Russia: Hussein's regime planned terrorism against U.S.

[Phillip79]

Assuming Russian intelligence is credible, does evidence of Hussein's regime planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. change anyone's mind about the war? 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

[grahamers]

Assuming Russian intelligence is credible, does evidence of Hussein's regime planning terrorist attacks against the U.S. change anyone's mind about the war? 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html

If the claims influenced the WH and they do not have any evidence to back them up (and we don't seem to be able to produce any such evidence, so one assumes it doesn't exist) then the WH was played like a fiddle by the Russians. (Just like we were played by Iran in the same period!)

It looks like the Russians were egging on Bush as he was chomping at the bit to start his holy war.

[jgruber]

If the White House had credible information that indicated Hussein was an clear and present danger, it would change the situation.  I do not think it would justify this war, but that is a minority and personal opinion.

However, why didn't the White House cite this evidence in support of the invasion if this evidence is credible?

[Ginatio]

if russia presented intelligence on iraq, then why were they so adamantly against the war with iraq? and why didn't the white house play on this to get them more involved?

[jgruber]

if russia presented intelligence on iraq, then why were they so adamantly against the war with iraq? and why didn't the white house play on this to get them more involved?

Hear, hear.

[grahamers]

if russia presented intelligence on iraq, then why were they so adamantly against the war with iraq? and why didn't the white house play on this to get them more involved?

Boush got CARRIED like a handbag!  Forst by the Iranians and now by the Russians.

PS: It is common practice for a Govt to publicly say one thing while acting in the interests of the opposite due to leaders needing to keep popular support but wanting to achieve some goal that is too complicated to explain to the electorate.  I assume Putin wanted us to go into Iraq so they could increase their own oil output, possibly grab some land if the opportunity presented itself and other unknown reasons.  While he did not want to commit his own troops, why not egg Bush on?

[Ginatio]

egg bush on with supposed intelligence showing iraqi plans to attack the u.s., and then turn around in the u.n. and deny there's any proof of it? ... even though your own intelligence service has supplied some?

dunno. sounds fishy.

if bush wanted multi-national forces to help in iraq, he could've brought this up in his campaign... "see? even the russian intelligence agrees with us"

if russia presented intelligence on iraq, then why were they so adamantly against the war with iraq? and why didn't the white house play on this to get them more involved?

Boush got CARRIED like a handbag!  Forst by the Iranians and now by the Russians.

PS: It is common practice for a Govt to publicly say one thing while acting in the interests of the opposite due to leaders needing to keep popular support but wanting to achieve some goal that is too complicated to explain to the electorate.  I assume Putin wanted us to go into Iraq so they could increase their own oil output, possibly grab some land if the opportunity presented itself and other unknown reasons.  While he did not want to commit his own troops, why not egg Bush on?

[buddha]

Let's face it Putin has 0 credibility.  The only think left for him to do is change his title to Tzar Vladimir.

[gooooooo]

If Bush had credible evidence that Iraq was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S. he would really have no choice but to initiate a preemtive attack.  He is charged with securing the country, and in the wake of Sept. 11th he really couldn't take any chances.  Especially since George Tenet told him that the case for Sadaam having WMD was a "slam dunk".  Put these two together in Bushie's mind,  WMD + iminent terrorist attack.  He had no choice but to attack.

Of course, this is assuming that he had credible info on the terrorist threat, confirmed by several intelligence sources.  If this were the case, though, I think he would have used this as an explicit causus belli as opposed to merely the presence of WMD.  Something is fishy here.  However if this is true, it really buttresses Bush's pre-war rationale.     

[Ginatio]

the 9/11 panel concluded there was no proof. plus, it was obvious from testimony heard throughout those panel hearings that bush was planning a war with iraq the day he stepped into office. the "slam dunk" quote from tenet is not believable, if you ask me... the poor bastard was set up to take the fall.

If Bush had credible evidence that Iraq was planning a terrorist attack against the U.S. he would really have no choice but to initiate a preemtive attack.  He is charged with securing the country, and in the wake of Sept. 11th he really couldn't take any chances.  Especially since George Tenet told him that the case for Sadaam having WMD was a "slam dunk".  Put these two together in Bushie's mind,  WMD + iminent terrorist attack.  He had no choice but to attack.

Of course, this is assuming that he had credible info on the terrorist threat, confirmed by several intelligence sources.  If this were the case, though, I think he would have used this as an explicit causus belli as opposed to merely the presence of WMD.  Something is fishy here.  However if this is true, it really buttresses Bush's pre-war rationale.