War: What exactly is this one good for?
Re: “Colorado Democrats’ opposition to Iran attacks sound like Vietnam Syndrome,” and “War can’t be left to one man – especially Trump,” March 8 commentaries
I congratulate The Post for presenting two sides of the argument for Operation Epic Fury.
Ken Toltz, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen with a personal stake in bringing America to Israel’s side, blames the massive government deception behind the epic failure of the Vietnam War for Democratic opposition to President Trump’s unilateral, unconstitutional institution of a war against Iran. David French emphasizes the wisdom of the constitutional separation of powers that gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
The opinion by Mr. French carries the day legally and morally. War wastes innocent lives, trillions of dollars and time better spent on, for example, global climate change and the necessary global cooperation needed to address it.
I recommend an opinion piece in the Aspen Daily News by , which posits that this war is not about American national security.
The war is about Israeli influence on the Trump administration, driven by the existential threat that Iran poses to that nation, but not to the U.S. It is about the desires of major Gulf petrostates that are worried about Iranian proxies and their control of the Strait of Hormuz. They have curried favor with Trump through a gaudy gift of a private jet, lucrative real estate deals and cryptocurrency purchases, and a $2 billion “investment” in Jared Kushner’s personal fund.
It is also about distraction from the Epstein files and the failures of the Trump administration in just its first year: inflation up; loss of medical coverage for millions of Americans; DHS thugs unaccountable for unwarranted arrests and violence to include the kiloing of American citizens; tariff policies likely to push us into stagflation; and wasting of military assets more likely needed in relation to the Chinese threat to Taiwan.
David Schroeder, Golden
David French has tried to simplify our defense attack on Iran to a simple “yes” or “no” from Congress. The information privy to President Trump and our military created several double-edged swords in dealing with Iran.
Were they really that close to a nuclear weapon? (Probably — they had the time and technology.) And if they were, would their ideology have caused them to bomb Israel? Yes, they would have used the weapon is the answer, based on their past actions.
Threats of “death to America” should not be taken lightly. Past acts of reason and kindness netted us nothing but further threats and acts of aggression. They have been supported by technology transfers from Russia and possibly China.
This aggression was not only against Israel and others but also against its own people. If they would kill over 30,000 of their own, certainly they would not hesitate to do the same to us “infidels.” Telegraphing our intentions by running the options through Congress would have only caused further acts of aggression by Iran and created an even worse situation. In view of this, President Trump made the correct decision. We can only hope that our actions will create the changes in Iran that will benefit its own people and the rest of the free world.
William F. Hineser, Arvada
Ken Toltz reaches back half a century to label criticism of the reckless attack on Iran as evidence of a lingering “Vietnam Syndrome.” For Toltz, tepid criticism by Colorado Democrats that points out the constitutional requirement that only Congress bears the power to declare war is a “deflection of American strength.” It seems that to him, the Constitution is merely a pesky intrusion of process.
More accurately, the Constitution rests the grave decision to commit the country’s people and resources to a deliberative body that weighs the purposes of military action and the potential harms of that action. Instead, we have a president who committed the country to a war because he had a feeling that Iran was going to attack. Itap a war that causes the president, his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security nominee, and press secretary to flail when asked to define its purpose, or even whether it is a war. Toltz asks for moral clarity when the administration is unable to state a strategy coherently.
Randy Livingston, Denver
I think that Ken Toltz was right on in his commentary, except for the cause behind our senators and Rep. Jason Crow wrapping themselves around the Constitution.
They are all smart people and have correctly avoided the vacuous positions held by former Vice President Kamala Harris. But their party has no platform now except anti-Trumpism. Not much with which to work!
Don Tocher, Boulder
Ken Toltz called for “moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack. He need look no further than Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to find sustained civilian attacks. When will Netanyahu’s regime finally face meaningful consequences for the civilian deaths and destruction it has caused in Gaza and now in Iran?
Carol Bryant, Centennial
Gov. Polis must uphold justice for the law-abiding residents
Re: “Polis’ urge to bow to Trump’s demands and pardon Peters must be Stockholm Syndrome,” March 8 commentary
Columnist Krista Kafer got it right. How can Gov. Polis ever think to let convicted felon Tina Peters out of prison? Prison is where the former Mesa County Clerk belongs to serve the full sentence she was given for her multiple crimes to subvert our elections. Colorado citizens, and especially residents of Mesa County who live their normal lives raising their families, voting, and who follow our laws, deserve better.
The criminal actions of Peters, who was placed in a position of trust by voters, were heinous. Letting her go insults Coloradans who do not break the law and take their responsibilities to vote as something we must and need to do. We thought Gov. Polis would not kowtow to President Trump, but apparently that is not the case. It is called the backbone, and let us hope Gov. Polis can find his.
Media reporting indicated the governor would just want an apology and that would be enough to let her go. He must be kidding. She apologizes on Day One, so the governor will let her off, and on Day Two onward, she will deny she ever really wanted to apologize. She will then re-engage in her harmful rants and actions to subvert our elections and spread the bile she did years ago. Coloradans and Mesa County citizens deserve much better from the governor in upholding justice for us — not a convicted lawbreaker.
Ed Talbot, Grand Junction
Former state senator deserved harsher punishment
Re: “Tina Peters’ sentence was drastically harsher than these Democrats charged with the same crime,” March 8 commentary
Doug Friednash was allowed to write a column, making a statement, “I have yet to hear a single person opposed to leniency for Peters argue that Lewis’ sentence was too lenient or inappropriate.”
This statement cannot be believed. Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ sentence is absolutely appropriate, and former Democratic Colorado State Senator Sonya Jacquez Lewis’s sentence is terribly lenient. Both have caused significant doubt in the validity of the election process. They may have been charged with the same crime (but not counts), the difference in their actions is public vs. private, but with the same egregious result — that being distrust in elections.
Actions that tamper with the trust of the most fundamental rights of citizens should not be tolerated in the United States by any person, from the president down to a local school board member. Peters’ sentence is appropriate, and Lewis’ sentence should involve prison time as well, not just community service hours — that is much too lenient.
So, Mr. Friednash, here’s one person you can hear from who thinks Peters’ sentence is appropriate for the magnitude of the effects on public opinion and who thinks that Lewis’ sentence is ridiculously lenient.
Scott Lake, Colorado Springs
Cartels cash in on American demand for illegal drugs
Re: “Trump encourages military action to fight drug cartels,” March 8 commentary
In Sunday’s article, President Donald Trump is quoted as saying, “The only way to defeat these enemies is by unleashing the power of our militaries.”
As long as Americans’ demand for illegal drugs remains strong, some cartel or cartel-like organization will exist to cash in on the hundreds of millions of dollars willingly paid by Americans to satisfy their illicit needs. Itap basic supply/demand economic theory.
Maureen Wirth, Aurora
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
