Friday, June 06, 2003

Re: Senators move to restore FCC limits on the media Dear Friends: In an attempt to restore diversity and localism to the airwaves, a bipartisan majority of the Senate Commerce Committee plans to vote to overturn portions of the media ownership rules recently adopted by the FCC. If successful, this would reverse one of the most significant deregulatory steps undertaken during the Bush administration. Although the efforts to overturn the decision face an uphill battle, the public outrage, compounded by criticism from a wide spectrum of organizations--ranging from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association--have given critics momentum on Capitol Hill. ____________________________ New York Times June 5, 2003 Senators Move to Restore F.C.C. Limits on the Media by Stephen Labaton   WASHINGTON, June 4-- A bipartisan majority of an important Senate committee indicated today that it would vote to overturn some of the media ownership rules adopted two days ago, reversing one of the most significant deregulatory steps undertaken during the Bush administration. The battle over the new rules, which were narrowly adopted by the Federal Communications Commission along partisan lines, spilled into Congress where the Republican commissioners who voted for them faced hostile questions from both Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Commerce Committee. Its chairman, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said the committee would begin a markup of new legislation this month even though he did not directly take issue with the changes adopted by the commission. Mr. McCain said he would introduce legislation giving the F.C.C. the authority to impose tighter regulations if the agency found such regulations were in the public interest. The efforts to overturn the decision face an uphill battle, particularly in the House of Representatives, where there is more support for the commission than there appears to be in the Senate. But the political furor, as evidenced by hundreds of thousands of negative comments sent from across the country, on top of criticism from a spectrum of organizations ranging from the National Organization for Women to the National Rifle Association, have given critics momentum on Capitol Hill, which could ultimately lead to a reversal of some elements of the new rules. "While Monday's decision promising further media deregulation may well be celebrated in a few New York and Hollywood boardrooms, it will be remembered as a dark day in thousands of American communities who look to the F.C.C. to ensure that the use of the public airwaves serves the interests of all Americans, not the economic self-interest of a chosen few," said Senator Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina, the ranking Democrat on the committee. Even without the strong support of Mr. McCain, lawmakers today were discussing the possibility of using a rare parliamentary maneuver that would permit them to overturn the commission's decision by simple majority in both houses of Congress and without requiring the approval of President Bush, whose aides have praised the commission's decision. The architect of the deregulation, the F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, responded to questions by saying he was only doing what Congress and the courts had directed the agency to do. A 1996 law requires the agency to review the broadcast rules every two years. More recently, a series of court opinions have criticized the agency for failing to adequately justify the restrictions. "The D.C. Circuit held, `the Congress set in motion a process to deregulate the structure of the broadcast and cable television industries,' " Mr. Powell testified. "The F.C.C. is an administrative agency and it is constitutionally bound to comply--willingly or not-- with Congress's direction, as expressed by the text of the statute. The commission does not have the luxury of always doing what is popular." But with so many comments criticizing the changes flooding the offices of lawmakers and the F.C.C., Mr. Powell's position had little political traction. Only 5 members of the 23-member Senate committee offered any support for the commission; most of the rest, Democrats and Republicans alike, expressed deep dissatisfaction with at least some aspect of the new rules. While a majority of the Democrats on the committee criticized most of the package adopted by the commission, elements of it were also challenged by such Republicans as Ted Stevens, Conrad Burns, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia J. Snowe and Trent Lott. Senator Snowe, of Maine, said she shared "profound disappointment in the way the F.C.C. has reached its decision and in the way that it paves the way for consolidation of power in the hands of a few." "It is a victory for free enterprise," she said, "but it is not a victory for free speech." Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, called the commission's decision "wrongheaded and destructive" and said it would lead to "an orgy of mergers and acquisitions." He added, "The majority of the commission did not have the strength to stand up against corporate interests." Senator Burns, of Montana, himself a former television broadcaster, said the old rules had worked well. "We've all said we've seen a growth in the number of voices and a growth in outlets," he said. "We have seen that under existing rules. So my first reaction is, why change?" Only a small minority of the lawmakers came to the defense of the commission. "I think the dangers of what your rulings may lead to have been somewhat overstated," said Senator Peter G. Fitzgerald, Republican of Illinois. Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, said the changing nature of the broadcast and newspaper industries required modifications of the old rules. "Times have changed," he said. "It doesn't mean we don't need any regulations. But if times have changed, we ought to make sure that the regulations are keeping pace with those changes." The strongest criticism came over the decision to give the television networks the authority to buy more affiliate stations. But there was also criticism from many Democrats and some Republicans over the repeal of the rule that had restricted a company from owning both newspapers and broadcast stations in the same city. While there is more support for the commission's deregulatory moves in the House, supporters of the old rules have several procedural options that may make it easier than usual to overturn the new rules. One avenue is the adoption of a "resolution of disapproval," an arcane parliamentary move that would automatically repeal the F.C.C.'s decision without requiring the signature of the president. Congress's ability to overturn agency decisions without the approval of the president was adopted in the Congressional Review Act of 1996. It was used two years ago when Republican lawmakers, acting after intense lobbying from many major corporations, and over the objections of labor groups, overturned the workplace ergonomic rules written by the Clinton administration. Some lawmakers were also discussing the possibility of attaching any revisions to the new media ownership rules to appropriations measures that would more easily pass through Congress. Such a parliamentary maneuver has more currency than usual because Mr. Stevens, one of the most vocal critics of the commission's decision, heads the Senate Appropriations Committee. He has sponsored legislation to roll back the national network ownership cap to its old limit. The old rule, prohibiting a network from acquiring stations that reach more than 35 percent of the nation's viewers, was increased to 45 percent on Monday. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ==================================================== 5:53:09 PM

Re: Survey finds widened gulf Dear Friends: A global opinion poll conducted in May  by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center confirmed that the War in Iraq has widened the gulf between the US and the rest of the world. In addition, it revealed a large drop in American's views of their traditional allies and a further surge of anti-Americanism in Muslim countries.  Another casualty of the war was the significant loss of faith in two major international institutions created out of the ashes of World War II - the United Nations and NATO. The credibility and importance of the UN in dealing with international conflicts suffered, being greatly damaged by the protracted bickering in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, all of which failed to prevent the hostilities for happening. ________________________ International Herald Tribune June 4, 2003 Poll Shows U.S. Isolation: In War's Wake, Hostility and Mistrust  by Meg Bortin PARIS--The war in Iraq has widened the rift between the United States and the rest of the world, with a steep plunge in Americans' views of their traditional allies and a further surge of anti-Americanism in Muslim countries, a global opinion survey shows. The poll of more than 15,000 people in 20 countries and the Palestinian Authority, conducted in May by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, also showed a significant loss of faith in two major international institutions created out of the ashes of World War II - the United Nations and NATO. "The figures show that the publics - the European public and our public - are feeling that the ties that have bound us together for the last 50 years are weakening," said Madeleine Albright, the former U.S. secretary of state and chair of the Pew Global Attitudes Project. "I see this as very serious." The poll forcefully supported the finding of an earlier survey that a U.S. war with Iraq would fuel anti-American sentiment. As could be expected, this feeling is strongest in the Muslim world, where negative attitudes toward the United States have soared since the war on Iraq began March 20 with a wave of American air attacks over Baghdad. One of the most extreme shifts was seen in Turkey, where the government, heeding popular sentiment, decided not to allow United States to use its soil as a base for attacks on Iraq although Washington and Ankara are partners in NATO. The poll found that 83 percent of Turks now have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, up from 55 percent last summer. The swing was even sharper in Indonesia, where Islamic radicalism has been rising since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. While 75 percent had a favorable opinion of the United States in 2000, 83 percent now have an unfavorable view. Similar levels of animosity hold sway in the Palestinian Authority and Jordan. In fact, feelings are so intense in the Islamic world that Osama bin Laden was chosen by five Muslim publics - in Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority - as one of the three political leaders they would most trust to "do the right thing" in world affairs. Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said he had been surprised by the extent to which "the bottom has fallen out" in the Muslim world. "Anti-Americanism has deepened, but it has also widened," he said. "You now find it in the far reaches of Africa - in Nigeria, among Muslims - and in Indonesia. People see America as a real threat. They think we're going to invade them." In Europe, in contrast, the image of the United States has improved since a poll in March, just before the onset of hostilities in Iraq. Yet favorable views among America's main allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization remain sharply down from levels last year. In France, Germany and Spain, where public anger over the U.S. war plans spilled massively into the streets this winter, fewer than 50 percent have a positive view of the United States, the poll showed. Among the French, who took an uncharacteristically univocal stand in opposing the war, favorable opinion of the United States has recovered to 43 percent - up from what Pew describes as the "abysmal" level of 31 percent in March, but well below the 63 percent favorable rating of last summer. The Germans, who joined the French at the head of Europe's anti-war front, also remain wary of the United States, with 45 percent having a favorable opinion, up from 25 percent in March but down from 61 percent in the summer of 2002. Animosity is far stronger on the other side of the Atlantic, where Americans were infuriated by the failure of traditional allies - and especially the French - to back them in the war. Only 29 percent of Americans now say they have a very favorable or somewhat favorable view of France, down from 79 percent in February 2002. And just 44 percent of Americans take a favorable view of Germany now - a dramatic plunge from 83 percent in February 2002. "The figures confirm that the Iraq crisis has precipitated a profound crisis in trans-Atlantic relations, which I think had been building for some time," said Timothy Garton Ash, author and director of the European Studies Center at Oxford. "The deepest cause is the end of the Cold War and the fact that we no longer have a common enemy - the Soviet Union." Among the West European allies, favorable opinion of the United States is strongest by far in Britain, America's chief partner in the war despite considerable domestic opposition to the cooperation provided by Prime Minister Tony Blair. Positive views among the British have bounced back to 70 percent, up from 48 percent in March. Favorable opinion among the allies is weakest in Spain, where the government ignored overwhelming popular opposition to the war and backed the United States and Britain. Only 38 percent of Spaniards now have a positive opinion of the United States - a big increase, however, from 14 percent in March. The hostility in Spain is not limited to U.S. policies but extends to Americans as people - fewer than half have a positive impression. But approval of "the American people" remains solid in France, where 58 percent have a favorable view, Germany (67 percent), Italy (77 percent, up 3 points since last summer) and Britain (80 percent). Asked if they had an unfavorable view of the United States because of George W. Bush or a more general problem with America, a majority in Western Europe blamed the president. Nearly three quarters in France and Germany blame Bush, as do two-thirds in Italy and six out of 10 in Britain. Bush, said Garton Ash, stirred European resentment by "basically giving key allies like France and Germany the feeling that, 'We don't really care whether you're with us or not,'" and in forcing the timetable. "If Bush had given us a few more months of negotiation he could probably have got the Europeans on board," he said. "Especially now that we know Saddam didn't have a nuclear weapon in the cellar ready to use." One casualty of the increased strains between America and Europe is NATO. A more independent approach to security and diplomatic affairs for Western Europe was favored by more than three-quarters in France, more than six out of 10 in Spain, Turkey and Italy, and 57 percent in Germany. Britons are divided on the idea of loosening the partnership, with 51 percent favoring continued close ties and 45 percent wanting a more independent approach. Even in the United States, a big minority - 39 percent - favors an easing of the security and diplomatic bonds that have cemented the alliance since the end of World War II. "For those of us who care about NATO, this is a red flag," Albright said. "The only way to get beyond this is to find more ways we can work together in NATO. I think it's a relevant organization, but it can't be relevant if you don't work at it." Another casualty of the war is the credibility of the United Nations, where protracted bickering in the run-up to the Iraq war failed to prevent hostilities. "Favorability ratings for the world body have tumbled in 16 of the 18 countries for which benchmark figures are available," the Pew report notes. "Majorities or pluralities in most countries believe that the war in Iraq showed the UN to be less important than it once was." In fact, not a single country surveyed has a majority who believes that the United Nations still plays an important role in dealing with international conflicts. A further consequence of the war is a new decline in post-9/11 sympathy for the United States. Since last summer, support for America's war on terror has dropped to 60 percent from 75 percent in France, to 60 percent from 70 percent in Germany and to 51 percent from 73 percent in Russia. Over the same period, opposition to the war on terror has swelled to more than 70 percent in Pakistan and Turkey and to 97 percent in Jordan. With the exception of Israel, Nigeria and the United States itself, all the countries surveyed judge U.S. policies to be too unilateralist. Fully 85 percent of the French said they felt that the United States did not take into account the interests of other countries. At least seven out of 10 shared this sentiment in South Korea, Spain, Russia and Canada, as did two thirds in Australia and Germany. Majorities in most countries polled reject the so-called Bush doctrine of military preemption. Those with majorities backing the doctrine were traditional U.S. allies - Canada, Britain, Australia and Israel - as well as Pakistan, which is involved in a military face-off with India over Kashmir and where fully 70 percent said that "military force against