Responses to Ruether.

* It is a sad day when theologians of such stature as Rosemary Ruether and newspapers as respectable as NCR lend credence to conspiracy theories implicating the Bush administration with the tragedy of 9/11 (NCR, Jan. 30). In this article, we are asked to believe that another theologian (David Ray Griffin) is privy to all kinds of intelligence suggesting that "not only did the Bush administration have detailed information that such attacks were going to occur on Sept. ii and failed to carry through protective responses in advance, but that they also obstructed the standard procedures to intervene in these events on the actual day it happened." Dr. Ruether finds the information presented "convincing and chilling." I find her review the latter.

Just from the little mentioned in Dr. Ruether's review, one gets a hint of the kinds of inaccuracies and "linkages" being presented. We are told, for example, that "Flight 93 was the only plane shot down, although only after it appeared passengers were on the verge of taking control." Umm, shot down? No, it seems to have crashed. Also, we learn that "eyewitnesses and on-site evidence suggests that a missile or guided fighter aircraft, not a large commercial plane, crashed into the Pentagon." Courtesy of the Bush administration, no doubt! Amazing! Never mind that other eyewitnesses saw a passenger jet crash, and the black boxes of the Boeing 757 were found, along with the remains of most of the 64 passengers on Flight 77. All government propaganda, no doubt, including the grieving families of the victims of Flight 77, who were no doubt paid by Bush and Co. to contrive tears for the occasion.

For those interested in rebuttal beyond what is possible to pest here, I recommend ourworld-top.cs.com/ mikegriffith1/refute.htm.There are other good sites on the Internet as well. Ruether and NCR might make note of such things next time such a controversial theory is being touted. Otherwise, you end up looking like yet more cheerleaders for anti-Bush hysteria.

PHIL ST. ROMAIN

Wichita, Kan.

* Thanks for "Was the Bush administration complicit in 9/11?" by Rosemary Ruether. Several months ago The Sacramento Bee published an article in its Sunday "Forum" telling of a group of 9/11 widows who came up with exactly the same questions. Personally, I find the evidence compelling. (My dad has a business associate who warned of Japanese attack two weeks prior to Pearl Harbor, which he learned of via a D.C. call.)

LORETTA SCHMIT

Sacramento, Calif.

* The article by Rosemary Ruether is about as close to a supermarket tabloid article as I have read in NCR. I guess we should expect to read some thing in a future article about the grassy knoll conspiracy,, or the one about the moon landing being a conspiracy, or maybe even the one about FDR allowing Pearl Harbor to take place back in 1941. These conspiracy theories are so easy to concoct after the fact because it is easier to believe them than to accept that even our best federal employees make huge mistakes, overlook seemingly obvious clues and tend to just "blow it" sometimes. If all Rosemary Ruether can offer for an article is to pass off someone else's theory that she happened to read, then I think you would better serve your readers by taking a pass on her submission and find something more original and edifying for your readers. I don't recall your giving similar copy space to the better-documented fact of then-President Clinton selling the nuclear secrets of this nation to the Chinese government for a bundle of campaign contributions. That one was so obvious and blatant that it wasn't something the tabloids would touch. They prefer gossip to facts. Spending an entire page on the rumors of what the pope said about the Mel Gibson movie is about as trashy as the Rosemary Ruether article. Please do a better job of selecting substance over gossip.

PETER JENSEN

Morgan Hill, Calif.

Editor's note: Once selected as a columnist, NCR columnists are given wide latitude to write on whatever topic they choose. Their opinions are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

* Rosemary Ruether's many commentaries in NCR are of interest and appreciated. However, "Talking about the weather" (NCR, Nov. 21) was a mistake. Yes the big bad Bush administration opposed the Kyoto treaty relative to global warming, but the rest of the story needs "telling.

The United States signed the binding treaty in 1998; Bill Clinton would not send it to the Senate for ratification; Russia, the third-leading carbon dioxide producer, did not ratify the treaty, and developing nations (a major segment of the world's population) were exempt.

President Bush prefers a voluntary approach that calls for belief that all nations will morally reduce emissions without mandatory controls.

Global warming involves more than carbon dioxide. There are 12 major emissions that threaten human survival (six are by natural causes.) On the 1999 harmful particle scale (smoke, soot, etc.), pollution control by U.S. cities has excelled. Compare Beijing's 106 and Delhi's 187 to Los Angeles' 37, Chicago's 27 and New York City's 23.

Conserving energy to reduce hazardous emissions is the responsibility of every human being on earth. It is easy to paranoically assume that Ms. Ruether's "elites" of the West do not care about global warming because of greed. Who are these greedy people? In 2001, 56 percent of American families owned shares in companies, and there is an upward trend. Are these families the greedy elites?

The climate change was blamed on "the sins of greedy affluence." Only the very affluent can afford to commute hundreds of miles between home and job weekly, as does Ms. Ruether. Her travel is made possible by enormous quantities of burning fossil fuel and deadly emissions. Are these elitist-type trips really necessary?

RICHARD HUGHES

Kula, Hawaii