Although it is still unclear exactly what the many motivations behind the Bush administration-led invasion of Iraq were, one of the most touted justifications for that war was that the United States attacked the sovereign country in order to overthrow a dictator and spread democracy in the Middle East.

Yet as the future of Iraq remains tumultuous and unclear, a recent wave of mostly nonviolent homegrown revolts — being dubbed the “Jasmine Revolution” in reference to a blooming flower — in Egypt and Tunisia that overthrew longtime dictators within a matter of weeks are offering an alternative model of democracy promotion.

Veteran Reuters Middle East correspondent Samia Nakhoul, who has been covering the Middle East since 1986 and reported from post-war Iraq and Egypt during the recent revolution, notes this in a special piece for Reuters today. She observes that the toppling of Saddam Hussein by a foreign army that gave way to an occupation, and later a civil war, “failed to ignite the sense of national triumph among Iraqis,” a stark contrast from the Egyptians who were “dancing in the streets after 18 days of popular protests” that overthrew Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak:

Iraq, and the Arab world, was shocked, and awed. But the fall of Saddam, at a cost of thousands of lives — and a foreboding of so much more blood to come — failed to ignite the sense of national triumph among Iraqis that has had Egyptians dancing in the streets after 18 days of popular protests. [...] Many Iraqis had little to be jubilant about. They inherited a broken country, a society that was about to fracture, causing tens of thousands more deaths. [...]

“I am Egyptian, I have toppled Hosni,” people chanted on streets, drunk on the heady scent of a free nation. So very unlike Iraq eight years ago and, surely, a better starting point for an uncertain future.

Indeed, over the weekend and continuing through today, thousands of people have taken to the streets in Yemen, Algeria, Iran, Bahrain, and other countries in the Middle East. It appears that the people of the region are proving the adage comedian and activist Dick Gregory used to tell. “When you’ve got something really good, you don’t have to force it on people,” he said. “They will steal it!”

On Friday, House Republicans put forth a “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the government past March 4th that was filled with spending cuts. While this came as no surprise, one focus of the cuts is causing some heads to turn. House Republicans are choosing to significantly cut the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nonproliferation programs, the sole purpose of which is to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on loose nuclear weapons and materials. While Republicans have talked about the need to inflict pain in their budget, doing so in a way that increases the risk of the nuclear annihilation of an American city is perhaps taking the pledge too far.

House Republicans have proposed to cut funding for these programs by 22 percent or $647 million. Michelle Marchesano of the Partnership for Global Security warns:

The US programs charged with securing fissile materials and thwarting terrorists’ efforts to acquire them are among the victims of this year’s federal budget fights. … Without appropriated budgets commensurate to program agendas, efforts to improve global nuclear material security will stall.

The danger of a terrorist acquiring nuclear materials is very real. A softball-sized amount of highly enriched uranium can demolish an entire city. Yet in many countries, nuclear materials remain highly insecure, leaving them susceptible to theft. For years nuclear materials have floated on the black market and it is known that Al Qaeda has sought to purchase them.

But this danger is entirely preventable. It merely requires effort and a little money. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the US set up these programs to reduce the threat by locking down and eliminating insecure nuclear materials. Nonproliferation programs in the past have had significant bipartisan support and are the lasting legacy of Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The amount of funding required for these programs is also a drop in the bucket when compared to the current cost of the wars in Afghanistan and the total Pentagon budget.

Last year, then-RNC chairman Michael Steele caused a mini civil war within the Republican Party when he criticized President Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and suggested that the United States should not be at war in that country. Leading conservatives denounced Steele’s criticism of the war, quickly silencing him.

Now, yet another Republican who criticized the war is facing the possibility of being excommunicated from the conservative movement for his dovish views. On Saturday, Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), one of the handful of congressional Republicans who voted against going to war in Iraq and a major opponent of the war in Afghanistan, would be kicked off its National Advisory Board over his dovish views.

YAF condemned Paul’s “delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement” and said that he was even more “out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration.” The group even went as far as to say that his “refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason“:

The conservative group Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) announced Saturday that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) would be expelled from the group’s National Advisory Board because of his “delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.” “It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks said in a statement.

“Rep. Paul’s refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks continued.

It’s curious that YAF compares Paul’s opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to treason. The latest Gallup poll on the issue finds that 61 percent of Republicans want to see a speedier withdrawal of American combat troops from the Afghanistan. Between the attacks on Steele and the purging of Paul, it appears that right-wing powerbrokers are willing to attack any conservative over their increasingly minority views on war and foreign policy.

