NYT: Sugeon Gen says Bush Admin values politics over health

[uberllama42]

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional panel Tuesday that top Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

And administration officials even discouraged him from attending the Special Olympics because, he said, of that charitable organization’s longtime ties to a “prominent family” that he refused to name.

“I was specifically told by a senior person, ‘Why would you want to help those people?’ ” Dr. Carmona said.

<snip>

On issue after issue, Dr. Carmona said, the administration made decisions about important public health issues based solely on political considerations, not scientific ones.

“I was told to stay away from those because we’ve already decided which way we want to go,” Dr. Carmona said.

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

Complete story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?hp

[izzie]

1. I think we all knew this when we heard this

How they were taking people into the NIH. That came out soon after Bush got into office. Each agency in the fed. govt. has been run by these right wing nuts and when they sent the young ones over to set up Iraq one could see the mess we would have. The 'born to rule' group were all in lock step to re-do the world in Bush's images, and we can see what they have brought us to.. The list is long and sad.

[uberllama42]

3. What I find disturbing is that the Times presents this as though

it is an isolated incident. There have been numerous other officials who have come out with similar stories about politics at the expense of the facts, from people at NASA and the National Academy of Sciences to Colin Powell. Perhaps such a comment is considered 'analysis,' not the kind of point one makes in a straight news piece, but in my mind it's obvious and relevant.

In order to really grasp how egregious this adminstration's management is, the reader should know that this didn't occur in a vacuum. It's important to know, as the Times pointed out, that Clinton and Reagan at times applied political pressure to their SG. It's more important to know that politics is the overwhelming concern of the Bush Administration and facts are to be disregarded when they are inconvenient.

[izzie]

4. Does this mean that the Times is not Liberal?

I never thought it was. I think they also liked the war at the start. One can hardly think that the Times is a Left wing rag when it is owned and run by big business. I am a sort of 'Green Party' person and add the Nation into my reading because I do not think the Times will really lean to wards the left in their reporting. I do think they tend to print the news with a little lean to wards the right as all big business papers do. I think the Nation prints a true account but that it goes for a left wing story item line. So it is 'left' in the stories it works on but is truthful in the reporting. I once had to tear Times Mag. apart for a college class and even if it is called a left mag. it was at that time really for business and how they got their money. I guess it comes down to reading a lot and try to recall what you read which is not always easy.

[uberllama42]

5. Occasionally I read a headline in the Times which strikes me as biased

But generally their reporting doesn't lean noticably left. I have always agreed with those who say that the important bias in the media is not the personal inclination of the reporters (overwhelmingly liberal) but the insitutional bias of the media (unanimously conservative due to universal corporate ownership). The Times Editorial Board can criticize Bush on any policy they want, even calling him out for cronyism, as long as they don't do anything to materially challenge corporate hegemony.

Look at it from the perspective of the corporate elite: why employ reporters who work against your inerests? There is some allowance for dissent at the margins of the MSM, perhaps to create the illusion of balance. But the media are very much the intstrument of corporate control, which does not have a liberal bias.

[izzie]

6. That sounds about right. Why would a business hurt its business

interest? This PC is great for reading papers. It was getting costly to get papers as I grew up with many in our home and was used to them. Also hard to get unless you went out each day. I gave them all up and did it on this PC and find I only have to buy the Times special section. Plus I buy the Nation in mail. Habit I guess.

[izzie]

7. Do you recall the to-do about Bush's pictures in a govt. book?

I recall that the govt. printed some book every one wanted and some how Bush had his picture in it or on cover and it had nothing to do with him. Was it the book on 911? Looks like your in a bad spot if you get between the camera or printed page and Bush. We will have to put very large pictures of him on building like they do with the King in Saudis.

[durrrty libby]

2. Everything about this administration is disgusting