When foxes run the hen house (greenhouse): a familiar Bush Administration tale

A NYT story, "Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming," gives yet more evidence of the what passes for "science" policy advice in the puritan plutocracy of George W. Bush.

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues. . . . .


* * * * * * * * * *

A good sign of a failing city or failing society: when people take out more than they put in. That seems consistently characteristic of the Bushies approach. - LW

"Grocery Store Wars" -- 0rganic food video satire

The Organic Trade Association has released an amusing satire, "Grocery Store Wars," that pits a cast of virtuous, organic vegetable characters against chemicalized figures from the "dark side of the farm."




An earlier video by the same animators, "The Meatrix," is also a hoot.

No clear purpose for the "war on terror" -- Army War College states the obvious

An interesting report by Stephen D. Biddle of the Army War College points to the quagmire in Iraq and the total lack of purpose exhibited in U.S. policy making about the "war on terror."


American Grand Strategy After 9/11: An Assessment

Synopsis:

In the three years since 9-11, the Administration has yet to arrive at a clear definition of the enemy or the aim in the War on Terrorism; to date, American policy has combined ambitious public statements with ambiguity on critical particulars. Heretofore, the costs of pursuing such ambitious but ill-defined goals have been high but tolerable. The ongoing insurgency in Iraq, however, is increasing the costs of grand strategic ambiguity to the point where fundamental choices can no longer be deferred. There are two broad alternatives for resolving these ambiguities and creating a coherent and logically sufficient grand strategy: rollback and containment. Rollback would retain the ambitious goals implicit in today’s declaratory policy and accept the cost and near-term risk inherent in pursuing them. Containment would settle for more modest goals in exchange for lower costs and lower near-term risks. Neither alternative dominates the other on analytical grounds – both involve serious costs as well as benefits. Most important, the choice between them turns on a series of basic value judgments on the acceptability of risk, the relationship between near-term and long-term risk, and the ultimate degree of security the Nation should seek.