So what are we to make of John McCain's speech about what he hopes to achieve in his first term in office?

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension. Violence still occurs, but it is spasmodic and much reduced. Civil war has been prevented; militias disbanded; the Iraqi Security Force is professional and competent; al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated; and the Government of Iraq is capable of imposing its authority in every province of Iraq and defending the integrity of its borders. The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role.

The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated. U.S. and NATO forces remain there to help finish the job, and continue operations against the remnants of al Qaeda. The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based. The increase in actionable intelligence that the counterinsurgency produced led to the capture or death of Osama bin Laden, and his chief lieutenants. There is no longer any place in the world al Qaeda can consider a safe haven.

The speech goes on and on about the amazing things that will be achieved by the end of his term, including an end to the Darfur Crisis, strong economic growth from lower taxes, fantastic new trade deals, an end to the world food crisis, workers who have lost their jobs are retrained for the new economy, public education has improved greatly, health care is more accessible and higher in quality, independence from foreign oil is around the corner, the borders are secure, and illegal immigration has been brought under control.

Whew!  So how will he achieve all this? Ummm — simply by being President it seems.  That's right — if you elect John McCain as President all you have to do is click your heels three times, wish upon a star, have him get his bills through Congress, and repeat after him, "Victory is the only outcome… Victory is the only Outcome…"  There may never have been a more bizarre speech by a presumed major party nominee for President.  Despite all of these incredible claims there are no specifics, except that he will work in a bipartisan way and end the "permanent campaign." How will energy independence achieved?  How will all those great new job training programs be created while we have these high, high deficits? And most importantly, how is stability and prosperity achieved in Iraq in just four years?  Simply by having John McCain take the oath of office — what, you wanted more than that?

There is an understood rule in American politics.  When overseas, U.S. elected officials do not criticize other American elected officials.  "Politics stops at the water's edge" is the mantra that explains this understanding. While this understanding has sometimes sometimes been violated, it has been done by lesser officials, not by the President of the United States.  But this morning, before the Israeli Knesset — as he is representing the citizens of this country before the elected officials of another, Bush said this:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Now he doesn't mention Barack Obama directly, and his press flack Dana Perino denied that this passage was about Obama, but the intent is obvious in Bush's words. Invoking World War II when comparing those who want to at least open up dialogue shows that Bush has no sense of propriety.

Wednesday night in a "Special Comment," Keith Olbermann pointed out that Bush actually claimed that he has given up golf to show solidarity with the families of those solders who are fighting, dying and getting injured in Iraq, Olbermann counters:

Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.

 The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing.

It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next Jan. 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:

When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at …

When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation …

When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead.

This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!

That would also be good advice to W when he is in a foreign country.  Instead of following accepted decorum, he debases himself and the office of the Presidency by wallowing in the lowest kind of political interjection — comparing those on the other side to Nazis and labelling those who would meet with the other side to appeasers.  And he did this in Israel, where while they may despise those who threaten and surround them, they also know that they do not meet the Nazi standard.

As the Obama campaign explains in a released statement about Bush's attack:

It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power - including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.

What success can George Bush point to that tells us — American citizens, or just citizens of the world — that we should ever listen to him when it comes to foreign policy?

John McCain and a host of other Republicans have refused to support the Jim Webb G.I. bill (s.22) that would grant members of the military, once they left the armed forces, the same benefits that were received by those who served during and after World War II. While Webb will try to add the bill to the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental appropriations bill, the Republicans tried a sneak attack by trying to get a weak version of the bill added to an unrelated bill about collective bargaining. The differences between Webb's bill and the weaker GOP bill as introduced by McCain's Senate lapdog, Lindsey Graham? Webb's bill allows full educational benefits after 36 months of service, while in the watered-down Graham bill it takes 12 years of service to get them. Webb's bill ties the value of the benefit to actual public institution tuition, while the Graham bill's benefit is maxed at $2000 and then indexed to inflation rather than actual educational costs. So the Democrats got 6 Republicans to join them to defeat the "save political face while pretending to offer a real alternative" amendment.

