Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The examples that DiRita argues are proof that the program was not as GG characterizes -- essentially, that because they continued dealing with some analysts who were critical (well, whom DoD claims were critical), they therefore weren't involved with weeding out the dissenters -- are completely inane. It's like saying 'I didn't rob that bank because I walked by lots of banks and didn't rob them.' And even if true, they are not exculpatory.
And this was so lame it's almost comical; in the update, he complains:
One factual error that I ask you to corect (sic): I did not tell you or anyone else that either Joe Galloway or Barry McCaffrey were part of any particular program.
That's not only parsing so extreme as to be meaningless, it's also rather undermined by the first thing he says in his first email to GG:
I'm confident in my characterizations of the intent of the program. Some of the analysts were quite favorable to the president's goals in the war, others were not.
Well, if he's not providing Galloway and McCafferey as examples of those "others" in the "program" who were "not" favorable to the "president's goals in the war", why the hell is he bringing them up?
DiRita is an idiot for sending these emails (they are also appallingly sloppy for a Fortune 500 communications rep). He needs to hire acriminal defense attorney.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
