Why a second, or third, chance for two?

u u u

Paul has actually been given a third chance, if you want to be picky about it. His first mistake, of course, received all the criticism when he was working as an architect for President Bush and became, in the parlance of the media, "the prime architect of the Iraq War." That accusation depends on what the meaning of "prime" is, as he had a lot of help in successfully convincing President Bush we had to invade Iraq to save the civilized world from mass destruction.

Technically, Paul's second chance came when President Bush made him president of the World Bank. Paul messed up there, too, and had to resign under fire after it was discovered he had arranged a big raise for a bank employee who happened to be his girlfriend. But this was a case of what he did for love, an activity frequently forgiven in the United States of America. (See Clinton, William Jefferson.)

Now, Paul has a new job, chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, which Newsweek describes as "a prestigious State Department panel" that advises the secretary of state on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, weapons of mass destruction issues and other matters, all of which are familiar to Paul from his earlier work as an architect and gives him that rare opportunity to make the same mistakes again, this time in Iran or maybe even North Korea. He'll be talking to both of them.

Paul succeeds Fred Thompson, who will be looking for a fourth chance after leaving his jobs with the State Department, as an actor on "Law and Order" and as a presidential candidate.

u u u

John Rowland's second chance is less sensitive than Paul's as it will not afford an opportunity to cause a nuclear conflagration. After resigning as governor of Connecticut and serving a little time for enriching himself at the expense of the people who elected him, John has been hired by his hometown of Waterbury and its chamber of commerce to become the city's economics czar. He will raise funds for the development of his city, something he did quite well while governor, with a huge government building and a magnificently restored theater, also at the expense of the people who elected him.

John's new job hasn't been universally applauded in the old hometown. The chairman of the city's municipal unions likened it to "hiring an arsonist as fire chief," but, as those fun guys on the editorial page of the Waterbury Republican American point out, liberal, unelected judges are quick to give second chances to violent felons, but "a white collar offender who paid for his non-violent crime with his reputation, career, legacy and freedom, is incorrigible.

"To those who would condemn Mr. Rowland's hiring," the editors thundered, "we offer a challenge: Name someone who has more to offer the city; who is more charismatic and articulate; who knows where Waterbury has been and has a sensible vision of what it can become; who has better connections in Greater Waterbury, the state and Washington, D.C.; who is more respected by the business community; who is better positioned to bring companies and jobs to Waterbury; and who loves Waterbury more."

How about Fred Thompson? He needs the work and could even learn to love Waterbury, if the money's right.