[technomage]

So far we are hearing personal accounts of WMD movements, but have not seen concrete evidence to back it up. These reports would be wonderful if true. They would vindicate the President. BUT, we must have absolute proof. We do not know if these people are saying these things to make money, or to throw people off the trail, or just to get their names in the paper.

Personally, I believe we have the documentation to prove this from the millions of documents seized after the fall of Iraq and more proof from other means. When the President will allow these to be released (if never), we shall see. Until then, let's not get to enthusiastic. After all, it is to easy for the DeathoCrats to smear a report simply because it is done from personal knowledge and has no back up proof.

Documented proof is much tougher to smear, but we all know the DeathoCrats will attempt it when it happens (if ever).

[wildcatf4f3]

Real proof will come in the form of a chem barrage from Bekka when the Israelis hit the Iranian nuke sites.

[LexBaird]

These reports would be wonderful if true.

No, they wouldn't. I'd rather the Bush administration was 100% wrong on WMDs than have them floating around, unsecured, in a terrorist paradise like the Bekaa Valley. It's a case of vindication not being worth the potential price, if one of these relocated weapons end up in the hands of, say, Hisbollah or Hamas.

Unfortunately, I tend to believe them.