When even his Republican cronies began to show doubt, President George W. Bush knew he had to do something. In the wake of allegations that the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was greatly overstated, Bush announced his support yesterday for the creation of an independent body to investigate the intelligence effort that formed the backbone of his justification for the Iraq war.
On the surface, this seems to be a wise idea, and it is good that Bush finally will allow some questioning of a military operation that has produced no tangible results other than the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The truth is that whatever this independent council discovers will likely have no bearing on the current administration. Similar investigations, such as the one after Sept. 11, indicted several aspects of the United States' previous anti-terror apparatus, but was under-reported and had few consequences for those at fault. This investigation would likely have the same effect, or lack thereof.
The salient reasoning for the investigation would be to see if critics, notably Democrats, were justified in condemning the reasoning for the war. But, with less than a year to produce results, the outcome would have zero impact on the upcoming presidential election. Whatever negative findings emerged would occur after the re-election or defeat of President Bush, leaving either no one to answer for them or allowing them to be brushed under the rug. The Bush Administration could spin the results as either justification for Iraq, or as the failings of an intelligence system needing an overhaul, perhaps even providing reasons for Bush to force expansion of the controversial Patriot Act.
It is very difficult not to cast a cynical eye to this potential investigation. While necessary to understand the true reasoning behind the invasion, the inquiry will not provide any excuse to get out of Iraq after the fact. It will serve little purpose in assessing blame and, more importantly, will not allow the government or the public to punish those responsible.
The term naturopathic healer seems to harken back to a day when ailments were treated with some incomprehensible concoction of assorted ferns and stems. But, with almost half of America's patients looking into non-traditional methods to cure their ailments or assist them in creating an improved lifestyle, naturopathic physicians and their advice both are in vogue. They should not, however, be certified as primary-care physicians.
Naturopaths are gaining some support for a bill pending in the Ohio House that would create a licensing board for their profession. Thirteen states on both coasts recognize naturopaths as general-care practitioners. Naturopaths essentially believe in mainly prescription-less treatments, opting instead for herbal remedies along with screening for physical problems that could be the cause of medical problems. Currently, some operate as consultants to licensed doctors and can offer suggestions but not formally prescribe treatments.
The major problem with the state medical board sanctioning naturopaths is that it would give credence to a field that many trained medical professionals say is without merit. The American Medical Association gives the same credence to naturopaths as it affords to faith healers. Additionally, many of the herbal supplements that are so popular today, such as gingko, are widely used but essentially untested for potential medical dangers. Until the Food and Drug Administration can confirm the effectiveness of many recommended herbal treatments, allowing wannabe doctors to practice medicine based on incomplete knowledge is not a viable alternative to the tried and true methodology of current medical professionals.
It is not as if naturopathy has no place in the current medical community. Osteopathic medicine, which is taught at about 20 universities across the country, including Ohio University, combines some elements of the science of medicine with less conventional techniques to create a more complete view of the human body and its functioning. While some naturopathic defenders like to paint a portrait of a big, bad uncaring medical establishment that has no place for anything but antibiotics, the truth is that osteopathic medicine seems to have a place for the consideration of the alternative therapies that are so widely demanded.
17 Archives
