Dawkins writes:

Look for the Bush administration's strategy in its attacks on its critics and its attempts to defend itself against criticism: everything is taken (and given) personally, never substantively.

We all know quite well by now how honorable and decent and humble a man George W. Bush is. (How do we know this? Because he's an honorable and decent and humble man, that's why.)

Any criticism of his policies is a personal attack on him because how could an honorable and decent and humble man create policies that merited attack? The answer is that such a man couldn't have done so, so why are you engaging in gutter politics and attacking him personally?

Did you try to suggest that President Bush did not serve his country honorably in the National Guard? Do you not realize that this President is an honorable and decent and humble man? Are you trying to subvert fact and say he did something that was not honorable and decent and humble?

Also, why are you trying to impugn the integrity of the National Guard, and collectively, the integrity of all the honorable and decent and humble men and women who serve in the National Guard? Why do you attack them personally?

Today's New York Times features a story in which "more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statementÂ… asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad."

In short, many of the nation's leading scientists criticize the policy practices of the Bush administration.

So how does "Dr." John H. Marburger III, "science adviser" to President Bush and director of the "Office of Science and Technology 'Policy'" at the White House cast the issue?

What's at stake is the personal pique felt by a handful of prideful prima donna eggheads:

"I think there are incidents where people have got their feathers ruffled," Dr. Marburger said. "But I don't think they add up to a big pattern of disrespect."

Scientists accuse the administration of distorting fact and subverting sound science.

But really, say the Bushies, these guys have a personal axe to grind, because, of course, scientists only point out discrepancies in fact and method when they've been personally disrespected!

And, of course, it's also political. Personal and political: the only motivations that ever exist for criticizing this administration.

Says, "Dr." D. Allan Bromley, the "science adviser" to Mr. Bush's father: "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically motivated statement," said "Dr." Bromley, a physicist at Yale. "The statements that are there are broad sweeping generalizations for which there is very little detailed backup."

The Bushies hate it when you criticize their policies (in their minds, when you launch attacks against the integrity of a certain honorable and decent and humble President).

So you think in the general election they'll play the same game and refrain from launching personal attacks against a certain French-looking, pussy-whipped, unpatriotic presumptive Democratic nominee?