Indictment of Cheney adviser I. Lewis Libby in CIA name leak
Now that I. Lewis Libby has been indicted for lying to federal investigators and to the grand jury, only one question remains: Why? Joseph Wilson could prove the White House reason for going to war was a lie. Consistent with a strategy of fear and control, it was more important to discredit him than to honor the truth. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush has lied repeatedly to the American people. And more than 2,000 military personnel are dead because of his lie. Bush, Cheney and Rove should be brought before an international court for war crimes.
Cristy Holden, Pagosa Springs
…
I hope that all of Congress is taking the Fitzgerald investigation seriously and will take all necessary actions to ensure that our country will not again see actions taken by American political officials against CIA agents or other security people due strictly to adverse political philosophy.
Whether Democrat or Republican, it is the responsibility of Congress to ensure no sabotaging of our security people occurs by our own government. They take their lives into their hands often enough without having to worry about being outed by an extremist administration – and for the pettiest of reasons, that of “getting even.”
We are seeing a most serious and dangerous situation unfold. This is not just sex carried on indiscreetly and stupidly by consenting adults; these acts could affect the security and safety of our nation and the lives of some of our most vulnerable government people. The punishment for all the guilty parties must be such that it sends a clear and determined message to current and future administrations that the rule of law applies to all, including the powerful, regardless of their position.
John Ruckman, Lakewood
…
Re: “The president should have fired Libby,” Oct. 29 editorial.
In its editorial, The Post wrote, ” Libby’s role in this political hit has been well known and he should have been ousted from his White House position long ago. Instead, he was allowed to resign, with warm words from Cheney and President Bush ringing in his ears.” The editorial asks, “… who was he protecting?”
This administration has been caught in a series of lies, not least of which was its rationale for invading Iraq: weapons of mass destruction. Most of us knew that was a lie by the time The Denver Post endorsed George W. Bush for a second term. With more than 2,000 Americans dead in Iraq and more coming home without arms or legs, and with thousands of Iraqi civilians dead as a result of our invasion, your indignation at this latest revelation is worse than ironic.
Carol Fitzgerald, Denver
…
Those who think the indictment of I. Lewis Libby resolves something should remember that in this country people are presumed innocent until they confess under torture.
Paul Brown, Denver
Nomination of Samuel Alito to Supreme Court
President Bush has corrected his grave error in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court by selecting Judge Samuel Alito to serve on the highest court in the land. Alito’s intellect, experience and knowledge of constitutional law are in keeping with the highest standards of the judiciary. After reviewing Judge Alito’s long and thorough commentary on legal matters, Democrats probably will filibuster a straightforward vote on his appointment for two related reasons: he appears to be pro-life and, if appointed, he would be the fifth Roman Catholic on the current court. His excellent legal background and knowledge will not be important on the left side of the Senate.
Robert H. Feeney, Littleton
…
A large portion of President Bush’s troubled second term has centered on his Supreme Court nominations and whether they are conservative enough to overturn the 1973 ruling of Roe vs. Wade. After Georgie and his fellow conservatives have sufficiently derided “legislating from the bench,” it is remarkable that their hypocrisy is not at the forefront of the discussion. The conservative agenda of appointing a judge with the divine mandate of overruling the right to abortion seems to epitomize legislating from the bench – bringing a conservative agenda away from the legislature and into the courts.
The entire debate itself is so far lopsided toward abortion that one would almost forget our highest court has other responsibilities. Has everyone forgotten all other constitutional issues such as gun control, what constitutes a fair trial, sentencing adolescents to death, and now, the re-emergence of torture? Perhaps what is more frightening than Bush nominating Judge Samuel Alito is the debate itself – that of religion interfering in politics, and of abortion taking front, center, back and side stage in the Supreme Court nomination process.
Hillary Cohn, Boulder
…
Re: “Salazar miffed over lack of consultation; Allard lavishes kudos on judge,” Nov. 1 news story.
Sen. Ken Salazar was dismayed that “there was no consultation whatsoever with members of the Senate” regarding President Bush’s nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Tsk, tsk.
The president owes the Senate no such duty, and to expect or impose one is a clear attempt at eroding constitutional executive branch power. The president nominates and the Senate advises and consents, or, as the case might be, dissents by mustering insufficient affirmative votes. Period. End of story.
Salazar also expressed disappointment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement nominee was not a woman, as if that were an unspoken prerequisite above all others. What next, the nominee must have gray hair?
The real disappointment in all of this is the good senator’s apparent quick descent into Washington’s quagmire of canned talking points and hack politics. I liked Attorney General Ken Salazar, and viewed him as a thoughtful guy who considered the facts and spoke when he had something to say. Sadly, that profile seems to be eroding, with the resultant loss accruing to both the person and the people.
Bud Markos, Grand Junction
Modern feminism
Re: “Juggling the dilemmas of feminism,” Nov. 2 Kathleen Parker column.
Kathleen Parker asserted that the feminist movement “encouraged women to be smart and successful” but “also encouraged them to be hostile and demeaning to men.” I think there is a very small minority of women with these characteristics, and those who are hostile are perhaps responding to male stereotype of chauvinism, “deadbeat dads” or “abusers,” a more common phenomena since the feminist movement of the 1970s.
Still, I think the reason that smart and successful women have a harder time finding a compatible male partner is not because of male stereotypes, or female hostility, but rather a new feminine confidence in which women assert their opinions frankly and openly and no longer make their lifestyles contingent upon a man’s schedule. In other words, I think that man-hunting bimbos and traditional families will continue to diminish because women and men have increasingly similar goals in the workforce, which will make them both have to sacrifice time and energy to spend with one another.
Courtney Hibbard, Denver
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
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.
