The last post is interesting butI think will be pilloried on the one hand by those whose interst it is not to be disturbed and on the other those who think the issue real but more complex than is implied. As someone said Power corrupts but failed also to note that the human mind seeks leaders to follow and any critical assessment is left to Academia, cited by few. Not I hasten to add that academia is neccesarily correct merely that their brief is to be informed and even handed along ethical lines, Whose ethics when Hitler's became well accepted?
Individual members yes but the practicality of their election, funding etc would need thinking about. Again power corrupts so re-election might distort any ethical prediliction. Fixed terms, maybe, a pragamtic acceptance of what the facts imply? Maybe.
But the politicians would need to inform the electorate of, for example the collusion and mileading made clear by Rycroft's letter, Sunday Times (london) May 1 2005, record of U K cabinet May 23 2002.
But the policians were not interested were not told did not hear or were elswhere at the time. Correct that by individaul members? I doubt it. The issue to seek American security was paramount justifying foresaking of the electors.