I've read RT's veto promise and the predominantly negative reactions it elicited here. After a couple of days of mulling things over, I think that the Mayor's done the right thing, and deserves to hear at least one note of support for an unpopular action.
Be clear: I completely deplore the cynical way in which Bush is exploiting the calamities of 9/11/2001 to justify starting an unrelated war in Iraq that is needless so far as real evidence has yet shown. But I ask myself: what would I think if the Soil & Water Conservation Commissioners, say, debated and passed an war resolution, or a flag resolution, or treatise on the nobility of the human spirit, or a condemnation of the Electoral College? Whether I agreed with its content or not, I'd surely feel that it was an inappropriate use of their time, and an arrogant misappropriation of their proper mandate. A war resolution would be no more appropriate at the City Council. None of these people were elected to represent me in general matters of international policy. I want them to retain focus on their specific local responsibilities. (Where those might overlap with international policy, as they did in the days of apartheid South Africa investment divestiture, then action is appropriate.) Tough call, but RT's right on this one. -- Peter Klausler, Linden Hills, Minneapolis, Minnesota ',.PY FGCRL Principal Engineer, Cray Inc. AOEUI DHTNS pmk@visi,com, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.visi.com/~pmk ;QJKX BMWVZ _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
