.Blair did indicate that the results were helpful...he qualified [[probably for PC purposes) that it is unknown whether the information could have been acquired via other means [[gasp...shocking) which is irrelevant and does not impune what Cheney said as a mistatement/ommission/or exageration.


That is not debate, that is spin. If your argument is based solely upon your opinion of what Blair's intent must have been, it has no validity in a debate. By the same token, I could say, "Cheney obviously knew that the intelligence was inadequate and lied about it." Neither your assertion nor mine holds any water.

Debate would involve your presenting a fact to show your point. That is what the authors of the article did. They gave Cheney's statement, then presented opposing statements and facts.