Honestly can't give you one beyond the first few paragraphs, therein being far too much distortion of fact and resort to fallacious logic to justify continuing. E.g. Bush did enumerate, repeatedly and from the very beginning, the whole panoply of consilient reasons for war, including the need for regional transformation; there was evidence for contact and cooperation between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeada, and the quantity and quality of that evidence has only improved since the war, etc, etc.
I guess my main reaction is sadness. Even though I happen to be "pro-war" I believe we need principled iconoclasts like Ron Paul. At least I used to believe he was principled. The extreme intellectual dishonesty he resorts to here, however, tends to change my opion. Again it's unfortunate. I want "my side" to be challenged by having to engage the best and strongest counter arguments. Yet Ron Pauls argument (from what I read of it) seems so infested with error and fallacy as to be all to easily refuted or dismissed.
The lack of a moonbat-free loyal opposition may do more damage to this country in the long run than anything Bush does wrong.