Bush adviser’s comments on 9/11 and liberals
Impugning the patriotism of those who don’t agree with the Bush administration, the president’s “brain,” Karl Rove, alleged – erroneously, I might add – that conservatives got ready for war after the Sept. 11 attacks while the liberals (read: Democrats) wanted to offer therapy and understanding for those who attacked us.
I’m a liberal. Most of my friends are liberal. And no one who I know suggested anything other than a hard, aggressive and violent reaction to the attack. Everyone – Democrats, conservatives, Republicans and liberals – supported our action in Afghanistan. The entire nation was united in its response to the awful attack. But what Rove does – and he is a master at this – is to take one flaming liberal, Michael Moore, and paint Moore’s beliefs on all our faces.
Reality is not much of a factor in Rove’s GOP propaganda machine. He is a master at these divisive miscommunication techniques. But his recent comments simply go too far. The administration should represent all Americans, not just the Republicans.
Richard J. Schneider, Denver
…
Karl Rove has been criticized for politicizing Sept. 11 in a swipe against Democrats, perhaps in order to counter the president’s current low standing in the polls. Still, there was some truth in Rove’s statement. Conservatives, he said, “saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war.” Rove simply left out that the preparations included the subversion of intelligence reports, the suppression of contrary opinions within the State Department, and deceitful lies to Congress and the American public.
Steve Replogle, Denver
—————————————-
Re: “Minus city’s help, public access has to pay its own way,” June 21 Dick Kreck column.
It is not up to Dick Kreck, nor the Denver City Council, to decide what programs are appropriate on Denver Community Television (DCTV). It is for the public to decide, produce and present.
Kreck, whose career rests on a free and independent press, ought to be standing up for more free speech, not less. Kreck’s clichéd characterization does not reflect the reality of hundreds of public, educational and government cable TV channels that are utilized by and for millions of people across America.
And the City Council can better serve the public interest by ensuring that there is adequate funding for at least one public access TV channel through cable TV franchise fees (which are not tax dollars). Even if that means that the government channel must do with less.
To hold DCTV accountable for its fiscal management or organizational stability is appropriate, yet to cut off its primary funding stream is dishonorable and disastrous.
But to criticize the content of programs produced by American citizens as the reason to cut off funding to DCTV is fundamentally un-American, and trashes the principles upon which our democracy was founded.
As both a former employee of Denver’s Channel 8, and as a volunteer in Denver public access TV in the 1980s, I urge the City Council to restore funding to DCTV.
Jeffrey Hansell, Malden, Mass.
The writer is executive director of Malden Access TV in Malden, Mass.
—————————————-
Should the government subsidize Amtrak?
Re: “Rail service threatened again,” June 27 editorial.
Thank you for your editorial in support of Amtrak funding, which is currently being threatened by Congress and the Bush administration. Amtrak currently operates two daily trains through Colorado, which would end if the passenger railroad is not provided enough funding.
Any plans for passenger rail along Colorado’s Front Range that are currently under discussion would also be in serious trouble with the elimination of Amtrak. Amtrak is not only a potential source of funding for the service but also has the statutory authority to operate trains on existing freight railroad lines. A dozen other states utilize Amtrak’s assistance in providing intra-state rail corridor services, which could be applied to a Front Range rail service; however, this source of support to connect Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver and Greeley/Fort Collins by rail would dry up if Congress does not provide sufficient funding for Amtrak.
At a time when Amtrak ridership is rising, gas prices and congestion are increasing, and citizens are losing travel options, particularly in rural America, we cannot afford to become the only industrialized nation in the world without a passenger rail system.
Jon Esty, President, Colorado Rail Passenger Association, Denver
…
Your editorial regarding Amtrak misses the point. The business model is incredibly flawed. The organization simply cannot make money, so the model has to be changed. Continuing to subsidize a failed business model is akin to enabling an alcoholic with more booze. In addition, the experience of riding the train is horrific. It costs almost as much as a plane ride, the cars are very old and in poor condition, the meals are substandard and the snacks/beverages are prohibitively expensive.
I took two trips over the last two years (one from Denver to Oakland and the other from Denver to Chicago) out of curiosity and for the sake of adventure. Both trains were more than 10 hours late to their destinations. Sometimes we sat and waited for hours. Trust me, the novelty of this experience wears off very quickly. Why would anyone want to take a mode of transportation that takes longer than a Greyhound, is uncomfortable, and costs way more than air travel when you consider all the food and beverages?
Until the leaders at Amtrak get their house in order, the government should refuse to subsidize this useless service any further. If you disagree with me, I invite you to take a trip of your own. You’ll see!
Darrin Duber-Smith, Nederland
—————————————-
Social Security reform
Re: “New Social Security plan has old faults,” June 27 editorial.
There’s a fact missing in most of the discussions over Social Security “reform.” It must be remembered that those who work support those who don’t, regardless of the sources of the non-workers’ incomes. The exception would be if there were a big warehouse full of $1,000 bills. The money goes in and the money goes out. Putting the money in U.S. government bonds or Chinese money market funds doesn’t create money; it still has to be paid back out of current taxes down the road.
Frederick C. Sage, Boulder
—————————————-
Progress in Iraq?
Re: “Iraq litmus test: Has the invasion made the U.S. safer?” June 27 Jim Spencer column.
When asked about the current state in Iraq, the optimistic Republican Congressman Joel Hefley is quoted as saying, “There are no more killing fields. Hospitals operate. The electrical grid is almost complete.” Wait just a minute. The entire country is now a killing field, for U.S. servicemen and women as well as Iraqis. Hospitals operated before the war, as did the electrical grid. I think Hefley needs a new yardstick. I agree that the only question worth asking is whether the war has enhanced or diminished our nation’s overall security. Well, Mr. Hefley? Has it?
Cody Harris, Palo Alto, Calif.
—————————————-
Public’s “need to know”
Re: “War game reveals ‘realistic’ dangers from energy crisis,” June 24 news story.
In the last few months, we have had published a classified briefing that indicates U.S. troop strength is stretched thin by worldwide commitments. Now we have a war game report that the U.S. economy could be ruined by a “catastrophic disruption of oil markets.”
Is there anything else we should tell our enemies, just in case they have a question about how to attack us? Classified information is so designated because its acquisition by an enemy damages our security. In spite of the public’s “right to know,” there is also a “need to know.”
I do not need to know every detail of our national defense situation; neither do our terrorist enemies. Individuals who leak these stories to the press should be prosecuted and severely punished. These stories should not be published. Our enemies can read.
Roger Edward Mission, Denver
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
