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 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?
Quote from: Ginatio on June 18, 2004, 10:11:45 AMif 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?
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.
Page created in 0.826 seconds with 18 queries.