Somehow Oliver North comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North

I can recall how North stated that President Reagan was aware of and directed North’s actions. Reagan denied this. Who can you believe?

Then we have Nixon. Nixon did nothing wrong. He just admitted the truth.

Will we ever know the truth about Bush? I think not.




>>Just semantics, really. Multiple sets or different intelligence reports for the Admin from what some in Congress are claiming. Isn't this is what is being claimed by the Dems? That they did not have the same info as the Prez?
>
>And you insist that they did. I don't find it the least bit implausible that the president was privy to information to which they were not. That's what secrecy is all about. Somebody has information that others don't have. Happens all the time.
>
>>
>>>Read it again. Where did I say there would be multiple sets of intelligence reports. One report, written to satisfy the whitehouse. Outside of the whitehouse and a few of the top CIA people, who would be the wiser? Had it not been for the tapes, Nixon might well have gotten away with his shenanigans. Presidents and the president's men are not necessarily above getting dirty just because some people would like to think they are.
>>>
>>>Don't get me wrong, I don't know what went on. I have my opinions, and others have theirs. Opinions aren't proof. Not yours, not mine.
>>>
>>>>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.