[theknife]

^the house troll flails away - almost makes you miss span, doesn't it?

meanwhile, back in the White House, yet another day where it sucks to be Press Secretary Scott McClellan:

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female CIA officer's identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn't repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame's name.

amazingly, the White House press corps begin to act like journalists:

The e-mail did not say Rove had disclosed the name. but it made clear that Rove had discussed the issue.

That ran counter to what McClellan has been saying. For example, in September and October 2003, McClellan's comments about Rove included the following: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved,""It was a ridiculous suggestion," and, "It's not true."

Reporters seized on the subject Monday, pressing McClellan to either repeat the denials or explain why he can't now.

so, Scotty, were you lying then? or was Rove lying to you? or was Rove lying to Bush? or was Bush lying to you? this is the version two years ago:

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --. . . I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q . . . I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

so who's lying to who here?

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said it is "disturbing that this high ranking Bush adviser is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our national security policy."

"disturbing" is a rare understatement for Dean. be clear on what has transpired here: at a time when the US was being taken to war on the pretext of removing weapons of mass detruction from iraq, we have the most senior White House advisor deliberately sabatoging the career of a cia agent - who was working covertly in the trafficking of wmd's - for political purposes. will the Dems finally grow a spine over this grotesque nonsense or is Dean on his own again?

look again at Scott McClellan's previous comments on the topic:

No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates.

actually, that is exactly how this White House operates - these guys can't just can't keep their stories straight.