It Depends on the What the Meaning of 'True' Is
by Gene Callahan
...Consider Condoleezza Rice's recent remarks about President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger. It turned out that the assertion rested on forged documents, and, further, that it was known within the CIA and the administration that the documents were unreliable well before Bush's speech was delivered.
Rice doesn't deny these facts. Instead, she "defends" Bush by trying to demonstrate that he was carefully covering his butt by phrasing his claim in a very particular way. To quote the International Herald Tribune:
"In a part of his State of the Union speech designed to portray Iraq as posing an urgent and immediate security threat, Bush said that 'the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' 'The statement that he made was indeed accurate,' Rice said on the Fox News Sunday television program. 'The British government did say that.'"
As questionable as Rice's tack is as a defense of Bush, it doesn't even really work on its own terms. Bush did not say, "The British government has said that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He said they had learned it. That implies that it is true, and that the speaker is attesting to its veracity. We might say, for instance, say "Timmy said 2 + 2 = 5, but since he has learned that 2 + 2 = 4."
In short, this defense is no more robust than was Clinton's puzzling over the meaning of the word 'is.'
Or consider this comment, from the same article: "Bush insisted Saturday that Tenet retained his confidence and urged the country to move on to other matters."
Oh, now it's time to "move on," is it? When did I last hear a president telling the country "it's time to move on"?...
