Suppressing Inconvenient Facts

Does every administration do this stuff? I'm not old enough to remember actual politics before Clinton and I didn't really pay much attention even then. It seems that the Bush Administration suppresses an inconvenient study about every other week.

The Labor Department's condemnation drew a quick rebuke from Senator Byron L. Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. "The reports describe labor conditions that would be harmful, not helpful, for passage of Cafta," he said, referring to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. "So they decided to deep-six it."

Say what you will about trade agreements, myself I'm not prepared to say they're a bad thing, even in places with horrible conditions. But for God's sake let people read what's out there and make up their own minds. Either a) you're confident that you're right and any information out there is simply going to back you up, b) you're unsure of yourself to such an extent that you're afraid a poorly timed report will sink your proposal, or, and this is the one that strikes me as the most plausible in Bush's case, c) you don't care whether you're right or wrong, you've got buddies that stand to make a lot of money on this and you'll do anything it takes to make sure it goes through.