"...By letting Congress take the lead and fashion a bill..."

Congress didn't fashion this bill either, but a mostly anonymous committee.

Only fundamentally dishonest and ruthless people would present something so long and complicated and push to have it passed before any of the congress could read it, and with no public discussion.

Only fundamentally dishonest and ruthless people would present something so long and complicated and push to have it passed before any of the congress could read it, and with no public discussion.

Did the same principle apply when we got into the Iraq War?

It's a good thing the past Republican Congress never did any such thing, since there are and have never been any fundamentally dishonest and ruthless Republicans.

I'm not sure where this notion came from that the Iraq war lacked any "public discussion," other than that it remains a favorite talking point of liberals. The debate about the Iraq war went on for months. According to Wikipedia, Bush formally began making a case for invasion on Sept. 12, 2002. The actual invasion occurred March 20, 2003. I remember all sides arguing the issue ad nausem, and in the end, we went to war. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean it lacked serious public discussion.

In contrast, the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration have relied upon eleventh-hour disclosures of massive legislation followed by immediate votes. The stimulus bill and the House passage of cap-and-trade come to mind. The real victory of the derailing the Obama healthcare bill was the ability to slow down the process and allow a public discussion.

If spittle spewing rants from ignorant elders frightened of death panels and gun toting wingers ready to water the tree of liberty is you idea of "public discussion, well, there's been plenty of that.

Dantes -

I have never thought that the Bush-hating radical leftists who opposed the Iraq war were representative of everyone who opposed the war in general. It would be helpful if you did not conflate the small handful of people who brought guns to town halls with the tens of thousands of citizens who have appeared at town halls because they opposed the Democratic proposals.

Prorixum, I don't recall the Bush administration holding any town hall meetings to allow the public to discuss whether we should or should not go to war with Iraq. If they had I assure you there would have been dissent as least as loud as the current Republican disruptors. I can almost equally assure you that the protestors would not have been armed.

The post was in response to redmanrt, the OP, who lamented that there has been no public discussion allowed and Congress has not been allowed to read the new health care bill. I suspect he IS armed.

bsharporflat,

The town halls at issue are the Congressional town halls that are held all the time by members of congress to reach out to constituents. (The anti-Obamacare crowd has used them to confront their MCs and draw attention to the issue, but as most MCs will tell you, most of the time they are sparsely attended.)

Executive townhalls - Republican and Democratic alike - are very choreographed and are essentially just another platform for the president to share his message. It is not a feedback mechanism. Moreover, there is a major distinction between a town hall on a domestic issue (like health care) versus one on a military issue, not to mention the problem of information imbalance given that the President has access to national security information. I frankly can't see a town hall being the proper forum to "debate" those types of issues. I can't imagine Obama or any other president holding such a meeting.

"Did the same principle apply when we got into the Iraq War?"

Homey, you forgot that we waited a year after 9/11 to do that. Were you there?

prorixum:

I'm not sure where this notion came from that the Iraq war lacked any "public discussion," other than that it remains a favorite talking point of liberals. The debate about the Iraq war went on for months. According to Wikipedia, Bush formally began making a case for invasion on Sept. 12, 2002. The actual invasion occurred March 20, 2003. I remember all sides arguing the issue ad nausem, and in the end, we went to war. Just because you disagree with the decision doesn't mean it lacked serious public discussion.

In contrast, the Democratic Congress and the Obama administration have relied upon eleventh-hour disclosures of massive legislation followed by immediate votes. The stimulus bill and the House passage of cap-and-trade come to mind. The real victory of the derailing the Obama healthcare bill was the ability to slow down the process and allow a public discussion.

Actually, I'll agree with you on most of these points, except about the "debate" over the Iraq War. As I recall - and I was paying pretty close attention - the only debate I remember hearing was between neocons, arguing about how much of the Middle East needed preemptive war. I don't recall hearing much (or anything at all, for that matter) about how wrong it would be for our country to invade another country on flimsy (at best) evidence of WMD. There's pretty conclusive evidence showing that all of the major media outlets pretty much rolled over and gave over the airwaves to the war supporters, without any concern for balance.

