Not a 'winner-take-all' system
John Morse needs to be recalled because he has failed in his most basic task - to represent and respond to his constituents. We are not an oligarchy; this is not a 'winner take all ' system. Morse boasts that he doesn't even read his constituents comments and arbitrarily shuts hundreds of Coloradans out of debate in state capitol.
The recall effort is now being slandered by big money; $20,000 from 'America Votes Colorado ' alone. Raise your objections about the cost of a recall election to the person who has made it necessary - John Morse.
Robert Gale, Colorado Springs
'It is my right to know the truth'
On Sunday May 5, The Gazette published a story about Benghazi titled: 'White House altered story on Benghazi. ' In it were copies of the three versions of the CIA 'talking points memos ' The first one dated Friday September 14, 2012. The first draft said in part, 'We know that Islamic extremist with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack '. The article went on to say that the State Department was concerned with this reference to al-Qaida and the word 'attacks. ' So the CIA deleted the reference to al-Qaida and substituted the word 'demonstrations ' for the word 'attack ' in their second draft. The State Department then was concerned that without the al-Qaida inclusion there was no obvious motive or reason for the attack. The White house agreed, and the final CIA draft reported that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously inspired by the protests in Egypt over a YouTube video. This angers me on many levels.
Since the CIA had the best up-to-date information, why did it change the facts because the State Department has 'concerns. ' It is hard to understand why the CIA changed the facts into misleading information that could and will destroy their integrity. I have been a supporter of Hillary Clinton in her role as secretary of state, but now I have severe concerns about how this tragic event has been badly mishandled. I want the truth. I want to know where in the State Department the request for additional military support rose to and then stopped. I want to know why the Marine Corps was not protecting the embassy as they do all over the world. (Just think of what a differenced a few well-armed and well-trained Marines would have made). I want the truth.
I want to know what happened within the State Department, and I want to know how informed the president was, and what his participation was in this tragic incidence. It is my right to know the truth and don't tell me 'What difference does it make now. '
David Evans, Colorado Springs
Who do they think they are?
What amazes me about the Benghazi tragedy is if that happened in the private sector, our federal gang busters would have any and all prosecuted to the limit. Who do they think they are? This administration scares me. They are liars, weak, incompetent and drowning us in their socialistic ideology. They should take a random walk down 'Main Street ' to remind them who pays their salaries and whom they are supposed to represent and the reason those economic parasites were voted into office. Maybe it would instill humility in their arrogant mentality. They should all be fired post haste.
Question that won't be asked
One question I keep coming back to regarding the murder of four American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, is a question I never expect today's media to ask.
What was Barack Obama doing while those attacks were taking place?
I can't imagine another president in American history being so totally disengaged while terrorists were attacking one of our embassies and killing our ambassador. Was there an important basketball game on that night? Why Obama didn't even take the time to call the president of Libya to ask what actions, if any, were being taken to protect our embassy personnel before he 'disappeared ' for the night. This disengagement led to a 'rudderless ' ship leaving no one in charge and no one knowing what actions, if any, to take. Can you say dereliction of duty?
Unfortunately, when you view your job as protecting this president from any and all scandals as today's media does, we can expect that these difficult questions will never be asked and certainly never answered.
Arlene Barron, Colorado Springs
Consider open adoption alternative
Placing a child for adoption is a courageous and loving option, but as Liz Wilcox points out ( 'Remember the birth mothers ') it is nonetheless a significant loss grieved by birth mothers. Though not necessarily for the reasons Liz anticipated.
The staff of Catholic Charities' adoption services are licensed professional counselors who provide in-depth counseling to women (and men) facing untimely pregnancies.
Adoption is born of grief and loss and as counselors they are trained to address the complex emotions associated with adoption. Wilcox describes concerns normally associated with 'closed ' adoptions. As strong proponents of open adoption, where birth parents select the adoptive parents to raise their baby and have opportunities for ongoing contact, we recognize the pain birth mother's experience, wondering about their child's well-being in a closed adoption.
That's why we have been offering fully open adoptions for over 20 years. And because adoption is lifelong, we offer birth mothers the opportunity to receive post-relinquishment counseling if they were to struggle with the loss later in life.
As an agency that believes in the sanctity of all life, we have great concern for all members of the adoption triad - adoptee, birth parents, and adoptive parents - and through open adoption, we try to lessen pain, grief, and uncertainty.
Kathy Thayer, Life Connections Adoption Program, Colorado Springs