Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

[twa]

Has this been discussed?

CAUTION Right Wing site

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007421.php

Continuing my review of the many documents released from the DocEx files over the last two days, I found yet another interesting piece of information regarding Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMD. In a summary of a larger document, the translators found that Iraq had restarted its processing of castor-bean extraction, from which ricin can be developed -- and that UNMOVIC discovered it in December 2002.

From CMPC-2003-003766-HT.pdf, with line breaks and emphases mine:

Ricin toxin is found in the bean of the castor plant. UNMOVIC inspections since December 2002 have verified that the bombed caster oil extraction plant at Fallujah III has been reconstructed on a larger scale.

Read more

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007419.php

[@DCGoldPants]

and I'm still wondering why there hasn't been a peep from the Admin or the Defense Dept on this topic.

Again, you'd think that if this were as strong as some would believe. They would be the 1st out there pimping their case. Its an election year, this type of information is very valuable to their efforts, and their party.

Anybody know why nobody from these two places have said anything?

[twa]

Probably because it is not concrete proof and even if they discovered massive stockpiles and video of sadamn admitting to collaborating with terrorists...many would cast doubt

Added:

They also have a couple of wars and a Empire to build and are confident enough in thier decisions to look forward,rather than wasting time rehashing old arguments. :laugh:

[Prosperity]

So.... what about these links is new info?

[chomerics]

Chom I have one question for you. I'm not trying to be an ass but where do you get all of your information? The news, television, internet, papers? Many US serviceman have come on ES time and time again and told numerous Bush haters that there is a million times more good things being done for the Iraqi people than whats being reported. We've told ES over and over again that the media 99% of the time reports all of the negative things and none of the good. You speak as if you have an inside scoop as to what's going on in Iraq, yet I'm guessing you've never been there. I'm willing to bet you really don't know what the Iraqi people want, you are making an assumption based on your partisanship and political agenda.

You write very well and give the appearance that you know what you're talking about but typically you can't back up what you're saying. I think your hate for this administration may be clouding your ability to accept the fact that we may be doing some damn good over there. :2cents:

I don't think you are being an ass, but what does this have to do with the thread, or the lack of evidence for the justification on war? I have read probably about 20 books on the conflict right now, from both sides of the isle, and my opinion is based on what happened. We had a buildup to war, and the American public was duped into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, there is a reason for this. It is because our leaders WANTED people to believe it.

I look back to the PNAC article, and what the group wanted to do in 98'. I look at the letter they wrote to Clinton, and then juxtapose it with 9-11 and you have the perfect opportunity to exploit 9-11 so they could get their wet dream. The reasons for Iraq are far and wide, but the least of it was terrorism. They USED terrorism, and the horror of 9-11 to bring us into a war which we never should have started. Iraq was NOTt a threat, they were NOT working with Al Qaeda, and we are now MORE vulnerable then BEFORE 9-11. It has weakened our country in terms of foreign policy, our standing in the free world, and not to mention the cost in lives and dollars.

We have taken a secular nation, and turned it into an ally of Iran. We took a country which was stable, and made it very unstable. We created another hotbed of terrorism, and our actions have caused an entire generation of Muslims to hate our country. We alienated ourselves from the rest of the world in a fight to which we need everyone else's help. We took all the good will from 9-11, and flushed it down the toilet.

Those are the facts, and you may THINK it is just the Bush Administration that I hate, but if a democrat did the same thing I would feel the same way. It makes me sick to my stomach what is going on right now, and to think our brave soldiers are dying over there disgusts me. Our leaders have absolutely no shame in their actions, and they then use their misguided beliefs for political advantages. The entire war was voted on right before an election, lest we forget. It is the darkest time in the history of our country since the civil war, and history will not be kind to the Bush Administration, that is for sure. I just hope and pray that we will be able to climb out of the whole they have put us in, I believe we can, but it is going to be a long and arduous process to say the least.

So yes, I have my opinions on Iraq, and I do appreciate what the soldiers are doing over there. They are doing a very commendable job, unfortunately they are in a no win situation, and bad things are bound to happen because of it. There will be more rapes, unwanted killings and "massacres" to come out of Iraq because the stress level is high, and they are really in a no win situation. It is an utter travesty what happened, and I am more pissed off that other Americans, and the democrats didn't stand up, question the war and oppose the actions of the neo-cons in power.

