Remember that ROCK SOLID evidence President Bush said he had a few months ago?

[Gaard]

Now that Iraq is pretty much our's, and Saddam and his regime are rapidly becoming footnotes in history books, will we be informed what the rock solid evidence of WMD is that President Bush said was in his possession way back in...was it September when he first said it? The most often used reason for not supplying the evidence was if he did, the source (and his family) would be tortured and killed by Saddam. Well now that that threat has been eliminated, or soon will be, is it safe to reveal what that evidence is?

Or was it just empty words to get support for his cause? Let's see a show of hands.

 

[apoppin]

Time will tell. It is premature for me to comment either way.

 

[Spyro]

Link?

 

[CPA]

Is this enough ROCK SOLID evidence for you?

 

[PG]

Can't you read:

http://subscriber.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&threadid=1019320

 

[Wag]

It doesn't matter. People are going to believe what they want.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: CPA
Is this enough ROCK SOLID evidence for you?

It's enough for me.

 

[Gaard]

So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

I see a caveat that allows you to denigrate Bush even if we dig up a thermonuclear device.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

 

[Stark]

And Gaard, now that we've found chemical weapons, are you like other liberal wankers who say Saddam is a better humanitarian than Bush because he didn't use them in the war?

Liberal reasoning is amazing... we need proof... what's that, you found actual WMD? Well, that only proves Bush sucks. Viva La France!!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

I see a caveat that allows you to denigrate Bush even if we dig up a thermonuclear device.

If that thermonuclear device is what President Bush was talking about, he would have had to have rock solid evidence of it's exitence back in September, right?

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

Does it even matter?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Stark
And Gaard, now that we've found chemical weapons, are you like other liberal wankers who say Saddam is a better humanitarian than Bush because he didn't use them in the war?

Liberal reasoning is amazing... we need proof... what's that, you found actual WMD? Well, that only proves Bush sucks. Viva La France!!

Absolutely not. If you are familiar with my postings over the last few months, you'd know that I have frequently wondered aloud (as aloud as you can be on the internet ) what this evidence is. Well, now it seems that we can know without any danger to our sources. Is it wrong to ask our president what evidence he was talking about?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

We may not want to reveal the method used not necessarily the source.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Stark
And Gaard, now that we've found chemical weapons, are you like other liberal wankers who say Saddam is a better humanitarian than Bush because he didn't use them in the war?

Liberal reasoning is amazing... we need proof... what's that, you found actual WMD? Well, that only proves Bush sucks. Viva La France!!

Absolutely not. If you are familiar with my postings over the last few months, you'd know that I have frequently wondered aloud (as aloud as you can be on the internet ) what this evidence is. Well, now it seems that we can know without any danger to our sources. Is it wrong to ask our president what evidence he was talking about?

Well, no, its not wrong at all, but something tells me that the president won't be telling us anytime soon.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

Does it even matter?

Probably not in the grand scheme of things. I, for one, however, would like to know what exactly my president was talking about. He's the one who claimed to have this evidence. I assume this claim was made (true or false) to help support his cause. Now that he has gotten his way, and the coalition has taken hold of (or has come close to taking control) Iraq, I believe it's time we were shown what this evidence was/is.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

We may not want to reveal the method used not necessarily the source.

Maybe not Dave. But, I seem to remember Fleischer saying something about not wanting to reveal our sources. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Maybe not Dave. But, I seem to remember Fleischer saying something about not wanting to reveal our sources. I'll see if I can find it.

That's exactly what he said but it is SOP not to reveal sources or methods of gathering intel. Sometimes just telling what you know is enough to reveal your source or your method. There is no way we can currently guarantee the safety of any HUMINT source in Iraq and chances are it will be a long time (if ever) before we know exactly what 'evidence' the Pres. and other's were talking about, who was providing it, what method was used to collect it or anything else.

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Stark
And Gaard, now that we've found chemical weapons, are you like other liberal wankers who say Saddam is a better humanitarian than Bush because he didn't use them in the war?

Liberal reasoning is amazing... we need proof... what's that, you found actual WMD? Well, that only proves Bush sucks. Viva La France!!

Absolutely not. If you are familiar with my postings over the last few months, you'd know that I have frequently wondered aloud (as aloud as you can be on the internet ) what this evidence is. Well, now it seems that we can know without any danger to our sources. Is it wrong to ask our president what evidence he was talking about?

Saddam is still around. Some of the sources still may be in Iraq and not free from harm should they be revealed as a source. Somebody tipped us off to the whereabouts of Saddam when we first attacked. We'd be idiots if we revealed that information now. Similarly, many of the sources cited as proof of WMD are Iraqis who have fled and are in exile in the US. It would be a huge violation of their trust and safety if we started naming names now.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Maybe not Dave. But, I seem to remember Fleischer saying something about not wanting to reveal our sources. I'll see if I can find it.

That's exactly what he said but it is SOP not to reveal sources or methods of gathering intel. Sometimes just telling what you know is enough to reveal your source or your method. There is no way we can currently guarantee the safety of any HUMINT source in Iraq and chances are it will be a long time (if ever) we know exactly what 'evidence' the Pres. and other's were talking about, who was providing it, what method was used to collect it or anything else.

I see. I was under the (wrong?) assumption that eventually we'd be shown this evidence. I was merely being facetious when I had previously (months ago) poked fun at our president..."We have proof. No, we can't tell you what it is. You'll just have to trust me that it's good enough proof to go to war over"...but it looks like I was closer to the truth than I thought. If what you say is true, that revealing the source might not be the reason for not telling us what this evidence is, than it's probably a good thing I don't hold grudges. How many times was I ridiculed by other members who basically said "Yeah right, Gaard. And have our source and his family tortured, raped, and killed?"?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

I see a caveat that allows you to denigrate Bush even if we dig up a thermonuclear device.

If that thermonuclear device is what President Bush was talking about, he would have had to have rock solid evidence of it's exitence back in September, right?

Judging by my response, I obviously understood your argument it the first time.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

I see a caveat that allows you to denigrate Bush even if we dig up a thermonuclear device.

If that thermonuclear device is what President Bush was talking about, he would have had to have rock solid evidence of it's exitence back in September, right?

Judging by my response, I obviously understood your argument it the first time.

Argument? Just asking a question, dude. One that, it seems, a lot of you don't want asked. Myself, I don't see why asking this question makes me a bad person.

He said he had evidence.
I asked what it was.
I was told he can't say out of fear for our sources.
I see any danger to our sources as just about negated by now.
I ask if now we can be shown.
A lot of the flag avatar members take exception to this question. Why is that?

 

[colonel]

Now that Iraq is pretty much our's

Iraq belong's to the iraquies people, did you see any American flag on the tanks? grow up kid:disgust: