--> All discussion of candidates' Iraq policies here

[Dreadsox]

I think any historical policy issue should be studied and debated because that process is important to the formulation of policy in the future. Those who consider the invasion a mistake because certain types of WMD were not found at the time, are not understanding the broader security consequences of leaving Saddam in power. Just as whether the US should begin to withdraw should not be based alone on recent casualty levels, nor should the cost of the war to this point be the lone determining factor in the wars necessity. Multiple other factors in both cases have to be considered.

It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.


Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.

 

[maycocksean]

The United States remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany out of necessity. US troops should remain in Iraq as long as it is necessary for US security needs there which include the development and rebuilding of the Iraqi State. Once they reach a sustainable level of development and security, both internal and external security, it will not be necessary to have US troops in the country.

So you disagree with Charles Krauthamer?

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .

 

[Vincent Vega]

I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .

Is your occupation shining through here?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on.

it's the same thing as saying, "indefinite occupation."

 

[Strongbow]

It is not relevant to the current election. Start a historical thread if you like. AS I read the title of the thread it is about the ELECTION. In my mind that means the debate over should we or shouldn't we is not pertinent. It is WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.


Ken Pollack has TRASHED this administrations handling of the war. He supported the removal of Saddam, but he most definitiely is NOT a supporter of the manner in which this administration LIED about Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invastion, the pinning of the world trade center bombing on Saddam, and the selective use of sentences from intelligence reports out of context of whole reports to make the run up to war. The debate that you want to have, is not pertinent to the election and moving forward.

You can't make the claim that the candidates positions on various issues over the past 8 years is not relevant to an election debate, although I agree discussing the way forward is the more important of the two.

The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.

 

[Dreadsox]

Ummm......

I forgot.....you are always right. I will wait to dialogue with someone who cares to dialogue.

Sting, seriously, how many of your posts in this thread have had anything to do with the campaign?

 

[Dreadsox]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Please use this thread, rather than the general campaign discussion thread, for all discussions of McCain's and Obama's Iraq policies.

Can we do it?

 

[Dreadsox]

The Bush administration did not lie about Al Quada and certainly did not say that Saddam was responsible for knocking down the World Trade Center. Every administration thats ever occupied the White House could be accused at one time or another of "selective use of sentences" from intelligence reports. While Ken Pollack has criticized the administrations handling of the war, he agrees with the administration on the much larger and strategic issue of removing Saddam from power.

Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.

Pollack from his book supporting the removal of Saddam from Iraq on has consistently pointed out that the strategies this administration has used until recently, have been flawed and caused failures that were not necessary.

You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.

 

[Strongbow]

Ummm......

I forgot.....you are always right. I will wait to dialogue with someone who cares to dialogue.

Sting, seriously, how many of your posts in this thread have had anything to do with the campaign?

If the moderator does not think that the discusion of US national security interest in the Persian Gulf to include the policies both candidates supported over the past 8 years in relation to the Persian Gulf is not relevant to "ALL discussion of candidates Iraqi policies", I'm sure they will step in and mention that.

 

[Strongbow]

Paul Wolfowitcz did not order members of the governement to investigate again if Saddam had links to the 1993 Trade Center Bombing? Check your facts. Wolfowitz and friends wanted anything they could muster to make their case including CHERRY PICKING sentences out of context from intel. There is a difference between selective use of intelligence reports and taking sentences that support your cause out of context from reports that did not support your cause. It leads to intel agents, who have worked their asses off quitting the agency they worked for, because their words are being twisted, taken out of context, and used to support things they did not intend their reports to support.

Sorry, but investigating something is not lying. I would hope that the intelligence community would be investigating such things among many others. Its funny, but Cherry Picking is precisely what critics of the administration have been doing the past 8 years.

You have thrown Pollack around this forum since 2002. And guess what, I read Pollack faithfully, and you and your posts are the FURTHEST thing from Pollack.

This from someone who's concerned about the thread getting off topic. Ok, I have never claimed that I agree with Pollack on everything he has stated, but I do agree with him on what is the largest strategic issue here which is the decision to remove Saddam from power, which you do not. I've used Pollack's name in reference to the things we both agree on, the removal of Saddam from power and not leaving Iraq pre-maturely.

 

[Strongbow]

So you disagree with Charles Krauthamer?

By the way you could say something along the lines of "it's not as simple as agree or disagree". . .and I'd accept that. But I'm looking for you to take an actual position on what he said rather than this admittedly masterfully evasive answer. I'm realizing for all the density of your posts, there's not a lot analysis going on. Let's see what you got. . .

Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?

 

[Dreadsox]

Your correct, its not a lie to walk up to the line and lead the press to print suspicions at a time when the American public would not have supported an invasion of Iraq.

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html


Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.