countries that may seriously threaten our country, but have not attacked us," can be often or sometimes justified. As for the conduct of the war itself, majorities in every country surveyed except Spain and Turkey felt their own government made the right decision to use or not use force, or offer bases to the United States, as the case may be. Still, majorities in many countries that opposed the use of force say they believe Iraqis are better off since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. In France and Germany, more than three-quarters say this is the case, and 70 percent in Spain agree. Among the populations surveyed, Muslims were divided on this, with majorities or pluralities in Nigeria, Lebanon and Kuwait saying Iraqis were better off without Saddam, while most people in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority said the Iraqis were worse off. Underlying some of the opinions that have emerged since the war are attitudes on national identity and social values uncovered in an earlier Pew survey of more than 38,000 people in 44 countries. The survey, conducted in 2002, demonstrated broad acceptance of U.S. ideals like democracy, the free-market model and, surprisingly, even globalization. "I found very interesting the great support for democracy," Albright said. "I've spent a long time saying that democracy is not just a Western value, and the survey supports that." Yet at the same time, people in many countries see their way of life as threatened and want protection from foreign influence. This feeling is strongest of all in Turkey, which feared being drawn into fighting in Iraq and where, even before the war, nearly 90 percent said their way of life needed defending. International Herald Tribune                  Copyright © 2003 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 11:41:42 AM

Re: Building nations domestically and abroad Dear Friends: Hendrik Hertzberg offers us a scathing indictment of the Bush Administration's domestic and imperial agenda. The Pentagon's assumptions that Iraq, glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and with a little help from American know-how and Iraqi oil cash, would quickly pick itself up and start all over have proved themselves to be false. Iraqi civil society, for the most part, has deteriorated into a Hobbesian state of nature. The Bush administration, the Republican congressional leadership, and the conservative press all believe in free markets, individual initiative, and private schools and private charity as substitutes for public provision. They do not believe that society, through the mechanisms of democratic government, has a moral obligation to provide care for the sick, food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and education for all; and to the extent that they tolerate such activities they do so grudgingly, out of political necessity. What then, are Americans, and Iraqi, to do? What must be done? _______________________________________ The New Yorker June 9, 2003 issue COMMENT Building Nations by Hendrik Hertzberg The other day, the Times quoted one of that ever-helpful breed, a "senior administration official," as expressing surprise at the horrendous condition of Iraq's "infrastructure," even before the destruction brought about by the war and its aftermath. "From the outside it looked like Baghdad was a city that works," the senior official said. "It isn't." The quintessential city that works (or, at least, has a cleverly cultivated reputation for being the city that works) is, of course, Chicago. The ward heelers and aldermen of that city understand (or, at least, are celebrated in song and story for understanding) that political power flows not from the barrel of a gun, and not even, necessarily, from the ballot box (whose contents can change in the counting), but from the ability to fix potholes. Garbage that gets collected, buses and trains that take people places, cops that whack bad guys upside the head, taps that yield water when you turn them, lights that go on when you flip the switch, all lubricated by taxes and a bit of honest graft--these are what keep streets calm, voters pacified, and righteous "reformers" out of City Hall. By Chicago standards, Baghdad, along with almost all the rest of Iraq, is a catastrophe. For that matter, conditions are disastrous even by the looser standards of places like Beirut, Bogotá, and Bombay. Reports from the scene are in general agreement on the essentials.  Iraq is well rid of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. But the blithe assumptions of the Iraq war's Pentagon architects--that a grateful Iraqi nation, with a little help from American know-how and Iraqi oil cash, would quickly pick itself up, dust itself off, and start all over again--are as shattered as the buildings that used to house Saddam's favorite restaurants. In Baghdad, and in many other Iraqi cities and towns, civic society has degenerated into a Hobbesian state of nature.   