OK, let's get real. Most likely the President was aware that the information was not completely reliable or suspected but no one voiced it or wrote it for the purpose of future deniability. It may even have been compiled and submitted by Britain so as to give it more weight and reliability and provide a reliable 'outside source.' Same thing with at least 60% of the Senators. AT LEAST. Whatever they state now is for political purposes as was their decision to support the war initially. So the question then becomes, why did not only the President and Vice-President but the majority of the Senate support it? When information is compiled it is looked at alone and in its entirety. Each piece of information is weighed on a scale of reliability and threat. Then the entire picture is weighed as a whole. I still am not convinced that wmd were not there and relocated to Syria et all but on the other hand it is not out of the question that everyone suspected there was no serious threat and didn't want to hear it or see it even back then. I wonder about the voice messages between the to Als regarding setting up terrorist training camps in Iraq. It is also entirely possible that Dick Cheney is behind the whole thing and manipulated eveyone in the process. Just about anything is possible and quite a few possibilities are actually plausible. Now as to the truth -- ya got me. I still think that Iraq should request the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops and an equal replacement of security troops from the Arab League of Nations. That will give the government and security forces legitimacy in the Arab world and hopefully deter at least some of the insurgents.

>Yes, exactly. I find it not only surprising that some people seem to have so much trouble believing that the whitehouse could have secrets, but even more that they seem to think it's impossible, and that therefore, it didn't happen.
>
>>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.