Story vs. Plot

A memo was published recently, purportedly written by David Mamet to the writing staff of his now-defunct tv show, The Unit. In it, Mamet explains what makes for a compelling hour of television, and what does not. Essentially, he says what everyone says about dramatic scene writing [Caps his]:

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO FAILURE - THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.

I know it's true. It must be true. Yet I subscribe to Martin Scorsese's view: "Plot is interesting once. Story is interesting over and over again." This too is true.

Does leaning toward plot mean sacrificing story? Aren't some movies and/or novels heavier on plot than story? Aren't some heavier on story than plot? And don't some readers/viewers prefer one, while others prefer the other?

I know what you'll say: the best works balance the two. Do they? I'm reading War and Peace at the moment, which is all about story, and not at all about plot. It's story that endures, not plot. Yet, for a story to endure, it must be very well crafted indeed. And there's the rub.