In a new book, Mary Mapes is firing back at CBS/Viacom news for dismissing her over Dan Rather's Bush National Guard story that aired during the 2004 Presidential election. Mapes says she was unfairly targeted by CBS/Viacom investigators who were more interested in saving their own asses and political capital in Washington. She does not believe that the investigation into the story was as independent as CBS/Viacom would lead the American public to believe.
Mapes is probably right that her firing was completely political and the result of CBS/Viacom's need to protect their political and business interests in Washington. Mapes would also make a valid argument that she was fired because she was also viewed as a threat to the White House. As the Libby indictment proves, this White House has a history of destroying threats that have a command of First Amendment rights.
Like Valerie Plame, Lynndie England and Janis Karpinski, Mapes was another distraction created by conservatives to obstruct the public's view from the true people that need to be investigated in Washington. While Mapes may have produced a story with flaws, she did not produce a war based on manipulated facts and flawed intelligence. If the media forced investigations on this issue, why are they not forcing investigations on an issue that is killing many brave Americans? Why has the media not done a better job at forcing the Administration to talk about the Plamegate investigation? Why has the media not done a better job at demanding why top brass have not been held responsible for Abu Ghraib?
Perhaps the moral of the Mapes story and all those that have come before and after it is this: If you are a woman involved in a Washington charade, watch out. The White House and their hounds (media elite) are watching.