[chomerics]

Has this been discussed?

CAUTION Right Wing site

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007421.php

Continuing my review of the many documents released from the DocEx files over the last two days, I found yet another interesting piece of information regarding Saddam Hussein's pursuit of WMD. In a summary of a larger document, the translators found that Iraq had restarted its processing of castor-bean extraction, from which ricin can be developed -- and that UNMOVIC discovered it in December 2002.

From CMPC-2003-003766-HT.pdf, with line breaks and emphases mine:

Ricin toxin is found in the bean of the castor plant. UNMOVIC inspections since December 2002 have verified that the bombed caster oil extraction plant at Fallujah III has been reconstructed on a larger scale.

Read more

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007419.php

And is ricin the only thing done with the extract?

As everyone has stated, there is a REASON Bush & Co. are not out pimping this tstory, it is because there is nothing there.

[chomerics]

So we're not looking for OBL? We're not still searching the mountains of Afghanistan where he's reported to be hiding?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060704/ts_nm/security_cia_dc

CIA disbands bin Laden unit

CIA has disbanded a unit set up in the 1990s to oversee the spy agency's hunt for Osama bin Laden and transferred its duties to broader operations that track Islamist militant groups, a U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday.

[chomerics]

So what you are telling me is Bush single handedly declared war and Congress backed him with 0 proof. So our Government allowed Bush to single handedly crank up the war machine and drive it into Iraq. Checks and balances went out the window. Didn't know Bush went from president to dictator, how ignorant of me. :doh:

Here is what happened. They were going to vote for a war, and Congress needed information at the time. They got the infamous NIE from 2002, half of which was leaked to the NY Times FOR political advantage, which was a bunch of half truths, and cherry picked evidence to make Iraq look like it was a threat. There was a great documentary on the NIE called Intelligence to Please, I posted it yesterday I believe (It is a bit torrent file, so it will take a while to download).

Well, the vote was in the SECOND WEEK of October during an election year right after 9-11. They ran on beingt strong against terrorism, and they forced the democrats hands on the issue. They made sure if any democrat voted against the bill, and they were up for re-election, the country would know about it. It was a brilliant POLITICAL move, but a TRAGIC diplomatic move. It basically forced Congress and the Senate's hands into war.

Now, you ALSO have to remember that the vote was not a vote for war, but a vote to give the president the AUTHORITY to use troops if he thought they were necessary. He stated that he NEEDED the power to force Saddams hand to allow the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well, it actually WORKED, but once it became pretty widely known that the weapons inspection was going BETTER then they had hoped, AND they were not able to find ANY evidence of WMDs, AND the case against Saddam's nuclear ambtions was found out to be forged, we went in. We told the weapons inspectors to leave, and we invaded. Look at the dates, it was like a few days after the initial treports came back on the forged Niger documents, and about 2 weeks after the intital interm report from Hans Blix which said they couldn't find anything.

That is the history of how we got into Iraq, so lets get that out in the open.

[ZoEd]

I don't think you are being an ass, but what does this have to do with the thread, or the lack of evidence for the justification on war? I have read probably about 20 books on the conflict right now, from both sides of the isle, and my opinion is based on what happened. We had a buildup to war, and the American public was duped into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11, there is a reason for this. It is because our leaders WANTED people to believe it.

I look back to the PNAC article, and what the group wanted to do in 98'. I look at the letter they wrote to Clinton, and then juxtapose it with 9-11 and you have the perfect opportunity to exploit 9-11 so they could get their wet dream. The reasons for Iraq are far and wide, but the least of it was terrorism. They USED terrorism, and the horror of 9-11 to bring us into a war which we never should have started. Iraq was NOTt a threat, they were NOT working with Al Qaeda, and we are now MORE vulnerable then BEFORE 9-11. It has weakened our country in terms of foreign policy, our standing in the free world, and not to mention the cost in lives and dollars.

We have taken a secular nation, and turned it into an ally of Iran. We took a country which was stable, and made it very unstable. We created another hotbed of terrorism, and our actions have caused an entire generation of Muslims to hate our country. We alienated ourselves from the rest of the world in a fight to which we need everyone else's help. We took all the good will from 9-11, and flushed it down the toilet.

Those are the facts, and you may THINK it is just the Bush Administration that I hate, but if a democrat did the same thing I would feel the same way. It makes me sick to my stomach what is going on right now, and to think our brave soldiers are dying over there disgusts me. Our leaders have absolutely no shame in their actions, and they then use their misguided beliefs for political advantages. The entire war was voted on right before an election, lest we forget. It is the darkest time in the history of our country since the civil war, and history will not be kind to the Bush Administration, that is for sure. I just hope and pray that we will be able to climb out of the whole they have put us in, I believe we can, but it is going to be a long and arduous process to say the least.

So yes, I have my opinions on Iraq, and I do appreciate what the soldiers are doing over there. They are doing a very commendable job, unfortunately they are in a no win situation, and bad things are bound to happen because of it. There will be more rapes, unwanted killings and "massacres" to come out of Iraq because the stress level is high, and they are really in a no win situation. It is an utter travesty what happened, and I am more pissed off that other Americans, and the democrats didn't stand up, question the war and oppose the actions of the neo-cons in power.

Here's the thing Chom, everything you hate that's being done to american troops has been done by just about every President that's ever run this country. We are a military super power and we've been used as pawns throughout history. We've had this conversation time and again and I will continue to say the same thing. When you show me a politician that isn't full of crap, doesn't play political games and isn't a power hungry egomaniac then that's the man/woman I'll vote for.

Iraq's been cruisin for a bruisin for a long time and they finally got it. Did we do it for the right reasons, honestly I doubt it. Seriously I do, but now we're there and the people of Iraq will be better off. Will they struggle, yes. Thing is now they get to do things on there own terms. For the first time in most of their lives they have a say. We take that for granted. They are fighting everyday but now they're fighting for their freedom, now they have something to fight for. Under Saddam they didn't have that luxury. I've posted probably a hundred posts detailing great things that I've seen with my own eyes but that's not important because Iraq wasn't a threat us. I just can't buy into that belief. I've been there twice now and have seen more good than bad and I've seen how happy the Iraqi people are now that Saddam is gone. We have to finish this thing.

[Redskins Diehard]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060704/ts_nm/security_cia_dc

Please tell me you are not citing that article to mean we are ignoring Bin Laden.

[Redskins Diehard]

ZoEd

Clearly that is a bunch of BS as all of us that have been there know nothing good is happening. Oh wait, it is the people that have NOT been there that know. Thats right, they read a study and now they know

[@DCGoldPants]

Clearly that is a bunch of BS as all of us that have been there know nothing good is happening. Oh wait, it is the people that have NOT been there that know. Thats right, they ready a study and now they know

When did you get back?

Why aren't reporters allowed outside of the Green Zones?

and this one is for you Redskins Diehard. Why haven't the people who would benefit the most from this information, back it up? Where is the admin on this? Why isn't it on the frontpage of the foxnews website anymore? It should still be the headline story.

[Redskins Diehard]

When did you get back?

Why aren't reporters aloud outside of the Green Zones?

and this one is for you Redskins Diehard. Why haven't the people who would benefit the most from this information, back it up? Where is the admin on this? Why isn't it on the frontpage of the foxnews website anymore? It should still be the headline story.

You might want to clarify the "reporters not allowed outside the green zone" policy. I think the real policy is "we can not guarantee your safety". I would be interested in your source that says they are not allowed out of the green zone, I think they do not want to leave it.

My comments were not directed toward the Saddam-Taliban Connection. It was directly related to ZoEd post regarding good things going on. We've been down that road many times.

I've been back since last April.

[ZoEd]

Here is what happened. They were going to vote for a war, and Congress needed information at the time. They got the infamous NIE from 2002, half of which was leaked to the NY Times FOR political advantage, which was a bunch of half truths, and cherry picked evidence to make Iraq look like it was a threat. There was a great documentary on the NIE called Intelligence to Please, I posted it yesterday I believe (It is a bit torrent file, so it will take a while to download).

Well, the vote was in the SECOND WEEK of October during an election year right after 9-11. They ran on beingt strong against terrorism, and they forced the democrats hands on the issue. They made sure if any democrat voted against the bill, and they were up for re-election, the country would know about it. It was a brilliant POLITICAL move, but a TRAGIC diplomatic move. It basically forced Congress and the Senate's hands into war.

