The only problem with a conspiracy theory is that intelligence officials within the Agencies themselves would have had to testify before these Congressional committees as well - many of whom would have also worked under the Clinton Administration. The likelyhood of multiple "sets" of intelligence reports is next to nil.

Conversely, nothing the left has said is convincing, much less plausible.

>Unless, of course, there is only one set of intelligence documents set up with the full knowledge of it's falseness by those who run the show. Weren't there ex cia people later who complained the documentation was written to reflect the desires of the whitehouse (specifically Cheney et al)? Again, how would the democrats, or even, for that matter, non-whitehouse republicans really know what the documentation reflected? They would naturally assume it was for real. Maybe it was; maybe not.
>
>The only real proof you have that Bush didn't lie is that you want him not to have lied. The only real proof the other side has is that they did want him to have lied. I haven't seen any real proof either way. My own leaning is towards Bush being a liar, but that's just me.
>
>Nothing you've said is really convincing one way or the other.