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.