I don't, yet.
And you don't know that it doesn't exist.
We elect a President to carry out a number of duties, this is one of them. He isn't bound to make his case to the American public, and certainly not until he is prepared to do so.
He is the person in charge of our Armed Forces, and his only constitutionally mandated duty is to seek approval from Congress which he has already done, and Congress has given it.
You don't have civilians second-guessing Generals in a battle, nor Commanders In Chief during war.
Should the President (and Congress) feel it necessary to further define the nature of the military actions related to the response to 9/11, they will do so when needed.
Yet your previous post seemed to suggest that you knew that the evidence exists.
And you don't know that it doesn't exist.
If President Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11, then I will support the invasion.
We elect a President to carry out a number of duties, this is one of them. He isn't bound to make his case to the American public, and certainly not until he is prepared to do so.
He works for us and we pay the bills.
You don't have civilians second-guessing Generals in a battle, nor Commanders In Chief during war.
I will oppose the invasion unless Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11.