Saturday, March 24, 2007

What's The Difference Between The Truth and "Making The Facts Available?"

When Tony the Snow job makes the argument that Karl Rove needn't testify under oath, he has continuously stipulated that the Whitehouse has bent over to be accommodating and compromising. Moreover, he says things like this:
You want all the facts, and we're going to make the facts available.
Now, if that doesn't sound like a slogan generated by Rove himself, I don't know what is. Listen very carefully to the rhetoric, because it is very important and reveals what you will get if you take the W, Rove and Co up on their "generous" offer.

Trouble is, there is a distinct difference between "making the facts available" and telling the truth. In the former, you may make the "facts" available, but you don't reveal the whole truth. I've said this before - it seems like they have something to hide and the whole charade is designed to cloak rather than expose the truth.

Let's unpack the W, Rove and Co argument for a bit.
Q We spoke with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. Senate says there is no precedent for having an official of this nature come and speak to the Committee without a transcript. The House also says they can't find any precedent. Why should this case set a precedent?

MR. SNOW: Well, the fact is what they're trying to do is to establish their own set of precedents. What we're trying to do is to set a precedent for adult behavior in a way that is going to reflect well on a situation and offer an opportunity -- I don't think you're going to find any case where there has been no allegation of impropriety, no specific --
So, there is no precedent for what the Whitehouse requests, so we should swallow the pill anyway? I don't think so. You are already tapping our phones without our knowledge. I don't like it when the W, Rove and Co gets to set precedent, do you?

Q The point is --

MR. SNOW: No, here's the point, is we've set up a situation in which we think members of Congress and staffers -- this is open to members and staff, who are able to take notes, and we also believe that writing goes back to the inception of Western civilization, and the ability -- I'm not sure that they had recordings or transcripts, but they did have writing. There was writing.

Q So you want everyone to come out with their own notes -- you know how often you challenge what we've said and what we've written down, that's how you want it to be recorded?
Without the transcripts, the question mark flag gets raised every time he said what she said.

MR. SNOW: Look, first --

Q Would that be different --

MR. SNOW: Let's please put this in perspective. Here's a decision made at the Department of Justice. Any documents, any deliberations, any key players, they're available. Now, if there are additional questions about White House involvement, as people say, any communication is going to be available, any. So as a consequence --

Q You just don't want a record of what they said.

MR. SNOW: No, no, no. The record, in fact, is going to be available. So then if there are follow-on questions of a factual nature, they are going to be able to be answered.

Q Available, but without a transcript?

MR. SNOW: Yes.
And you see, the question remains...why are they deeply fearful of going on record? It has to be because they fear the truth. And that, my friends, is the difference between telling the truth and "making the facts available." In the latter, you are relieved of the burden to share the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god."

1 comment:

isabelita said...

Snow blows. I don't wish the best for him at all, he's a hypocritical criminal like his bosses.