Bush’s address to nation on war on terror
Re: “Bush calls for patience; President defends Iraq war as central to terrorism fight,” June 29 news story.
In his speech Tuesday night, the president continued to justify our actions in Iraq as part of the war on terrorism. But isn’t the purpose of the war on terrorism to reduce the threat that terrorism poses to Americans? Can someone explain how invading Iraq has reduced that threat? There were no WMDs and there was no substantial link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The Downing Street Memo has now spelled out how the administration’s primary goal was always to remove Hussein, using supposed links to terrorism as an excuse to do so. Thanks to our president’s actions, a country that posed no threat to us is now a breeding ground for terrorists who are killing Americans on a regular basis. This is not progress, and the president needs to be held accountable.
John Spencer, Boulder
…
The president was in top form Tuesday night, as he spoke clearly to all of us as Americans. Many of us have forgotten what we felt shortly after Sept. 11, when we realized there were those in the world who really hated America and all Americans. We have forgotten, too, that the president promised us then the war would be long and difficult, and we would likely lose many lives before it was over. Less than four years later, many of us have lost our resolve as we watch our enemies fight bravely.
What if Americans had decided to throw in the towel on World War II when we had been at it less than four years? What if we had quit after we lost 2,000 soldiers – or 3,000, or 4,000? What would our world look like today?
The president is right. We must persevere. We must commit ourselves to continuing to fight until the Iraqis can survive and prosper on their own, even if that takes time. We must not give in to the defeatist “prophets” who claim we are losing. The president knew – and told us – it would be tough. Are we going to be sunshine patriots, backing out as soon as it starts to rain? Or will we stand strong for America, for democracy, and for what is right?
Deanna Marcy, Brighton
…
Approximately one-half of the way through his speech, and after two references to Sept. 11, President Bush began two consecutive sentences by saying, “To complete the mission … .”
Is there no depth to which this guy won’t sink? On May 1, 2003, Bush declared, before an audience of sailors, that major combat operations in Iraq were complete. He proclaimed victory while posing in front of a large “mission accomplished” banner.
Like a street hustler running a game of three-card monte, Bush thinks if he moves the cards fast enough we won’t notice.
Maybe it’s time for President Bush to be truthful with himself and admit that the best way to support the troops is to stop using them as props and start crafting a plan to bring them home.
Thom Cuttita, Denver
…
So this was to be the speech to explain and justify the war, and what do we get? Sept. 11 mentioned five times! But we now know that Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11. The president has even admitted it on occasion. Ah, but now we’re fighting “the terrorists” who have carved out a base of operations there. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that the president almost seems to relish.
The president said, “There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.” The flaw in his logic is that we are creating more terrorists than we are killing. The people we are supposedly defeating in Iraq – raiding their homes, killing their loved ones, pushing them around on a daily basis – will not forget, or forgive. If the next terrorist attack is launched by Iraqis, instead of Saudis, will anyone be surprised?
John Bright, Parker
…
I find it ironic that a president who avoided the Vietnam War feels so comfortable talking about the sacrifices and courage that a soldier going to war faces. We all support our troops and the sacrifices they are making, but Americans need to see a plan with benchmarks that assures us that this war is not a this-is-not-working-so- let’s-try-this plan instead.
This is a war resulting in the deaths of many young American soldiers as well as countless Iraqi citizens. It should be reported every day on the front page of every newspaper until the majority of Americans realizes this is a major issue for our country – and, hopefully, demands answers to how it will be resolved.
Gloria Gabossi, Golden
Denver Public Schools’ new superintendent
Re: “Mayor’s staff chief takes top job at DPS,” June 28 news story.
What was the Denver school board thinking when it hired Michael Bennet as superintendent? The other two candidates, Patricia Harvey and Christine Johnson, were both far more qualified than Bennet. Not only does he not have an education background, he never attended public schools. Disdain for public education is hardly the attitude that we need to improve our schools. It makes you wonder what else went on during the decision-making process, since on the surface it makes no sense at all. I have never had less respect for the Denver school board. It doesn’t seem like its members have any respect for themselves or the schools they represent, either.
Anne Price, Denver
Support for rail service
Re: “Rail service threatened again,” June 27 editorial.
What is the matter with Congress? Motor fuel prices are shooting up and will probably never come down. Highways are jammed with angry drivers and speeding semi-trucks. Airports feel like concentration camps and airplanes like sardine cans.
Passenger trains offer a comfortable, people-friendly and fuel-efficient transportation alternative; and what is Congress posturing to do? It is getting ready to eliminate our only national passenger train system, Amtrak. If it succeeds, all that will be left are a few isolated corridor runs. Gone will be the skeletal network of intercity trains we now (barely) have; gone will be any hope of a first-rate, world-class rail system we could have with a little thoughtful investment.
When it comes to balanced transportation, we are being misled into the 21st century.
Peter Barkmann, Conifer
Congressional raises
Re: “House rejects bid to squash $3,100 pay raise for 2006,” June 29 news brief.
You have to admit that we have sent some of the smartest individuals to Washington. While President Bush gave us his pep talk last Tuesday night, the members of Congress gave themselves a cost-of-living raise of 1.9 percent. Brilliant.
Bet no one saw that coming.
How much did your paycheck increase?
Ed Danover, Superior
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
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.