So what do veterans think? Well the Air Force Times has two veterans' groups supporting the Webb bill.

The GI Bill is a cost of war as much as any other expenditure,” said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans, founded in 2004. “Any member of Congress who votes for a $170 billion war bill and then votes against the GI Bill is nickel-and-diming our troops. Veterans of all generations will be outraged by that decision.”

Marty Conatser, national commander of the American Legion, said that when the Legion fought in 1944 for the original World War II GI Bill, “even some veterans’ groups complained that it would break the treasury.”

“Instead, the GI Bill transformed the economy and has been widely hailed as the greatest domestic legislation Congress has ever passed,” said Conatser, whose organization has 2.7 million members.

Stars and Stripes points out just how much "heftier" the Webb bill is for veterans:

Retired Army Col. Bob Norton, an education benefits expert with the Military Officers Association of America, said Graham’s bill does have some terrific features. But Norton said only the Webb bill delivers on both goals set for GI Bill reform by The Military Coalition, a consortium of service associations and veterans groups. First, it would raise benefits enough to cover at least the average cost of a public college education and has an effective mechanism to keep them there.

Second, it would allow Reserve and Guard members to earn the same GI Bill entitlement as active duty troops, depending on length of active duty service. The Graham/Burr/McCain bill has no such provision, Norton said.

So the military press tells us that the veterans need the benefits and see that the Webb bill is much preferable to the Republican alternative, yet McCain, Ted Stevens and most other Republicans are worried that the Webb bill is so generous that it will hurt "troop retention" and encourage them to leave.

Funny, but I thought the tragedy that is known as the War in Iraq was doing a fine job of that all by itself.

The Washington Post-ABC news poll that was released this evening shows a post-North Carolina/Indiana bounce for Barack Obama, with him starting to solidify support now that he is the presumptive nominee. In the head-to-head match-up between him and John McCain, Obama leads 51-44. The poll also shows that Obama's support is more committed with 32 percent of McCain's support suggesting some possibility of changing their minds, while 26% say the same about their support for Obama.

There is also evidence in the poll that age is going to be a much bigger hindrance to McCain than being African-American is to Obama. When asked if they were "entirely or somewhat" comfortable with having an African-American as President, 88% were comfortable with the possibility, with 12% suggesting some discomfort. On the other side of the coin, when asked whether they were "entirely or somewhat" comfortable with a President who entered office at age 72, only 60% expressed comfort, and 24% had discomfort, with 15% of those having "extreme" discomfort. In terms of which candidate would you trust more to handle a series of issues, Obama beats McCain on every topic, except for the "campaign against terrorism." Otherwise Obama is more trusted to handle the economy, gas prices, immigration, health care and ethics. They are basically tied when it comes to handling the war in Iraq.

The other news that will help Obama in November is the entry into the Presidential race of former Republican Representative Bob Barr of Georgia. While Barr was considered extremely right-wing when he was in Congress, he has been outspoken against the Patriot Act, the FISA expansions and most of the invasions of privacy, even doing some work with the ACLU. He left the GOP for the Libertarian Party about 2 years ago, and while he will have to beat a half-hearted attempt at the nomination by Mike Gravel, he should be the party's nominee. And if Ron Paul's showing in recent Republican primaries is an indication, Bob Barr could tip the balance to the Democrats in certain swing states. In Pennsylvania Paul got 16% of the Republican primary tally — over 128,000 votes. Not only does that show disillusionment with McCain in that crucial state, but there is enough to drain actual votes from him via a Libertarian ticket headed by Barr. Paul has gotten between 4 and 6 percent in most other states, but even if that translates to 1 or 2 percent in a general election, it could be enough to tip a state like Virginia. In Nevada the GOP state convention was actually closed down when it became apparent that the majority of delegates would have gone to Paul, leading to incredible anger among many delegates and activists. Having Bob Barr on the ballot there could really tip the scales to Obama.

