Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You think I didn't catch the reference? Egad.
|
Sometimes I fear I am too subtle. I hear that criticism a lot. It stings.
Quote:
|
But are you saying that Bush is the first president to centralize policy (or non-policy--Hi, Ty!) in the way that he has? I don't really get it. Bush has a policy re global warming and the environment. It may be a sucky policy, but he has it. Why should government entities be coming out with reports that undermine those policy positions and goals?
|
No, I am not saying that Bush is the first president to centralize policy. He may do it more forcefully or thoroughly than any recent predecessors, but that is not relevant.
Yes, I am saying that scientific reports, like intelligence assessements, should be based on science (or intelligence) -- and not tailored to fit policy. Otherwise, it's not science. It's a policy argument presented in the guise of science.
These were not policy statements. They were (purportedly) reports of scientific inquiries and studies.
Quote:
|
The changes he made do not have appeared to have inserted psuedo-science in place of science. Rather they seemed geared primarily to tone, such as the degree of support. And they were *draft* reports. I suppose the white house could have no role, but if it has a role, why is this sort of editing not appropriate?
|
I disagree with your view of the nature and purpose of the changes. I don't think they went merely to "tone", but rather to content, including entire paragraphs cut.
