Granger should give a detailed response about ‘blood on hands’ allegation

May 22, 2011 Letters

Dear Editor,
Recent efforts by the PPP to make a case that David Granger has blood on his hands are nothing but foolishness.
To begin with he was not present at the place where the shooting took place. Secondly the officer in charge at the place and time that the shooting incident took place (Corentyne, 1973) was confronted by a situation where there was a perceived physical threat to the wellbeing of himself and his men. He was forced to exercise judgement and to make a decision. This he did, displaying admirable restraint.
The troops were forced to open fire after exhausting other options. It does not matter if they were there to highjack ballot boxes.
The issue here is whether they felt that they were going to be killed or mauled, which they apparently did.
What would Present Jagdeo have had them do? Throw down their guns and beg for mercy? Would they have received any? If that is what Jagdeo would have done, then it’s no wonder the army did not accept him as an officer.
This is an example of an old worn out PPP/PNC tactic being applied. Manipulation of poorly educated and gullible rural constituents who are ill equipped or disinclined to examine facts and come up with their own independent opinion.
The same tactic was applied recently when PPP operatives in Berbice claimed that a prominent politician wanted to take away their constituents’ old age pension.
It’s a pity Granger didn’t give a more detailed response instead of just repeating that he was not there. I am sure he knows all of the details.
All he needed to do was to give a few of them. It would have sounded better than his actual response did.
He almost seems to be saying let the shooters answer for themselves.
Granger also needs to respond to things that have recently been said about his conduct as an army officer. There have recently been mounting claims that Barack Obama ought not to be the President of the USA. The reason cited was that he was not born in the USA.
This man who is the elected President, more than halfway through his term in office was not obligated to respond to these assertions.
He could simply have said let them prove what they are saying. Instead he opted to release his official birth certificate to prove his eligibility for the office he holds.
Granger should take a page from Obama’s book. If the elected president of a super power could be humble enough to respond to those unfounded assertions then why should Granger, who is a mere presidential aspirant from a poor third world nation not be expected to clear the air on some very specific issues relating to his past professional conduct (or lack thereof) as an army officer.
Granger cannot simply wish this matter away or turn a blind eye to it. We need to hear some definitive statements from him.
Reuben Charles

Latest News

Granger should give a detailed response about ‘blood on hands’ allegation

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Guyana falls short against Suriname in Nations Cup B/ball finals

Archery Guyana Applauds Historic Sports Budget...

Reliance Hustlers Sport Club continues winning...

Imlach highlights Patience and Discipline as Key...

GRFU impressed with allocation for Sports in 2025...

Guyana in must-win Clash against Grenada to keep...

Features/Columnists

Jagdeo and his Humpty Dumpty economics

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Sanctity, sanctity, sanctity – an era of infamy

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Granger should give a detailed response about ‘blood on hands’ allegation

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]