Of course, but I think that if they do know that, and can prove it, then it won't be unpopular among the citizens to proceed against Iraq.
It's funny to wonder whether we would have even been attacked if Gore was president. I'm not saying Bush caused it or any such things, but, you know, chaos theory and stuff.
if a butterfly flapped its wings in China it might have knocked the planes off course.... chaos theory is chaotic
MadMax, I agree our different view points on Iraq might color our different feelings of what each man would do as president. But assuming Gore also did want to use the military to invade Iraq and following your assumption that the president knows Iraq has nukes and is definitely sharing it with terrorists, I would agree that we should attack Iraq, and I think most people in the UN would as well. I just think given those circumstances the UN would buy the proposal coming from Gore more than they would from Bush. They might feel that Bush was in hurry to go to war(because of his cowboy image, past family history in the region, and oil connection. I'm not saying those perceptions of 'W' are correct just that to at least some extent they do exist). If Gore, who's seen more statesmanlike made the same proposals the would be viewed as having been more thought out, and would gain more acceptance. (Again I'm not saying that Bush's aren't thought out or that Gore's would be more so, just that considering both people's image, internationally, the UN would take the same proposal more favorably from Gore.) I don't know if that clarifies my position at all, or not. As far as Bush being willing to push the issue more if the world didnt' want to act, I'll admit that it's possible, though I don't think Gore would back down if he knew that information with a certainty.
