrateful people of France, whom I think we should have made the Germans keep. It would have served them both right. America's not so bad for a nation of resource rapists, murderers and idiots who imperialistically conquer nations and keep them for our own, at least to hear you talk.

My son is a member of the 320th MPCO US Army Reserve you can take that as fact, or leave it if you choose. Nevertheless, he served for fourteen months in Iraq. He came home with a much different perspective of this war than you paint. He said the most of the Iraqi people were overjoyed to be freed from Sadaam. He said their hospitality was unequaled. He said the fight was worth it and the Iraqi people deserved this opportunity to succeed and determine their own destiny. Obviously, the Islamists and Baathist were unhappy at no longer being able to control and intimidate the rest of the nation. They were the ones who lost the power and influence. He said the mainstream media is slanting the story to support their own agenda and he resents their doing so. In a country of 25 million, why should the minority rule.? Why should they be allowed to intimidate, murder and rape? By most estimates there are 40K-50K terrorists and insurgents and anyone who thinks that we ought to cut and run from this paltry bunch of bullies is doing nothing but encouraging them to continue their murderous ways. These rats have been gathering and plotting against us for 30 years. We aren't going to root them out easily. It isn't as if we can make an announcement over the radio and say " Hey, all you terrorists show up for a battle. We're going to have to dig them out and kill them one by one and that is going to take a long, long time. And, when you encourage them to continue by seeming to support a withdrawal before the job is done, you encourage them to kill a few more of us in the hopes that the chorus of defeatism will rise and America will once again cut and run and thereby prove that she can’t commit to anything and she isn’t to be trusted. Nice work guys.

I also wonder how you reconcile the fact that the men and women of the military say we ARE winning? How is it that you prefer to ignore THEIR statements of success and commitment? They are over there killing as many people as they can. People who are feeling a need to attack and kill Americans. Only this time, the American’s aren’t being helplessly slaughtered. They’re not being forced to choose between burning to death or jumping to their deaths from the WTC. The terrorists are meeting a well trained, well armed, dedicated force of American’s who are kicking their butts daily. Having people like you standing on the side lines hollering “Loser, Loser, Loser” is definitely not helpful and the people actually fighting this war DON’T thank you for your support.

You may not agree with Bush’s strategy for winning this war but I have yet to hear any of you constant complainers offer an alternative solution. One that doesn’t involve kissing the rear ends of the back stabbing UN and knuckling under to murderous dictators. Any suggestions?

A few more questions, while we’re at it.

If Sadaam never had weapons of mass destruction, how do YOU explain the gassed Kurds and Iranians referenced above?

Why did he lose his kingdom for a lie?

Why didn’t George Bush just go ahead and plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? It would have saved him a lot of trouble.