Replies

A distinction without a difference. You are better than that.

Sorry, there most assuredly is a difference. For two reasons:
1) Pre-war intelligence is never 100% accurate. Sounds decisions must be made on whatever information is on hand. That's why corroborating sources are so important, if available. But it still probably won't reach the "proof" threshold demanded by our media (but only when Pubbies are involved).
2) There may well be evidence/proof of a classified nature, which the Administration does not wish to disclose.

You are going in the wrong direction...

The Administration plays a fairly vague game, for example, on whether they believe in a theory called 'global warming.' Wink wink, nudge nudge, we all kind of understand why this is.

The Administration decides what they 'want to believe is a fact versus what they 'don't believe' based on the core principals of the President and what is politically necessary.

The President and this Administration do not have the goods, so they stake out a moderate position on a question of fact (spin control) that please the believers, and the critics.

I don't care about the media, I care about the truth; I don't care or expect to have my world view vindicated by CNN or Bill O'Reilly; and separately I wish to see the criminals of 9/11 meet their makers. I happen to believe by a Western criminal standard, many of the puppet masters are in Saudi Arabia and many of the middle men were employed to organize the KLA in Kosovo. I reached this conclusion after a lot of reading, but I don't claim to have seen any evidence from a Western definition that I could imagine would support a 'war.'

Apparently, this Administration does not have any evidence either to support the theory put forth by the Weekly Standard, who is not a friend of this Administration.

I would suggest a better tact is to wait for the Administration's position on this memo lest you find yourself in the very awkward position of being aligned against the Administration.