Incorrect. It's a two part sentence. The first part clearly says: The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments the second part, goes on with: however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. The first part says clearly, it did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments. That part stands clear and unambiguous, on it's own merits. The second part address the "use of intelligence" No where in the second part does it mention anything regarding "pressure."
conspiracy theorists? like the people who think their is a global cabal of scientists who made up global warming to get grant money?
Or even the people who think there is a global cabal of scientists who say it doesn't exist for grant money. No, wait, turns out those that are hawking global warming fear are the ones making the real money.
No. That is "Cheap SEO Services" You'll need to dig a little deeper to find my name, if that's what you are really after. Would you like a few clues? I know they don't come easily for you
I would like to call that a conspiracy fact. Some CTs are however smarter than others, but the government-plot-theorists are generally more crazy than the rest. Such people often insists to believe in the weird stuff even if they get debunked a hundred times without being able to answer. For example, you can show evidence that the fire in WTC7 wasn't as small as many 911-CTs believe. Still they insists to believe in it and can sometimes get angry when you prove them wrong(which is ridiculously easy if you are neutral and objective). The same goes with the Liquid plot CTs, you can show them how many CCTV footage and other evidence as you like, but they still insists that the terrorists was somehow innocent and will be released. I still think it's good to debunk them in order to protect others from falling into their scary fantasy world.
Heck, I just brought up a couple examples. It can be about any gov't "conspiracies" if you wish. Global warming is likewise a croc. But it's not a government one. Yet again... no proof... just suspicion... and yet they want proof on everything that ISN'T their conspiracy...
How about the one where the governement creates fake terror attacks to motivate the country against an emeny? oh wait, someone already thought of that http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html But they didn't go thru with it ..... here is some more if you are interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Ferret, what happend to the guy that proposed this short lived idea? Do you know? I never understand why liberals want to tarnish a great Democrat President, JFK, for the sake of self-loathing on behalf of their country, with something that never happened and that *our* (term used loosely when including ferret) government actually shot the proposal down.
The way I read those two sentences in combination left open the possibility that they didn't find anything because they put it off till part two. Since how one uses intelligence may include the intelligence agencies, and how the administration uses the intelligence agencies includes if they applied pressure to them as a part of using them or not.
If I understand the OP correctly they are upset that some people believe in a conspiracy theory about who orchestrated 9/11, so all people that believe in conspiracy theories are bad people and support the terrorists? So what about Watergate? Suppose Deep Throat had never leaked the information to the Washington Post reporters and Nixon remained in office. Would people that believed there was more to the Watergate Hotel break-in be labeled as crazies? What about when President Reagan said that the United States was not involved in the Iran-Contra affair, and then one week later changed his story and said that there was a secret program to get money from arms sales going on? I don't think all conspiracy theories are real but anyone that thinks there aren't conspiracies is just fooling themself. There are many examples showing this.
The pause, ";" between the two points, clearly define the first part. In fact, it seems you don't make an argument about it, because it's so clearly defined. Arguing about it seems less than trivial. If you honestly believe that, and for the sake of argument only, want to raise that as an issue, ok.