Cowardly Scott McClellan Retracts Allegation about Bush

Right now the recommended list features several diaries regarding an alleged excerpt of former White House spokesperson Scott McClellan's forthcoming book. From that excerpt, it appeared that McClellan was alleging Bush knew his staff had outed CIA agent Valerie Plame and had lied about it:

Amid a swelling controversy about the leak of Valerie Wilson's name, McClellan went to the White House podium in October 2003 and told reporters that Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, had not been involved. . .

There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes in his new book, "What Happened," which is to be released in April. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Explosive stuff, huh? Sure is.

Too bad McClellan is nothing more than a coward engaging in a cheap PR stunt. He has now disavowed that Bush knew about the outing.

From MSN (h/t TPM):

WASHINGTON - Former White House spokesman Scott McClellan does not believe President Bush lied to him about the role of White House aides I. Lewis Scooter Libby or Karl Rove in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, according to McClellan's publisher.

Peter Osnos, the founder and editor-in-chief of Public Affairs Books, which is publishing McClellan's book in April, tells NBC from his Connecticut home that McCLellan, "Did not intend to suggest Bush lied to him."

Come on, we all had to know this was coming, right? And let's face it. McClellan has always been a liar. He has always been a loyal Bushie. The only explanation I find plausible is that this was a deliberate PR stunt.

Fuckers.

Update [2007-11-21 16:24:46 by taylormattd]:
I'll include one more excerpt from the article, which to me demonstrates this was little more than a PR campaign, and that McClellan was never really planning to implicate Bush:

Osnos says the quotes which appeared on the Public Affairs Books website were part of the roll out of the book catalogues for the spring printings. And he says McClellan had not finished the manuscript for the memoir yet and was working under deadline to have the book completed for the April publishing.

•  should

  have known.

  by taylormattd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:01:40 PM PDT

  •  It must be true then!

    I was waiting to see how hard their spin/smear machine work on this.

    ...

    by fugue on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:03:18 PM PDT

    •  The Only Way to Find Out

      is to subpeona the little weasel and drag him before a congressional committee.

      by Christopher Day on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:52:29 PM PDT

      •  sure

        and in front of that committee he will then lie through his teeth, make snide remarks and sit with that trademark smirk every last one of those bastards have down to a science starting with commander assmunch himself. Everyone knows, and has known, that Bush and Cheney were involved from the beginning and no one with the authority to do anything about it cares enough to do so, it's all one big fucking joke and you can go shit in your hat if you don't like it. Hardy Har Har, Happy let's all celebrate thee massacre of indiansThanksgiving
        Hope you enjoy the pie.

        by FireCrow on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:50:50 PM PDT

      •  and/or

        do this!

        by peagreen on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:45:56 PM PDT

        •  Barry Bonds bunk mate?

          by Bailey Savings and Loan on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:22:25 PM PDT

  •  I called it yesterday

    McClellan writes in his new book, "What Happened," which is to be released in April. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

    That NEVER mentions nothing about knowingly lying or evil intentions.

    It basically says I went out and unknowingly said things that weren't true, and five ppl were 'involved' in that happening.

    Very vague and misleading.

    by librarianman on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

    •  Still, a line that says

      "and the president himself" seems a little to "accidentally" leave in, no matter how rushed old Scootie was.  That is not a spelling error or confusion about a date or location. That is pretty major to let slip by...

      by madgranny on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:54:13 PM PDT

      •  It's not like McClellan can just take it back.

        It's published in his book.

        by DaveinCleveland on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:40:15 PM PDT

        •  Not yet it isn't

          And this author can assure you that he'll have plenty of time to make sure it never does. That's the whole point of the publisher's denials.

          by ibonewits on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:47:45 PM PDT

          •  If what he said 'never existed'

            can whichever TV network make the same claim about Janet Jackson's nipple?

            by david78209 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:02:41 PM PDT

            •  That would be obvious ...

