What if Hussein had gotten Nigerian uranium?
With all the spin and counterspin regarding the Valerie Plame affair, I think it’s ironic to wonder: What if Saddam Hussein had really acquired uranium from Niger?
Most probably it would have been looted along with many other dangerous substances. Now it could be anywhere – in an Iranian nuclear facility or a dirty bomb on Denver’s 16th Street Mall.
Yeah, I feel safer for President Bush’s war in Iraq.
Fred Koster, Nederland
—————————————-
Tancredo’s comments on Muslim holy sites
Re: “Tancredo won’t back down; No apology for discussing retaliation on Muslim holy sites,” July 19 news story.
God save us from demagogues like Rep. Tom Tancredo. He has always encouraged and played to the worst fears of people, but his recent statement about targeting Islamic holy sites such as Mecca is over the top, even for him.
At best, his inflammatory remarks can be seen only as total overreaction and terrible ignorance about people of the Islamic faith. He helps perpetrate the continued equation of some 1.3 billion largely peaceful people with the acts of a few, and then would destroy their most holy site – thereby guaranteeing the enmity of all. This would be like bombing the Vatican because of the actions of David Koresh at Waco.
I applaud the restrained reaction of Colorado Muslim leadership to Tancredo. They have been more generous than I can be. We simply cannot afford such ignorant and irresponsible attitudes in Washington.
Warren S. Napier, Longmont
…
My Congressman, Tom Tancredo, has the right idea. Perhaps the good and righteous Muslims can help the world do something about the extremists who are disrupting, and in some cases ending, life for all the rest of us. All Muslims have to realize that their radical branch cannot continue unabated without consequences. The destruction of Mecca would be a horrible consequence, but they have to realize what we can do and would do in response to a nuclear attack. Muslim leaders and influential Muslims must make an impact, soundly condemn the terrorist actions, and provide all their resources to sort out, capture and eliminate these radicals. Thank you, Rep. Tancredo, for making a suggestion that must be considered as national policy.
Don Douglas, Centennial
…
Rep. Tom Tancredo suggests bombing sites holy to Muslims if terrorists set off nuclear devices in U.S. cities, and simply wants to have “a good discussion on this issue, a thorough discussion” about the possibility. He says that “you simply cannot take things off the table because they are uncomfortable to talk about.”
OK, it’s uncomfortable, but let’s talk about Tancredo’s astonishing ignorance. (Hellooo, Tom! The Crusades were over centuries ago! It’s not about the Muslim religion!) Let’s talk about how Tancredo’s remarks help terrorists recruit impressionable young men to commit acts of violence. Let’s talk about how embarrassing it is to have such a person representing Colorado. Let’s talk about how Republicans should immediately disavow themselves of this anachronistic, ignorant and dangerous position. Rep. DeLay? Sen. Frist? President Bush?
Suzanne Wuerthele, Denver
…
The recent remarks by Rep. Tom Tancredo have created a firestorm of condemnation by the Muslim community here and abroad. Their vociferous comments have been swift and universal – from community activists to leaders of nations. I never saw such quick and forceful statements after Sept. 11 or other attacks by members of their religion. I wonder why.
Todd Knurr, Aurora
…
I was first embarrassed to share state citizenship with Rep. Tom Tancredo after reading about his remarks that Muslim holy sites should be attacked to protect the United States. Now, I’m only embarrassed that a politician could make such foolish comments based on obviously flawed logic. I’m insulted that Tancredo assumes all Muslims provoke and endorse hateful aggression. Plus, there isn’t a thread of evidence that proves more violence equals less violence. I hope the citizens of Tancredo’s district will remember his absurd outburst and eventually choose better representation.
Jeff Bangert, Denver
—————————————-
Underfunding of U.S. Forest Service
I am glad to see The Denver Post urging “Caution on forest land sales” (July 19 editorial). This initiative is the end product of Congress’ deliberate and chronic underfunding of the Forest Service. More to the mark, it is the political ideology that less government is better coming home to roost. This ideology may sound appealing in the abstract, but in practice it means deteriorating trails, stinking toilets, dismal trailhead signage, and nary a Forest Service ranger around when you need information or life-saving assistance.
Any competent financial adviser would counsel a client never to sell off capital to pay the bills. But this administration, run by the so-called first MBA in the White House, is doing just that. Claiming powerlessness in the face of mounting budget challenges, the Forest Service wants to sell off its capital assets to pay its bills. Of course, this is no mere accident of the budget process, but the culmination of a long, unfolding strategy to hamstring the largest land manager in the nation and force it to go begging.
The entire world stands in awe of our public lands system. We are the wealthiest nation ever. Yet here we are, resorting to the desperate measure of burning furniture to heat the house. Something ain’t right.
Sloan Shoemaker, Carbondale
—————————————-
Choice vs. life
Re: “Is anyone actually ‘pro-abortion’?” July 19 Open Forum.
I am continually amazed by the logic of pro-choice people such as letter-writers A. Lynn Buschhoff and Tom Johnson.
Buschhoff says that women have always had abortions. Since when do we base our laws on what people are going to do? If that were the case, we wouldn’t have any laws at all.
Johnson’s letter states what I’ve heard so many times before, that somehow people who are against legalized abortion need to solve all of the world’s ills before they can justify their postion.
For those who are anti-abortion, it couldn’t be simpler: Defenseless Americans are being deprived of their right to live. All of us come into this world via someone’s womb; no exceptions. Were this the year Buschhoff and Johnson were coming into the world, pro-lifers would be fighting for them.
Kathy Cain, Yampa
…
Letter-writer A. Lynn Buschhoff hit the nail on the head. It’s not about abortion – it’s about the choice and, most particularly, who will make that choice. I don’t believe that I could ever choose to have an abortion, but I certainly don’t want a bunch of Washington bureaucrats telling me what I can and cannot do with my own body.
M. Kay Taylor, Aurora
—————————————-
Hybrid fuel efficiency
Re: “New hybrid cars adding zip, not reducing guzzle,” July 17 news story.
According to Consumer Reports and Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, this year’s hybrid cars are being built to provide more power but less fuel efficiency than earlier hybrid models.
In the August 2005 issue of Reader’s Digest, the article “Engines of Change” by Sacha Zimmerman reports on gas alternatives that are now being considered and developed; there are several. According to Zimmerman, the Alliance to Save Energy found that in 2004, “SUV drivers spent about $1,225 on fuel, while passenger cars cost $976 to run. Hybrid drivers only spent between $350 and $450. Plus, some can travel more than 600 miles on a tank of gas.” Sounds good to me, but that was last year.
So why are the hybrids now sacrificing efficiency for power?
People I know who own hybrid cars are thrilled with them. About 88,000 hybrid cars were sold in the United States last year alone. My next car will be a hybrid. However, I need to be sure that Honda, Toyota and Ford are on the right page.Why did the car companies get off track?
Carole Beck, Westminster
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 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