Obama did promise to hold the health care debates on C-SPAN, and he's let down his supporters with his backroom shenanigans. But, it's not like the Republicans are free from any criticism - in fact, I'd say that any group that comes right out and says 'we don't care what's in the bill, even if it has everything we want, we're voting against it' doesn't deserve a seat at the negotiating table. And, that's been stated by a number of the key Republicans in the House and Senate.

The bottom line is this - Obama campaigned on health care reform, the vast majority of Americans want it, and he won the election quite decisively. The angle that Dickerson's article misses (no surprise here) is how the media gives equal weight (and coverage) to the "argument against" Obamacare, when that "argument against" is largely lies and misleading half-truths. The real question I've yet to see answered, is who is financing the "argument against?" Do you think the insurance companies might have a hand in there somewhere? And, shouldn't that be disclosed?

"I don't recall hearing much (or anything at all, for that matter) about how wrong it would be for our country to invade another country on flimsy (at best) evidence of WMD."

It's just possible that's because the "flimsy evidence of WMD" is a post-invasion construct of those who want to try to pretend that Iraq hadn't spent more than a decade in outright defiance of the world regarding compliance with the disarmament agreements it signed.

The Dems in Congress in 2001 had plenty of time to hold their own TH meetings, had they had the balls. They had plenty of time to use their political position to inform their constituents as to the level of creditable evidence that had been made available to them, or not, had they had the balls. In fact as a group, there were no balls in evidence, certainly not the level needed to slow the process and force the administration to put up or shut up.

In the end, they were too concerned about being called names and excessively concerned about reelection to risk some votes on such a “minor issue” as the lives of our sons and daughters.

As I recall several key Dems did not even read the intelligence estimates that were easily available to them, they did not dig in and question the “flimsy evidence” they now decry.

I believe that with damn few exceptions the Congress distinguished itself as a completely spineless group of self-interested, low level swine. The lives lost since then in Iraq lies heavily on their heads as well as the complete fools in the Administration who went to war as well prepared as any group of stooges has ever been.

Finally, lets’ not forget the Stars in the Pentagon who coveted their flags more than the truth and their true opinions as to the crap the Administration (mostly from the mouth of that so-called SecDef – Rumsfeld. Who in retrospect makes McNamara look brilliant) was shoveling out.

Sorry for the rant.

No need to apologize-- it was a splendid rant :)

It's just possible that's because the "flimsy evidence of WMD" is a post-invasion construct of those who want to try to pretend that Iraq hadn't spent more than a decade in outright defiance of the world regarding compliance with the disarmament agreements it signed.

Surely the outcry regarding the lack of WMD was a post-hoc argument. But it kinda makes sense, doesn't it? The world was told there were WMDs without a shadow of doubt. And you wonder about the outrage when the shadow of doubt slowly became a big black blot of wrongness and embarassment. I mean sure, outing Valerie Plame was the proper response to critics but still...

Interesting dodge in your choice of words...Iraq spent a decade in outright defiance of "the world"? By what governing body was "the world" represented? The United Nations? Ah, I see. The world's authority is channeled through the U.N. and Saddam Hussein defied it.

Soo..naturally that means the U.N. authorized the invasion of Iraq? No? Hm..what does that mean? The U.N. has authority over Iraq but not the USA or UK? Or perhaps it means the U.N. has authority over the world but the USA has even greater authority and can overide the U.N. whenever it wants? Or merely that the USA reserves the right to apply or ignore the U.N. resolutions based on its own self-interest, but other nations may not?

I am a bit confused on the chain of command for this "world". Could someone please enlighten me?

Name the duly-authorized international bodies charged with verifying Iraq's disarmament.

"I am a bit confused on the chain of command for this "world"."

You're confused about a lot of things.