A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Denver Post, March 21, on the legality of U.S. military action in Libya:
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” So spoke candidate Barack Obama in 2007. As president, Obama now seems to have changed his mind, but we think the candidate had the better argument.
The U.S. attack on Libya is one of the most ill-defined operations since President Reagan sent troops into Lebanon, but there is very little doubt that it amounts to an act of war and not merely a mission of humanitarian protection.
U.S. forces are targeting the regime’s defenses, planes and even troops, even as the president emphasizes that their main goal is to protect civilians from Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.
However, the Constitution is very clear about which branch of government may “declare war.” It’s Congress, not the president.
Granted, not every president in the past has sought authorization for hostilities, especially in conflicts of short duration. And it’s possible our intervention in Libya will turn out to be brief. The president has promised the U.S. will turn over control of military operations to other countries within a “matter of days, not weeks,” while Gen. Carter Ham, the commander in the region, said non-U.S. pilots flew the “overwhelming” share of missions Monday.
But none of that suggests U.S. participation is about to end. Given the lack of clear goals, our forces could be conducting missions for weeks, months or longer. We think a commitment of that nature warrants explicit congressional approval—even if it has to be granted after the fact.
This nation’s founders wisely sought to limit the power of a single elected leader to wage war, and their logic is no less relevant today.
Despite occasional exceptions, most major military entanglements since World War II have enjoyed congressional approval, even if without a direct declaration of war. After Sept. 11, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States”—paving the way for the invasion of Afghanistan.
And congressional approval of force against Iraq, passed in October 2002, was even clearer in intent.
It’s true that President Clinton failed to seek approval for a bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1999—prominent Republicans were vocally hostile toward the policy—but a dubious precedent is hardly reason to repeat a mistake.
The attacks in Libya have reportedly turned the tide near Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in eastern Libya, according to Ham. But the general also explained that the allied mission was not to “support opposition forces if they engage in offensive operations.”
Does that mean the U.S. would accept an effective partition if Gadhafi doesn’t step down or the rebels mount a successful offensive? And if so, how long might we have to function as a protective shield for the fledgling nation in eastern Libya? The U.S. enforced a no-fly zone against Saddam Hussein for more than a decade.
The president’s decision to bomb Libya and help establish a no-fly zone has injected the U.S. into yet another conflict in a Muslim nation at a time when we still maintain huge commitments in two others. U.S. resources are badly strained after a decade of military operations in Afghanistan and years of difficult warfare in Iraq. Now we fear the U.S. might get mired in protracted civil war in Libya.
Such an open-ended commitment demands the broadest political support—which only congressional action can provide.
Editorial:
———
The Canon City Daily Record, March 21, on the no-fly zone in Libya:
If anyone benefited from the horrific week in Japan, it was Moammar Gadhafi, the Libyan ruler who used the time when the world’s eyes were averted to launch deadly attacks against his own people. By the time attention had returned to his efforts to quash a rebellion against his 30 years of despotism, it was nearly too late.
Last week, the United Nations adopted a no-fly zone over the country to protect the civilians who had taken up the spirit of democracy shown in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.
Unfortunately, the protection looks like it will be too late to have the immediate effect of showing the citizens of Libya that a faction of the military is all that props up their brutal dictator.
In two other notable instances has the international community come together to enforce a no-fly zone: in the Balkans in the 1990s and over Iraq when it was controlled by Saddam Hussein. The results of such endeavors are mixed. Kosovo and its neighbors are still trying to put together a framework for peace and prosperity, and they are far ahead of where Iraq is today.
The no-fly zone of Libya may end up being another long-term proposition for Europe, the United States and its allies in the Middle East. The bombs and strafing runs from Libyan jets may stop, and a cease-fire announced Friday may even take hold.
However, it will be when the military and other Gadhafi cronies realize they are on the wrong side of history (or prosperity) that they will see through the charade he has created.
Perhaps the best role the United States can play is to help ensure the democratic reforms of Egypt and Tunisia take root and lift the prospects for the millions of underemployed and highly educated workers in those countries.
Through acts of peace, the people of Libya may see the light of freedom and prosperity.
Because of delays of action now, however, that change may be further down the road.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, March 19, on how to change childhood poverty levels in Colorado:
A startling fact should give us pause: From 2000 to 2009, the number of children living in poverty in Colorado has more than doubled. And that means the number of children in poverty is rising faster in Colorado than in any other state in this great nation.
That heart-wrenching news was part of the annual Kids Count report released last week by the Colorado Children’s Campaign.
Almost 17 percent of our youths younger than 18 now live in poverty, defined as a family of four living on $22,050 a year.
It takes two and half times that much to support a family of four without need for public assistance in this state, according to the Colorado self-sufficiency standard. The state standard takes into account geography and additional factors such as housing and transportation costs that the federal standard does not.
Even more disturbing, the number of families making two and half times the federal poverty level, $55,125, is decreasing, while the number of families living in extreme poverty is rising. That level is about $11,000.
Colorado plays out what really is a national trend. Twenty-one percent of American children lived in poverty in 2009. That’s the highest rate since 1975.
Things likely aren’t getting better as the economy struggles out of the Great Recession.
Eradicating poverty may be an unattainable goal. But in one of the richest nations in the world, it’s hard to comprehend that it’s increasing.
Without fundamental reform of our nation’s institutions—economic, social and political—poverty will continue to increase. For now, it’s up to local institutions and the community—that’s all of us—to do what we can to help.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Tribune, March 17, on bill that would allow grocery stores to sell full-strength beer:
Let the beer wars begin—again.
Last week, state Rep. Larry Liston, R-Colorado Springs, introduced legislation that would allow convenience and grocery stores to sell full-strength brews.
This is the third such bill to be introduced in as many years. The other two failed.
We hope this one does, too.
We understand the reasoning behind the bill. People supporting this law say it’s an issue of customer convenience. Convenience and grocery store owners say it’s unfair to limit the alcohol they can sell to 3.2 percent beer. And now that liquor stores are allowed to be open on Sundays, sales of lower alcohol beer have dropped, hurting their bottom line.
It’s hard for us to buy those arguments. Liquor stores are located all over, many within a few feet of grocery stores. It’s not as if consumers are having to go far out of their way to buy full-strength beer.
Heck, you don’t even have to get out of your car at liquor stores that have drive-up windows. And as mentioned above, you can even buy your beer on Sundays.
Large grocery and convenience store chains in Colorado are doing fine. It’s not as if they are about to go under and are looking to beer sales to save the day.
But what we really find unsavory about this bill, and the ones previous that we have also protested, is that it will kill some liquor stores. And that’s just not right.
Liquor stores are mostly locally owned, mom-and-pop operations. Owners are our neighbors. They belong to the Chamber of Commerce and local service clubs. They host fundraisers for philanthropic organizations and support community events. They employ our residents and contribute to the local economy.
They are also strong supporters of the beer industry, especially the craft beer producers that are so important to the northern Colorado economy. The Colorado Brewers Guild has come out against the proposed legislation, asking lawmakers to kill the bill.
Its main reason is that independent retailers have been strong supporters of craft beer and have showcased the brews and featured small batches that large retailers might not carry.
We just don’t think this legislation is necessary. Most small liquor stores are thriving. Most convenience stores and grocery outlets are thriving.
It appears there is enough business for everyone. And consumers can easily get the products they desire.
We don’t need a new law to muddy the situation. Let’s let sleeping beers lie.
Editorial:
