Regarding Alberto Gonzales’s testimony, John Hinderaker argues:
[T]here is nothing “narrowly crafted,” “legalistic” or “technically correct” about Gonzales’s testimony. It was truthful and fully accurate. He said that the legal controversy did not involve the program that was confirmed by President Bush, in which international communications where one party was associated with al Qaeda were intercepted. That is exactly what the Times reported today. The controversy involved a completely different program, which has been rumored but which the administration has never publicly confirmed. Yet the Times cannot bring itself to admit that Gonzales has been vindicated, and the Senators who called for a perjury investigation have been made to look foolish.
John also points out a false factual assertion in the New York Times coverage of the controversy.
Meanwhile, here is the entirety of Kevin Drum’s “analysis” regarding the Administration’s defense of Gonzales:
Give me a break. Are these guys serious?
Which you do agree with? Power Line’s detailed analysis — or Kevin Drum’s contentless outburst?
I feel certain that your answer depends on your politics.
P.S. Keep in mind that Power Line’s analysis depends on the veracity of anonymous sources that may have an agenda.
If those anonymous sources are correct, however, Democrats will need more than Drum-style grunts of indignation to justify a perjury investigation.