The book is infuriating in so many ways that it would take an inordinate amount of space to do justice to it, and I'm not sure whether to take it seriously. Yet it has won remarkably favorable notices in respectable venues such as the Washington Post, for example, where Paul Farhi had kind words for it: "Lashing back over the memo scandal."

It is a deeply dishonest book that takes advantage of the ignorance, gullibility, and derangement of its target audience. It depends on its readers complete ignorance of the record in general, and of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report on the 60 Minute broadcast segment in particular. Reviewers like Farhi seem not to have the slightest knowledge of the subject.

Read the rest of Scott's review for more detail.  What I find endlessly amusing is that if you go to many left-wing websites you will see an advertisement for her book with the subtitile, "No one is censoring her now!".

Absolutely priceless.  She got to run a fake story about the President of the United States, a few weeks out of an election on national TV, and they think her right to free speech has been suppressed?  Former US Attorney General Richard Thornburgh concluded that it probably should have been suppressed -- in other words her "story" never should have aired.

UPDATE:  You know it occurs to me that Mary Mapes was also the one who broke the Abu Ghraib story.  Now that Saddam's trial is underway I am curious if she ever reported on how Abu Gharib was run when Saddam was in power.  Like how opposition leaders were thrown into a tub of sulfuric acid -- some of them piece by piece.  More gory details will be revealed as Saddam's trial unfolds.

UPDATE2:  Check out the other side of the story at Wingmen for Bush

UPDATE3:  Scott also has a column in the Weekly Standard (hat tip: Michelle Malkin)