Well, now.
It's pretty obvious that you have no issues with those statements or the behavior behind them.
For if you did, you'd never espouse *DOING* something you despise.
I see you're applying a bit of logic as well as a dose of ethics to the situation, neither or which have any place within the confines of the EPA. It's a sad state of affairs I'll admit, but when the other side is playing dirty pool it makes no sense whatsoever to stick to Marquess of Queensberry rules.
Remember, this is an agency so corrupt they operate largely in secret. Even when directed by Congress to make public their secrets they flip Congress the bird and tell them to pound sand. And when someone sues the EPA and wins, the agency responds by ignoring the court order making a mockery of our justice system. The EPA is so corrupt they ignore Congress and feel they are above the law.
Now if Congress had a backbone they would cut funding to the EPA until they begin to operate like a respectable agency and make their methods transparent. But if pigs could fly bacon would be air mailed to my front door.
Which brings us back to the main dilemma. It is the same one that is getting ready to be played out before us not just with the EPA, but with the IRS, Homeland Security and several other agencies as well.
What do you do with an agency that is too broken to fix?
Well, we know what doesn't work. We have decades of evidence showing us exactly what not to do. That leaves us with an ugly alternative, one that I definitely do despise. But reality is what it is and often times it just ain't pretty when you go to war with the big boys. As Churchill stated, "When you have to kill a man it requires no additional effort to be polite about it."
So you cut them off at the knees, and if you're tricky about it you make it look like their fault.
