E&P has been quite something in raking journalism for its sins over the last few years. But they usually use temperate language. This is quite something:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306699
(Even the lack of overall polish is something. This guy is really furious. You can almost feel him hyperventilating. That's not usual.)
For reference, the long NYT probe is at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16leak.html
And Miller's own account, which both doesn't jibe with it and is absurd in its assertions and "can't recalls"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/national/16miller.html
Paul, in his post yesterday entitled "Much Ado About Nothing," put his finger precisely on the main weak points and surprises in these accounts. The only difference between a casual observer and an obsessive about this affair is that the obsessives are paradoxically much more surprised and juiced up. For them, this account is a huge deal precisely because it's so unbelievably lame. At first sight, this looks like it might lead to the melt-down that mainstream journalism always deserved and never receieved for its Bush-licking. Which might too good to be true, but still -- that's damage even we obsessive vultures hadn't expected or dared hope for. And the prosecutor hasn't even entered the batter's box yet!
Michael