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.
It does no such thing.
I know that the evidence MUST exist if Bush goes before Congress to ask financing for further actions, he's required to have a reason why it is needed. But's that's a far cry from my saying that I have knowledge of that proof.
"If President Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11, then I will support the invasion."
By inserting the word "compelling", you have clarified your position on the issue.
The issue here is not so much whether Bush has the proof or not, but rather whether you will accept it.
I suspect that regardless of what it is, you won't accept it.
"He works for us and we pay the bills."
And, if we don't like the way he performs his job, we get the opportunity to fire him every four years or so, unless he's done something sufficiently bad to warrant Congress growing a backbone, and throwing his butt out.
Thank God for the fact that we get to vote every four years, and are not obligated to wait for that to happen.
"I will oppose the invasion unless Bush presents compelling evidence of Iraqi involvment in 9/11.
You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble, and stopped after the fifth word.