Typical, though, it’s all the lefts fault and all George Soros’s fault. Even if McClellan, who is a tool by the way, isn’t entirely accurate with the Rove/Plame leak, what’s that to say about the other revelations in the book about Iraq, Katrina and Powell?

I’m a little cynical of the whole thing too. Obviously money would be a motivation to finally come clean with some inside knowledge. If I had any inside knowledge I would probably sell it too. But that by itself doesn’t immediately discredit what’s contained in the book. The right wing and what’s left of Bush’s measly support would have us believe that since he’s making money off the deal nothing in the book is truthful. I’m cynical of that stance too.

Tim Russert beat up on poor Scott. I almost felt sorry for the guy — but then I remembered that he is getting money from Soros. Besides that, the book he actually “wrote” is different from his original book proposal…as Russert pointed out to him. You don’t think that Soros’ money and lefty editors influenced the book’s content at all? I would have a few questions about that if I had the opportunity to question Scott McClellan. I guess I’m crazy to question the motives of someone who waited this long to speak up about issues that were secretly tearing him up inside, and on top of that, there’s a new insider book to sell. Call me cynical if you want to.

It’s not about shooting the messenger, but for the record, I think Scott McClellan is perfectly capable of destroying his own credibility without my help. I don’t see many people (even in my own party) rallying around Bush at this point. However, when there’s such a significant shift in attitude or perspective as he has demonstrated with this book, it’s not unreasonable to ask questions about that shift.

Like I said on my site, McClellan is a tool. I feel no pity for the guy. And I’ve yet to see the left want to buddy up with him like you say they are. If the left is doing anything, we’re using his book to say “told ya so.” And like the right admits, and seemingly you do as well, Scottie doesn’t really offer anything that isn’t already painfully obvious. Also what’s obvious is that the right isn’t disputing what the book says, just that he said it.

Bush has been a terrible president and when one of his inner circle writes a book about just how it all happened it’s of course going to be news worthy. The right would be much more sane to try and dispute what the book says about their Leader rather than trying to shoot the messenger.