Then either
a) you have not talked to the correct people
b) the people you talked to are more discreet than I
c) the people you talked to don’t have access
d) the people you talked to are under orders not to address such a situation
e) they did not disclose information for the same reason I cannot (as you put) “publish my account” because they (as I)am not a legal spokesman for the United States services.
or
f) they have not been directly present when any such evidence was presented.
And as for your comments about LA-
Yeah it’s there, can you tell me what the people in Little China sell in the way of movies that arent available to the US mainstream?
I can tell you what the people on the outskirts of my base sell... because I’m HERE.
And of course only you would know the 'correct people'. Gotcha General..
b) the people you talked to are more discreet than I
As I don't know who the hell you are that's an easy out. I name a rank, position, etc (which I wouldn't do) you come back with 'I'm higher than x'
c) the people you talked to don’t have access
Course not. Compared to General MacDorcha? How could they? You know all, o great seer....
d) the people you talked to are under orders not to address such a situation
As the Republic continues its downward spiral (as historically all major nation states and empires do over time), 'orders' become less important as respect for authority decreases. 70 years ago perhaps 99% of the military wouldn't have spoken because they still believed. Today, that number is probably more like 60-65%. And these soldiers could really care less as they're out. They went over there rather gung-ho but came back quite disappointed. Guess they didn't get their ration of flowers and chocolates from the children....
e) they did not disclose information for the same reason I cannot (as you put) “publish my account” because they (as I)am not a legal spokesman for the United States services.
Well gee General Mac, you sure sound like one!! But wait a minute. The report is based on what Dave Gaubatz stated he saw as a military soldier. So if he's not a legal spokesman either, we should dismiss what he says as well. Except it supports your belief so it should automatically be counted. That about the gist of it? One position automatically accepted because it's the government position, but the other automatically discounted because it's not the government's position
Well then again who knows what the government's position is. We've gone onto Wilsonian adventurism as the excuse. Or didn't you see all those purple fingers while you were there? Haven't even heard Fox News mention WMDs of late.
f) they have not been directly present when any such evidence was presented.
Oh okay. A select few were directly present then. Along with Major MacDorcha. I mean really. Who'd a thunk someone so 'in the know' about WMDs that they can't talk about has the time to post cryptic messages on the internet that they 'know' something the rest of the free world has for the most part dismissed
Tell you what. Get back to me when this 'information' is released on a somewhat reputable news source. I'll take Fox, although that's mostly an opinion station but I would prefer a more reputable old world source
Where are the WMDs, then? Why did the President allow this farce that the media has foisted that there were no WMDs? Is it blackmail by Iran and Syria? Why haven’t we responded directly to Iran’s insertion of terrorists in country that have killed our soldiers?