It started when I posted a diary at DailyKos, basically a rant at a "gotcha" article that made the rounds of the AP wire knocking President Obama for stating that a 1908 Ford Model-T was more fuel efficient than many current SUV models. (You can read the article here.)

I got about nine responses, fairly typical for one of my diaries. However, a poster named "Cardinal" made a comment that got me thinking. He/she asked, aren't we the ones screaming for fact checking in the media? Shouldn't we hold President Obama and his administration to the same standards of truth we demanded from President Bush and his? Yes. Yes we should.

But, to quote the questioner at one of history's more famous enhanced interrogations, "What is truth?" It got me thinking on the difference between "facts" and "truth." Taking the words of Model-T enthusiasts at face value, it seems that the president's statement about its fuel efficiency were factually incorrect, though 15 mpg still does better than a fair number of models on the road these days. Still, I would argue that the president was correct on the larger truth--that the American auto industry has not made great leaps forward in fuel efficiency in a very long time. Both American Motors and Studebaker, for example, were producing cars half a century ago that were getting mileage that would be considered good to excellent in 2009. The Studebaker Scotsman, produced in 1957-58, got 30 mpg; Ramblers and Larks averaged around 25 or so mpg, according to sources I've been able to uncover. If President Obama is guilty of anything, it's using a rhetorical flourish and choosing to reference a classic car model (the Model-T) that the average person will recognize.

Contrast that with a current favorite statement of some: "We haven't been attacked since 9/11." That statement is factually correct. I don't know too many people, outside of perhaps former administration officials and their most rabid apologists, who would consider that statement truthful despite its factual correctness.  Perhaps it's because that statement is used to support the success of the former administration's policies on terrorism, policies most consider to be a failure.

As we know, though, nuance is not our friend in public debate. We can and should be vigilant about calling our politicians and other public figures to the carpet when they make false statements. But sometimes, we have to consider: "What is truth?" because sometimes, fact and truth aren't necessarily the same things.