 

[Strongbow]

Your correct, its not a lie to walk up to the line and lead the press to print suspicions at a time when the American public would not have supported an invasion of Iraq.

Wolfowitz Bombshell: Saddam Behind 9/11 Attacks and OKC Bombing

Sorry, it is hard to stay on topic when you keep misleading people in this forum. You claiming Pollack as being with you is like the administration claiming the CIA intel supported the invasion.Tell you what, you play nice, and I will stay on topic.

The public was already in support of removing Saddam with military force prior to 9/11 according to a gallup poll released earlier in the year, and the allegations that the administrations "cherry picked" evidence made the public support the war is just false. Opinion polls on the topic of whether to invade and remove Saddam in September of 2002, are roughly the same as polls done in January 2003.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5

Unfortunately, your the only one misleading people if you think that my position on the removal of Saddam from power and the need to stay and rebuild Iraq afterwards is significantly different from Pollack's position on those issues. On the biggest issues in regards to US policy in Iraq, your the one thats in disagreement with Pollack.

 

[Diemen]

Well, what does Charles Krauthamer mean by "seize the fruits" of war?

I find it amusing to see how difficult it is for you to provide a straightforward answer.

 

[Dreadsox]

Please, post evidence that the US public supported going to war and explain why, if such support was there, the United States Congress did not have a vote for a formal declaration of war if the public was so very much in favor of using our troops for such action.

Anyone who looks up Pollack's articles and reads his books would agree that Pollack supported the removal of Saddam. Anyone who read his books and articles, would also agree with me that he has NEVER been supportive of the manner in which the war or the reconstruction has been handled. He has been forthright and honest about the failures of the Administration.

When are you signing up to go help reconstruct? Is there something that is stopping you from enlisting? Just curious. Someone as dedicated to the cause, must really want to do your part.

I on the other hand, may very well vote for Obama at this point. Having lost a friend that I served with, a friend from church, and a student of mine....I am tired of the war machine lying. Shaking things up a bit may make a difference.

 

[Strongbow]

Please, post evidence that the US public supported going to war and explain why, if such support was there, the United States Congress did not have a vote for a formal declaration of war if the public was so very much in favor of using our troops for such action.

Anyone who looks up Pollack's articles and reads his books would agree that Pollack supported the removal of Saddam. Anyone who read his books and articles, would also agree with me that he has NEVER been supportive of the manner in which the war or the reconstruction has been handled. He has been forthright and honest about the failures of the Administration.

When are you signing up to go help reconstruct? Is there something that is stopping you from enlisting? Just curious. Someone as dedicated to the cause, must really want to do your part.

I on the other hand, may very well vote for Obama at this point. Having lost a friend that I served with, a friend from church, and a student of mine....I am tired of the war machine lying. Shaking things up a bit may make a difference.

Knock yourself out

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5

Congress has not had a formal declaration of war since 1941. So if your really concerned about that, you can be raising hell with just about every military action that the United States has taken since World War II.

I agree that Pollack has been critical of the administration on its handling of the war, but on the most important points, the need to remove Saddam and the need to stay and finish rebuilding Iraq so it can sustain itself, Pollack agrees with the Bush administration.

Nice to know your still into the irrelevant stereotyping of people you know nothing about.

 

[Diemen]

I agree that Pollack has been critical of the administration on its handling of the war, but on the most important points, the need to remove Saddam and the need to stay and finish rebuilding Iraq so it can sustain itself, Pollack agrees with the Bush administration.

And on several other critically important areas, Pollack disagrees with the Bush administration. One could certainly argue that the execution of a plan is just as important as the plan itself.

 

[Dreadsox]

and the allegations that the administrations "cherry picked" evidence made the public support the war is just false.

Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????

 

[Dreadsox]

Knock yourself out

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/26/rel7c.pdf page 5

Congress has not had a formal declaration of war since 1941. So if your really concerned about that, you can be raising hell with just about every military action that the United States has taken since World War II.
.

Pollack called for a formal declaration of war as part of what he felt was important for this country before taking action against Saddam.

 

[Diemen]

Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????

Dread, dread, dread. All this is completely irrelevant. And I'll tell you why: Resolution 1441, man. I mean...seriously, Resolution 1441.

 

[Dreadsox]

52-42 is overwhealming support to send troops into battle? Please. I thought you were going to show me something that supported you. It explains why Congress did not vote for formal war.

Seems like it was probably within the margin of error...hehe....I give...your right.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread, dread, dread. All this is completely irrelevant. And I'll tell you why: Resolution 1441, man. I mean...seriously, Resolution 1441.

I know....

Somewhere in the forum are posts I made linking to legal opinions about Resolution 1441. Hehe....

Up until the vote authorizing the occupation, everything was illegal....but I digress.

