Wow, Scott's on fire. Is this the first time the White House or GOP has ever directly accused an elected Democrat of supporting the terrorists, by name and leaving no doubt as to their meaning?

Wow is right. The WH has reached a new low. This attack the messenger, constant campaign attack style that is their response to the President's pathetic poll numbers reaks of desperation. Seems uncertain not to work. Murtha is no Michael Moore and when 28% of Republicans and a whopping 71% of Indepents do not approve of the President's handling of Iraq, it seems clear that this attack message will not resonate.

The White House is looking increasingly isolated. ow are they are starting to use language that would make Richard Nixon proud. It's going to be a long three years.

What'd you expect? Republicans are a party of neofascist thugs.

Since over half the country thinks Iraq was a mistake and it is time to leave, Scott McClellan must be baffled by the entire country.

"...nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer." --Scott Mclellan--This is a comment aimed at attaching the aim of a failed war with american safety. The fact of the matter is that the aim of Bush administration @ the beginning of the war was to oust a dictator and prevent any attempt by his regime from using weapons of mass destruction against America or its allies. This aim was expediated by the 9/11 attacks--giving just cause to go after terrorists. The terrorists that blew up the world trade center towers. It's obvious that the administation sought retribution for those attacks, so attaching the attacks to an already hated dictator became easy. Sadamm is not Osama! Getting rid of Saddam was inevitable and would have happened with the help of our allies if the administration had not rushed to move unilaterally. The need to rush to war was primarily a need to make a point to all people that commit acts of violence against the United States (problem is: Saddam is not Osama!) and secondly to move war policy forward without much examination of the facts. No way the war in Iraq make the United States safer; it might have made that part of the world safer, but Saddam did not have that capacity to incur any catastrophe against us. The Administration panicked the American people by using the 9/11 attacks to feed into our worst fears and thereby initiating their own agenda of personal and ethnic retribution. It's ethnic retribution because Saddam is not Osama!, but they're both Islamic Arabs and one (Saddam) was a sitting duck. The argument may now be that the U.S did encounter Al Qaeda terrorist cells in Iraq and that justiifes the occupation, but trolling for terrorists in a country that was attacked by an omnipresent military giant such as the U.S. would certainly make some already resentful, anti-American citizenship become contemptful; and thus act against American forces. You can troll for terrorists in Canada and find them; even in the United States, so the argument that Al Qaeda of Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks and targeting them before the war started would make us safer is illegitamate; if anything Al Qaeda of Iraq was discovered after the war started probably in resistance to the American invasion. No doubt Saddam is a bad man and the insurgents are creating chaos and violence against their own people; its just that troop withdrawal might not make the United States safer--just as McClellan claims, but Invading Iraq is just as impotent a move in make the United States safer. Now we're in a quandry because the Bush administration's intitial war of retribution must be maintained to ensure the stability of a region where our presence alone caused much of the instablility versus the need to get our troops back home. Appearances seem to mean more to the administration that the objective truth. Bringing our troops home would ensure that they are not put in harm's way, but the administration is adament that their presence is necessary where major combat operations have been declared over with. There is no doubt that the Iraqi people need assistance in protecting their own civilian population, but at what cost (in dollars and human life)? A deadline for withdrawal may be asking too much, but let's begin to talk about an exit strategy.