Now, you ALSO have to remember that the vote was not a vote for war, but a vote to give the president the AUTHORITY to use troops if he thought they were necessary. He stated that he NEEDED the power to force Saddams hand to allow the weapons inspectors in Iraq. Well, it actually WORKED, but once it became pretty widely known that the weapons inspection was going BETTER then they had hoped, AND they were not able to find ANY evidence of WMDs, AND the case against Saddam's nuclear ambtions was found out to be forged, we went in. We told the weapons inspectors to leave, and we invaded. Look at the dates, it was like a few days after the initial treports came back on the forged Niger documents, and about 2 weeks after the intital interm report from Hans Blix which said they couldn't find anything.

That is the history of how we got into Iraq, so lets get that out in the open.

(In response to your earlier post) Why do we need a spy unit, which brings to mind covert which is no longer needed because it's no secret we're after him, when we're hunting him with hundreds of special forces and infantry troops?

So here's what your above post is telling me. To avoid not being re-elected Congressman and Senators voted to go to war. Wow, that gives me so much faith in American democracy. Pretty freaking sad that we live in a country where the people that vote to send us to war are so freaking spineless they'll send us to war to avoid be replaced.

Look, it's no secret that GWB had an axe to grind with Saddam and wanted someone's head on a platter for 9-11. Saddam most likely had nothing to do with it but he was a sitting duck. He'd been thumbing his nose at America and the UN for 12 years and Bush was looking for someone to pay for what was done to America. We took our vengence and anger out on a dictator who had been killing his own people in sick and disgusting ways. We took out a man that routinely disobeyed sanctions put on his country by the UN. He was a sick SOB who would do anything in his power to fight and kill americans. Was he a direct threat? Probably not but he was a threat none the less and sooner or later we would have had to take him out of power. We did, now let's finish it. By taking out Saddam we sent a clear message to the world that we won't take crap off no one. Hopefully we put a little present in N. Korea's lap, show them just who the Flock they're toying with.

[chomerics]

Here's the thing Chom, everything you hate that's being done to american troops has been done by just about every President that's ever run this country. We are a military super power and we've been used as pawns throughout history. We've had this conversation time and again and I will continue to say the same thing. When you show me a politician that isn't full of crap, doesn't play political games and isn't a power hungry egomaniac then that's the man/woman I'll vote for.

Iraq's been cruisin for a bruisin for a long time and they finally got it. Did we do it for the right reasons, honestly I doubt it. Seriously I do, but now we're there and the people of Iraq will be better off. Will they struggle, yes. Thing is now they get to do things on there own terms. For the first time in most of their lives they have a say. We take that for granted. They are fighting everyday but now they're fighting for their freedom, now they have something to fight for. Under Saddam they didn't have that luxury. I've posted probably a hundred posts detailing great things that I've seen with my own eyes but that's not important because Iraq wasn't a threat us. I just can't buy into that belief. I've been there twice now and have seen more good than bad and I've seen how happy the Iraqi people are now that Saddam is gone. We have to finish this thing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about Iraq, that they are better off in a certain sence, and we are doing good things over there, I don't say that we are not. The question becomes at what cost?

Is it worth the cost in increased terrorism? In hatred towards the US? I Iraqi deaths? In US dollars? What is the cost to free a group of people who didn't ask to be freed to begin with?

Right now, our costs are escalating towards over $400 Billion dollars, and the people responsible for the screwups keep getting promoted. Until we, as voters, decide what is best for our country, and take our country back from a bunch of greedy and corrupt politicians, we will go down the same path time and time again. Hopefully our country will have learned its lesson from 9-11 and Iraq, but from a lot of the conversations on this board, I really doubt it.

[chomerics]

So here's what your above post is telling me. To avoid not being re-elected Congressman and Senators voted to go to war. Wow, that gives me so much faith in American democracy. Pretty freaking sad that we live in a country where the people that vote to send us to war are so freaking spineless they'll send us to war to avoid be replaced.

I agree, but you are missing the point that it worked as planned, Bush is the one that broke his word, not Congress.

