What Bush said on the Plame matter is what is important, and Bob Somerby backs me up on this:
Yes, the Bush Admin will torture the language, saying (perhaps correctly) that Rove didn’t “leak classified information.” But over and over, Bush said he wanted people with information to come forward. “I want to know the truth,” he said. And: “We can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.” But two years went by, and Rove didn’t come forward—or if he did, Bush kept his trap shut. Rove flirted with jail time for Matt Cooper; he may have put Judith Miller in jail. (The Admin will say that Rove signed that blanket waiver.) But the question here seems obvious—and it’s the question libs should be asking. When Bush said he wanted the truth, why didn’t he get the truth from his number-one top adviser? Or did he actually get the truth? Did he actually get the truth, then keep the truth to himself?The words that come out the President's mouth are all that matters to the American people. Showing a videotape of some dork saying some things and looking uncomfortable is not very persuasive if you have no idea who the guy is. Do you remember what Joe Lockhart said about Monica Lewinsky? Yeah, neither does anyone else.
McClellan’s statements are much less important than Bush’s. Two years ago, the sitting president said, “I want to know the truth.” Obvious question for a Bold Leader: Why are we just starting to get the truth two years after this public statement? And: What do you plan to do to the person who kept you in the dark?