What's the use of an election, if we can't force these agencies to reflect the policy changes made by our elected leadership? They always seem to have the ability to pull an end run around any elected officials or appointees by going to the press and/or a cabal of unelected NGO's and lawyers.
You're joking, right? You don't alter a scientific report on the say so of a politician. Besides, we are looking at this all wrong. Clearly, this puts the lie to the Democratic canard that Bush Bows to Big Business. To quote the article:
"For the most part, the document does not reflect industry's wishes, which were conveyed in letters during a period of public comment on a draft last year"
But Bush simply allowed the report to be published, without altering it to, as the dems would certainly holler "reflect industry's wishes." Seems to me he is damned if he do and damned if he don't and at this point damned for being honest and releasing an unaltered report ;')
Concerning institutions of men "distrustful superintendence" is far healthier than "blind faith".
But I am a Washingtonian, not a Jeffersonian.
Jefferson promoted the founding of a newspaper for the sole purpose of running political hit stories on President Washington, and the Federalists led by Hamilton. He financed the editor to write these hit pieces surreptitiously, and didn't do it in the open but rather like Hillary, backstabbing.
Is this why you like Jefferson so much? Or is it that the champion of freedom did not believe in freedom for his own slaves that enamours you of him so much?