thank you Kevin for articulating the big picture in a way I could not. Dana
On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:59:53 -0500, Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take great objection to that. I do not in any way agree with any > attitude of "what's done is done, let's just move on" because it gives > tacit approval for the next time something comes up like this for them > to do the same. It will become an operating principle that there is no > need for prior justification nor review for censure of any action of the > President or Prime Minister, as if that's not the case already. > > I WANT this to cost our governments. If there is anything we as citizens > can do to prevent an abuse of power it is to make the costs of > committing that abuse too high to even consider. The costs of conducting > the war took away from our own domestic budgets for programs and > services which benefitted our own people. If the war was so damned > important to spend money on, I have no qualms in spending a little more > to make sure of that. It just goes towards the costs of the war. > > So what about the poor people of Iraq? It's a red-herring argument. Our > government here is structured such that all these people that are > investigating the intelligence and such are not people who would be > helping in the reconstruction anyway. The people that are rebuilding are > still going to be doing that, despite whether there is an investigation > or not. The people doing the investigation will either be chewing this > bone or another, and will be pulling a paycheck regardless. I personally > think this is a big enough bone that it really needs to be chewed on > with great and furious deliberation. Even if the outcome is that the > intelligence completely justified the actions, then it will restore > confidence in the intelligence community and the decision makers who > used that intelligence. If it doesn't justify it, then I think there > needs to be extreme censure of the people involved to send a message > that we won't be lied to and manipulated. > > -Kevin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Philip Arnold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, >> June 10, 2003 10:16 AM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: RE: Tony Blair, Internet surfer >> >> >> > TONY Blair's first dossier on the justification for war against Iraq > >> was almost entirely put together from information freely available on > >> the internet, Scotland on Sunday can reveal. >> > >> > The crucial document purported to contain 55 pages of high-grade > >> intelligence on the threat posed by Saddam, but was in fact largely > >> based on unclassified CIA documents, Pentagon press releases and the > >> published reports of American think-tanks. >> > >> > Scotland on Sunday understands the Prime Minister may have been > >> 'palmed off' with the old and publicly-available information by MI6 > >> officers desperate to protect the sources of their latest > >> intelligence. >> > >> > The revelation is hugely embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who is > >> fighting a rearguard action against critics of his case for supporting > >> President George Bush's invasion of Iraq. >> >> Here's something Tony and George should do... >> >> Stand up in front of their respective governments and say: >> "The war is over, whether we went in with or without the proper >> knowledge, it's happened - either we sit here and discuss it and spend >> millions on trying to find out if it was right or not, or we use that >> time and money to HELP the people of Iraq and ourselves" >> >> See how many people object to that <g> >> >> >> >> >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
