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.
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.
Can anyone spot the inconsistency here?
Yes.
The issue here is not so much whether Bush has the proof or not, but rather whether you will accept it.
The issue is that the Bush administration has not presented the case for American intervention.
I suspect that regardless of what it is, you won't accept it.
Once again, you would be wrong. I supported the war in Afghanistan because the Bush administration made a strong case for American intervention. I will do the same if the Bush administration presents a strong argument for American intervention in Iraq.
I don't blindly follow my political leaders.