Look, it's no secret that GWB had an axe to grind with Saddam and wanted someone's head on a platter for 9-11. Saddam most likely had nothing to do with it but he was a sitting duck. He'd been thumbing his nose at America and the UN for 12 years and Bush was looking for someone to pay for what was done to America. We took our vengence and anger out on a dictator who had been killing his own people in sick and disgusting ways. We took out a man that routinely disobeyed sanctions put on his country by the UN. He was a sick SOB who would do anything in his power to fight and kill americans. Was he a direct threat? Probably not but he was a threat none the less and sooner or later we would have had to take him out of power. We did, now let's finish it. By taking out Saddam we sent a clear message to the world that we won't take crap off no one. Hopefully we put a little present in N. Korea's lap, show them just who the Flock they're toying with.

This is scary ZoEd, because you acknowledge most likely he was not a threat and we did it because he was there. That is NOT how you run a country, and that is NOT how the USA operates!!! I do not have an isolationist mindset, but EVERYTHING we wanted could have been done with Afghanistan.

How would the Middle East look at the US if we took a war torn nation on the brink of starvation out of dismay? How would they think if we rid the world of a brutal group, the Taliban, and then took the country out of third world status? Maybe it IS delusions of grandeur on my part for thinking that Afghanistan would have been possible, but I think it would have had a much better chance of succeeding then Iraq could have. You don;t have the ethnic hatred in Afghanistan, and they are a people that looks at each other as Afghanistanies. In Iraq, because of their leader, the mindset is different.

Hell, maybe I am wrong about Afghanistan, but it sure looks like I was right about Iraq, and that really pains me to no end. Do you think I like being a realist in the situation> hell, I'd LOVE to drink the cool aid, but it is so far removed from reality, I just can't. i supported Bush for a good while after 9-11, I supported him throughout the campaign in Afghanistan, I supported him right until the time he took a left and went after Saddam instead of taking a right and going after Bin Laden.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I agree, but you are missing the point that it worked as planned, Bush is the one that broke his word, not Congress.

.

How would the Middle East look at the US if we took a war torn nation on the brink of starvation out of dismay? How would they think if we rid the world of a brutal group, the Taliban, and then took the country out of third world status? Maybe it IS delusions of grandeur on my part for thinking that Afghanistan would have been possible, but I think it would have had a much better chance of succeeding then Iraq could have. You don;t have the ethnic hatred in Afghanistan, and they are a people that looks at each other as Afghanistanies. In Iraq, because of their leader, the mindset is different.

Before I let you continue on this rant, you are 100 percent dead wrong here

Afghanistan was created as another buffer state by the Russians and British back in the 1700s. Several ethnic groups, the Baluchi's, the Pushtan's, Uzbecks, and Tajicks were slammed together into a country

Half of the Pushton ethnic groups is in Pakistan, around the North West Frontier Province, and into Jammua and Azad (free) Kashmir. The other half in Afghanistan

You have a province in Pakistan called Baluchistan, which is where another good chunk of Baluchi's live

Most Muslim nations have very little national identity, because these were states slammed together by the colonial powers, and within that ethnic strife and violence occurs

These people do not see themselves as Afghans first, unless of course they left Afghanistan for the west (much like Pakistani's here don't view themselves as Punjabi's or Sindi's or Mahajar's but instead say Pakistani) because it was a state carved out on a map by the Brits and Russians in the mid 1800s, and of course ethnic violence and rivalries exist, which also exists in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangledesh and India

Here is a nice little link from the BBC on this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/key_maps/ethnic_groups.stm

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/38.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

[chomerics]

Before I let you continue on this rant, you are 100 percent dead wrong here

Afghanistan was created as another buffer state by the Russians and British back in the 1700s. Several ethnic groups, the Baluchi's, the Pushtan's, Uzbecks, and Tajicks were slammed together into a country

Half of the Pushton ethnic groups is in Pakistan, around the North West Frontier Province, and into Jammua and Azad (free) Kashmir. The other half in Afghanistan

You have a province in Pakistan called Baluchistan, which is where another good chunk of Baluchi's live

Most Muslim nations have very little national identity, because these were states slammed together by the colonial powers, and within that ethnic strife and violence occurs

These people do not see themselves as Afghans first, unless of course they left Afghanistan for the west (much like Pakistani's here don't view themselves as Punjabi's or Sindi's or Mahajar's but instead say Pakistani) because it was a state carved out on a map by the Brits and Russians in the mid 1800s, and of course ethnic violence and rivalries exist, which also exists in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangledesh and India

Here is a nice little link from the BBC on this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/key_maps/ethnic_groups.stm

http://countrystudies.us/afghanistan/38.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

I never said they don't have their ethnic groups, I stated they viewed themselves as Afghanis, not the type of Muslims they are as in Iraq. Afghanistan is mostly Sunni right? From everything I read and understood, the same type of racial hatred was not seen from the vast majority of Afghanis because they are mostly Sunnis.