On Friday, House Republicans put forth a “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the government past March 4th that was filled with spending cuts. While this came as no surprise, one focus of the cuts is causing some heads to turn. House Republicans are choosing to significantly cut the National Nuclear Security Administration’s nonproliferation programs, the sole purpose of which is to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on loose nuclear weapons and materials. While Republicans have talked about the need to inflict pain in their budget, doing so in a way that increases the risk of the nuclear annihilation of an American city is perhaps taking the pledge too far.

House Republicans have proposed to cut funding for these programs by 22 percent or $647 million. Michelle Marchesano of the Partnership for Global Security warns:

The US programs charged with securing fissile materials and thwarting terrorists’ efforts to acquire them are among the victims of this year’s federal budget fights… Without appropriated budgets commensurate to program agendas, efforts to improve global nuclear material security will stall.

The danger of a terrorist acquiring nuclear materials is very real. A softball-sized amount of highly enriched uranium can demolish an entire city. Yet in many countries, nuclear materials remain highly insecure, leaving them susceptible to theft. For years nuclear materials have floated on the black market and it is known that Al Qaeda has sought to purchase them.

But this danger is entirely preventable. It merely requires effort and a little money. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the US set up programs to reduce the threat by locking down and eliminating insecure nuclear materials. To bring attention to the danger, President Obama convened a Nuclear Security Summit last April – the largest gathering of heads of state in the US since the founding of the United Nations. At the summit, Obama set the goal of securing all nuclear materials within four years. This goal is ambitious, but achievable. Unfortunately, however the programs necessary to achieve this goal haven’t received sufficient funding from congress.

These programs in the past have had significant bipartisan support and are the lasting legacy of Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The amount of funding required for these programs is also a drop in the bucket when compared to the current cost of the wars in Afghanistan and the total Pentagon budget. Last year Harvard’s Graham Allison wrote, “The good news is that this ultimate catastrophe is preventable. … [C]itizens must press their elected officials to adopt a clear agenda for action and then hold them accountable for following through.”

Last year, when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed off on a stringent immigration law — SB-1070 — medical organizations and health care providers came out against it, citing the likelihood that it will discourage a large segment of the population from seeking health care. One doctor, Lucas Restrepo, M.D., even wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that health care providers who treat undocumented immigrants could be considered criminals due to a provision in the law that makes it illegal to “conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor or shield” a person who is undocumented.

SB-1070 may have that effect, but it wasn’t directed at health care providers. A new law that will be considered today is. The Arizona state Senate Judiciary Committee will be holding a public hearing on SB-1405, a bill that would require hospitals to check patients’ immigration status. More specifically, SB-1405 would require hospitals to conduct an immigration status check before admitting a patient for non-emergency care. If the person is in the country illegally, hospitals will be forced to report the patient to federal authorities. If a hospital chooses not to follow these requirements, it could be sued. The bill states:

A. Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States, or lawfully present in the United States. The admissions officer may use any method prescribed in Section 1-501 to verify citizenship or legal status.
B. If the admissions officer determines that the person does not meet the requirements of Subsection A of this section, the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.
C. If the hospital provides emergency medical care pursuant to federal requirements to a person who does not meet the requirements of Subsection A of this section, on successful treatment of the patient the admissions officer must contact the local federal immigration office.
D. A hospital that complies with the requirements of this section is not subject to civil liability.

In his piece on SB-1070, Restrepo wrote, “Asking patients to produce immigration documents violates the trust that physicians, nurses, and other health care workers endeavor to earn from them.” He concluded that “This bill [SB-1070] threatens one of the oldest traditions of medicine: physicians shall protect patients regardless of nationality or race. This legislation, if unchallenged, will force health care providers to choose between the dignity of their profession and the indignity of violating the law.” Wonk Room previously reported that Dr. Winston Wong — Medical Director of community benefit at Kaiser Permanente — has gone as far as to argue that doctors have a professional obligation to oppose any measure that endangers the care of their patients and the public’s general health, including SB-1070.

Meanwhile, other health care providers have pointed out the practical problems associated with mixing immigration enforcement with medical care. According to experts, discouraging or denying treatment of undocumented immigrants could put everyone at risk and lead to a health crisis that affects large populations.