Plausible deniability

I'd have to agree with Josh Marshall, Scott McClellan's failure to simply deny Woodward's claim that Bandar had told Bush that he would manipulate oil prices with an eye towards the November elections is dumbfounding.

If Bush can't deny the contents of a private conversation with a buddy (Bandar) whom Bush knows won't spill, than what can he deny? Certainly a new commitment to Truth can't be the reason. Moreover, the questions posed to McClellan were softballs (despite the obvious contempt the WH press corps clear feels towards McClellan and his Master). At one point, the question to McClellan is "So you have no knowledge of such a commitment [to manipulate oil prices to aid Bush]?" And McClellan won't respond to the question. That's very strange. I wouldn't expect McClellan to have any such knowledge. So why not say, "Yes, I have no such knowledge." But he won't.

There's more to come on this, I think.