I was also under this understanding because of the wars they've been through for the last 20+ years.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I never said they don't have their ethnic groups, I stated they viewed themselves as Afghanis, not the type of Muslims they are as in Iraq. Afghanistan is mostly Sunni right? From everything I read and understood, the same type of racial hatred was not seen from the vast majority of Afghanis because they are mostly Sunnis.

I was also under this understanding because of the wars they've been through for the last 20+ years.

The vast majority may be Sunni, but then it breaks down to the ethnic levels

The majority of the Taliban were Pushton's and Arabs, while the Northern Alliance was a whole lot of Tajiks, and Turks

These divisions really exist in Afghanistan and have for hundreds of years, because like most Muslim countries, it starts with family first, then tribe, then religion (Sunni, Shiite) then maybe Muslim

The way you can tell is that half of the Baluchi's live across the border in Pakistan, half the Pushton's live in Pakistan, there is a country called Tajikstan splitting that ethnicity etc etc.

The other thing you must ask, if these people view themselves as Afghans, what the heck is the Afghan national language? Afghani?

[ZoEd]

I agree, but you are missing the point that it worked as planned, Bush is the one that broke his word, not Congress.

This is scary ZoEd, because you acknowledge most likely he was not a threat and we did it because he was there. That is NOT how you run a country, and that is NOT how the USA operates!!! I do not have an isolationist mindset, but EVERYTHING we wanted could have been done with Afghanistan.

How would the Middle East look at the US if we took a war torn nation on the brink of starvation out of dismay? How would they think if we rid the world of a brutal group, the Taliban, and then took the country out of third world status? Maybe it IS delusions of grandeur on my part for thinking that Afghanistan would have been possible, but I think it would have had a much better chance of succeeding then Iraq could have. You don;t have the ethnic hatred in Afghanistan, and they are a people that looks at each other as Afghanistanies. In Iraq, because of their leader, the mindset is different.

Hell, maybe I am wrong about Afghanistan, but it sure looks like I was right about Iraq, and that really pains me to no end. Do you think I like being a realist in the situation> hell, I'd LOVE to drink the cool aid, but it is so far removed from reality, I just can't. i supported Bush for a good while after 9-11, I supported him throughout the campaign in Afghanistan, I supported him right until the time he took a left and went after Saddam instead of taking a right and going after Bin Laden.

Chom there is nothing pretty about war, it's ugly as hell. Hence the turmoil the media causes by reporting everytime a US soldier drops a deuce. There are things that go on over there that need to be reported but there are much more things that are better left unsaid. During war, any war, death is going to happen. How can any of us say what cost is too high? How can you put a price tag on freedom?

You keep bringing up Afghanistan but we've made some serious headway in Afghanistan. Two of my young troops who served there last year, had a two hour lunch with the Afghan ambassador two weeks ago. All they could talk about was how he thanked them over and over for all they did for his country. He asked that we continue to support his country because they are headed in the right direction. I guess he could have been blowing smoke but an ambassador asking to break bread with young AF troops is one hell of a jesture.

Honestly brother can you name one war this country has ever fault that wasn't supported by some and chastised by others. All the wars we've fault in the last 100yrs have been shadowed by some sort of contraversy. We had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII and there are many who said the gov't knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen and was allowed so the American people would support a war. What did we have to gain in Korea, Vietnam and all the conflicts in between. This war is no different. I think the people who we put in power to make the tough decisions for us no a hell of a lot more about what the TRUTH is than we do. Not saying we shouldn't question those decisions but sometimes the decisions made aren't popular but they still need to be made. That brings me back to Kerry, I don't think he had the balls or the resolve to make tough decisions and ultimately thats the reason I didn't vote for him.