I believe the Washington Post knows perfectly well that the word "censor" does not belong in the lead of today's Juliet Eilperin story, but the editors left it in (or inserted it?) anyway.
The story, "Cheney Aides Altered EPA Testimony, Agency Official Says Ex-Administrator Says Official From Vice President's Office Edited Out Six Pages," begins:
Members of Vice President Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official on the health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said today.
Bush and Cheney have been in office nearly seven and a half years now. That's time enough for the Post's staff and editors to get used to the fact that they were elected to run the executive branch, and thus they can alter any executive branch document, presentation or policy they darn well please.
That's not censorship; it's editing, policy-setting, or both.
Business as usual, when you run the government.
To be fair, near the end of the story, Eilperin's piece included this quote from the White House:
White House spokesman Tony Fratto noted that White House officials in past administrations have vetted congressional testimony from agency officials.
"There's absolutely nothing unusual here in terms of the interagency review process, whether it's testimony, rules or anything else," Fratto said in an interview. "The process exists so that other offices and departments have the opportunity to comment and offer their views. There's nothing unusual about that, there's nothing nefarious about that, and there's nothing different here from previous administrations."
Exactly right. In other words, the whole thing is a non-story.
Yet the Post ran it anyway.
Cross-posted on the National Center for Public Policy Research blog.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Yes, it's censorship
July 8, 2008 - 19:02 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistRidenour says, " That's not censorship; it's editing, policy-setting, or both."
The first definition for censor (as a noun) in my American Heritage dictionary is "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." That certainly fits the Bush administration modus operandi when it comes to scientific information about climate change or other environmental issues that it deems inconvenient.
So you admit to ignoring
July 8, 2008 - 19:07 ET by Clear thinkerSo you admit to ignoring the rest of her article?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
So, Agrarian-Decentralist,
July 8, 2008 - 21:02 ET by Amy RidenourSo, Agrarian-Decentralist, if you were asked by a schoolchild to give the job description of the office of vice president of the United States, you would say, "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable"?
Or would you perhaps say something closer to "VPs help administer the executive branch under the direction of the president of the United States,* while fulfilling certain duties ascribed to the VP under the Constitution, such as breaking tie votes in the Senate"?
*when the president trusts the VP, anyway
The VP's office in this Administration carries out both policymaking and executive functions. Other than the president, the VP is the boss of everybody in the executive branch. When a boss tells an employee what to put in a report, he's not censoring, he's giving instructions.
Let's also give credit to
July 9, 2008 - 00:27 ET by danboLet's also give credit to Al Gore and Bubba for their great dealings with William Happer and John Christy.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT