War of words over Bush’s Iraq policy
Re: “Democrats winning word war,” Nov. 23 Al Knight column.
Al Knight sets out to explain the Democrats’ use of negative statements
as a means of winning the debate over Iraq. To make his point, he offers
nothing more than his negative opinion of their statements. Instead of
providing any real positive counter-explanation, he simply loathes that
Democrats are “more skilled at the callous manipulation of public opinion.”
If Knight had offered reasoned facts to disprove the negative statements
made by the Democrats, one might be inclined to give his opinion
serious consideration. He does no such thing.
Daniel DiRito, Denver
—
Al Knight admonishes Democrats for using negative phraseology to attack the Bush administration’s Iraq policies. For some reason, Knight conveniently ignores the fact that two of the highest-profile and most persistent critics are Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and John McCain.
Now, it could be that these two have presidential ambitions of their own and are cynically taking advantage of what they sense to be a quantum shift in public opinion. Or it could be as simple as this: they are both combat veterans who have firsthand knowledge of the topics of which they speak, something woefully missing from those at the highest levels of the Bush administration. Perhaps the real split is between an increasingly isolated administration and the American people rather than between Republicans and Democrats, as in Knight’s black-and-white fantasy land.
Matt Sandor, Boulder
Documentary about U.S. war tactics in Iraq
Re: “Coloradan: Incendiary killed civilians,” Nov. 18 news story.
The headline over this article about an Italian documentary of the U.S. Army 3rd Brigade’s assault on Fallujah directly contradicts the text of the article, adding The Denver Post’s voice to irresponsible journalistic accounts of the U.S. military in Iraq.
The thrust of the story is that an Italian documentary, which is receiving international attention, misused the statements of former Army Spec. Jeff Englehart. According to Englehart, the producers selectively edited his words, misquoting him to give the impression that white phosphorous incendiary devices were used against civilians. The Post’s article states that Englehart witnessed the Fallujah fight from a distance, and only heard U.S. forces call for white phosphorous over the radio. Englehart was later told by a reconnaissance scout that U.S. forces “called in for white phosphorous on human targets.” International law allows the use of white phosphorous against enemy forces, and Englehart denies saying it was used against civilians. Instead, he told an Italian reporter that “he had seen innocent civilians killed in Iraq,” and the producers selectively edited that statement to give the impression that U.S. forces targeted civilians with incendiaries.
Kudos to The Post’s reporter for telling Englehart’s side of the story, but shame on The Post for such a misleading headline.
The article closed with this quote from Englehart about the documentary: “It wasn’t very good journalism.” Neither was the headline.
Chris Colclasure, Denver
Paving the way for transportation solutions
Re: “FasTrack plans hit snag,” Nov. 22 news story.
Regarding the transfer of land along U.S. 6 from the Colorado Department of Transportation to the Regional Transportation District for a light rail line to Golden, CDOT director Tom Norton says, “We have an asset, and we can’t simply give an asset of the people away.”
Apparently for Norton, an “asset” is land that can be paved; “the people” are synonymous with their SUVs, trucks and cars; and to “give something away” means simply to remove it from the list of lands that might be paved. The gods of macadam would shudder to think that CDOT would simply “give away” its “assets” for that most suspicious of schemes – public transportation – which surely cannot benefit “the people.”
Perhaps the agency should change its name to the Department of Trucks and step out of the way of communities that are working to solve Colorado’s 21st century transportation needs.
Pete Kolbenschlag, Paonia
Veterans’ access to D.C.
House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer, R-Ind., recently announced that veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before joint hearings of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees, a tradition of legislative presentations by veterans service organizations that dates back to the 1950s. The joint hearings have been held each year to allow the elected leaders of veterans groups to discuss their organizations’ legislative agenda and foremost concerns with the lawmakers who have jurisdiction over federal veterans programs. Senators and representatives who serve on those committees also get the opportunity to address the hundreds of constituent members from these organizations that make the annual pilgrimage to Capitol Hill.
This is a terrible action that I hope will be corrected ASAP. These hearings discuss topics that are critical to all veterans, including me. For this disabled veteran who cannot get to these sessions, the veterans service organizations are my eyes and ears into the legislative process. Restricting or eliminating this opportunity is not the way an elected body or an individual who is supposed to be a representative of the people should govern. Please don’t take away my voice in the process.
Duane Thompson, Centennial
Benefits of research
Re: “Ingenious ‘flu chip’ is timely,” Nov. 15 editorial.
It was with deep appreciation and humility that I read The Denver Post’s editorial on the “FluChip.” I am indeed hopeful that the FluChip will have a positive impact on humanity. Although the editorial correctly pointed out that this breakthrough was supported by federal research dollars, it is important to point out another tremendous benefit from research supported by our tax dollars.
The FluChip was the result of a team of post-doctoral students, graduate students and an undergraduate all working and learning together in an academic environment. They have all developed new skills, improved their problem-solving abilities, and deepened their understanding of science and nature. Their dedication to taking on the difficult and demanding challenge posed by learning tough subjects and solving tough problems has not only resulted in a tangible invention, in the process they have become part of the next generation of scientists that we will all rely on to confront future challenges. Clearly, tax dollars that support research and education are well spent.
Kathy L. Rowlen, Professor of Chemistry, University of Colorado at Boulder
Congressional resolution for Iraq withdrawal
Last Friday, the Republican-led Congress submitted a resolution to “immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq,” which was deliberately intended to be defeated. With this act, the Republican Party has proved conclusively that it doesn’t know how to govern.
It’s irresponsible to waste time and effort drafting laws meant to fail and submitting budgets with deficits our children will have to pay for. This cavalier attitude of “my way or the highway” has resulted in acrimony and partisanship few have seen in Washington before.
The above examples show it’s time to clean house in next year’s election. We need to elect Democrats who have a proven track record of paying for and balancing budgets while working with the loyal opposition.
Let’s send some adults to Congress who can lead in a bipartisanship manner.
Don Stark, Aurora
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