Despite the heroic efforts of a scattered minority of midlevel Iraqi civil servants, the services that make urban life viable are functioning, at best, erratically. More often, they do not function at all. "In the most palpable of ways, the American promise of a new Iraq is floundering on the inability of the American occupiers to provide basic services," the Times's Neela Banerjee reported a few days ago. (Perhaps with an eye to educating her White House readers, she added that Baghdad is "about the size of metropolitan Houston.") Telephones are dead. Electricity and running water work, if at all, for only a few hours a day. Because the water pumps are hobbled by power outages, raw sewage is pouring into the Tigris River and is leaking into the fresh-water system, spreading disease and making the city stink. Hospitals that are secure enough to remain open overflow with patients, but they are short of food, medical supplies, and personnel. (Only a fifth of prewar health staffs are showing up for work.) Worst of all is the pervasive, well-founded fear of crime. Armed thugs rule the streets, especially in the pitch-black nights. "Amid such privations," Banerjee writes, "one of the few things that thrives now in Baghdad, at least, is a deepening distrust and anger toward the United States." It's tempting to suggest that the Bush Administration is failing to provide Iraq with functioning, efficient, reliable public services because it doesn't believe in functioning, efficient, reliable public services--doesn't believe that they should exist, and doesn't really believe that they can exist. The reigning ideologues in Washington--not only in the White House but also in the Republican congressional leadership, in the faction that dominates the Supreme Court, and in the conservative press and think tanks--believe in free markets, individual initiative, and private schools and private charity as substitutes for public provision. They believe that the armed individual citizen is the ultimate guarantor of public safety. They do not, at bottom, believe that society, through the mechanisms of democratic government, has a moral obligation to provide care for the sick, food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and education for all; and to the extent that they tolerate such activities they do so grudgingly, out of political necessity. They believe that the private sector is sovereign, and that taxes are a species of theft. To paraphrase Proudhon, les impôts, c'est le vol. In a way, Iraq has become a theme park of conservative policy nostrums. There are no burdensome government regulations. Health and safety inspectors and environmental busybodies are nowhere to be seen. The Ministry of Finance, Iraq's equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service, is a scorched ruin. Museums and other cultural institutions, having been largely emptied of their contents, no longer have much use for public subsidies. Gun control is being kept within reasonable limits. (Although the occupying authorities are trying to discourage possession of heavy munitions, AK-47s and other assault weapons--guns of the type whose manufacture Tom DeLay and most of the House Republicans plan to re-legalize back home--have been given a pass.) And, in the absence of welfare programs and other free-lunch giveaways, faith-based initiatives are flourishing. The faith in question may be Iranian-style militant Shiism, but at least it's fundamentalist. The Bush Administration no longer flaunts its contempt for nation-building abroad, but it remains resolutely hostile to nation-building at home. Its domestic policy consists almost solely of a never-ending campaign to reduce the taxes of the very rich. Not all of this largesse will be paid for by loading debt onto future generations. Some of it is being paid for right now, by cuts in public services--cuts that outweigh the spare-change breaks for less affluent families which the Administration, in selling its successive tax elixirs, has had to include in order to suppress the electorate's gag reflex. The pain is especially acute at the state level, where net federal help is in decline. States are cancelling school construction, truncating the academic year, increasing class sizes, and eliminating preschool and after-school programs. Health benefits are being slashed, and a million people will likely lose coverage altogether. In many states, even cops are getting laid off. As it happens,these are the very kinds of public services that America's proconsuls are promising to bring to Iraq. Of course, being nice to Iraq does not necessarily require the United States to be nice to itself. Nor does denying medicine to kids in Texas require denying it to kids in Baghdad. The connection is more karmic than causal. But it's also political. Whatever one may think of the global democratic-imperial ambitions of the present Administration, they cannot long coexist with the combination of narrow greed and public neglect it thinks sufficient for what it is pleased to call the homeland. At some point--the sooner the better--a critical mass of Americans will notice. ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 11:41:06 AM

Re: A letter to America Dear Friends: Canadian author Margaret Atwood asks what has become of the America she once knew and loved. She laments that much of its joy, idealism, and conscience are gone. Has America lost its way? Atwood expresses deep concern about what America is doing to its people. Once we stood for freedom, honesty, and justice. We protected the innocent. But now, we trample the Constitution and abuse civil liberties. She wisely asks, "When did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened." If we proceed in this fashion, we will loose the respect and admiration of the peoples of the world. They will mistrust our actions and no longer welcome our vision. They will rightly conclude that we've fouled our own nest. [In order to provide international perspective in the debate over US foreign policy, The Nation asked foreign commentators to share their reflections. This is the seventh in that series. --The Editors] ______________________ The Nation April 14, 2003 issue What Happened To America?  