I understand your point and am not angry when I respond, but many of those links contain rock solid evidence about the terrorists who Saddam harbored.
It is rock solid evidence that Saddam knew 9/11 was coming given the article published in his state run newspaper.
It is rock solid that in the 90'd the press was writing about the relationship with alarm. Those articles were written based on intelligence leaks.
Certainly the president's evidence needs to be different than ours. But the articles, most of them, are based on leaks, congressional and intelligence community leaks, and are as rock solid as can be found.
Many of the articles contain pictures and direct quotes from people who found items found in Iraq since the war started which suggests the relationship was undeniable.
Salman Pak - we have satellite proof of terrorists training on a plane. The evidence is there for us to see...certainly the president has even more evidence.
I don't believe he will ever make his case. Ever. I don't know why. I hope I'm wrong.
No, if there is no link between the two, then there is not rock solid evidence that Saddam knew about 9/11.
Again...newspapers articles are not rock solid evidence. And intelligence leaks are not rock solid evidence. They are leaks. What if your leaks are wrong?
No, until you have proof, undisputable proof, you don't have rock solid evidence.
Salman Pak - Used for 9/11... can you make that link? You can make a compelling case...but I can make a case just as compelling that it wasn't.
I know all the work that you have put into the link between the two. I believe the link is there.
But if I were the President, I would not stand up before the American people with the evidence you think is rock solid and try to convince them that this evidence proves the link. I would fail...and fail miserably.
Your standard of proof and the President's standard of proof are light years away. It can't be based on leaks, articles, and the conspiracy theories of authors who write books.
It cannot be.