Winston1 said: ↑

“It was 2 years before we did Iraq so the loss of focus excuse doesn't hold water. Actually Iraq pulled AQ into that war and not only did we kill them there but AQ's depradations among the Sunni in Iraq turned the sunni shieks against them and to the US allowing Petreaus' strategy to succeed.​

You can't rewrite history. We did not go into Iraq to "pull Al Qaeda into it", we went in because Bush told us there were WMDs. Al Qaeda did not get along with Saddam, they were not there before we went there. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a splinter group. The Iraq war had nothing to do with AL Qaida, it was all about punishing Saddam and imaginary WMDs.

I didn't it was the object of going to Iraq but was a consequence. Read Petreaus Red. The fact IS that AQ saw Iraq as a chance to regain their standing and went there as a new front in their jihad. They acted like the savages they were and turned the sunni shieks against them. Petreaus and others took advantage (on their own hook BTW) and turned the whole war around. That my friend is history.

Red my note Red and keep up with the current debate. I very specifically said that specific acts as they occur could not be debated. What I and many Ds ask is a better definition of the checks & balances on the program and congressional oversite on the policies NOT ThE IMPLEMENTATION of THEM. There are NO checks and balances on the current program and the definitions that the Executive uses as a basis are so vague as to impose no limits. Frankly it is the Ds who are bring objections to the current lack of standards (their words). It is Jane Harmon, Ron Wyden and many other Ds who are out front of this. Don't make this a partisan debate RED as it is not.

Red all through your comments you either state or imply I advocate staying in Afganistan essentially forever. As you told me DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!! That is false and my argument from the beginning was that after the first strike in 2001 that toppled the Taliban we should have left. Hack Peters a noted strategic thinker advocated just that. He stated that the WORST action was staying there. The point you claim has been made by the last 4 years had already been clear.

In fact everything done since then has been a waste of precious lives and $$. The Ds made Afganistan the good war and demanded more action the kill or capture of OBL and nation building effort that Bush wasn't strong enough or smart enough to prevent. Then Obama doubled down in 2008 and the cost in lives and dollars rose exponentially.

As you said I haven't been in FSA for long so as you ask me don't assume to know my stance. I initially supported the Iraq invasion for two basic reasons. First was that taking Saddam out would change the whole middle east equation. As many thought Iraq was a basically secular country and the transition to a western style society would be easy and light a path for the rest of the ME to follow. Remember Bush was a strong advocate of reform in the ME even going so far as to challenge the Saudis. The second reason was the WMD which everyone from Putin to Chirac to Tony Blair to the generals in the field (both US & Iraqi) believed he had. There is testimony that the Iraqi generals went to Saddam and asked for release of them chemical weapons.

In was the total fuck up of the initial occupation that led to the debacle we endured and Bush Cheny Rumsfeld et all deserve all the damnation they have received. As they screwed things up and the fact that their basic assumptions were so wrong changed my view of both the correctness of the initial decision and the hopeand change it was supposed to ignite.

Red read my lips I never proposed we stay in Afganistan. I believed from the first we should have left them alone to stew in their own blood after we kicked their asses on 2001. We could have still nailed OBL at least as soon as we did. I wish we had done better in Iraq. I am NOT doctrinaire so don't assume what I think or advocate.

Again Red you like to think what you want but all my cites are Ds. Where are the Rs in the drone attacks?? The only ones I read actually support the president. That must really create a sour taste as it totally destroys your fantasy.

What I propose is a clearly stated standard of procedure that covers what constitutes the requirements that must be met to qualify a drone attack on both american citizens and foreign operatives. The current definitions are so vague as to have no limit. Every action needs a framework to use as a basis for decision. Congress and the executive and judicial review are necessary to make a valid product. There can't be simulatneous approval from outside but with a frame work to use as a basis oversite can be valid. There will always be and should be vigorous discussion of every action. That criticqal process is needed to get better.

Yes there will be politics involved always get real.

Will there be politics played?? Of course. But Red haveing a framework will limit the ground the politicqal rant can cover. To say we need no limits because of politics is self defeating.

The fact you left NBC in the mix proves you have ZERO credibility on this subject. Case closed...end of story...you're delusional!

Red as far as I'm concerned I don't think Obama is the one who is going to misuse this power, this guy is a smart man, and I think he will play by the rules, it's future presidents that concern me.

What are you talking about? Tom Brokaw is one of the biggest conservative ass sucking media personality in the biz, doesn't he still have shit to do with NBC news?