A Letter, A Lament by Margaret Atwood Dear America: This is a difficult letter to write, because I'm no longer sure who you are. Some of you may be having the same trouble. I thought I knew you: We'd become well acquainted over the past 55 years. You were the Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck comic books I read in the late 1940s. You were the radio shows -- Jack Benny, Our Miss Brooks. You were the music I sang and danced to: the Andrews Sisters, Ella Fitzgerald, the Platters, Elvis. You were a ton of fun. You wrote some of my favourite books. You created Huckleberry Finn, and Hawkeye, and Beth and Jo in Little Women, courageous in their different ways. Later, you were my beloved Thoreau, father of environmentalism, witness to individual conscience; and Walt Whitman, singer of the great Republic; and Emily Dickinson, keeper of the private soul. You were Hammett and Chandler, heroic walkers of mean streets; even later, you were the amazing trio, Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Faulkner, who traced the dark labyrinths of your hidden heart. You were Sinclair Lewis and Arthur Miller, who, with their own American idealism, went after the sham in you, because they thought you could do better.  You were Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront, you were Humphrey Bogart in Key Largo, you were Lillian Gish in Night of the Hunter. You stood up for freedom, honesty and justice; you protected the innocent. I believed most of that. I think you did, too. It seemed true at the time. You put God on the money, though, even then. You had a way of thinking that the things of Caesar were the same as the things of God: That gave you self-confidence. You have always wanted to be a city upon a hill, a light to all nations, and for a while you were. Give me your tired, your poor, you sang, and for a while you meant it. We've always been close, you and us. History, that old entangler, has twisted us together since the early 17th century. Some of us used to be you; some of us want to be you; some of you used to be us. You are not only our neighbours: In many cases -- mine, for instance -- you are also our blood relations, our colleagues and our personal friends. But although we've had a ringside seat, we've never understood you completely, up here north of the 49th parallel. We're like Romanized Gauls -- look like Romans, dress like Romans, but aren't Romans -- peering over the wall at the real Romans. What are they doing? Why? What are they doing now? Why is the haruspex eyeballing the sheep's liver? Why is the soothsayer wholesaling the Bewares? Perhaps that's been my difficulty in writing you this letter: I'm not sure I know what's really going on. Anyway, you have a huge posse of experienced entrail-sifters who do nothing but analyze your every vein and lobe. What can I tell you about yourself that you don't already know? This might be the reason for my hesitation: embarrassment, brought on by a becoming modesty. But it is more likely to be embarrassment of another sort. When my grandmother -- from a New England background -- was confronted with an unsavoury topic, she would change the subject and gaze out the window. And that is my own inclination: Mind your own business. But I'll take the plunge, because your business is no longer merely your business. To paraphrase Marley's Ghost, who figured it out too late, mankind is your business. And vice versa: When the Jolly Green Giant goes on the rampage, many lesser plants and animals get trampled underfoot. As for us, you're our biggest trading partner: We know perfectly well that if you go down the plug-hole, we're going with you. We have every reason to wish you well.    I won't go into the reasons why I think your recent Iraqi adventures have been -- taking the long view -- an ill-advised tactical error. By the time you read this, Baghdad may or may not look like the craters of the Moon, and many more sheep entrails will have been examined. Let's talk, then, not about what you're doing to other people, but about what you're doing to yourselves. You're gutting the Constitution. Already your home can be entered without your knowledge or permission, you can be snatched away and incarcerated without cause, your mail can be spied on, your private records searched. Why isn't this a recipe for widespread business theft, political intimidation, and fraud? I know you've been told all this is for your own safety and protection, but think about it for a minute. Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened. You're running up a record level of debt. Keep spending at this rate and pretty soon you won't be able to afford any big military adventures. Either that or you'll go the way of the USSR: lots of tanks, but no air conditioning. That will make folks very cross. They'll be even crosser when they can't take a shower because your short-sighted bulldozing of environmental protections has dirtied most of the water and dried up the rest. Then things will get hot and dirty indeed. You're torching the American economy. How soon before the answer to that will be, not to produce anything yourselves, but to grab stuff other people produce, at gunboat-diplomacy prices? Is the world going to consist of a few megarich King Midases, with the rest being serfs, both inside and outside your country? Will the biggest business sector in the United States be the prison system? Let's hope not.    If you proceed much further down the slippery slope, people around the world will stop admiring the good things about you. They'll decide that your city upon the hill is a slum and your democracy is a sham, and therefore you have no business trying to impose your sullied vision on them. They'll think you've abandoned the rule of law. They'll think you've fouled your own nest. The British used to have a myth about King Arthur. He wasn't dead, but sleeping in a cave, it was said; in the country's hour of greatest peril, he would return. You, too, have great spirits of the past you may call upon: men and women of courage, of conscience, of prescience. Summon them now, to stand with you, to inspire you, to defend the best in you. You need them. -- Margaret Atwood studied American literature, among other things, at Radcliffe and Harvard in the 1960s. She is the author of 10 novels. Her 11th, Oryx and Crake, will be published in May 2003. ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 11:40:19 AM

