The truth of an answer is not fully determined by the truth of the facts contained in the answer.

I don't want to make a huge deal out of this. I say Di Rita gave a factually accurate answer that was disingenuous, inane, irrelevant. It was rhetoric, intended to distract. But it wasn't a lie.

And to be fair to Glenn, he acknowledges most all of this - he and I just have a slight disagreement over whether this constitutes what he calls a "false statement" and what others such as Jim White call a "lie."

But you are the expert: in a court of law (as opposed to an email exchange), what would you think of a lawyer who asked a question in such a way that would allow Di Rita to answer as he did)?

I'm not sure what you mean. Under friendly questioning or cross-examination? (Is the lawyer friend or foe of Di Rita?)

Here's what Di Rita said to Glenn:

"there are plenty of examples to the contrary [that they excluded critics]--reaching out to people who specifically disagreed with us. one example I recall is Joe Galloway -- a persistent critic and apparently popular with military readers. He came in and met with Secretary Rumsfeld and we had other interactions."

Today Glenn says that Galloway's email "demonstrates that Di Rita's claim about Galloway is yet another false statement from the former Pentagon spokesman about the DoD's propaganda activities."

The problem here is that Galloway confirms that Di Rita invited him to three meetings with Rumsfeld and that Di Rita engaged in "a half-dozen email volleys" with Galloway following the Iran wargames piece.

To my mind, that's "reaching out" to somebody. It can't be disputed that Di Rita reached out to Galloway in an effort to temper Galloway's criticism of DoD. And that's all that Di Rita claimed about Galloway.

As I've pointed out before, what's disingenuous about Di Rita bringing up Galloway is that Galloway wasn't part of the program at all -- he was always going to have his own platform -- so citing him as an example of a DoD critic who wasn't frozen out by DoD is completely irrelevant to the charges being leveled. But I don't think he lied. Let's be fair.

The media's obstinate refusal (typified by Klein's and Williams' dismissiveness) to investigate and report on this potential blockbuster of a story is making me enormously suspicious.

There's no possibility of criminal liability for the press here. Even if they knowingly went along with the DoD program - i.e., held out these retired military analysts as unaffiliated and independent with the knowledge that the Pentagon was pulling their strings - that's unethical and sloppy, yes, but there are no criminal (or civil) penalties.

If they didn't know they were being duped, it's a little embarassing for them, but I still fail to see how that should preclude them for ripping into this story.

There's the sentiment out there "this story isn't getting legs because nobody's that surprised" that the RMA's were DoD sockpuppets, but that completely misses the point. Covert domestic propaganda programs using taxpayer funds are illegal. Whether anybody fell for it is completely immaterial.

Why does Tom Friedman think he can tell us "what 9/11 was all about" by roaming around the "Arab-Muslim world" asking people about it? Did these "people" attack us?

Osama bin Laden personally directed the nineteen hijackers. He had issued a fatwa to kill Americans and their allies in order to "liberate" the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca) "from their grip" (his words). He has specifically mentioned the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (the holiest land in Islam) as his motive for commanding the attacks. He said he chose to destroy the towers after watching Israel destroy towers in Lebanon in 1982.

That's "what 9/11 is all about", Tom. U.S. boots on the ground in holy Islam.

NYT:

Since the beginning of his campaign for president, Mr. Obama has combated rumors and e-mail campaigns suggesting that he was a Muslim or was hostile to Israel, a problem exacerbated by pro-Palestinian remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And here I was thinking, well, at the least the silver lining in the whole Rev. Wright media frenzy was that it would finally dispel the notion that Obama is Muslim.

Y'know, in that it was the Reverend Wright Controversey, not the Mullah Wright Controversy. But I guess a lot of people are just that stupid.

Does anyone else find it bizarrely amusing that the RW was forced to coin the rhetorical ploy of accusing their critics of Bush Derangement Syndrome?

I mean, think for a moment how that will look in the history books: "President Bush's defenders at the time noted how roughly half of the American population was so acutely distressed by Mr. Bush's actions and demeanor that they appeared to become 'deranged' at the mere mention of his name."

As a defense strategy doesn't it reflect rather poorly on Mr. Bush? "Yep, he was such a good leader he drove half the country out of their fuckin' minds! Let's put him on Rushmore!"

But, what else can they say when over 80% of American say the country is heading in the wrong direction and Boosh's approval rating hits an all-time low of 31%?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051201073.html?hpid=topnews (or click on my sig)