Has anyone asked Condi or Bush exactly how many years Condi was talking about? How many more GIs do they plan on killing over the next 20-30 years in Iraq?

I love the list.

If most or all of my policies were unadulterated failures, I'd lash out too.

Good job, Karl.

Clinton had his own missed opportunities, but Clinton was learning as he went along and by the time the Bushies came in had a pretty decent grasp of what was going on and detailed counterterrorism strategies. And the Clinton folks managed to thwart several potentially devastating, multi-casualty attack plots by PAYING ATTENTION and setting priorities -- and did this, by the way, with virtually the same FBI and CIA (same directors even), with all their lack of coordination, turf-guarding, outdated computers and personnel shortages, as Bush had to work with.

 If Bush had built on that reality-based momentum instead of frittering his administration's time away with useless crap like his Iraq obsession, and SDI and other Cold War residue, he might have been able not only to prevent 9/11 but formulate a coherent overall counterterrorism strategy of his own. But he would have had to show some leadership, something that's not in his limited skills set.

Say what you will about Clinton, there aren't any  "1/1" millennium families, are there?

And I hate being an evil little typo-Nazi but you've got one:

Conservatives prepared for more than 70% of reconstruction funs to be diverted to security.

They were prepared for a second term and knew how  to win a majority.

If you had felt the war was righteous (hard to imagine that but try), and your opponent tried to voice against it by saying "you prepared for poor vehicles for our soldiers", you wouldn't exactly side with their view any more than before.

Or use any other cause; you wouldn't oppose stem cell research even "100 people died in a related, one-time incident" or anything else because it's totally circumstantial, insignificant details (in the grand scheme of things, ambitions, plans etc). Especially since the poor equipment used by soldiers was not an issue known to either side (right?..).

There are other things like this... If you thought your cause was right you wouldn't care if there was high death toll on your part.

I think it may be better to use their words and simply use their context to make it as clear as possible. For example, "Conservatives did not strike their attackers, instead wasted billions of dollars, human resources and public trust to ply a war against made-believe enemies"...

I mean, why don't you just make it short and sweet the way Karl Rove is making it? He's placed it in the perfect context: enemies YES or NO. He said YES, all evidence says NO.

Of course informationally you have said a lot more, but I think it'd take a lot of benevolence for a Republican to cut through all the circumstantial "cost" of the war and get to the facts that really implicate the administrations's intent, which is what republicans really care about (the ideals, ideas behind things), rather than what it will cost them (a trait which I have to say is admirable - not to the extent that I'd want to see innocent Iraqis die for "freedom", but in the same way that environmentalists might chose more the more expensive (alternative energy, organic food) and the more difficult route (biking, less luxurious lifestyles even if cheap luxuries abound).)

As it is, the list responds to the Rove frame of "conservative strength vs. liberal weakness".  While the FACTS show the errors of the conservatives, the FRAME reinforces the beliefs of  both conservatives and liberals about each other.    

We can't stay trapped in their frames.  It's not enough to be right, we also have to be convincing.

I suggest we use these facts but reframe it as a COMPETENCE and HONESTY issue by changing the word "Conservative" at the beginning of each point to the phrase "This incompetent Adminstration".

Further, I suggest including things that we are for at the end of each bullet point.  The model would be:

"This Incompetent Administration" (insert stupidity here).  An honest and effective administration would (insert better policy here.