I am making no assumptions. I have no proof of any of it either way. Maybe Bush knew something others didn't, maybe not. I am saying that arguments can be made on either side of the issue as long as one only argues from opinion rather than known facts.

>Does that even make sense? I don't get what you are trying to say here. Would you reword it for the Popow-challenged? Or are you making the assumption in the argument that Bush knew something contrary to the reports and acted anyway? That would be some assumption in a logical argument.
>
>>Ah, but you make the assumption that Bush believed the same intelligence as the others. If one accepts the argument (as you do not) that Bush knew the 'truth', then your inability to understand the outrage is not understandable.