It depends on what the meaning of ‘truth’ is

The president finally addressed the controversy surrounding his decision to authorize the [tag]leak[/tag] of [tag]classified[/tag] information in the summer of 2003. Unfortunately, Bush’s explanation ranged from odd to incoherent.

Responding to a student’s question about the [tag]Fitzgerald[/tag] investigation, [tag]Bush[/tag] suddenly became tongue-tied. The president explained, “Yes. No, I — this is — there’s an ongoing legal proceeding which precludes me from talking a lot about the case.” For the record, Bush not only has addressed ongoing legal proceedings in the past, he also faces no legal restrictions from doing so now.

But here was the key part of Bush’s response about the leak:

“I wanted to see — people to see what some of those statements were based on. So I wanted to see — I wanted people to see the truth and thought it made sense for people to see the truth.”

It’s the kind of painful response that makes me wonder if the president even understands what’s going on around him.

The fact of the matter is, the White House Iraq leaks were wrong. Scooter Libby, acting on leaks approved by Bush and Cheney, told reporters information that were supposed to refute Joseph Wilson and point to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. But Wilson was right, Iraq didn’t have the weapons, and the White House cherry-picked intelligence to suit their agenda. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, Libby was authorized to tell reporters that “a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium” — except it was not one of the “key judgments” of the document, as the White House was well aware.

Bush now believes it “made sense for people to see the truth”? Does he even know what the truth is?

I was channel surfing all the TV news last night to see how they would report on Bush saying he wanted the “truth” to come out….I only caught NBC and was thrilled to hear them tell the viewers that the problem with Bush’s statement is what was leaked was not the truth at all. I hate to get my hopes up, again, but perhaps the spin machine will be no match for the truth this time.

  • “Does he even know what the truth is?” – CB

    Sure, whatever is revealed to him by God’s spokesmen. Say, Pat Robertson or Jerry Fawell?

    But you are right on target here. This was a selective leak of parts of the NIE in which conclusions are made, while the other parts where these conclusions are disputed were left out.

    Not that this matters to the 30% of yahoos who support Bush. They hear Tony Blankley saying that the Senate investigation found Ambassador Wilson to be lying and they are happy to believe Bush.

    Dumb smucks.

  • The printed word just won’t do justice to Bush. You have to watch him stumble and trip over them to appreciate his magnificent buffoonery.

    The NIE leak story pretty much seals the deal that BushCo deliberately manipulated intel to mislead us into an optional war. Most of us who follow such things have known this for years. Now, it’s become almost a common knowledge.
    Idiots that they are, they have painted themselves into the corner. They can’t defend the NIE leak without admitting they mislead us going into war.
    I didn’t used to think it possible that Bush could fall below a 30% approval. Now, It seems entirely possible.

  • Truth?

    Hah.

    Of course, if the media wanted to pile-drive the President on this one they would simply ask him by what justification is he allowed to use his office to secretly declassify government reports in order to mitigate personal political embarrassment–just prior to his reelection campaign, coincidently–and cherry-pick false or disproven tidbits to be released to a court bard/reporter in order to take revenge on an individual who had accurately reported that the Administration’s casus belli was bogus. There’s more on Tom Englehardt’s site.

    The upshot is that even if he did nothing illegal, this is a gross abuse of power. And impeachable to boot, I might add.

  • relativism: A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

    I thought republicans didn’t like relativism? I gues they don’t but only in Democrats.

  • Comments are closed.