Right Wingnuts to McClellan, Where’s the hard evidence?

For the right wing-conservatives-Republicans, they’re never short of their phony outrage and a sudden high standard of evidence when being threatened with contradictory information that might prove them wrong. The conservative Washington Times carried the administrations water with this laughable take:

McClellan's most explosive charges about the Iraq war are based not on any new evidence but rather on his reading of books and magazine articles after leaving the White House and on a period of "reflection." Mr. McClellan made no effort…to bolster the sourcing for the most serious charge in his book, that the president based the case for war on possible weapons of mass destruction only to hide his true motivation: the introduction of "coercive democracy" in the Middle East.

This charge has been given great authority because of Mr. McClellan's former
status as a White House insider. But a close reading of his book, "What
Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washingtons Culture of Corruption,"
shows that he reveals no new information about the presidents motives. The White House and many of Mr. McClellan's former colleagues have honed in on this issue

Have you tried that “close reading,” to turn up any tangible, in hand evidence?

Without that hard evidence; a smoking gun, video tape, photo, eye witnesses, micro-film or DNA fibers, we’re just out of luck when it comes to making our case. No one will ever know what the true intent was, just being there, rubbing shoulders with, participating in and spokesperson for the administration. That’s crazy.

I’m going to have to go with my gut on this, and assume that Libby and Rove were just terribly misunderstood innocent bystanders who often times give off a bad first impression.

Yea, that’s it.