George Orwell would feel right at home.  He’d be snuggled up next to his keyboard.  He’d go to the official White House information site.  He might want to read some of the old transcripts where White House Minister of Truth, Scott McClellan, explains his personal involvement in the leak investigation.  He would find the White House press briefing transcript from October 7, 2003 and he would read:

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that’s exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They’re good individuals, they’re important members of our White House team, and that’s why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it’s accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did.

And Orwell would say to himself, that was the end of that story.  At least until history needed to be altered at some point in the future to conform to the reality of the Minister of Truth’s words.

And, because he was interested in such things, Orwell would read on into the historical record.  And he would come across the  official transcript of the White House press briefing for October 31, 2005.  And he would not be surprised to read:

Q Whether there’s a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t think that’s accurate.

This would not be surprising because the Minister of Truth would not admit that he had lied (or been lied to) two years earlier.  It would be impossible.  It would be a crack that could bring down the floodgates of reality, and with the onrushing waters of veracity, eliminate the mechanism by which the Proles are subdued.  And so the transcript reads —

Journalist: We know they leaked Scottie.

Minister of Truth: That is not accurate.

That is how the trascript has to read.

But, there is a small problem pointed out by Wonkette.  If Orwell were to actually listen to the tape of the October 31, 2005 press briefing, here is what he would hear:

Q Whether there’s a question of legality, we know for a fact that there was involvement. We know that Karl Rove, based on what he and his lawyer have said, did have a conversation about somebody who Patrick Fitzgerald said was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. We know that Scooter Libby also had conversations.

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s accurate.

Even the Minister of Truth can’t keep reality separate from truth these days.  They are converging.  And in the Proles lies our hope.

The sordid tale of how official transcripts are altered is presented by Wonkette, via a quoted article from CQ Vantage Point.  The article is instructive:

Semantics can loom large in the history of a White House scandal. Admiral John Poindexter surrendered much of the fast-dwindling public sympathy at his disposal when his mind-bending expression “plausible deniability” came to light in the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings. And “It depends on what the meaning of the word `is’ is” are words that will forever haunt the legacy of Bill Clinton.

So it was a matter of some consequence at the Oct. 31 White House press briefing when presidential spokesman Scott McClellan appeared to confirm the premise of a combative question from NBC News correspondent David Gregory. Gregory was reminding the press secretary that he had previously disavowed any involvement by either I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby or Karl Rove in the disclosure of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity to the press — based on assurances McClellan said he’d obtained from both top White House officials. When Gregory said, “We know in fact there was involvement,” and went on to describe special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s findings about Rove and Libby’s dealings with the press, McClellan quickly introjected words that seem pretty clearly to be “That’s accurate.” (Readers can view a video clip of the briefing here.)

And that is how McClellan’s remark appears in the transcripts sold by CQ Transcriptions, an arm of Congressional Quarterly Inc., and the Federal News Service. However, the White House’s own transcript has McClellan saying very much the opposite: “No, I don’t think that’s accurate.” And when the White House noted the discrepancy, officials asked CQ editors to revisit the wording of McClellan’s reply. This was curiouser still, since while one could conceivably argue that McClellan tripped over his intention to say “That’s inaccurate,” his delivery is far too rapid-fire for the expansive wording “No, I don’t think that’s accurate.”

CQ Transcriptions has declined to alter its account; FNS has not done so, either.

McClellan was with the president in South America at the end of last week and did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment. But one of his deputies, Dana Perino, says that the press office is simply trying to set the record straight. “I was in the room,” she says. “Scott and David Gregory were speaking at the same time, so it was a little hard to follow. But he did say `It is not accurate.’ Our official stenographer says that’s what he said.” The press office’s call to CQ was “just to let you know it is not accurate, as you had it in the transcript,” she says. Perino also advises that the topical urgency of the subject doesn’t merit much in the way of public mention: “You’re doing an item on this? I don’t think it’s news.”

Of course, news is in the eye of the beholder — just as complaints about inaccuracy may ultimately depend on what the meaning of “accurate” is.

If Orwell were to take the time to watch the video, he would not be surprised at what he found there.  He would only be surprised that the video has not been placed down the memory hole yet, incinerated from history, and replaced with a cohesive message of how Scottie did not lie.  And Scooter did not mislead.  And Rove did not leak.  And the war with Iran and Syria had been going on since 2003 and would continue indefinitely.