And we challenge them on it, as we should. It's a great world we live in that makes such a rapid, thorough discussion of a question possible. But the rush to find a nefarious motive (the "Armstrong Williams check"), or to disqualify a writer entirely as "drinking the Beltway Kool-Aid" doesn't further that discussion or add to our understanding.With one caveat: It is not enough, and it cannot ever be enough, for reporters and commentators who spend months and years not only ignoring a profound mistake, not only denying that a profound mistake has been made, but actively ridiculing and belittling those who called it a mistake in the first place, to one day turn around and say "boy, I guess it's a mistake after all. Now, let me pat myself on the back for my wisdom."
I like the philosophy of Wikipedia: Make it easy to make mistakes and easier to correct them.
Shorter me: The people who mocked Howard Dean and called him "unserious", but now support troop withdrawals from Iraq, should be tarred and feathered.