Why Is The Regime So Concerned About McClellan? And Who Are The Real Benedict Arnolds?

Today the dead-enders still clinging to the hem of Bush's ermine have worked themselves up into a frothy frenzy of righteous indignation over the revelations-- none that are new to anyone who pays even a little attention-- in Scott McClellan's book. It's "total crap." He's a "traitor," a "turncoat," and a "Benedict Arnold." One Bush Regime propaganda tool has even managed to blame their bete noir, George Soros, and the always helpful National Review points out that Scotty is and has always been an agent of Hamas. Yesterday we wondered why none of the Regimebots had been calling Scotty a homo. Well, today the first shot in that direction from the Bush Regime's in-house male prostitute, Gannon/Guckert: "What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter." Oh dear. Why are they so upset?

Cable TV news shows competed to grab Bush allies and enemies to chatter about the McClellan they knew. On CNN, Dan Bartlett, Bush's former counselor who worked with McClellan for nearly a decade, said the onetime spokesman gave voice to "an outrageous accusation that mostly was coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party."

Sure, we all know what the Bush Regime has been up to, but there are still that 25-30% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job and who form the base of the McCain electoral push. They still have no idea and this kind of stuff, coming from the familiar Regime insider, could be more damaging that the far more revelatory leaks that come out monthly.

But if you want to have a serious discussion of who's a Benedict Arnold or a traitor-- not to the personalities inside the criminal regime-- but to America itself, let's start with what White House correspondent Jessica Yellin had to say about news coverage in the run-up to war:

I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings.

And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives-- and I was not at this network at the time-- but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president.