Despite this good news, this presidential campaign will still be very difficult for Obama. McCain is still the strongest candidate that the Republicans could have nominated. When asked which party is best equipped to handle the country's problems, the Democrats have a 21 point lead — but Obama's lead over McCain in the same poll is just seven points. Just making sure that most of the country understands that McCain means the same Republican policies that over 80% believe have us on the "wrong track," will be the central element of the Fall campaign.

When Mary Gade was appointed the Midwest EPA Administrator in September, 2006 she did something that the Bush Administration obviously didn't expect — She took her job seriously.  After decades of Dow Chemical dumping its toxic products into rivers nearby its Midland, Michigan plant, including Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron. Dow has been avoiding its responsibility in cleaning up dioxin-poisoned soil and sediment in the 50 miles surrounding its plant for years, and after wrangling with Dow, and getting nowhere, Gade invoked "emergency powers" last summer so that she could order Dow to cleanup three of the worst dioxin "hotspots" affected by the dumping.  How bad was it?  Well the reporting in the Chicago Tribune explains:

…all along the two wide streams that cut through this old industrial town, signs warn people to keep off dioxin-contaminated riverbanks and to avoid eating fish pulled from the fast-moving waters. Officials have taken the swings down in one riverside park to discourage kids from playing there. Men in rubber boots and thick gloves occasionally knock on doors, asking residents whether they can dig up a little soil in the yard.

In January, when Dow was trying to cut a weak deal, Gade broke off negotiations.  So Dow did what any well-connected, irresponsible corporation would do — appeal to their friends in Washington.  According to letters obtained by the Chicago Tribune in a FOIA request (though the letters were highly redacted):

Gade drew fire from officials in Washington after she sent contractors to test soil in a Saginaw neighborhood where Dow had found high dioxin levels. The levels in one Saginaw yard were nearly six times higher than the federal cleanup standard, and 65 times higher than what Michigan considers acceptable.

How toxic is dioxin? It is measured in the trillionths of a gram because it is so potent.  It "causes cancer and disrupts the immune system, even at very low levels."  And Dow knew in the 1960s just how dangerous it was,  and yet kept dumping it all the way to the mid-1980s.  So what is the justification Dow has used for avoiding a cleanup? Somehow they assert the contamination is  not a health threat to people or wildlife.

"There is all of this mystique about dioxin," said John Musser, a Dow spokesman. "Just because it's there doesn't mean there is an imminent health threat."

Amazing how health threats are not imminent when Dow would have to pay for the consequences of its own actions.

So after doing her job and trying to get Dow to actually follow the law and take responsibility, Gade had her administrative powers taken away by the national EPA and told that she should resign by June 1st or be fired.  She resigned immediately.  Why was Gade hired in the first place if she wasn't expected to actually enforce the law?  Well in her previous life she was a corporate attorney representing companies like Dow. Both Dow and Washington were surprised when she decided to actually aggressively pursue the cleanup.

"We have a responsibility to make sure people are living in a healthy and safe environment," Gade said. "This problem has been out there for more than 30 years, and it's unconscionable that action hasn't been taken."

Tuesday night was, for all intents and purposes, the sign that the race to the Democratic nomination has ended.  Barack Obama's strong victory throughout North Carolina and Hillary Clinton's narrow margin of victory in Indiana are enough to presume that there is no real chance for Clinton to wrest the nomination away from the front runner. The popular vote is against her.  The  math is against her. Soon, the Superdelegates will start aligning with Obama.  The rationale for her campaign — electability, momentum, key wins — have dissipated with the numbers from North Carolina.  Now the Clintons are fierce campaigners.  Since Bill Clinton was elected as Attorney General of Arkansas in 1976, the Clintons collectively have lost just one election — the Governorship in 1980, which he promptly regained two years later.  I can understand it will be difficult for them to concede the nomination, but the reality is that there is no reasonable scenario left in which she gets the Democratic nod.

