Peter Coors' E-Mail Exchange with the Colorado DLC

E-mail #1

From the September 11, 2002 New Dem Daily. Please let the Colorado DLC know your thoughts.

**Never Forget: We're Still Under Attack**

Inevitably, the ceremonies surrounding the anniversary of 9/11 today are about the past, not the present or the future. That is proper for this moment; those who died a year ago deserve a day of national remembrance, as do those who risked their lives to save others.

But we should not let 9/11 pass without reflecting on the work still to be done to secure our safety as a nation. The terrorist network that committed the 9/11 attacks is still functioning, and the threats to our security have not receded.

One year later, we still have to fix the intelligence agencies that were taken by surprise on 9/11.

We still have to create a coherent homeland security strategy and enable our first responders to protect us.

We still have to show resolve and unity on a continuing basis, so that our enemies do not again make the mistake of believing we will surrender to their demands the moment any sacrifice is required.

We still have to work to convince the rest of the world that our fight is mankind's fight, for what the President called "the non-negotiable demands of human dignity."

On this anniversary, we should not only remember the victims and honor the heroes of 9/11/01, but should also rededicate ourselves to the values that made us the object of these attacks, and to leadership in the cause of global freedom and democracy that is the sole cure for terrorism and the despair that breeds it.

E-mail #2 (Pete Coors First Reply)

I received this message from a friend who is on your mailing list. I agree with all you say, but where has the democratic party been for the last several years?

It is your party that has continually tried to reduce the defense budget. It was leaders in your party who demanded that the FBI and the CIA not cross communicate. It was leaders in your party who prevented the FBI and the CIA from hiring the type of "unsavory" individuals who might have uncovered the plot against our country. It was your President that had not the courage to react aggressively to continuous assaults on U.S. assets and individuals around the world. (Clinton regrets that President George W. Bush had such a "great opportunity" to seal his legacy when Clinton himself had squandered so many opportunities, distracted by foolish and reprehensible personal conduct, protected by party leaders believing the party was more important than national security.) It is your party who now waffles on the Iraq issue wanting to wait until after the elections so as not to be embarrassed politically.

I believe you are sincere with your comments, but the actions of the party that you represent and endorse speak much louder to America than your words.

Sincerely, Peter H. Coors

E-mail #3 (Colorado DLC's First Reply)

Mr. Coors,

Thanks for your feedback. I really appreciate the interest you take in these very important issues.

I respectfully disagree with some of your points. While the leaders in my party are far from perfect, they have been much better on a number of important national security issues. Here are just three of many other examples:

Sen. Phil Graham proudly admits, and does not even regret today, his opposition to legislation that would have helped undermine the financial structure of terrorist organizations.

Sen Joe Lieberman was the leader who took the bull by the horns and sponsored legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. After months of repeatedly saying it was not needed, the administration finally came on board. Unfortunately, it took considerable pressure and we lost very precious time on a tough task.

Such reversals have become a very unsettling trademark of the Bush Administration. The most recent - after months of sending the message, "we will go it alone," the President has now gone to the United Nations to ask for a Security Council Resolution authorizing unprecedented action to enforce past U.N. resolutions against Iraq. To his credit, President Bush effectively shifted the international debate about Iraq to where it should be: on the chronic conduct of Saddam Hussein as an incorrigible offender against every principle of civilized behavior in general - and of U.N. resolutions in particular - instead of on the U.S. determination to proceed unilaterally.

There are many other points I would like to make. However, these issues deserve much more than an exchange of emails.

I'd like to discuss these issues and more with you. There is plenty of work and reform needed in our two respective parties. Please let me know if you would like to meet.

Again, it was good to hear from you.

E-mail #4 (Pete Coors' Second Reply)

Mr. Gibson,

I doubt that it would be very constructive for us to meet. We have way too many fundamental differences. The fact that you avoided the specific issues I raised is adequate evidence of our substantial differences. You believe that George Bush stole the presidencey (sic). I believe the democrats stole the Senate leadership. We'll just have to see what happens in November.

Pete Coors

E-mail #5 (Colorado DLC's Second Reply)

Mr. Coors,

Your response reinforces my strong belief that we should meet. These issues deserve much more than the brief "sound bites" you and I are exchanging.

For example, you indicated my "avoidance" of the specific issues you raised "is adequate evidence of our substantial differences." I simply do not believe that. Should I conclude that your non-response to my points was "avoiding the issues?" Worse yet, should I conclude that your unwillingness to meet reflects a lack of confidence in your positions? I choose not to believe either.

Finally, in my mind, waiting for November is not the answer. This country is evenly divided because voters are disenchanted with both Democrats and Republicans. The election will only continue to reflect that disgust. The sooner that both parties reform, the better.