I think I know why conservatives of different stripes had a full-scale, but principled donnybrook over the Harriet Miers nomination, a debate over qualifications, constitutional theory, religious tests and Miers public statements. Conservatives did this to keep themselves intellectually fit. They might as well debate themselves once in a while, because liberal democrats are not up to the challenge. If you needed evidence of this, last week's events were proof positive.

 Days after Scooter Libby was indicted, "Any Tom, Dick and Harry" Reid decided this was conclusive proof that Bush lied about pre-war intelligence. So Reid turned out the Senate lights, confiscated all the blackberries, and went into closed session. As John Stewart quipped, "this from the party advocating transparency in government." "This administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence to sell the war in Iraq," Reid intoned. Then, the man who won't go away, Jimmy Carter, jumped in demanding an investigation into whether Bush lied. All this sounds like Howard Dean. "We have to get our version of the facts out there, because their version of the facts is very unfactual."

 This is the problem with liberal democrats. They believe facts have versions. They are like the old "Keystone Cops" movies, running around all over the place, doing nothing but running into contrary facts and knocking themselves down in the process. Todays Democrats don't believe they have a message. They are left with hoped for indictments and scandals as their only hope. But lets look at the stubborn facts, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.

  Fact#1 The Senate Intelligence Committee released its 500 page report in 2004. "The committee did not find any evidence of that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

  Fact #2 The Butler Report published by the British government in 2004 said their was no evidence of "deliberate distortion."

  Fact #3 In March 2005, the Robb-Silverman Report said "no evidence of political pressure influenced the intelligence communities pre-war assessments."

  Fact#4 Patrick Fitzgerald's indictment last Friday. "The indictment is not about the propriety of the war... people should not look to this indictment for any resolution on how they feel or any vindication of how they feel."

 In fact, everyone who has looked into this has come up with the same conclusion about whether Bush lied about intelligence, distorted it or put pressure on intelligence agencies to spin the truth. The answer is no, no and no.

  Fact#5 All the speeches by John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, and the rest made the same case as Bush did and voted to support the war.

 Almost all Democrats have lost their connection to reality on this issue. Either they think you are too stupid to catch their inconsistency, or you don't care if they manipulate people as long as they win. I'm not sure which it is. But there is no doubt they are hypocrites on this issue, plain and simple. So why debate liberal democrats if they do not inhabit the same fact-based universe as the rest of humanity? That is why conservatives had to debate each other, just to stay sharp.

 The real investigation that should take place is of the CIA. Victoria Toensing, writing in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday asked some serious questions. If Valerie Plame's identity was so important, then why did the CIA risk it by sending her husband, a public official, who could be tied to her, to Niger and back again? Why did they send him, when she was the WMD expert? Why wasn't Joe Wilson required to write a report of his trip as other CIA operatives are required to? Why would he be allowed to write a story for the New York Times, without vetting it first before the CIA? And if they wanted her identity kept secret, would they have even allowed him to write the story?

 After all, the way Robert Novak discovered Valerie Plame's identity was that he went to "Who's Who" and looked it up. Then Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked there. He was told "yes," no questions asked. I ask you: is this the picture of a covert agent? One last thing. High ranking justice department officials are prohibited from political activities, but the CIA apparently lets its undercover agents make political contributions. There it is, publicly available at the FEC website... Wilson, Valerie E. I wonder which party she gave to? None of this, as presented by Wilson, makes any sense and cries out for investigation. But the mainstream media is too lazy or biased to do so.

 It is time to investigate the accusers and the bureaucracy from which they came. Something is very fishy and it stinks.

  John Pendleton