This article present science as though it reveals values, which it does not.  So yes, I have an issue with Bush and co.’s dishonest regarding science as well, but paragraphs like the following show really big problems:

During the Bush years, Congressional Democrats and scientists themselves issued report after report asserting that the White House had distorted or suppressed scientific information: including efforts to strip information about condoms from a government Web site and the editing of air quality reports issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, maintains an “A to Z” list on its Web site of “case studies” in what it calls the politicization of science under Mr. Bush, like his decision to devote federal money to programs promoting abstinence education despite studies showing that such programs have limited effectiveness.

Look: I don’t like abstinence-only education either.  But let’s be clear: effectiveness is not the only metric for whether or not something should be done, and while scientific evidence can determine effectiveness, it cannot determine morality.  So if you have significant moral problems with an action, then whether or not its effective, it doesn’t matter.  This means that it was wrong for Bush to lie (if he did) that abstinence-only education was more effective than encouraging birth control; it doesn’t mean, though, that it’s necessarily right or wrong to advocate either.