Does Motive Trump Truth?

In catching up on the weekend news, something caught my attention in a article on the reactions to an insurance industry health care report. In the second paragraph, Linda Douglass, communications director for the President's Office of Health Reform is referred as having said: (italics added)

...that the timing of the study, released just hours before the Senate Finance Committee is set to vote on its bill, raises questions about its legitimacy.

This infers that the timing of the report is sufficient grounds for it's dismissal. Certainly there is political strategy in some cases which dictates the timing of releases. The spokesman for this study simply stated that it was only finalized over the weekend. Which is the reason in this case isn't really important. The illogical progression of thought, simply presented as accepted wisdom, is important. A head on attack of the facts presented in a counter proposal or a critical analysis would be more in order.

The goal of any position paper is to persuade its intended audience. All sides in a debate have that as the common goal. So if the stated or even perceived motive of a position statement does not align with the preset agenda of its recipients, is it fair to summarily dismiss it? This makes mind reading guessing the motive more important than understanding the content.

Maybe that is really the political insight into all of this. Particulary if members of Congress regularly vote on bills that don't exist yet.

Does motive trump truth? Just asking...