The Focus on the Family founder says during a conversation with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove -- two days before President Bush announced Miers' nomination to the high court -- it was revealed to him that Miss Miers is an evangelical Christian who attends a "very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life." Since that time, all that information has become public knowledge. But at no time during his talk with Rove, says Dobson, was the nominee's possible stand on Roe v. Wade mentioned.
"Karl Rove didn't tell me anything about the way Harriet Miers would vote on cases that may come before the Supreme Court," Dobson stated on his Wednesday morning (October 12) broadcast. "We did not discuss Roe v. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the Court."
Dobson acknowledged that while he personally would have "loved" to know Miers' views on the landmark 1973 abortion ruling, such "incendiary information" was never part of the discussion. He believes that even if Rove had known that information -- "... and I'm certain that he didn't," says Dobson -- he would not have divulged it.
In other words, noted Dobson, the Rove conversation was essentially a "characterization" of Harriet Miers provided before President Bush had actually made his decision. And despite the pro-family leader's insistence it did not go beyond that, Dobson says Democrats have speculated that Rove laid out a "detailed promise" that Miss Miers, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, would vote to overturn Roe. "It did not happen -- period!" Dobson stated emphatically.
Well, some have called me today, some whose names our listeners would recognize -- not only members of Congress, but Christian leaders and others -- and saying, "You know, you have taken a stand here. You have made some comments about Harriet Miers, and we want to know what that's based on." So I think maybe I ought to take the rest of the broadcast today, or at least a portion of it, to tell our listeners the rationale. Now, I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that, you know, I'm privy to that I can't describe because of confidentiality. And there are some things I can't go into.
What's missing from this picture? A couple of things. Where has the confidentiality gone? Dobson claimed to know secret information that he couldn't share. Dobson doesn't say that the promise of confidentiality has been lifted. He doesn't say what he deemed secret and why.
In fact, Dobson is calling himself a liar. Then he knew secret information that he couldn't divulge. Now he doesn't know anything that hasn't been printed in the paper. Dobson is either lying now about what he knows, or claimed to know a heck of a lot more than he ever did.
Given Dobson's ego and flair for the untruth, both are quite possible.
UPDATE: Dobson has, apparently, claimed, that Rove gave him permission to reveal the purportedly confidential information.