 

[Strongbow]

Allegations ???? That must explain why the Office of Special Plans within the Defense Department was reprimanded for behaving inappropriately in its role up to the war. Hahahahah tell me they were not reprimanded for "cherry picking"!!!!! Please

This administration created the ability to lie through this Office. The transfer of power from the CIA to the DOD and Rummy led to this mess. Unbiased reports from the CIA were run through this office, interpreted and chopped up, to bolster an already determined course of action.

The CIA presented information that could have prevented the bullshit reconstruction from being the disaster it has been. But, this administration did not was unbiased reports. They wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. SO why was the Office of Special Plans reprimanded????

Your totally missing the point. Whatever you think of the "Office Of Special Plans" their work did not change the public's view on the need for military action based on polling done from early 2001 prior to 9/11 all the way through the initial debate about going to war in the last half of 2002 and early 2003. In addition, the administrations case for war did not rest on this particular line in a speech or information put out by the Office Of Special Plans. If you actually understand the definition of the word, lie, you'll realize that none of the important decision makers in the administration lied about the case for war against Iraq.

Invading a country like Iraq is an enormous undertaking even without having to deal with a large insurgency. Even the best executed plan for post war reconstruction was going to face large cost given the insurgency.

 

[Dreadsox]

If your belief that 52% (within the margin of error) prior to 9/11 is the American people supporting an invasion of Iraq, we have nothing to discuss. I do not. I think it wrong to take a poll of 1200 or so people and claim 52% demonstrates that this administration had the American public behind it. And you miss the point, that their OWN ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS demonstrate that they did not have the full support of the country.

There was no need to invade at that time. There was plenty of time to gain true international support. There was plenty of time to READ THE CIA REPORTS that said we needed more troops from the start to reconstrucct. On and on and on. THEY cherry picked to make the case they were CORRECT ON EVERYTHING. And they have been wrong on almost everything surrounding Iraq.

 

[Strongbow]

Pollack called for a formal declaration of war as part of what he felt was important for this country before taking action against Saddam.

Hmmm, but he did not think that was necessary for Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, the first Persian Gulf War? Interesting.

 

[Strongbow]

52-42 is overwhealming support to send troops into battle? Please. I thought you were going to show me something that supported you. It explains why Congress did not vote for formal war.

Seems like it was probably within the margin of error...hehe....I give...your right.

Majority support, I never said anything about overwhelming support, and that was BEFORE 9/11.

 

[Strongbow]

I know....

Somewhere in the forum are posts I made linking to legal opinions about Resolution 1441. Hehe....

Up until the vote authorizing the occupation, everything was illegal....but I digress.

The key word there being opinions. In addition, no attemt by any UN member state to protest the invasion through a resolution, call for its suspension. Nothing.

 

[Strongbow]

If your belief that 52% (within the margin of error) prior to 9/11 is the American people supporting an invasion of Iraq, we have nothing to discuss. I do not. I think it wrong to take a poll of 1200 or so people and claim 52% demonstrates that this administration had the American public behind it. And you miss the point, that their OWN ACTIONS and BEHAVIORS demonstrate that they did not have the full support of the country.

The poll prior to 9/11 is not significantly different from all the polls that were done in 2002, as well as January 2003. Its outside of the margin of error when measuring the number of people in support of such an invasion vs. those opposed to. Even if it was within the margin of error, that in its self would still be significant given the time period when the poll was taken. The actions and behaviors of the administration simply demonstrate the fact that they were trying to build as much support for their cause as they possibly could, which one would expect ANY administration to do on the issue of war.

There was no need to invade at that time. There was plenty of time to gain true international support. There was plenty of time to READ THE CIA REPORTS that said we needed more troops from the start to reconstrucct. On and on and on. THEY cherry picked to make the case they were CORRECT ON EVERYTHING. And they have been wrong on almost everything surrounding Iraq.

Waiting longer to remove Saddam would have only cost more American lives and made the occupation more difficult. With the erosion of sanctions and the weapons embargo against Saddam by 2002, it was only a matter of time before Saddam would be able to obtain large quantities of more advanced weapons that would make any US invasion far more costly and there by the occupation more difficult as well.

By the summer of 2003, the size of the force in Iraq reached the size that it has been over the entire occupation with the exception of the Surge.

 

[Irvine511]

Anyone who looks up Pollack's articles and reads his books would agree that Pollack supported the removal of Saddam. Anyone who read his books and articles, would also agree with me that he has NEVER been supportive of the manner in which the war or the reconstruction has been handled. He has been forthright and honest about the failures of the Administration.

some of us have been saying this since 2004.

i think you're one of those -- you realize the situation in the Persian Gulf and Iraq, and yet reject the false choice that STING and the administration presented us with.

 

[Irvine511]

yo, Dread.

clear out some of your old PMs.

i gots something i want to say to you.