              ... manipplation of the news.

              by ibonewits on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:20:37 PM PDT

              •  Oh, right

                like that never happens ;)

                by o the umanity on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:39:14 PM PDT

                •  It was a pun. Sigh. n/t

                  by ibonewits on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 11:25:15 AM PDT

    •  I bet the White House is still quite PO'd...

      I'm sure they're not too happy with Scott right now. If it wasn't in the book then why would they leak it for PR? It works like the Iraq-Al Qaeda thing: put Bush and not true together and it'll stick in peoples' minds. This still plants the seeds of distrust and has actually made a news ripple...until the next 24 hour news tragedy hits of course...

      by methodishca on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:57:10 PM PDT

      •  Aw, man

        this is how they sell books.

        I hear ya, taylormattd--I shoulda known, too, and I fell for it. The fuckers...

        by o the umanity on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:41:00 PM PDT

    •  Scotty....

      Very vague and misleading.

      What a surprise from Scotty. And of course they got to him. This book deserves to tank. And given that few Republicans can read it seems up to Democrats to make sure that happens by not buying it. Wait a week and get it out of the remainder bin. This opus,like some movies, is likely the straight to DVD version of a book. And should be immediatly recycled into something useful, like toilet paper.

      by eastvan on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:29:29 PM PDT

    •  The new PR problem

      You're correct that wrongdoing by either Bush or Cheney doesn't follow from the earlier released statement. But that's a subtle point which will be lost on many. To most, I suspect, it just sounds like McClellan's changing his story. And who really wants to read a book, especially one entitled "What Happened"(!), by an author whom the public now has (even more) reason to believe is unreliable?

      I hope the book gets a new title come April. Perhaps something like "What McClellan Now Claims Happened" or "What Happened, According to McClellan This Month."

      by machopicasso on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:58:09 PM PDT

      •  Maybe it should be a magazine

        It could come out every week with a new version of the events in question.

        by Blank Frank on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:29:37 PM PDT

    •  True. It's written in a way that people like most

      of us will run wild with it, but if you slow down and read it carefully, it says it the way you put it. So there's no new information. We all know, as does Fitz, that Scotti Boi told false information to the public. That those 5 people were "involved" is also obvious. Scotti Boi doesn't say anyone "knew" anything.

      But it's natural for us to put the paragraph in it's most evil contect.

      by bejammin075 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:00:29 PM PDT

  •  But if it's in print it must be true!

    Or is Scotty trying to tell us that his statement about Bush is as true as every other statement in his book? I think there's a saying about this situation:

    Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

    Rough translation: Lie about one thing, get thrown under the bus.

    Well, the book isn't due out until April; there's plenty of time to rewrite the record.

    by sardonyx on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:15:51 PM PDT

    •  Does the converse work?

      Falsus in omnius, falsus in unum.

      Scottie is a professional liar, lest we forget.  What are the odds he told the truth, even once?

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:35:20 PM PDT

      •  "Scottie is a professional liar"

        I just wanted to put that in bold, the way it should appear in our brains whenever we stoop to envision the loyal suckophant.

        by Yellow Canary on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:21:40 PM PDT

      •  It works even better

        Further, as a professional liar always means to lie, any telling of the truth is actually lying about a lie, or twice as bad, because no one will believe that it is the truth!

        by sardonyx on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:18:13 PM PDT

    •  Thats a lot of

      crayons.

      by eastvan on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:31:02 PM PDT

    •  Anyone who takes anything that Scotty writes.....

      .....at face value is even a greater idiot than Scotty.  These neocon wingnuts are consumate liars, every one of them.

      by calibpatriot on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:38:14 PM PDT

    •  Um, no and no

      Firstly, the book isn't even written yet.

      Secondly, the "false about one matter, false about all" is a dualist meme that simply isn't true all the time.

      Although it does make a good pun and Scotty deserves to have every word he utters or writes disbelieved on general principles.

      by ibonewits on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:53:26 PM PDT

      •  It isn't even written yet?

        I find that extremely hard to believe. Book publishers have lead times, and to have scheduled an unwritten book to be published in April 2008 is ludicrous. Editing a book by a non-author such as McClellan takes a lot of editing.

