Karl Rove is the genius that said November 2006 would cement the permanent Republican majority

Right. Clearly wishful thinking, delusion, or attempted manipulation on Rove's part.

But how does that relate in any way to his comment now about the Democrats? Rather than being Rove's supposition, this is something all of us can observe. Just like the rain. If you're standing next to Karl Rove in the rain, and he says "It's raining," does that mean to you that it's sunny?

Why in the world is this column giving credence to anything this discredited criminal has to say?

Because, the fact that Rove is saying something most liberals agree with, is news.

Okay, so maybe 0-for-40 isn't quite accurate. But a bill that passed through both houses before being vetoed and rewritten to provide Bush everything he wanted on the war does not count as a whole victory. So let's say it's 0.5-for-40. Hardly seems worth an article on War Room to point that out.

As for the 29%ers who have been taught to say the words "the surge IS working" (teaching them to hold down their caps lock for the word IS apparently took a whole week), you might want to revisit the original point of the war. HINT: It was NOT so that fewer American GIs could be killed each month. If that were our overriding goal, we would have obviously done much better never to invade. No, as others have pointed out, it was so that we could establish a beachhead of democracy in the middle east, against which the other regional dictatorships (many of which owe their survival to our direct support) would fall.

It must be lovely to be a dittohead. Your memory only extends back a month.

The responses so far seem to fall into 2 groups: one who is up in arms that Bill Clinton didn't make it into the photo and are demanding it be fixed, and one who says "focus on the important stuff." I wonder if anybody is in both groups?

What I find most important is the potential for a psycho like Judi Giuliani to become first lady. Seriously, she would be our answer to Eva Braun in a way that we've never seen before. In fact, I think puppy torture would've probably been too cruel for Eva.

NotOrbitBoy showed supreme ignorance when he said this:

The purpose of the surge is to reduce violence.

For NOB and any other seriously misinformed people, the purpose of the surge was to reduce violence SO that political reconciliation could occur, resulting in a stable government in Iraq. That was the whole goal. Partially meeting an objective while failing to meet the most crucial part (which, of course, is and always been out of our hands) means that ultimately, the objective hasn't been met.

Following this theme, I can imagine that if the surge hadn't actually reduced VIOLENCE, the 29%ers would be happy to trim down the original goal even more, to where the purpose of the surge is just to REDUCE. Reduce what? I'm sure they would have come up with something. Trans-fats. Carbon emissions. Anything would have sufficed.

With any long-term project, it's crucial to maintain a consistent set of goals and frequently evaluate whether they have been or are close to being met given current tactics. This strategy of Bush apologists to imagine new goals and pretend the old goals never existed, is one more reason why Republicans should be kept out of power, for the good of the country and the world.

Your site has been hijacked by someone posting as "www.votenic.com".

I get it, Joan. I think we all do. You don't need to write any more screeds about Hillary and Barak. We all know what your opinion is.

If Hillary says something that people criticize, that's okay because she's a strong leader. If Obama says something people criticize (even if "people" consists only of you and other Clinton supporters), well then it's clearly a gaffe with you, just as it is with Fox News. Good to know.

I ask because I have read and listened to what he is saying, but I haven't been convinced he's all that or has the experience to do what needs to be done.

I can answer this, with the answer Obama provided on the Daily Show.

About experience, nobody had a longer resume than Cheney or Rumsfeld, and look what that got us. Obama says he makes up for his lack of foreign policy experience in that he has good judgment, which Cheney and Rumsfeld obviously lack. From listening to Obama talk, I believe he does have good judgment. I trust him far more than Hillary, although even Hillary would be an overwhelming improvement compared to what we've had the past 7 years. I would expect Obama to use his good judgment by appointing very experienced, qualified people to important posts in his administration, rather than cronies. Thus, the president has the good judgment to lead, and relies on qualified people to advise.

After the past 7 years, this sounds like a very foreign concept, I'll admit. But it's the way the executive branch is supposed to run.

From what I can see, anyone currently still supporting the GOP after all the malfeasance of the past 7 (13? 20? 35?) years, will vote GOP no matter what. My parents don't like Guliani, but they'll vote for him in a heartbeat no matter if the Democrats nominated Dick Cheney to run against him.

Seriously, all remaining Republicans lack the power of critical thought. They cast every vote in advance, years or decades ago. For them, voting is just about filling out a form. A monkey or a computer could do the same job.