You are herecontent / Everlasting Evidence
By David Swanson
According to Reuters:
"National security adviser Stephen Hadley told CNN's 'Late Edition' that Bush relied on the same intelligence that his predecessor Bill Clinton saw and that 77 of 100 senators used in 2002 to back Bush on the use of force in Iraq."
Why didn't he demand updated intelligence? And why did Bush's reliance on this "evidence" take such a catastrophically different course?