Let's give Congressman Paul the benefit of quoting him directly form the outset:

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."

That's right! We were essentially at war with Iraq since the ceasefire in 1991. During that time, with Saddam threatening further genocide against the Kurds in the north, and similar threats against the Shia and the marsh Arabs in the south, we patrolled the no-fly zones under a near-constant series of acts of war by the Iraqis, targeting our pilots as they patrolled. We bombed the anti-aircraft batteries targeting our planes. No sane American commander would do otherwise. And, to the extent that terrorists objected to our presence in that sphere, or attacked us because of our actions there, we were right to take out the entire genocidal Baathist structure.

So there is something to what Paul says. What would be insulting is any implication that 9/11 was "our fault." Paul ought to be very very careful about that, and he owes to everyone affected by 9/11 to make it clear that he doesn't blame America. And if his ultimate point is that we should just bail out of the middle east, or that we ought to surrender our alliance to middle east's greatest democracy, Israel, he's just wrong.

I'll be ready to listen to John Edwards' National Health Care plan, to make the U.S. more like Canada and Europe, just as soon as John Edwards is ready to listen to my plan to make the U.S. personal injury litigation system more like Canada and Europe, wherein there aren't any mutli-millionaire plaintiffs' trial lawyers, no lotto-sized verdicts, and no entrenched trial bar, pumping millions into the coffers of the Democrat party.

This is a flack jacket:

http://www.probush.com/al_sharpton.jpg

This is a flak jacket:

http://en.epochtimes.com/news_images/2004-12-6-marine-iraq.jpg

Any questions?

Almost immediately after you were appointed, you learned that Richard Armitage was the source who provided the name of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak, whose now-infamous column published her name and identified her in connection with her husband's CIA tasking to Niger.

Knowing that fact, can you describe what was your thinking in pursuing an investigation so far-flung that it involved the jailing of former NYT reporter Judth Miller, and ultimately resulted in the prosecution of Scooter Libby. You determined at some point that there would be no prosecution for the original concern of the CIA; namely, the revelation of the operative's name. When did you make that determination? What was the basis for that determination?

Also, Mr. Ftizgerald, you have a personal history with Mr. Libby. He represented the interest of Marc Rich, whom you were involved with prosecuting in the Southern District of New York.

You have refused to appear before Congress to answer questions about all of these facts related to your service as Special Prosecutor. Why your refusal to answer questions?

Blumenthal writes:

Ironically, the longest, most detailed and among the most personal letters supporting Libby is also the most damaging. In "Re: Character Reference for I. Lewis Libby," Paul Wolfowitz writes, "I am currently serving, until June 30 of this year, as President of the World Bank." Either obtusely or obliquely, Wolfowitz's opening line emphasizes the symbiotic nature of their careers, both men having fallen from grace within weeks of each other after years of collaboration. "It is painful for me to reflect on the fact that his life would have been very different if we had never met. He would almost certainly now be a successful attorney in Philadelphia." Wolfowitz describes their 35-year association, going back to when he was an assistant professor at Yale and Libby was his assistant, and how he recruited Libby to serve as his assistant in the State Department and then in the Defense Department. According to Wolfowitz's account, Libby was an indispensable man in ending the Cold War, winning the Gulf War and waging the "global war on terror." But he was also, Wolfowitz writes, of "service to individuals."

And that sums it up quite nicely; the real reason for the Libby verdict. His association with Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Libby prosecution was about a political dispute. Libby was not charged with any violation of law in connection with the publication of the identity Joe Wilson's wife. No one was charged with that crime. And, despite anything that Pat Fitzgerald has said (and he has said very little of any credible substance), Libby's supposed perjury cannot logically be related to "obstructing" the investigation into how the name of Valerie Plame made it into the press. (We know exactly how her name got into the press, and it had nothing to do with Scooter Libby.)

Sidney Blumenthal's raving political diatribe appears to hallucinate over the fact that a covert CIA operative was illegally outed. Can anyone please describe in detail how or why no one was charged with that crime?

The Libby prosecution was a gross miscarriage of justice. A gross mistake by a D.C. jury.

Pardon Scooter Libby, Mr. President. Do it now.