Posted March 2, 2002

'Rogue State' Threat

I thoroughly enjoyed . . . [Christopher Montgomery's] NMD article. It was a well thought out piece and I agreed with most of it. However to dismiss the threat a nuclear attack from a 'rogue state' is a bit naive. Before Sept 11th, I'm sure the idea of somebody flying 2 giant commercial airliners full of people into the most visible buildings in the most visible cities in the US would have seem inconceivable. The scenes of the Afghani nationals dancing and celebrating the event was a shocking illustration of the depth of hate against the US (for whatever reason). To most of the world this heinous act was totally irrational. Who can say what act can be perpetrated by such minds? Who can predict the breakthroughs in technology would make an ICBM 'affordable'? Don't misunderstand me, I am 100% against 'Star Wars' and all weapons. I just think the rogue state threat is a real one and should not be dismissed so easily.

Jeff J., California

Christopher Montgomery replies:

As it happens . . . I was leader writing (i.e. not under my own name, and in line with the editorial stance of the paper) for a mid market Fleet Street title, late in 2000, and I made exactly the point that, one of the lunacies, from the American taxpayer's point of view, was that the people who -- and it was a remote prospect even then -- might use a nuclear device against the US would not, and could not, use the only delivery system susceptible to interception. I thought I had reiterated this in the Antiwar.com piece, but clearly not.

Safire's Question

[In his column of February 27, "The Plot Sickens," Justin Raimondo wrote:]

"What is all too believable is that some foreign intelligence agency with substantial assets in the US penetrated a government lab and recruited a clique of scientists and other insiders, initially for purposes of routine spying but eventually launching a full-scale terrorist operation designed, not to kill, but to frighten everyone out of their wits -- and provoke an anti-Arab reaction."

A brilliant insight and one that may well fit a pattern. Consider the report by William Safire, "Inside the Bunker," about a mystery caller to the White House during the 9/11 attacks who seemed to know a little too much about the way the Secret Service operated (also cited in your article, "9/11 Enigma"): The most worrisome aspect of these revelations has to do with the credibility of the "Air Force One is next" message. It is described clearly as a threat, not a friendly warning -- but if so, why would the terrorists send the message? Your February 27 column may well have answered Safire's question...

~ OM

BioPort

[Regarding Justin Raimondo's column of February 27, "The Plot Sickens":]

Keep in mind BioPort.... Admiral Crowe, former Joint Chief, is a big stockholder in BioPort. He also sits on the Board.

~ BR

Bring Back the '90s

According to the Thomas C. Greene story, "...the Veep reckons that a shift in emphasis from useless consumer gadgets to weapons and surveillance gear will bring back the roaring '90s..."

This immediately brought to mind a passage from "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism," by Immanuel Goldstein:

"One [problem] is how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking, and the other is how to kill several hundred million people without giving warning beforehand. In so far as scientific research still continues, this is its subject matter."

~ Kevin Carson

Outraged

I am outraged by the behavior of some of the so-called leaders of the Christian religion. I accept Jesus Christ as my Savior and the gift of his salvation. However, I do not accept the war rhetoric of many of these ministers who promote Israel-first and American Imperialism throughout the world. I was horrified by Pat Robertson's comments on Fox News channel's O'Reilly Factor last night, giving his ignorant comments on Islam. Robertson and many others of his cabal, are incorrect in their assertions regarding Israel and prophecy. They are basing their understanding on their own opinions and an extremely limited understanding of history and world politics. Even atheists and agnostics know the commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill and respect it. I am familiar with one minister who feels that Ariel Sharon has been justified in his actions over the years in Israel including his war crimes. Christian ministers who promote violence against others will be called to account for their actions. I sometimes wonder if the words in my Bible are the same as the ones they are reading in their Bible. Even Israel's army is getting fed up with the unjust war against the Palestinians. How can these ministers be so blind!

~ PJC