By all accounts, Netanyahu (as usual) put his foot in his mouth when talking about jeans and Iran. So a New York Times correspondent was assigned to defend him

When all news account agreed that Netanyahu put his foot in his mouth, the New York Times begs to differ (look how pathetic the attempt is):  "The logic appeared to be this: The Iranian government would be invincible with a nuclear weapon, and with that, the public would have no chance to join the modern world...While Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks were inaccurate, he was not completely off base."  Now the last sentence was the epitome of logic: either he was accurate or he was off bases. He can't be inaccurate and not "completely off base".  Which way is it?  This is like saying that while Netanyahu was naked, it does not mean that he was completely unclothed.  Or: While Netanyahu was lying as usual, it does not mean that he is completely untruthful.