Five years after Sept. 11
Re: “Unity, purpose now blurred,” Sept. 10 Perspective article.
Former Sen. Gary Hart explained the circumstances and dynamics that both anticipated and followed the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks. The events of that horrific day rival the attack on Pearl Harbor as a day of infamy in American history. However, we cannot pigeonhole the two events for political expediency. Hart is correct that one was an act of war and the other was act of terrorism.
Most Americans paying attention to the actions and rhetoric of the Bush administration preceding the Iraq invasion realized that they were determined to pursue regime change with or without United Nations and bilateral approval or cooperation. The Bush administration might not have enjoyed overwhelming international support for the Iraq war, but it did command the overwhelming support of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats. Political calculations and fear trumped common sense and foresight.
Today, people would be hard-pressed to ignore Hart’s thesis as easily as they did his warnings before Sept. 11. Our security demands a re-evaluation of our priorities and actions – politically, economically and environmentally.
Wayne Trujillo, Lakewood
. . .
Re: “9/11 An American Journey,” Sept. 10 special section.
It is distressing to see so much attention being paid to the Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. Half of a page was dedicated to Michael Berger and the wacky theory he and others promote.
I went to the website of the organization he belongs to, 911truth.org, and found the pages where they attempt to make the case for the alleged controlled demolition of the towers, a primary building block of their theory. I am a registered professional engineer, specializing in structural analysis, and I was stunned by their lack of regard for engineering and their general paranoia. Entities that are part of their vast conspiracy include Scientific American, Nova, The New York Times and, apparently, the entire engineering community.
I exchanged some e-mail with them, and in my last e-mail I asked if there was a single American professional engineer who agrees that the towers could only have been brought down by a controlled demolition. No reply. Enough said.
Wayne H. Langley, Littleton
. . .
Re: “One way to deal with That Day,” Sept. 12 Ed Quillen column.
I’m grateful that the majority of Americans don’t deal with the war on terror and the anniversary of Sept. 11 the way Ed Quillen does. Yes, it’s less painful and easier to hide away from unpleasant facts while stronger people deal with your problems. I’m sure that almost all of our servicemen and women deployed both near and far would rather be spending some quality time with their pets, rather than face down a murderous and lawless enemy. Instead of burying their heads in the sand and pretending we don’t have to stand up to threats to our way of life, they are answering a higher calling.
There are times when evil must be confronted. The time is now.
Doug Cochran, Broomfield
. . .
The Denver Post severely diminished the effectiveness of the photo montage on its Sept. 11 front page (and also demonstrated its political naivete) by including a picture of Saddam Hussein. As every intelligent person has known for many years, there is no connection between Sept. 11 and the Iraqi dictator, other than the fact that our Village Idiot in Chief used the tragedy to justify an unnecessary war to implement a flawed Mideast policy/ideology. This picture was offensive and insulting.
Paul Davis, Denver
. . .
Does President Bush really expect us to believe his predictions about the future of Iraq if U.S. forces were to withdraw or re-deploy from that country? The president would like us to believe that if U.S. troops leave, then Osama bin Laden himself will somehow swoop in and take over the country. How would this be possible? The current Iraqi government is dominated by Shiites, as is the overall Iraqi population. Are we really expected to believe that the Iraqi military, police forces and Shiite militias are just going to lay down their arms and succumb to an organization consisting of maybe a few hundred individuals that is led by an exiled Saudi and an exiled Egyptian who are both Sunni Muslims? Just how stupid does George W. Bush think we are?
And Bush’s assertion that if we leave the terrorists will “follow us home” is just as absurd. How, exactly, are they going to do that? The Iraqi insurgency is dominated by people who are resisting the U.S. occupation and will stay in Iraq once we’re gone and probably continue fighting in the brewing sectarian civil war. Or, if we’re lucky, they will lay down their arms and become productive citizens as they probably were before the U.S. invasion.
President Bush seems to have a very low opinion of the American people and thinks we are stupid. I guess we’ll find out if he’s right on Nov. 7.
Paul Gross, Highlands Ranch
Marijuana initiative
Re: “Potheads, chill. This is about kids,” Sept. 10 Cindy Rodriguez column.
Cindy Rodriguez devoted two of her last three Sunday columns to opposing an initiative to make possession of a small amount of marijuana legal for adults. Yet she focused entirely on children in both pieces, failing to mention that if Colorado voters approve Amendment 44 this November, it will remain a felony to give any amount of marijuana to a minor, and it will also still be illegal for anyone under 21 to possess any amount of marijuana.
Nevertheless, Rodriguez believes marijuana must remain illegal so children continue to view it as very dangerous. I wonder if she was pleased to see the following statistics released by the federal government last week: Fifty-five percent of children 12-17 said that smoking marijuana once or twice a week posed a great risk. Only 38 percent of the same age cohort said the same thing about drinking five or more drinks once or twice a week. Yet binge drinking can literally kill young people. Marijuana cannot.
If Rodriguez is truly worried about the message that will be sent to kids if marijuana is legal for adults, she should seriously think about the consequences of the message we are sending to them right now.
Mason Tvert, Campaign Director, SAFER, Denver
. . .
Cindy, chill. This is about kids.
No one is arguing that smoking pot is good for kids. We all agree that smoking pot, smoking tobacco, drinking whiskey and playing in traffic are bad for children.
Is smoking pot bad for children? Not the question in dispute. Is legalizing pot bad for children? Closer. Still not the question in dispute. We need to know which is worse for our children: legal pot or illegal pot.
Granting your questionable conclusions about the harms of legalization, we must still ask how that (potential) increase in harm compares to the harm already inflicted on children by our current drug laws.
Our current drug laws are already harming children, in obvious ways, like “poor kids exploited” (or killed) by drug gangs and overzealous enforcers, but more interestingly, in subtle ways, like the erosion of civil liberties. The subtle effects are as real, important and damaging to kids as the obvious effects. Those of us who have seen the harm inflicted on children and their parents find your arguments not so much wrong as irrelevant. Go back to the drawing board, explore the effects of our current drug laws on children, and answer the real question.
Doug Gallob, Denver
. . .
The Amendment 44 proponent group, SAFER, recently went to court to halt what they term “misleading” information about the marijuana incentive from being distributed to voters throughout Colorado. Misleading information? SAFER knows firsthand about misleading the public. How exactly does the decriminalization of marijuana protect Coloradans? The name SAFER is itself misleading, as are the political campaign signs asking people to vote “yes” on Amendment 44 to “Make Colorado Safer.” For or against Amendment 44, one cannot help but see the irony. My advice: Make Colorado safer by taking a few extra minutes in the voting booth this November.
Julie Kazimer, Westminster
Gay issues on ballot
Re: “Nuanced votes on gay issues,” Sept. 10 news story.
The choice Colorado voters face over homosexuals is far less nuanced than The Post’s article suggests. Referendum I, the “domestic partnership” proposal, is fatally flawed.
In order to skirt prohibition of marriage-by-another-name arrangements, Referendum I states that domestic partnership is distinct from marriage. If that is so, however, then there is no rational basis for excluding heterosexuals. Many committed heterosexual couples don’t want full-blown marriage but could benefit from domestic partnership status. For that matter, why should platonic couples such as adult siblings be denied these benefits? Why should having sex with someone be a prerequisite to a recognized power of attorney?
The only course open to a voter of integrity is to vote “no” on Referendum I.
Eric Krein, Lakewood
Central City’s woes
Re: “Fortune frowns on Central City,” Sept. 10 business news story.
Central City risked everything on a ridiculous bet and lost it all. The city bet that by destroying several beautiful and relatively pristine mountainsides with an 8-mile slab of concrete, tourists or Denverites would want to come visit their historic city.
Now, after destroying the environment and creating an epic eyesore on Interstate 70, it appears Central City may drown in $38 million in debt to become once again a ghost town. It saddens me even more to hear that the city was warned by consultants about the poor bet. After all, the Central City Parkway does not reduce drive time significantly for the majority of gamblers, but simply detours an amazing canyon drive.
Hopefully, the fate of Central City will serve as a warning that long-term bets against the environment will not turn a profit.
Joe Keck, Denver
To the point
We’ll know the people who wanted to go to war in Iraq realize the enormity of their folly when they start calling it “Bill Clinton’s War.”
Andrew R. Lewis, Englewood
In the new movie “Idiocracy,” two men awake 1,000 years in the future and discover their new world is populated by idiots. Someone should have told the film’s producers that their dreaded future is already here. Just take a look at Washington’s politicians.
Louise Turnbull, Denver
Thank you for your many recent reports marking the fifth anniversary of the events of Sept. 11, 2001. By the way, where’s Osama?
Frank Ohrtman, Denver
Neocons lie, troops die, families cry, bin Ladens fly, oil’s high, Democrats try, freedoms fry, rich folks buy, governments spy, votes tie, spinmeisters vie, Americans sigh: “Why oh why is that Bush guy still nigh?”
Kevin Burgess, Littleton
