A Simple Request

People, people -- can we pleeeeease lay off Scott McClellan? I mean, geez, what’s the big deal? So the President’s mouthpiece got up behind the podium two years ago and said Karl Rove had absolutely nothing to do with leaking Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters and that President Bush would fire the sorry ass of whatever lowlife, scum-sucking, democracy-hating chatterbox that was responsible. And so what if it turns out that Rove was, in fact, the chatterbox in question.

In Mr. McClellan's defense, the White House Press Secretary is a very nice man and I’m sure he meant it when he said it.

Second of all, where's your sense of decency and fair play? After all, aren't we conveniently forgetting all the press conferences where Mr. McClellan didn’t get up behind the podium and say that Karl Rove had nothing to do with leaking Valerie Plame’s identity to reporters? As I recall, there were quite a few.

And excuse me, but am I the only one who seems to be taking into account that all of this happened two years ago? Two years ago!! I mean, did someone send out a memo that I didn’t get and that now, all of a sudden, we’re all supposed to be accountable for all the stuff we might have said (even when some of us were drunk or otherwise incapacitated, as I regrettably so often was) as far back as 24 months ago? Because if that’s the case, well wowie kazowie, am I in hot water with the wife and kids. I promised them a relaxing tropical vacation a couple years back. But did I come through? No, I did not. I also promised the little woman that I’d upgrade her perfectly good half-karat cubic zirconia engagement ring at some later date. Did I make good on that promise (which, for the record, I have no recollection of making)? No, I did not. Heck, promised the dog I’d take him for a walk a couple months ago and the poor little guy’s still standing by the door with the collar and leash in his mouth.

Besides, what did Rove really do that's so gosh darn bad? As far as I can tell, all he’s being accused of is talking to a reporter about a woman who “apparently works” at the CIA. Uh, hello -- am I the only one who can read English here? Last time I checked a dictionary, the word “apparently” meant... hang on, I’m looking this up... thumb, thumb, thumb... okay, here it is: “apparently” means “as far as one knows or can see”. The dictionary also goes on to say that “apparently” is a word often “used by speakers and writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying”. Ahem. Well, why don’t we just skip past that second point and concentrate on the first.

Furthermore, McClellan could not have made it any clearer when he said that he’s “well aware” of what he previously said and that no one -- and he means no one -- wants to get to the bottom of this more then the president of the United States and that he’ll be more than happy to talk about it “at the appropriate time.” Does all that straight talk confuse you? Okay, I’ll spell it out for you, then, in big italicized capital letters. It means that SCOTT MCCLELLAN REMEMBERS WHAT HE SAID BUT IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO, OKAY, AND HE'D REALLY REALLY RATHER NOT TALK ABOUT IT SO GIVE HIM A BREAK AND HOW ‘BOUT WE JUST MOVE ON TO SOMETHING THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN, LIKE HOW WE’RE ACTUALLY WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ AND HOW FIGHTING THE TERRORISTS OVER THERE MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM OVER HERE, OKAY?!

Geez.