How can someone whose mouth, face, and hands are covered in filth claim he is being smeared?

Actually, if Dan just did his job properly, his bias, arrogance, and general weirdness would be overlooked (or at least chuckled at). But his primary problem is that he cannot even "do" journalism without exposing himself.

Peter Jennings is just as bad, for basically endorsing incompetence.

Note that The Boston Globe (according to Wizbang & PowerLine) was within a few hours of running another story on the forged TANG papers, trying to justify that they 'could be' real. Of course, the man who supplied them with the new technical evaluation altered his copy to make it more believable. I wonder if he first called Rather and Mary Mapes, breathing heavily, trying to save them. Just pathetic.

Dan's not stupid. If he can get enough journalism school graduates to believe his claim to be a victim, in his world then all his actions are excusable if not justified.

Kinda reminds one of the aggrieved tone of the Sanhedrin when they confronted the Apostles about their teaching the resurrection of Christ: "You intend to bring this man's blood upon our heads!"

Tom Brokaw calls the pressure on Rather a "political jihad", which takes either brass intestines or a head full of rocks to say.
Tom Brokaw did not characterize the intent of Rather's inept initial attack on the President, although "political jihad" seems an apt enough description.

How can the public, seeing Brokaw's and Jennings' defence of Rather, see this as any other other than Exxon defending the prices Amoco "must" charge?

"There but for the grace of God go I." apparently is the meaning behind Brokaw's support of Rather (I'm assuming Tom does believe in a deity since he seems comfortable with using the phrase "jihad" about his opponents).

Jihad is now acceptable to describe this, but don't you dare use the word Crusade when describing our fight with Islamofascists!