It seems that no one wants to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Instead, we hear precisely crafted statements that one can point back to and claim that the statements were factually correct. The recent presidential press conference offers a couple of excellent examples.
“I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security.”
- “from what I’ve seen” — If you haven’t seen the evidence then you can’t speak to anything regarding it such as whether it was disclosed, what was disclosed, the manner of the disclosure, and whether it had a negative impact.
- “would have had” – limits this to a possibility of impacting something prior to this particular statement. The disclosure could therefore have a future impact and still be a correct statement.
- “negative” – depends on one’s view on what you view as negative. What I see as a negative might just be viewed as a positive or neutral by someone else.
- “our national security” – my view of “our national security” is likely different from that of the current administration. For example, I viewed so-called Arab Spring uprising in Egypt as bad as it might result in the Muslim Brotherhood governing the country. The President viewed otherwise. (and how’s that working out?)
Another example is the President’s statement about Ambassador Rice’s “presentation” to the five Sunday talk shows. He stated, “she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.”
- “her best understanding” – First, Amb. Rice is not an intel analyst. (She is very smart, but she is also a political creature. She also knows how information is crafted as she was one of the area directors on the NSC during the Clinton administration – I had brief interactions with her on crafting the USG position on support for the UN sponsored Transitional Authority in Cambodia. At least during the first Bush & first Clinton terms, talking points and positions are crafted and massaged by interagency folks BEFORE going out to speak. Of course if it was a political position then DoD and CIA are cut out.) So was she able to ask specific questions relating to the intelligence? Or as a political creature did she realize that as someone who was not in the loop of what actually happened (but sent to talk about it anyway) that it would be best not to ask questions? What kind of briefings did she receive and from where did they come?
- “that had been provided to her” – Obviously this is the key wording. If she was provided slanted intelligence to fit a particular narrative then she would have been telling the “truth” according to what she knew at that particular time even if it really was what was actually known.
Politicians aren’t the only ones who do this. We do this when what others might think of us when the truth is spoken plainly. Take your lumps, apologize, fix it, and move forward.