Unfortunately it is not the country taking leave of this...well, criminal, but it is Mr. Rove who is taking leave of the country, all teary-eyed and fuzzy. I for one certainly hope he does not go gentle into that good night.

Bring on the subpoeans, Mr. Leahy!

will be a presidency of divisive lies, mendacity, and hyper-partisanship far beyond any administration, any time. Rove single-handedly took the goodwill extended by a nation to Bush at the 9/11 time, and just rammed it down the throats of Democrats. Rather than drawing the nation together to make common cause in a time of crisis, he used the time of crisis to damage the Democratic Party.

Rove is the worst presidential advisor who ever had influence in the White House. He far exceeds Mark Hanna, who president was killed which prevented the type of damage that Rove has inflicted.

"We now take leave of the "Architect," "Turdblossom," and the "Mayberry Machiavelli," his grand experiment in political realignment collapsed, and remember him as he wants to be remembered, rapping onstage as MC Rove at the 2007 Radio and Television Correspondents Association dinner as members of the Washington press corps bopped and shimmied as his backup dancers."

That sums the past six years up nicely. Bravo!

Sincerely//Fetzer Mills, Jr.

It's too bad that Rove didn't follow Lee Atwater in the pantheon of Bush handlers and die of a brain cancer after securing a dirty victory for his charge.

I may just be paranoid, but . . . for which of the Republicans running for President in 2008 will Rove show up as a senior campaign advisor?

are so funny. blumie's hatred of Rove is so intense it's scary.

Rove was the 'architect' of the Bush administration only because Albert Speer was not available.

Only the attacks of Sept. 11 gave Rove, Bush and Cheney an atmosphere in which such theories could thrive through the exploitation of fear.

This is a notable assertion in Sidney Blumenthal's characteristically excellent summary of current events in Washington. It's the same assertion seen across the entire spectrum of liberal thinking about the Bush legacy -- part of the story that liberals are telling themselves to understand what happened. "It was that damn event," we say. "It came out of the blue, it was a stroke of ill luck that made the hapless Bush untouchable, it got us all and we had no choice but to be taken by the tide."

And it's utterly, dangerously wrong. Blumenthal makes it seem like the Bush regime before September 11, 2001 was hanging on by its fingernails, and in doing so underplays the extent to which it was in reality already well-ensconced and firmly in control of the apparatus of national discourse. The regime's failure to protect the country from a predictable and well-understood threat from al Quaeda went uninvestigated, unchallenged, and unequestioned by the Democratic party and the liberal intelligentsia. No more obvious indication could be wished for that Rove's work was already well done by then.

His legacy should be one of shame, as much on those who enabled and tolerated his shenanigans for so long -- especially before 9/11, when that tragedy and all the others since might still have been averted -- as on the man himself.

He took policies designed for the top 2%, got 49% to vote for them, and set up systems to cheat for the final 2%. Politically he kicked our asses. Good riddance!

On a side note, I find the brain cancer remark in a prior letter inappropriate.

Mr. Blumenthal, I share your opinion that Bush won because he was able to carry momentum from public support for a president in wartime. In fact, never in US history has an incumbent lost a general election with a war going, even when the war went badly. However, don't forget that there are many allegations of election fraud giving Bush the "win" in 2004, even more than in 2000. The proof is sufficient so that while it might not be proven conclusively, it seems nearly impossible all that evidence allows another conclusion. The election was close anyway. I see that, and Kerry was a lousy candidate, which I thought during the primaries but what can you do.

You do disappoint me in one way though: I thought I was brilliant enough to be the only one to think of the book deal as the reason for Rove leaving. Guess not.

Karl Rove has probably done more to divide this country than anyone or anything since the Civil War. By his tactics of scare-mongering, demonizing the Democrats and bringing out the bigotry of the fundamental christians against gays, feminists and anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun, he made a united country into a crippled and divided one.

The members of the press corps who bopped and shimmied should be heartily ashamed of themselves - remember, they were the ones who greeted Stephen Colbert's brilliant excoriation of them in silence. They can dance for King Karl, but hate being called on it.

Rove will undoubtedly be pronounced a diabolical genius, but he is no genius, only diabolical. He leaves behind a crater where there once stood a strong Republican Party.

His successes have been based on pure dumb luck. His candidate lost the popular vote in 2000 by over a half million votes. If there had not been a confusing ballot in West Palm Beach or thousands of errantly disenfranchised black voters throughout Florida, we would have been calling Al Gore, "Mr. President".

Prior to September 11th, Bush was already headed for dismal poll numbers. It was only the rally around the flag effect of that tragic that day saved him. The event that made Bush popular only occured, ironically, because of his incompetence. If he had read and acted on the August 6th PDB, it might have been prevented, but he remained on vacation for the next month.

But even with the September 11th effect and an incompetent opponent, Bush only managed to eke out the smallest reelection margin of any president seeking in history.

Rove is no genius, not even an evil one.