Some thoughts and observations in the aftermath of the NC and IN primary results:

1. Hillary Clinton should not drop out if she does not want to, at least not yet – She has run a "formidable" campaign as Barack Obama often explains.  While her campaign made several mistakes, there is no question she has a large and deep base of support that she may wish to keep energized and working on her behalf.  Plus, having the nomination contest continue in the remaining states is good for energizing party voters and developing a good Get Out The Vote operation for November.
2. However, Clinton must stop directly attacking Obama–  Before now, no matter how egregious the barbs may have been, she could at least argue that she was putting up a good fight for the nomination and whatever attacks she was making against Obama, the Republicans would be much harsher and more intense in the Fall campaign.  Those arguments are gone, if they were even valid in the first place.  Now, with Obama almost the presumed nominee, she should fight the "good fight" and raise her issues, attack McCain, but emphasize, like she did in her speech Tuesday night, that the party needs to unite.

As mayor of Anchorage, Alaska, Mark Begich has defied the conservative stereotype of Alaska politics being a popular Democratic mayor, first beating an incumbent Republican and then getting reelected by a record margin. Now he has decided to take on Senator Ted Stevens, who not only is under an ethical cloud, but as Begich points out, has become out of touch with the average Alaskan voter. In a conference call, Mayor Begich listed an array of issues where Senator Stevens has decided his judgment is better than that of Alaskans:

1. The Jim Webb GI Bill — This is the bill that, somehow, McCain is against as well. The bill would basically give the same benefits to those who are serving in the military now as were received by veterans of WWII. Stevens has argued that this is a bad idea because it would encourage enlisted soldiers to leave the military and not re-enlist. An interesting note here is that Begich mentioned that Alaska has a very high veteran population — about 12% of adults in the state.
2. No Child Left Behind — Begich explained that NCLB is extremely unpopular in Alaska, where he hears complaints about it all the time. Stevens, however, still strongly stands behind the program, refusing to acknowledge the problems.
3. Native American Health Care — You would think that a Republican would want to allow for more local control and less federal involvement. Yet, according to Begich, Stevens is blocking the ability of Alaskan Native American communities from providing their own health care — something they can do cheaper and better.
4. Right to Privacy — When it comes to the Telecom bill, Real ID and the Patriot Act, Stevens has consistently voted to expand the government's power to invade the personal lives of its citizens. This is an issue as Alaska has one of the strongest libertarian movements, and strong privacy provisions are written into the Alaskan Constitution. This is a big issue in the state and Stevens is on the wrong side.
5. Minimum Wage — Despite the high cost of living in Alaska, Stevens has consistently voted against raising the Minimum Wage.

While this race originally was on the potential pick-up list for Democrats due mainly to Stevens' corruption issues, as well as the general corruption issues of the whole of the Alaskan GOP, Begich appears to be an excellent candidate. He is not only a popular Democrat in a traditionally Republican state, but he is Mayor of Anchorage, which provides 43% of Alaska's registered voters. The most recent poll, a Rasmussen survey from early April has the race basically tied — 46% for Stevens and 45% for Begich. But my guess is that once the rest of Alaska meets Mark Begich and hears his views, his support will increase — and the more the state listens to the 2008 version of Ted Stevens, the more they will reconsider whether or not they wish to rehire him.

To learn more about Mark Begich, please visit: www.begich.com

John Mueller has often gone against conventional wisdom. As the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at The Ohio State University, he has published an array of articles and books on The declining significance of war as he explains in his book Remnants of War; The incredible overreaction to national security threats, especially the threat of terrorism and how it has harmed the country is addressed in his most recent book, Overblown: How Politicians and the Terrorism Industry Inflate National Security Threats and Why We believe Them; and his current work, how the U.S.'s attempts to prevent nuclear proliferation have been counterproductive, will be published as a book next year.

Mueller's argument in his current work, as outlined in an article in The National Interest last year, is as follows:

1. The "obsessive quest to Control nuclear proliferation — particularly since the end of the Cold War — has been substantially counterproductive and has often inflicted dire costs." Examples include the Iraq War, which was sold by the Bush Administration as the only preventative act to keep nuclear and other WMDs from Saddam Hussein's weakened state of Iraq. The sanctions in the 1990s which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children could also be included, as well as a potential conflict with Iran.
2. While the fear that terrorists themselves would obtain atomic weapons and/or other WMD has taken root in the national security community, it is "highly improbable" that either a rogue nation would give these terrorist groups these weapons, nor that the groups themselves could develop them. If a nation gave these weapons to a terrorist group, and the source was discovered, "international retribution could be unfathomably fierce." It is also incredibly unlikely that a rogue group could obtain all the necessary materials to create such a weapon, or gain access to the facilities to put it together, and then control it thereafter. Even when examining the supposed evidence that Al-Qaeda is seeking out the bomb, it is clear that they haven't even come close to the first steps.
3. Countries that do obtain nuclear weapons do so either for prestige (France) or deterrence (Israel, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea). While Mueller emphasizes that he does not like nuclear proliferation, and is clear the he considers "dissuading more countries from obtaining nuclear weapons to be quite a good idea and preventing terrorists from getting them to be an even better one," many of the actions performed in the name f nuclear proliferation have caused more harm than good. While we would rather Iran did not have such weapons, there is no reason to believe that if they got them, they would actually use them.

The Seminal: Do the politicians and security experts who perpetuate the importance of the issue of nuclear proliferation really fear it, or do they just see it as a beneficial issue for themselves?

John Mueller: They really are genuinely afraid. When the issue is raised, people get hysterical — but countries that do get the bomb never use it. Even "unstable" countries like China at least so far have not used theirs. They basically use it for deterrence and prestige. Sure it would be nice if they didn't get the weapons, but if the policies to prevent them from getting them cause hundreds to thousands of deaths, then the strategy must be rethought.

The Seminal: Do you think that these so-called "unstable" countries are more apt to try to get nuclear weapons due to the actions of the U.S. and other developed countries in the name of non-proliferation?

John Mueller: If that includes real or assumed threats — it is hardly surprising that these countries may feel the need to get nuclear weapons. the best way to reduce their incentive is to not threaten them. An example of this is putting Iran in the "Axis of Evil." After Iraq we basically have been saying to Iran, "You're Next." In 2003 John Bolton said about Iran, "Take a Number." So Iran's reaction isn't surprising.

The Seminal: Are there any major threats to our security or issues of concern to America;s safety that we are under-reacting to?

John Mueller: No. Since World War Two we have consistently over-exaggerated threats. Nasser was another Hitler. Sukarno was another Hitler. Qaddafi, Khomeini, and of course Saddam Hussein have all been called the next Hitler. None of them are good people, but to put them into the same class as Hitler is absurd.

The Seminal: What about Chemical Weapons or Biological Weapons?

John Mueller: Chemical weapons are not really WMD. Despite the view of them, only 7/10 of 1% of World War One deaths were caused by chemical weapons. They are very unstable and unpredictable. Biological weapons, in most cases, are very difficult to work with and control. To think that some rogue groups will be able to successfully use them when developed countries still don't view them as viable weapons, is unrealistic.

The Seminal: Is there a sensible approach to controlling Nuclear Weapons and other threats?

John Mueller: We should definitely keep an eye on biological developments and scientific knowledge in those arenas. There should also be more on the ground policing of chemical plants and other sites of concern. We can use normal safety precautions to address them. You don't leave dynamite lying around, there is control over guns — that kind of thing.

