Dissecting the controversy . . . over Harry Reid calling Generals Pace and Petraeus "incompetent," a few unresolved questions jump out. First off, the "progressive" bloggers with whom Reid was speaking seem to have no idea exactly what was said on the call. A few of them say they don't remember the senator making any such statement, and one of them "flatly denies" it ever happened. . . .

So, now it turns out that Reid did, in fact, call Pace "incompetent," despite the denials of all the bloggers linked above, and Reid's own non-denial denial. Not only that, Reid claimed that he called Pace a "yes-man" and "incompetent" to his face. He claimed he questioned the man's competence AND his integrity. He might as well have slapped him across the face with a white glove! How could none of these bloggers have thought such a claim newsworthy? So which is worse: the unbelievably small chance that Reid did actually say those things to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, or that he lied about doing so in a pander to lefty bloggers. The truth is that he was probably embellishing for his audience, . . .

As to why the bloggers didn't think the initial comment to be newsworthy...either they knew this to be such a ridiculous claim that they decided not to print it, or this type of rhetoric is so common on that side of the aisle that it just didn't stand out as exceptional. Again, I'm not sure which is worse. . . .

The lefty bloggers, for their part, have shown themselves to be totally inept. They failed to report the comments, then they denied Reid ever made them while making their own unsubstantiated allegations, and now they defend the comments as irrelevant--and without even the slightest doubt as to their validity. Which is worse?