McClellan demands apology for weapons-lab story. Why? Uhhh, why not?

The story has really caught on, I'd say, if McClellan is making such a stink about it.

You know, I saw some reporting talking about how this latest revelation — which is not something that is new; this is all old information that’s being rehashed — was an embarrassment for the White House. No, it’s an embarrassment for the media that is out there reporting this. (. . .)

I hope they will go and publicly apologize on the air about the statements that were made, because I think it is important given that they had made those statements in front of all their viewers. So we look forward to that happening as well.

What McClellan doesn't seem to have is a rationale for these apologies. Think Progress states that it's because the story points out that Bush might have been aware of the report stating that the trailers were absolutely not weapons-labs.

But as the site pointed out in a prior post, Bush wasn't the only one making the claims after the report was filed-- Powell, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and even John Bolton were also claiming that the trailers were the big WMD score. And they kept at it for months after the claim had been disproven.

It's just one more instance of the burning question: liars, incompetent, or both?

UPDATE: Salon highlights another section from today's press gaggle with McClellan angrily demanding apologies while refusing to explain why anyone should apologize. It's breath-taking stuff.

Reporter: So was the president made aware of the fact ...

McClellan: And are you all going to apologize?

Reporter: Was the president made aware of the faxed field report?

McClellan: Are you all going to apologize for that?

Reporter: Was the president aware of the faxed field report?

McClellan: Is that a correct statement?

Reporter: Scott, was the president made aware of the field report that was faxed?

McClellan: Jessica, I just told you, I've asked the intelligence community what they based this paper on. I can't tell you what they based their paper on. You have to. We're not an intelligence-gathering agency.

UPDATE: Well, now we know why McClellan continues to act like a Soviet-era propagandist-- the mainstream media is willing not only to give him a pass, but to do his work for him. Media Matters has the story:

CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reported that White House press secretary Scott McClellan had said "very clearly" during an April 12 briefing that President Bush did not see a May 27, 2003, intelligence report that contradicted his declaration two days later that the United States had discovered biological weapons labs in Iraq. In fact, McClellan said no such thing during the briefing.

Reading any portion of the transcript made it glaringly obvious that McClellan spent the entire episode not commenting on the intelligence report. That was the whole point. Yet a professional journalist managed to fill in the blanks with her own imagination. Just how much of an insurance policy is a pretty face in the news biz these days?