The Boston Globe's Derrick Z. Jackson laments all the bad things President Bush has done to the environment. In particular, he was not happy with the Interior's actions on the polar bear:
In a further attack on the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proudly announced he would protect polar bears, but decoupled the protection from the problem – the greenhouse gas melting of arctic ice. In perfect Bushspeak, Kempthorne said, "We do not believe the science is there to make the causal link."
What is "Bushspeak"? Who knows — but if Jackson is attempting to imply that there is no basis for Kempthorne's statement, he is mistaken.
There is a familiar pattern in how Jackson and the rest of the media attack any environmental policy decision President Bush has made, especially the Section 7 regulations. They disagree with his actions, but rather than take the high road and make a coherent argument as to why his policies are the wrong ones, they take advantage of his low popularity and label environmental decisions as "Bushspeak" and "chicanery."
Writers like Jackson do a disservice to the public (and to journalism) when they cannot explain their disagreement with a statement other than to say "it came from the Bush administration." One can expect that from many people, but we thought journalists were held to higher standards.