I repeat, the equation of the two situations is absurd or mendacious. But we keep learning neither should get in the way of a good political talking point…

Equating the two is disingenuous, at best.

Saddam at some point decided the credible threat of having WMDs was cheaper than having WMDs.

Shorter form still: He bluffed.

It was a good bluff.

Lots of people in power before and after 2000 believed him. It was, in fact, the international consensus. (Damn, when will we learn to stop listening to the International Community…)

Judith Miller reported on what the believers believed.

This Administration called the bluff instead of folding.

Saddam lost.

And this is like the Mapes Memo situation, how?

Well, in both cases the parties bluffing (lying, whatever) got badly burned. In both cases, collateral damage happened.

I’d call Miller’s career collateral damage. Which is a shame, because I don’t get the impression she reported anything in bad faith. But then, I’ve not been following this story with a magnifying glass because, well, the important part of it happened in 2003, and I’m currently more interested in 2006.

Mapes, since she is still peddling the memos as being legit, strikes me as a different class of tragedy. (You know, the kind where the protagonist deserves what she got). I will be following, because her story is one that keeps being important, to wit: an influential member of the press who believes effecting outcomes is more important than being truthful.

We deserve an aggressive press corps. We don’t deserve one that thinks it has the right to bend or break the truth in service of “a good cause”. Is the difference so hard to see?

Firstly, one of the parallels within the analogy. In both instances we still don’t know the entirety of the stories. Regardless, you and Eric Deamer are commenting with a sense of finality. For example, within the WMD story, we still don’t know many of the sources and the exact details of the conversations, how they mutually confirmed one another, etc.

Secondly, on the very day you made your first comment in this thread a recent Judith Miller interview was published here, in part commenting on the WMD issue where she indicates:

“You know, first of all … I’m not going to be insulted by your question [it was a hostile interview], but I think that the sources that I relied on were reliable. They had been reliable in the past. I’m not going to discuss who they were, though many of them were actually identified by name in my stories. Moreover, those stories were heavily edited. They just didn’t dance their way into the New York Times. As the editor’s note acknowledged, everybody’s wrong if your sources are wrong.”

And yet, you and Eric Deamer genuinely don’t comprehend the difference between the WMD story in 2002/03 and the Rather/Mapes fabrication. The latter concerning a conscious act of mendacity and continues to this day with various well publicized denials. By contrast, literally no mendacity whatsoever has been revealed in the Miller case and no denials either.

“concerning which miller was but a reporter, not a principle intelligence officer or conduit.”

They both gather evidence and report. How are the generalities of Rather’s job at 60 minutes any different than Miller’s at the Times? They both relied on bad sources and refused to admit their mistakes? What part of Rather’s role am I missing?

Then you say this: “If ed’s and ED’s motive is a benign dull wittedness, they might consider, as analogy, the still developing Wilson/Plame ‘news event’”. Do you know what “analogy” means? In what way is that an analogy (A comparison based on similarity, in some respects, between things that are otherwise dissimilar)?

Also in what way did I smear Miller? You never actually give any evidence. I cited two sources she relied on that turned out to be false. Three years later, Miller herself admits they were false. That’s pretty good corroboration and evidence that I was not attempting a smear.

Equivocating the consciously mendacious Rather/Mapes scenario with the voluminously documented WMD intelligence (concerning which Miller was but a reporter, not a principle intelligence officer or conduit) very much begs the question of ED’s and ed’s motive in attempting to forward the scenarios as being similar, much less equivolent. If ed’s and ED’s motive is a benign dull wittedness, they might consider, as analogy, the still developing Wilson/Plame “news event”. In other words ed’s and ED’s greatly foreshortened analysis and conclusions, even if primarily motivated by a vapid dull wittedness, evidence a cretinous quality despite their protests.

No doubt, for some presumptively smearing someone is great fun. However the timely fact-checking and other corroborative tools afforded by new media makes it more difficult to enjoy this pasttime.

http://www.gop.com/Default.aspx?s=video