>And all your links ignore the deaths that are occurring as we speak. You continue to hold onto your views as the disatifaction with current affairs continues to grow.

I call bs. I have never denied the incredible struggle that is occurring. I have merely been showing that everything is not an unsalvagable failure as many are suggesting.

>
>Not to mention we are fighting a war for all the wrong purposes, causing our nation to be far less safe. Not to mention allowing countries such as Iran to take advantage of the situation also.

The US is more safe without Saddam in power.
The US is more safe with Iraq as a potential ally
The US is more safe with 100K troops right next to Iran
The US is more safe with Libya giving up their nuclear program
The US is more safe with Syria out of Lebanon

The US will be more safe once the Iranian nuclear threat is addressed. Before you claim I'm advocating an invasion let me be clear. The Iranian Mullahs must not be allowed to obtain nuclear power. The ideal scenario is to boost the revolution from within through 'radio-free Iran', funding and/or international pressure. However, we are operating within a finite time-frame, the length of which is not clear. Therefore the military option must be assessed, planned and ready to go at a moments notice. One thing we know for sure is that a solution must be achieved soon or Iran will open the AQ Kahn Depot, "for all your jihadist dreams".

>
>>His message is incomplete. It gives a one-sided view of what is going on and it may just be because he has been against this from the begining that he is pointing out only opinions that back up his initial position. Hence he sites the same old arguements in the face of contradicting reports.
>>
>>I have posted numerous links to articles, interviews and blogs which describe the situation in Iraq much differently then is being expressed by Murtha, Odom and the rest of the 'leave Iraq now' crowd. I can produce dozens more if you wish, but I doubt you'll "take them seriously". :)
>>
>>History will judge whether his opinion was/is right or not. Until we see what emerges, no one can say whether it has been successful or not.
>>
>>>"Nothing new here"....
>>>
>>>Seems to be the mantra of those described in the blog I posted about in the last couple weeks describing Bush apologists. "Nothing new here"....doesn't lessen the message.
>>>
>>>As a matter of fact since he was against it from the beginning, it increases the value of his opinion. Since he obviously had a far greater handle on the facts then others in power who refused to listen to his message.
>>>
>>>>Odom was against removing Saddam in the first place. He has been critical of every aspect of the operation since its conception.
>>>>
>>>>Do a quick google search on "Odom Iraq" and you'll get pages of links regarding his opinions.
>>>>
>>>>There is nothing new here.
>>>>
>>>>>"Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the U.S. It was in the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Hussein for his invasion of the country in 1980. For Al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the U.S. in the world, diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the transatlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror."
>>>>>
>>>>>You can read the article here, which is an excerpt from an article in Foreign Policy magazine:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-odom4may04,0,2656287.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions