Need some help understanding this point

[WindChill]

So far just about everything the right has put out on the Rove/Plame/Wilson thing is pretty clearly refuted. The one point that I'm having trouble with is the Butler Commission and the right's contention that its report shows Wilson was wrong.

Can someone help me understand the conclusions of the Butler Commission and how they don't discredit Wilson's report?

[skids]

1. My sense is that the Butler Commission was more or less a sham

I mean, how are we supposed to defend ourselves against the specific content of a report from a rigged commission?

...but it would be nice to see a more detailed criticism. This might be a good starting point:

http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=site%3Aguardian.co.uk+%22butler+commission%22&btnG=Search

[Hamlette]

2. Butler Commission, is that the same group who said British gov't

didn't "sex" up the intel on WMD?

Since we didn't find WMD, and since the US gov't and the British gov't both said HE DID, why would anyone belived they didn't "sex" it up? Or why would anyone believe anyone (or any "commission") who said they didn't "sex" it up?

[Skittles]

3. see WindChill you are falling for RNC talking points

it wouldn't MATTER if he WAS wrong (which he WASN'T) - it would not matter if Wilson was a lying piece of shit (WHICH HE IS NOT) - what MATTERS is BUSH INC WAS WILLING TO BLOW THE COVER OFF A CIA AGENT FOR SIMPLE REVENGE.

[WindChill]

4. I'm the last person who would fall for the RNC's talking points

All of the others are easy to refute but I just don't have any sense of how to counter the Butler Commission point. One reference I did find indicated that the US and the Brits disagreed over the Niger intelligence at the time and we continued to disagree over the conclusions of the commission and that's just not a solid argument, that's just "we'll have to agree to disagree."