In his July 9 op-ed column, "Blixful Amnesia," Charles Krauthammer used Hans Blix's comments comparing the threat of terrorism to other threats such as hunger and global warming as a jumping-off point to accost the left and others for not taking the threat of terrorism seriously. He ended his column: "And yet here we are three years after Sept. 11, with the dots already connected, and we are under a powerful urge to ignore them completely."
Yes, some people would like to destroy our civilization, and some of these people have been identified and attacked. However, do we really understand our enemy? If this administration couldn't even connect the dots and predict the depth of the Iraqi insurgency, how can it claim to have any expertise in fighting terrorism and its causes?
The Democrats, Michael Moore and Mr. Blix may not have any winning strategies for fighting terrorism, but that does not mean that Mr. Krauthammer or this administration do.
Charles Krauthammer ridiculed Hans Blix for his concern about global warming vs. weapons of mass destruction. He acknowledged that global warming may become a threat to humanity's existence, "but not for decades, or even centuries, and with a gradualness that will leave years for countermeasures."
If global warming is such a distant threat, why did researchers report July 8 in the scientific journal Nature that Earth's ancient stores of peat are gasifying into the atmosphere at an accelerating rate that is adding significantly to the atmosphere's overload of this greenhouse gas? Why did researchers recently report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that warming temperatures (especially at night) will reduce the productivity of rice crops, the staple food of 2 billion people?
By the time temperatures get hot enough to convince Mr. Krauthammer that we really have a problem, we will be facing a toasty future indeed.
BRUCE E. JOHANSEN
Frederick W. Kayser Research Professor
University of Nebraska at Omaha
Charles Krauthammer says that "the crux" of the debate about President Bush's "aggressive interventionism" is whether "Islamic radicalism in potential alliance with terrorist states that possess" weapons of mass destruction is a threat to the existence of "the United States and of civilization itself."
Come on. No one doubts the danger of an Osama bin Laden with nukes or sarin or smallpox. But the principal debate about Mr. Bush's "interventionism" concerns the justification for the Iraq war. Iraq posed little threat to the United States (or to civilization itself). Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to speak of and did not cooperate or materially assist anti-Western terrorists.
Mr. Krauthammer's column phonied up the issue to get around the real debate.