I attended a talk/book signing by Senator Chuck Hagel today at the New America Foundation today, and as usual, found Hagel to be thoughtful and engaging. Yes he is a Republican and yes, he did originally vote for the authorization for the Iraq invasion, but he is now trying to figure out the best way for the U.S. to both leave Iraq and improve its standing in the world. He admits that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities over the past 5 or 6 years, and he believes one of the biggest consequences of the actions of both Congress and the Administration is that Americans do not trust their government anymore.

When asked his advice for the next President, he first said that if the new President does not start unwinding our involvement in Iraq, then he or she will not be able to govern over the next four years. There has been a consensus among the country that getting into Iraq was the wrong move, and a majority want the U.S. out. If that isn't at least on the way to being resolved, then the next President will not be able to get anything else done. Hagel continued that there are three other things the next President needs to do:

1. Form a bipartisan cabinet — It is necessary for the next president to bring the country together and having a bipartisan cabinet of qualified people would be a good start. (And no, he didn't offer himself as a potential Cabinet member — yet.)
2. Reach out to Congress in a bipartisan manner– The next President will want Congress to have a stake in whatever policies need to be implemented. The president should hold 2-3 forums around the country with congressional members so that they are also connected with the public.
3. Reintroduce America to the World– Hagel noted that 40% of the world is aged 19 or under. This means that the U.S. they know is the country of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, not the one of the Marshall Plan and Berlin Airlift of the post- World War Two generation. Polls show that the views of the United States is much more negative than it has been in the past. The next President should , in his or her first 6 months or so, go on 2 or 3 foreign trips, enhance alliances, create coalitions, and try to rebuild what has been lost of America's international reputation.

While I would get more specific, all three constitute good advice. While I am certainly left of Hagel and disagree with him especially on social issues, I do think that the Senate will be losing one of its better members when Hagel leaves office after this year. When he signed my copy of his book, I told him that no matter who is elected, I hoped that he would be part of the next Administration in some form.

His book, by the way, is America: Our Next Chapter — Tough Questions, Straight Answers. I will write about it when I am done reading it.

A couple months ago I posted about how the EPA overruled its own experts and denied California's plan to address greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Well this pattern of using politics, rather than science, to create rules and justify actions by the EPA has infected the agency to a dangerous degree, according to a new report. The Union of Concerned Scientists, concerned about how the EPA's decisions "have too often led to the suppression and the distortion of the scientific findings underlying those decisions," took on the task of investigating the treatment of EPA scientists and how their work was used. After a comprehensive survey of over 1500 EPA scientists, UCS found that 60% of the had encountered at least one instance of political interference in the previous five years. Of the scientists who had been with the EPA for at least 10 years, 43% say that the interference has gotten worse in the last half decade.

The report on the investigation, which was released last week, shows a chilling pattern of scientists' conclusions and recommendations being edited improperly, being misrepresented by EPA officials, and being changed to weaken or transform the results. The pattern of the Bush EPA was to politicize the agency rather than allow it to perform its intended functions. Other examples of the extent of this interference include:

18 percent of scientists had "personally experienced frequent or occasional edits… that change the meaning of scientific findings"

22 percent had "personally experienced frequent or occasional selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome."

42 percent knew of "many or some cases in which commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of EPA scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention"

43 percent knew of "many or some cases in which EPA political appointees were inappropriately involved in scientific decisions

31 percent personally experienced "frequent or occasional statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists' findings.

The UCS went further to illustrate its survey's findings with actual examples of political interference. The report is ripe with a number of instances in which the White House, OMB or EPA political appointees tried to influence or override the science involved in the EPA's work.

The [Office of Management and Budget] OMB has recently stepped beyond its role in reviewing the EPA's policies to review and manage the actual science underlying them…

In 2007 OMB analysts manipulated scientific knowledge about mortality arising from exposure to ground level ozone… The OMB has also interfered in the scientific basis for EPA policies on a rule regulating formaldehyde pollution from plywood plants… and a 2006 decision not to tighten the ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter…