From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 3 Mar 2005 07:24:40 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Plan B |
Best to have a Plan B if bases close By BILL VIRGIN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST March 3, 2005 The military installations in our state are essential for national defense and homeland security. We are not thinking of our own interests, of course, or the considerable economic contributions those bases make, but the greater good of the republic, the safety of our citizens and protection of our interests abroad. Or so say we. And so say the other 49 states, each with equally vital military facilities. The Base Realignment and Closure Commission begins its work later this year on recommendations to the president and Congress, but already the lobbying has started from Washington, and presumably from every other state. ... But the closure process promises to raise some interesting questions both nationally and around here: * Will these decisions really be made on the criteria of national security, or on the basis of which assemblage of congresspeople yelp the loudest and most effectively? * What if the commission and the president and Congress do not agree with this state's lofty opinion of the importance of those bases? Does the state have a Plan B? ... For the entire column, see http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/214273_virgin03.html -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/961-8918 <lsiegel@cpeo.org> http://www.cpeo.org _______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] "U.S. seeking looser environmental laws" Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Soviet nuke site | |
Prev by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] "U.S. seeking looser environmental laws" Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Soviet nuke site |