I'M PLAYING CATCH-UP after a couple days of not being able to blog much -- lots of stuff going on around the sale of my house, and also, I got a great deal on a used car, so I had to spend some time at the DMV.

Anyway, so I haven't had much of a chance to check the news, and I'm just now finding out that it was someone in the Bush administration who sold Rupert Murdoch those pics of Saddam in his underwear.

Amazing. The Pentagon and the White House are condemning the publication of the photos, apparently not knowing Murdoch got them from a U.S. military official. And Scott McClellan has the nerve to accuse Newsweek of being responsible for riots after publishing an article about a Koran being flushed down a toilet? Oh, wait, that's right. Scottie is distancing himself from that accusation now. In fact, come to think of it, he never said it to begin with.

I enjoyed Steve Soto's comments on McClellan's 180.

Tell me again why it is OK for the Bush Administration to lie to Pat Tillman’s family about the cause of his death and see the military brass cover it up for months, but it isn’t OK for Newsweek to get burned by a "senior Department of Defense official"? And why doesn’t Newsweek “out” the discredited source in response, as David Gergen suggests?

Tell me why again it is OK for the Administration to blast Newsweek for allegedly inciting insurgents against us, while at the same time the same Administration sold pictures of Saddam in his underwear to Rupert Murdoch in the hope that it would affect insurgents?

And not only was Scott McClellan full of sh*t about his calls for Newsweek to educate the Islamic world about how caring our military is, he now is waffling in the face of media scrutiny and said “never mind” about his charges that Newsweek was the cause of the Afghan riots.

Shouldn’t this be grounds for McClellan’s resignation?