Dems vs. Bush on Iraq
Senate Democrats have surrendered to President Bush by continuing to fund the occupation of Iraq, supporting a spending bill with Republican Sen. John Warner’s amendment that eliminates any meaningful oversight or accountability.
In the House, however, Democrats have the opportunity to stand up to Bush’s failed policy, deceit and corruption in Iraq by sending him a piece of legislation that demands U.S. forces begin to plan withdrawal. True accountability could be created complete with a withdrawal plan which includes deadlines for implementation, as well as full accountability for the missing billions in the Iraq reconstruction programs. Senate Democrats could redeem themselves in the conference committee by approving the House version.
If Bush chooses to veto such legislation, it will be he who is failing to “support our troops.” It would also demonstrate to Senate Democrats what the role of an opposition party is.
Nancy Pelosi, like Harry Reid, has pledged to hold George Bush accountable. She also claims she wants to end the occupation of Iraq. It is difficult to understand how Pelosi could hold Bush accountable without impeachment on the table. Far more difficult to understand would be Pelosi’s supporting a Senate-like spending bill, capitulating like Reid has done.
Mark Benner, Anton
…
Before everyone starts calling the Democrats weak-kneed non-deciders and soft on terror, let’s remember who got us in this situation: the Republicans. This is their war. A Republican Congress rubber-stamped a Republican president for six years. Now a slight majority of Democrats in Congress is supposed to put a stop to it. The American people gave them the mandate but not the power. It takes a two-thirds vote to override the veto. Which party vetoed the original spending bill? The Republicans. Which party won’t get out of lockstep long enough to override the veto? The Republicans.
If the Democrats stick to their guns and cut off funding, they are not being patriotic and are not supporting the troops. If they give in, they are weak- kneed. They are damned either way. The only way to get out of this war is for Republican senators and representatives to vote with the Democrats for a bill that sets a timetable for withdrawal. Stop blaming the Democrats and call your Republican representatives and tell them what you want.
Delana Maynes, Littleton
…
I’m appalled that Rep. Mark Udall voted to throw away more money on the Iraq war. More funding will greatly increase the numbers of our soldiers and of Iraqi civilians who die. It will not do anything to clean up the mess or end the war.
Republicans voted 194-2 for this bill. Democrats voted 140-86 against it. Udall sided with the Republicans to make sure this war continues.
Rep. Udall must think he needs to become more Republican to win a Senate seat. But Colorado citizens are not stupid. They know he is just caving in so that he does not make waves.
Please, Mr. Udall, place a higher value on people’s lives than on your political ambitions.
Nancy Sullo, Boulder
…
Rep. Ed Perlmutter was the only sane and decent person from the Colorado delegation to vote against giving the Bush administration another blank check on Iraq. Thank you, Rep. Perlmutter, for having the courage to vote against funding further bloodshed and destruction.
The majority of people in the U.S. want the U.S. out of Iraq, as does the majority of Iraqis, but those facts don’t matter to spineless politicians more concerned with their political futures than ending this humanitarian catastrophe. Shame on Ken Salazar, Wayne Allard, John Salazar, Mark Udall, Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo and Doug Lamborn.
I’m proud to call Ed Perlmutter my representative. His vote yesterday was the one glimmer of hope in what was a very dark day for this country and Iraq.
Tracy Abell, Lakewood
In defense of the police
Re: “An eye on the police,” May 22 Open Forum.
Columnist Jim Spencer and letter- writer Evan Sandsmark are spinning in the wrong direction. While there are certainly bad apples in all police departments, they are not all “as prone to corruption as most other members of the workforce,” as Sandsmark writes. All police recruits are subject to a background check. This check will weed out most of the bad actors and will provide society with a better than average “workforce.” I’m sure this is not what the anti-police folks want to hear.
Wes Piippo, Arvada
Libeskind condo plans
Re: “DAM architect to design Edwards condo project,” May 24 business news story.
I was shocked to see the rendering of the proposed 56-unit condominium project of Libeskind design superimposed into the current town of Edwards. Is there a justification beyond the developer’s gushing that the architect “is famous!” for imposing such a garish and oversized project into a pleasant Western Colorado town? Daniel Libeskind’s offbeat design in downtown Denver has deservedly drawn mixed reviews. But at least within a modern, urban setting, our museum addition and its related condo project can coexist among other, much-varied building designs of accommodating scale. My hope, as a Colorado native, is that the jurisdictional officials in Edwards will appropriately send the dog pictured in your article packing as early as possible in the application process.
Peter N. Ehrlich, Denver
Online extras
For more letters to the editor, go to blogs.denverpost.com/eletters
To send a letter to the editor
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202; Fax: 303-954-1502
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.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
