He certainly had the opportunity to publish something else immediately after those articles appeared distancing himself from those comments. He didn't. He only denied them when it came out publicly, and he realized they weren't going over well.
Do you actually know this, that that was his motivation? More to the point, do you have any proof that he even knew those statements existed before they came out publicly?
No, not any more than we can know Obama's motivation for staying in that hate-filled church for 20 years. But a person's actions give a clue about their motives, and in the case I was discussing, his motives were very unlikely to have been pure (just as Obama's are unlikely to be pure).
More to the point, do you have any proof that he even knew those statements existed before they came out publicly?
Either he knew and didn't react until forced to publicly, or he doesn't bother to have a clue what comes out in the newsletter bearing his name. Either way, it doesn't speak well of him.