        The quoted saying is taken from Roman jurisprudence: basically, if you testify to a lie about one thing, you're presumed to be a general liar and all of your testimony is therefore untrustworthy. Of course it isn't true all the time (as you say, Scotty is notoriously untrustworthy, like most of the Bushies), but it's a reasonable rule of thumb. Think "The Boy Who Cried Wolf."

        by sardonyx on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:23:48 PM PDT

        •  According to the news stories I saw today ...

          ... the publisher was claiming that Scotty hadn't finished writing the book yet.

          And yeah, as a writer I find that odd, but famous people get looser deadlines.

          You're right about the saying, but remember, the wolf really showed up the third time! :)

          by ibonewits on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:19:33 PM PDT

    •  Tipped for your take on the (dog) latin

      Brutus adsum jam forte
      Caesar aderat
      Brutus sic in omnibus
      Caesar sic inat.

      "... and very sad dog latin, too."
                                  - S. T. Coleridge

      by magnetics on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:00:50 PM PDT

  •  The only remaining question is

    Whose head did Scotty see on his bed when he woke up this morning?

    John O'Neill?

    John Dilulio?

    George Tenet?

    by Upper West on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:45:36 PM PDT

    •  The Assistant of His Publisher I Am Betting n/t

      by webranding on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:49:03 PM PDT

    •  Oh Wait, You Didn't Mean literally n/t

      by webranding on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:51:07 PM PDT

      •  Of course I did

        Khartoum

        by Upper West on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:00:08 PM PDT

    •  Scotty McSilkwood...

      by Mogolori on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:03:44 PM PDT

  •  I thought they telegraphed this

    Nothing was retracted, because nothing was asserted. "Involved" is a delightfully nebulous term.

    Yeah, it looked like book hype ... and it's definitely fishing season.

    by RonK Seattle on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:30:58 PM PDT

  •  Pretty much did know

    As I said yesterday, you have to parse their sentences very well.

    by Major Danby on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:05:55 PM PDT

    •  yep. n/t

      by taylormattd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:44:31 PM PDT

  •  The repuke blogs are full of vitriol for

    us, the left wing conspirators! We are, according to them, "plotting to bring down a good, just government."

    I love it when they writhe in their excrement, and are forced to scrape the bottom of the barrel for an appropriate response. Pathetic crowd.

    by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:19:26 PM PDT

  •  'Like flies on shit....'

    taylormattd says

    Come on, we all had to know this was coming, right?

    but needy us jumped on it, grasping for straws.

    Gonna take more than a smug comment here to out those bad boys.  

    maybe
    google  Holding power accountable

    Holding Power Accountable - Common Cause
    Common Cause is a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen's lobbying organization promoting open, honest and accountable government. Common Cause represents the ...
    www.commoncause.org/ - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

    by divineorder on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:47:57 PM PDT

  •  "I am Republican. Therefore I lie."

    by skywriter on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:50 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Bush gave him the "grand tour"...

    ...of the WH basement waterboarding reindoctrination, uh debriefing room.

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 08:30:49 PM PDT

•  Oh, sweet Jesus.

  Is it okay if I wait for McClellan to validate this?
  Or is that clinging to false hope?

  by kestrel9000 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:01:53 PM PDT

  •  The second one. ;-)

    "They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have me doubts about you." -- Garrett Fort

    by Spathiphyllum on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:03:59 PM PDT

    •  I smelled a trap here

      It was interesting in the beginning, but Scotty's family is so tied in, there's no way he was going to turn on Bush unless he was facing some real jail time.

      It's not like we don't have enough on dubya already.

      by pseudopod on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:32:04 PM PDT

      •  If Scott renigs. he destroys

        that little shred of decency anyone thought he might have.

        by Owllwoman on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:36:43 PM PDT

        •  Amen There, When He Was On The Daily Show

          I was surprised how close he came to saying stuff that would have been big news. It seemed he wanted to tell the truth but just couldn't bring himself to do it.

