Yesterday morning, Joe Scarborough ranted on about a certain cable news anchor who made a big deal about Katie Couric's edited John McCain interview, which, when it aired, cut out the part where he flubbed the timeline of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq. Scarborough wanted to cut CBS a break, because really, who would know the exact dateline of when the troop surge took place and when the Sunni awakening in Al Anbar Province took place. But then who was Scarborough criticizing for making such a big deal out of the story? Fingers began pointing, and the gossip-worthy conclusion that Scarborough was attacking MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann was built.

Not so!, says Scarborough. In a way that doesn't quite convince us.

Scarborough responded to rumors that he attacked Olbermann with this:

Bloggers are suggesting that I attacked Keith Olbermann this morning regarding a news story. That is simply not true.

Keith is a respected colleague who has built a large and loyal following that has been critical to the success of MSNBC. He has also been a strong supporter of my efforts here. I don't like the fact that people are misinterpreting this morning's comments.

Our network is a champion of diverse opinion. We believe America is best served by a vigorous debate in the free marketplace of ideas. That's why any suggestion that I would attack Keith is way off the mark.

Meanwhile, Scarborough says he was talking about an anchor on a competing network, leaving only Anderson Cooper to be the fall guy, as his broadcast was the only competing show to pick up the McCain story. Except for one little detail: He never once mentioned CBS or Katie Couric.

Which begs the question: Did Scarborough really aim his ire at Cooper, or were his comments meant for Olbermann and now higher ups like Phil Griffin are having him backtrack?

Scarborough's segment from Wednesday here: