I am a tad frustrated that I have probable jury duty next week. As result, I may have to miss Henry Waxman's January 30th scheduled hearing "regarding political interference in the work of government climate change scientists." I and many others have been pushing for the new Congress to use its investigative powers in this arena for some time, and I always knew that Waxman would make it happen.
Get ready to watch the Bush administration squirm.
In fact, you can already see how it's going to go down when you read Waxman's letter (PDF) to White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Jim Connaughton. CEQ has been ground zero for many of the climate science related scandals coming out of the Bush administration over the past several years, and now, finally, Waxman can demand--with the force of law behind him--the behind-the-scenes documents that will illuminate in greater detail what was really going on there. Reading the letter is a true inspiration:
...the Committee's document request, as modified as a result of discussions with your staff, encompasses all communications and other documents that (1) were sent to or generated by, reference, or are in the electronic or paper files of any of the following individuals: James L. Connaughton, Phillip Cooney, Bryan Hannegan, Marty Hall, Kenneth L. Peel, Bill Holbrook, or Michele St. Martin; and (2) that relate to:a) Mr. Cooney's activities related to climate change;
b) CEQ's review of and suggested edits to materials produced by other federal agencies regarding climate change; and
c) Efforts by CEQ to manage or influence statements made by government scientists or experts to representatives of media regarding climate change.
Whew. For those needing a refresher: Phillip Cooney was accused of editing climate change documents from his perch at CEQ and later moved on to work at Exxon Mobil.
Man, this is going to be fun.....
- Log in to post comments
My guess is most of what Waxman has requested has probably vanished by now -- like so many positrons encountering the endless sea of electrons.
And what has not "disappeared" will undoubtedly be withheld, not unlike what happened with the minutes to Cheney's meetings with oil executives, when they were plot ..I mean planning.. energy policy.
The upshot: the public will never see most of it.
Dark Tent opined "...most of what Waxman has requested has probably vanished by now..."
That may be true--or may not be.
Never underestimate the delusions and vanity of political types who think they are doing sacred work. Just as Nixon was hung on his vanity, so may many of Bush's minions hang on theirs. More often they stow away their correspondence, electronic and hard copy, in the belief that their achievements are of monumental significance worthy of the ages.
'Delusions' is certainly the right word. How frustrating, to see so many politicians in one of two camps: those who blatently cast the science aside, and those who use science w/ ulterior intent...the latter including pet interest at a politically convenient time, of course. Hopefully there are a few good people out there that recognize the inherent merit in all of this, and are doing it b/c it's good policy, not good politics.
Maybe it WILL take a bulldog.
In a similar vein. So far, so good.
Chris, on a sort of related subject, do you know if the Dems are going to try to do anything about the satellite funding problem in this budget year?
Keanus said;
"Just as Nixon was hung on his vanity, so may many of Bush's minions hang on theirs."
I agree that where there are backup tapes, there is always hope (since it's hard to delete all the e-mail corrsepondence and other electronic documents on every backup tape in existence), but unfortunately, the second part of my comment pretty well covers whatever was kept for vanity's sake:
"what has not "disappeared" will undoubtedly be withheld" -- as it was (successfully) in the Cheney case.
I thinjk the big difference between Bush and Nixon is the different atmosphere. Nixon encountered an adversarial atmosphere, from Congress, from the Supreme Court and from the press.
Bush has encountered no such atmopshere to date and it is unlikely to happen in the elast two years, since Pelosi has already basically ruled out impeachment proceedings and the Supreme Court that put Bush in office is certainly not going to be the one that allows him to get booted out.
So, where Nixon's claim of executive privilege (in order to withold the taped conversations) was overruled by the Supreme Court, it is very doubtful that a similar claim made by Bush would be similraly overruled. In fact, we have seen from the Cheney precedent that it almost certainly would not.