The article Nigel links to addresses your "everyone does it" argument. They go out of their way to state that the Bush administration's actions (and because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity) are unprecedented. The article and the website linked to states...

Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.

I'm sure there is an "everyone does it" aspect, but we do have a clear winner.

>>>Suppressing EPA scientists by the Bush admin is partly a crock. Under Clinton,...
>>
>>"Partly a crock" sounds like "kinda pregnant". And does the "but but Clinton...." retort really address the Bush admin's scientific suppression?
>
>"Partly" meaning this happens under both (all) political affiliations, not just this one. I also know of what I speak since I sat in on these (EPA) internal dog-and-pony shows 12 or so years ago where "specific" questions were asked, information was presented, etc.
>
>So tell me, who decides whose scientific integrity we should be trusting? I have reason to trust neither side. Conflict-of-interest just means to me that your reasoning versus someone else's reasoning is a conflict-of-YOUR-interest or a conflict-of-SOMEONE-ELSE's-interest.