          But he made enough "side" comments to make me think he had a soul that was trying to fight the darkness.

          Also, what was left of that soul might have been crushed yesterday by a few phone calls.

          by webranding on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:40:08 PM PDT

          •  Any bets as to whether the phrase

            "We will fuck you" came up?

            by pseudopod on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM PDT

            •  Yes, With This Added ....

              and your family. Anybody that cares about you. Anybody that hires you. "You will never work in this town again."

              by webranding on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:43:29 PM PDT

        •  I looked with my trusty electron microscope

          for weeks..

          by pseudopod on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:40:51 PM PDT

•  re

  That would be because they threatened that little piggy all the way home....

  by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:01:53 PM PDT

  •  Wee wee wee

    is what he did in his pants after Rove got him on cellphone.

    by Dallasdoc on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:33:55 PM PDT

  •  The truth is stranger than fiction

    

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 08:51:41 PM PDT

•  darn

  guess I've gotta take Scottie's book off my Christmas list now...

  by mcfly on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:03:14 PM PDT

  •  re

    Loyalty for Dummies?

    by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:04:41 PM PDT

  •  Damn. Are you sure?

    'Cause you'll never guess what I just bought you for Christmas...

    by Pager on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

    •  lol

      although I am disappointed you are buying my presents from the clearance table at Barnes & Noble.  

      by mcfly on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:26:35 PM PDT

      •  Hehehe.

        Actually, my plan was to buy it for myself, read it and then wrap it up like it was new and give it to you.

        Kind of the fruit cake syndrome of giving.

        by Pager on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:43:36 PM PDT

        •  I call that recycling.

          It is a much more thoughtful gift than sending a book I haven't read and reviewed. If I don't enjoy a book thoroughly it's going to Goodwill.  

          by Little Red Hen on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:43:03 PM PDT

•  But Cheney still did

  Impeach!

  by offgrid on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:04:18 PM PDT

•  I repeat my comment posted

  to LC's diary: was there ever any doubt?

  by anotherCt Dem on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

  •  yeah

    probably not.

    by taylormattd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:24 PM PDT

•  I wonder if.......

  .......lying Scotty is going to revise his book before publication, now that his little excursion into integrity is over.

  Lying bastards, all of them.

  by Ekaterin on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:05:13 PM PDT

  •  re

    I hope his publisher fuking sues him till he cries.

    by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:03 PM PDT

    •  I think we oughta put some screws to Mr. Osnos

      He's a Senior Fellow at The Century Foundation.

      He's emeritus director of Human Rights Watch and is George Soros' publisher.

      Why would he risk his progressive street cred by covering for Bush?

      Somebody oughta ask him.  With a camera.

      by chrississippi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:20:07 PM PDT

      •  Lord. This is just choice . . .

        Mr. Osnos has written himself what a boatload of shitmongers BushCo really is:

        And yet, there is a real question whether historians will be able to study this presidency with the same depth as, say, Nixon or Johnson’s. . . .

        But the most interesting issue to ponder is what we will learn about the inner George W. Bush. Instead of the compassionate conservative with a winning personal style surrounded by competent and experienced advisers, the Bush’s administration has been reactionary and inept. Will the arbiters of history be able to decipher what happened? Would transcripts from the Oval Office reflect the prejudices and cynicism of the Nixon era, or something else? Bush has adopted the position in public that, as bad as things look now, he will be vindicated by history as Harry S. Truman has been about Cold War strategies. Is that what he really thinks?

        No, Mr. Osnos. We won't be "able to decipher what happened," perhaps in small part to you.

        by chrississippi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:26:24 PM PDT

        •  don't be silly

          1. he's just passing along a statement from one of his authors. any publisher with integrity is obliged to do the same.

