Commander-In-Chief questionAugust 3 2004 at 11:20 AM
|DA (no login)|
from IP address 220.127.116.11
Response to Booooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!
You are President Bush in early 2003, just months after September 11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had incited Osama bin Laden citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected bio-weapons in Sudan with ties to Iraq. (It turned out to be an aspirin factory, but you don't know that.) Intelligence suggests that terrorists met with others in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam invaded Kuwait a decade before. He had used chemical weapons on his own people. (see articles below) One of the perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad. Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA Director originally appointed by Clinton tells you it's "a slam-dunk" that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The French are opposed to war with Iraq, saying their intelligence service believe Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. Russian President Putin, opposed to war with Iraq, tells you Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US. The President of Egypt and the King of Jordan both tell your senior military commander in the region that Iraq has bio-weapons. Most of the CIA contacts in Iraq are murdered. Do you wait to get more spies in the country to confirm the other intelligence, or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use the force and then use the force? What would you do?