Wednesday :: Nov 24, 2004

Science Is Good For Intelligence, But "Junk" When Talking About The Environment

by Steve

Here’s one for you. To address the deficit that all admit the CIA has in human intelligence, Bush rightly orders the CIA to aggressively hire more analysts and spies, as well as to build up its linguistic capabilities. Now we can argue that Bush should have issued this order the day after he was sworn in back in 2001, if in fact as the GOP has continually asserted Clinton’s CIA relied too much on technology and shortchanged the human intelligence side of the Agency. Even more so, Bush could have issued this same order on September 12, 2001 if he wanted to. But instead he waited until his second term and until he had direct control through Porter Goss, although George Tenet had also been saying for several years that the Agency needed more human intelligence. Nonetheless, at least Bush is fixing the problem now, 3-4 years late.

The telling part is that Bush wants to “find new ways to bring science to bear in the war on terrorism, the proliferation of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and against new and emerging threats." So he embraces science when addressing terrorism, WMDs, and emerging threats.

But when we’re talking about addressing environmental crises like global warming, suddenly it’s “junk science?”

Nope, there's no inconsistency there. You see, when Bush talks about science and technology in intelligence and national security, he sees more government contractors who will be campaign contributors. Yet when he encounters environmental science which indicates environmental degradation and warns of public health risks, all Bush can see are nuisances that would harm the bottom line of his Corporate America base and campaign contributors, the public health be damned.

To Bush, it's all about the money, baby.

Steve :: 11:45 AM :: Comments (11) :: Digg It!