          2. the statement doesn't clear anyone of anything.  or did you really believe that scotty was all innocent, and only said what he did in the press room because the POTUS lied to him?  that's not the relationship at all.  a press secretary's job is not to get at the truth, and presidents don't lie to them.  the relationship goes the other way: the press secretary lies for the president.

          by zeke L on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:18:48 PM PDT

        •  Winning personal style? Whodathunkit? n/t

          by emmasnacker on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:15:37 PM PDT

  •  I'm sure the PR gambit was cleared

    by the White House before it went out.  The language was provocative, but so vague it begs for a later "clarification"...keeping the story alive through the slow Thanksgiving Holiday.

    (No one's going to be available to say anything definative re: investigations, etc., or to contradict the inferred 'juicy' insinuation, and therewith kill the story.)

    It's genius PR, when you think about it.  But, then, McClellan IS A PROFESSIONAL!

    by eztempo on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:58:15 PM PDT

•  Still waiting to read karateexplosions'

  plain text translation.

  by Crashing Vor on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:06 PM PDT

  •  I am anxiously awaiting an e-mail

    telling me that a new SShow has been posted!

    by emmasnacker on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:17:29 PM PDT

•  I want to hear McClellan say it himself.

  I want to hear him lie loud and clear again, in front of the cameras, just like the good ol' days.

  Can't wait to hear him apologizing tho Bush for all the trouble Bush's lies have caused him, the same way the guy who Cheney shot apologized to him.  You can feeeeel the power.

  by Simplify on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:14 PM PDT

  •  oh

    you'll see it. Wait till the book tour. Spin, spin, spin.

    by taylormattd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:59 PM PDT

  •  The guy who shot

    Cheney should apologize to us :)

    by langerdang on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:12:24 PM PDT

    •  No

      Cheney shot him, not the other way round.

      While they were both participating in 'canned hunting'.

      Quick, release an animal that's been raised in captivity in front of us so we can shoot it, since it has no idea that it needs to hide from idiots with guns!

      My only regret was that Cheney didn't manage to shoot himself.

      I'd like to have seen him apologize to himself.  But then he probably would have had McLellen do it for him.

      by drbloodaxe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:06:19 PM PDT

      •  The animals

        must have had their teeth pulled and claws cut before they were left go....you know just in case.

        by langerdang on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:27:56 PM PDT

  •  Gee, do ya?

    This ain't Scotty, yet. This is a publisher. And let's read the excerpt again:

    I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.

    "Passed along false information." "Were involved." "The president himself."

    There is no wiggle room here. The president was involved in the passing along of false information. If he was unknowing  that the info was false, he could not, by defintion, be involved in its passing along. It's really simple.

    by Little on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:17:12 PM PDT

    •  I wonder if Scottie figured

      he could sneak out a little confession, to assauge his repressed conscience.  I remember how sensitive he was to accusations of lying back when it all went down.  It was surprising how personally he took it, unlike the rest of them who just brush it off.

      by Simplify on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:24:06 PM PDT

    •  There is a ton of wiggle room here!

      You can certainly be involved in passing something along  without knowing whether it is true or not.

      The quote that you have provided is tantalizing, but also vague.

      by mattinjersey on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:41:20 PM PDT

      •  I don't think it is.

        The meaning that would be taken from the text, and remember it is text that was released as a promo - that Bush was "knowingly" involved - would have been obvious at the time of vetting. And the emphatic "the president himself" stresses it even more. If that wasn't what was meant to be conveyed it would have been very simple to make that clear.

        by Little on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:13:35 PM PDT

        •  Wiggle Room

          Well there are different standards.

          If you were analyzing the statement in court, it would prove absolutely nothing.
          If you are reading the newspaper, it is clearly a suggestive tease.

          So for me, there is plenty of wiggle room.

          For me the whole thing is like when the guy before the 10 o'clock news says, "Coming up at Ten: Find out the secret that Brittany doesn't want you to know." Then they make you wait until 10:30, and then at 10:30 they tell you that she dyes her hair.

          by mattinjersey on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

  •  Not me. I prefer hin to crawl back under his

    rock and stay there. I will have to hand it to him- he managed to get everyone talking about his little book. Quite the pr stunt.

    by mr crabby on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:55:03 PM PDT

•  All these people who

  were complicit in being traitors to our Country and who then write books about how they recognized the treachery, at the time, but went along with it, amke me sick.

