White House picks what info it likes

To the editor:

If you visit a physician for a suspected medical condition, would you prefer a diagnosis based on the evidence or on what the physician believes or thinks you deserve? I prefer diagnosis based on the best available medical wisdom.

Likewise, politicians should first accept the scientific evidence and then make informed political decisions. If they reject the science, the political decisions cannot possibly be reasonable. However, in the Bush-Cheney White House and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress, the prevailing mentality is reflected by the response of a White House staffer to Ron Suskind. Suskind was mocked because he believes "that solutions emerge from the judicious study of discernible reality." He was told, "That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now. ... We create our own reality."

Thus the White House picked and publicized intelligence it liked, rejecting what it didn't like, when deciding to invade Iraq. Experts, for example, said aluminum tubes were not for a nuclear program. The White House rejected the analysis.

Now a study estimating that the number of Iraqi deaths following the Bush-Cheney invasion is over half a million is described by Bush and his Republican allies as "not credible." The problem is simple: It contains research-based data they just don't like.

The same happens with all manner of critical issues. These Republicans decide they don't like the conclusions, so they reject, ignore or suppress the research. It's time we returned to "the judicious study of discernible reality."

JUDY CURETON, Cape Girardeau