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 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?)

A foe, but you have answered the question. I see what you are saying and understand different definitions of lying are reasonable in this case.

Cool. (BTW I always enjoy your thoughtful comments here, Mike.)

If Di Rita's own lawyer asked him on direct examination if there were examples of him providing access to DoD critics prompting the answer about Galloway and McCaffrey, I would say that lawyer was doing his job.

And a prosecutor should object to the question as to relevance. And if overruled, if the prosecutor on cross didn't jump all over that answer and use it to show the jury that Di Rita wasn't being straight with them, I'd say he should be fired.

(As a long-time Unclaimed Territory reader, I'm certain Glenn was excellent on cross.)

I am just amazed that you nitwits have the gall to insist that the Pentagon, provide anti-Pentagon commenters.

Yes. And in this case, the analysts were not provided by the Pentagon, and the Pentagon made every effort to conceal the fact that they were disseminating DoD propaganda. That's what made it illegal.

Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you going to just waste everybody's time again today with your inane spoutings?

Glenn, doesn't James65 have a point? Brooks' piece was shockingly pro-Obama, but your column today doesn't really lend that impression.

Sure, Brooks starts the piece by making some points critical of Obama, but these turn out to be like batting-practice pitches that he rather helpfully allows Obama to blast out of the park. I also didn't see anything about Barack having to call Brooks - but I may have missed something?

(I don't disagree BTW that the NYT op-ed page has an appalling lack of diverse outlook.)

So by Kristol's reasoning, Hillary Clinton -- just like Obama -- couldn't possibly be a strong candidate because she lost some primaries by more than 41 points

I'm sure if Hillary were the candidate he WOULD be making this same argument against her. Why not?

Kristol is a sloppy hack, no doubt, but if he had simply added parenthetically ("except when Romney beat McCain by 85 points which I argue you have to throw out since it was a Mormon running in Utah") then his point would still stand.

Well, actually it probably wouldn't, but you know what I'm saying.