  Don´t buy their books!

  by lpeacock on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:15 PM PDT

•  A misunderstanding

  He really didn't mean the President lied. Just that he was assured by the President that noone in the White House was involved in the leak. So the President was 'involved' in his statements to the press. What he really meant was that Scooter lied, to the President and everyone else. Or maybe, if we are really lucky, that Scooter and Rove lied to the President and everyone else. That's what he really meant.

  by Catte Nappe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:39 PM PDT

•  Of course he was lying...

  How can you tell when a current or former member of Bushco is lying?  If he's saying something, he's lying!

  McClellan and the rest of the team had to have held meetings to discuss the exact nature of the lie - the words needed to be parsed just right, so I'm sure they sat and planned it to the finest detail.  We should never believe  anything we hear from this crew...

  by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:06:41 PM PDT

•  Repeat chorus: Scotty doesn't know

  Scotty doesn't know
  Scotty will know
  Scotty has to know
  Scotty's gotta know
  Gotta tell Scotty
  Gonna tell him myself

  Scotty has to know
  Scotty has to know
  Scott has to
  Scotty has to
  Scotty has to go!

  From Eurotrip.
  http://www.lyricstop.com/...

  And the youtube, if you like.
  http://www.youtube.com/...

  by science first on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:07:32 PM PDT

  •  I love that song.

    It makes me laugh hysterically every single time I hear it.
    Says something about me, doesn't it? ;-)

    by shayera on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:11:42 PM PDT

•  McClellan

  a vomit inducing piece of garbage.

  by langerdang on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:08:16 PM PDT

•  McClellan's statement already in POSTED writing.

  He can go back and CHANGE the book but he is already in print making the statement.

  Come on Democratic Congress have a recess hearing and making McClellan dance around it. Make him state under oath that he actually wrote that statement and then changed it under pressure.

  Too sweet!

  There was one problem. It was not true," McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Monday. "I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

  by Rockmon on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:10:16 PM PDT

  •  was probably ghostwritten

    not like McClellan has the talent to actually write a book.  This reminds me of when Charles Barkley admitted he never read his "autobiography."

    by mcfly on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

    •  And Tom DeLay

      by andgarden on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:16:51 PM PDT

      •  Speaking of whom

        by andgarden on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:23:43 PM PDT

        •  Dude! You just made me choke on my orange juice!

          jeeez!

          by checkmate on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:17:06 PM PDT

    •  Even better...it's words on paper now

      so Democrats should go with it.

      Either way the Republicans lose big, McClellan is lying going forward and retracts and his book is a fraud or he's covering up under pressure and changing what he wrote.

      Both ways we have Republicans lying, losing credibility, weakening US national security..it's just perfect if the Democrats would only run with it.

      Just when they thought they were out (of the burning Plame) they are dragged back in.

      by Rockmon on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:20:55 PM PDT

•  That was fast

  Still, doesn't compute.  I know he wasn't saying Bush lied to him.  He was saying Bush instructed him to lie to us.

  He's not really backing away from his statement.

  by The Termite on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:10:25 PM PDT

  •  I have a feeling

    he's trying to have it both ways.

    by taylormattd on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:11:13 PM PDT

    •  I think you're right

      He obviously okay'd the press release, and was obviously prepared with a non-apology beforehand, but really, again, if you read what he wrote and what he's saying now, they're not the same thing.  He might as well say, "I apologize if anyone got the impression I was saying George Bush fellates aardvarks."

      by The Termite on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:14:05 PM PDT

      •  Actually

        one of the aardvarks admitted it, but it was only to feed his meth habit.  If it wasn't for the drugs, he swears he'd never have let Bush near him.

        by drbloodaxe on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:10:02 PM PDT

    •  Isn't that the job of a WH press sec'y? (n/t)

      by Nowhere Man on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:26:51 PM PDT

  •  More broadly,<