A few days ago, I wrote a post thanking Former President George W. Bush for his unwavering support for doing what was right in our fight against terror. Commenter hdhouse objected on the grounds that he believed that we were misled into the war:
No one disagrees that Saddam was one of the worst of the lot and justice caught up with him. That we trumped up all the other hoopla to invade Iraq when if Mr. Bush had just said, “hey..I wanna get that guy so we are going in” then it would have been something for an up and down vote.
But what Mr. Bush did was borrow the family car to go to the library and instead went out drinking.
I responded that I believed that removing Saddam and his regime was not only a valid reason for the war, but that it was a valid reason given for the war at the time as well.
I guess we all have different memories of our impressions at any given time, but I distinctly remember having discussions w/ my husband about getting rid of Saddam and his regime being the main, and clearly justifying, reason that we should go in during the time leading up to the invasion. WMD was still being debated at that time, but we agreed that, even if there were no WMD, it was still the right thing to do (I recall comparing it to a bodybuilder witnessing an old lady being beaten- although not perhaps required, it would be morally correct to intervene, and a moral failing not to).So, in other words, I don’t feel that I was misled that that was the plan and the goal, in the way you seem to. But memories are faulty things, and we all read them in our own ways.
I also commented that it would be an interesting project to do a media survey of the time before the war in an effort to understand what the public was told were the reasons for going. Well, I can’t do that, exactly, but I can link to the Congressional Resolution on Iraq, which authorized the use of force. It’s too long and legislative to really excerpt, but it clearly shows a number of reasons that the U.S. decided to go to war, only a few of which involve weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, that was the law. What the media actually said about it may be another story all together.
Now that you’ve read it, I’d like to look harder at his proposed alternative, the Patient’s Choice Act. Here’s what Sen. Colburn’s people have to say:
“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.
“As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable and accessible. The American people deserve health care reform that will work, not another round of so-called reform that repeats the same failed policies of the past. Congress and the administration have the opportunity to pursue bold reform and a fresh start. The Patients’ Choice Act will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt and waiting lines,” Dr. Coburn said.
“The American health care system needs a complete transformation,” Senator Burr said. “The Patients’ Choice Act will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program. With a focus on prevention and wellness and covering those with pre-existing conditions, the Patients’ Choice Act will make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans.”
Pretty vague. I am impressed that he’s a doctor, though. As others have pointed out, there seem to be a dearth of doctors actually supporting the democratic plan(s).
The “brief summary” (which isn’t very) discusses disease prevention (including nutrition and vaccinations), creating health insurance options (such as one stop comparisons, congress benefits, restrictions on pre-existing limitations, state auto-enrollment, state pools), HSAs and tax incentives, and some Medicare and tort changes.
It’s worth looking into.