Colorado Editorial Roundup

Published on NewsOK Modified: August 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm •  Published: August 12, 2014

A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:

The Denver Post, Aug. 11, on why the U.S. should arm Kurds in Iraq:

The Obama administration has reportedly taken the momentous step of funneling weapons to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, even if it doesn't want to admit it — yet.

And why not? If the U.S. can sell arms to the Baghdad government, whose troops have been reluctant to fight warriors of the Islamic State, then it should be willing to provide arms to the Kurds, who are chomping at the bit to fight.

Unfortunately, the Kurds had to fall back from some towns because they were outgunned by the extremists. If the Islamic State is going to be stopped in the north, the Kurds will have to do it.

Opponents of supplying the Kurds fear that it will promote the further disintegration of Iraq, and that is a risk. But the alternative is almost unthinkable: that the U.S. allow the most stable, peaceful, pro-Western territory in Iraq, which is controlled by the Kurds, to be overrun by jihadists.



The Pueblo Chieftain, Aug. 9, on new funds for cleanup at the Pueblo Chemical Depot:

We were thrilled to learn that the U.S. Army will be redirecting $54.5 million over the next two years to speed up cleanup at the Pueblo Chemical Depot.

The funds are pre-budgeted and are simply being relocated to the project to help with ongoing remediation efforts. They bump the remediation budget to $65.7 million for 2014-15, a significant increase from the $11.2 million that was originally budgeted.

"PCD is doing important work to dispose of our nation's chemical weapon stockpiles, and these additional funds will support that critical, ongoing mission," said U.S. Sen. Mark Udall.

The Colorado Democrat is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and played a crucial role in securing the money. "These funds also will ensure the depot can strengthen its remediation work around its facility and protect public health," Udall added.

The depot has been in operation for nearly 72 years. Over the years, it was subject to accidental contamination from mustard agent leaks, and intentional but necessary contaminants such as buried missile fuel.

The base was decommissioned in 1988 under the Base Realignment and Closure Act and all of its missions were terminated excepting the storage and destruction of chemical weapons.

The new funds will expedite the cleanup of those parts of the complex not critical for the destruction of the weapons. With little doubt, this is a great thing for Pueblo and Pueblo County.

The sooner the massive campus is cleaned up and declared habitable, the sooner it can get its second life. We thank the senator for pushing the Army on the funds to expedite the process.



The Daily Sentinel, Aug. 10, on a transparent search for an airport director:

The tone-deaf Grand Junction Regional Airport Authority seems to have a hard time understanding the concept of transparency. Or maybe it just doesn't care.

Intentional or not, that's the message the board is sending. In selecting an internal candidate as the lone finalist for the vacant airport manager's job, the board has revealed a sizable blind spot in its understanding of "optics," or the way the public perceives things.

The board has undergone months of heightened scrutiny in the wake of a federal investigation that aroused serious misgivings about its oversight function and led to the dismissal of former aviation director Rex Tippetts.

As a result, the board overhauled policies, tightened internal controls and promised to be more open about the way it conducts its business.

We took that as a sign that it had learned a lesson about the importance of transparency. But the board's search for a new airport manager proves it still has a way to go.

Most local government entities publicly vet candidates for top-level administrative posts. There's no legal requirement to do this. The airport board has every right to select a new airport manager without scheduling a public listening session or a "meet the finalists" forum. But why wouldn't it? A scandal-ridden board does not restore the public's confidence in how it does its job by selecting an internal candidate as its only finalist and making no public announcement about it. The board simply posted a finalist list to its website — a bare-minimum effort to inform the public.