Re: Senator Byrd on the perception of deception Dear Friends: Elder statesman Senator Robert Byrd, the Dean of the Congress, delivers another rousing speech, this time about the perception of deception and the "missing" weapons of mass destruction.  Were are these WMD? Did they ever exist?  As these were the primary justification for the American invasion of Iraq, we cannot let the matter rest. It's time the President leveled with the American people. ____________________ Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd June 5, 2003   The Preception of Deception:  Where Are the Iraqi Weapons?  With each passing day, the questions surrounding Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction take on added urgency.  Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other nerve agents that we were told Iraq was hoarding? Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin? Wasn't it the looming threat to America posed by these weapons that propelled the United States into war with Iraq? Isn't this the reason American military personnel were called upon to risk their lives in combat? On March 17, in his final speech to the American people before ordering the invasion of Iraq, President Bush took one last opportunity to bolster his case for war. The centerpiece of his argument was the same message he brought to the United Nations months before, and the same message he hammered home at every opportunity in the intervening months, namely that Saddam Hussein had failed to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and thus presented an imminent danger to the American people.  "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," the President said. Now, nearly two months after the fall of Baghdad, the United States has yet to find any physical evidence of those lethal weapons. Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Were they destroyed before the war? Have they been shipped out of the country?  Do they actually exist?  The questions are mounting. What started weeks ago as a restless murmur throughout Iraq has intensified into a worldwide cacophony of confusion. The fundamental question that is nagging at many is this:  How reliable were the claims of this President and key members of his Administration that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States, such a grave threat that immediate war was the only recourse? Lawmakers, who were assured before the war that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq, and many of whom voted to give this Administration a sweeping grant of authority to wage war based upon those assurances, have been placed in the uncomfortable position of wondering if they were misled.  The media is ratcheting up the demand for answers: Could it be that the intelligence was wrong, or could it be that the facts were manipulated? These are very serious and grave questions, and they require immediate answers.  We cannot - - and must not - - brush such questions aside.  We owe the people of this country an answer.  Every member of this body ought to be demanding answers. I am encouraged that the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees are planning to investigate the credibility of the intelligence that was used to build the case for war against Iraq.  We need a thorough, open, gloves-off investigation of this matter and we need it quickly.  The credibility of the President and his Administration hangs in the balance. We must not trifle with the people's trust by foot-dragging. What amazes me is that the President himself is not clamoring for an investigation.  It is his integrity that is on the line.  It is his truthfulness that is being questioned.  It is his leadership that has come under scrutiny. And yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity about the strange turn of events in Iraq, expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled.  How is it that the President, who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern over the where-abouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Indeed, instead of leading the charge to uncover the discrepancy between what we were told before the war and what we have found  or failed to find since the war, the White House is circling the wagons and scoffing at the notion that anyone in the Administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq. In an interview with Polish television last week, President Bush noted that two trailers were found in Iraq that U.S. intelligence officials believe are mobile biological weapons production labs, although no trace of chemical or biological material was found in the trailers.  "We found the weapons of mass destruction," the President was quoted as saying. Certainly he cannot be satisfied with such meager evidence. At the CIA, Director George Tenet released a terse statement the other day defending the intelligence his agency provided on Iraq.  "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong," he said.  How can he be so absolutely sure? At the Pentagon, Doug Feith, the Under Secretary of Defense for policy, held a rare press conference this week to deny reports that a high level intelligence cell in the Defense Department doctored data and pressured the CIA to strengthen the case for war. "I know of no pressure.  I can't rule out what other people may have perceived.  Who knows what people perceive," he said.  Is this Administration not at all concerned about the perception of deception? And Secretary of State Powell, who presented the U.S. case against Iraq to the United Nations last February, strenuously defended his presentation in an interview this week and denied any erosion in the Administration's credibility.  "Everybody knows that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," he said.  Should he not be more concerned than that about U.S. claims before the United Nations? And yet...and yet...the questions continue to grow, and the doubts are beginning to drown out the assurances.  For every insistence from Washington that the weapons of mass destruction case against Iraq is sound comes a counterpoint from the field  another dry hole, another dead end.  As the top Marine general in Iraq was recently quoted as saying, "It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it's not for lack of trying.  We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there." Who are the American people to believe?  What are we to think?  Even though I opposed the war against Iraq because I believe that the doctrine of preemption is a flawed and dangerous instrument of foreign policy, I did believe that Saddam Hussein possessed some chemical and biological weapons capability.  But I did not believe that he presented an imminent threat to the United States  as indeed he did not.  Such weapons may eventually turn up. But my greater fear is that the belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein to sell or disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq.  Shouldn't this Administration be equally alarmed if they really believed that Saddam had such dangerous capabilities? Saddam Hussein is missing.  Osama bin Laden is missing.  Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are missing.  And the President's mild claims that we are "on the look" do not comfort me.  There ought to be an army of UN inspectors combing the countryside in Iraq or searching for evidence of disbursement of these weapons right now.  Why are we waiting?  Is there fear of the unknown?  Or fear of the truth? This nation and, indeed, the world were led into war with Iraq on the grounds that Iraq, possessed weapons of mass destruction, and posed an imminent threat to the United States and to the global community.  As the President said in his March 17 address to the nation, "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated  ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other." That fear may still be valid, but I wonder how the war with Iraq has really mitigated the threat from terrorists.  As the recent attack in Saudi Arabia proved, terrorism is alive and well and unaffected by the situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, the President seems oblivious to the controversy swirling about the justification for the invasion of Iraq. Our nation's credibility before the world is at stake. While his Administration digs in to defend the status quo, Members of Congress are questioning the credibility of the intelligence and the public case made by this Administration on which the war with Iraq was based.  Members of the media are openly challenging whether America's intelligence agencies were simply wrong or were callously manipulated.  Vice President Cheney's numerous visits to the CIA are being portrayed by some intelligence professionals as "pressure."  And the American people are wondering, once again, what is going on in the dark shadows of Washington. It is time that we had some answers. It is time that the Administration stepped up its acts to reassure the American people that the horrific weapons that they told us threatened the world's safety have not fallen into terrorist hands.  It is time that the President leveled with the American people.  It is time that we got to the bottom of this matter. We have waged a costly war against Iraq.  We have prevailed.  But, we are still losing American lives in that nation.  And the troubled situation there is far from settled.  American troops will likely be needed there for years.  Billions of American tax dollars will continue to be needed to rebuild.  I only hope that we have not won the war only to lose the peace. Until we have determined the fate of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or determined that they, in fact, did not exist, we cannot rest, we cannot claim victory. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a mystery and a conundrum.  What are they, where are they, how dangerous are they?  Or were they a manufactured excuse by an Administration eager to seize a country?  It is time to answer these questions.  It is time past time  for the Administration to level with the American people, and it is time for the President to demand an accounting from his own Administration as to exactly how our nation was led down such a twisted path to war. ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 11:39:35 AM

Re: Ashcroft seeks even more power Dear Friends: In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Ashcroft defended the Justice Department's detentions of hundreds of illegal immigrants following the September 11 attacks. Not only did he support the department's actions, but he asked for even further powers in the pursuit of terrorism. It has been suggested by some congressmen that the department's denial of detainees' civil rights, and the evidence of physical abuse, might have risen to the level of criminal conduct. The antiterrorist USA Patriot Act continues to ignite protest because of civil liberties concerns. A report released Monday by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the authorities had made little effort to distinguish real terrorist suspects from those who became ensnared by chance in the investigation. Many suspects were jailed for months, often without being formally charged or given access to lawyers, and some inmates in Brooklyn were physically and verbally abused before they were cleared of any terrorist ties, the report said. ________________________________________ New York Times June 6, 2003 Ashcroft Seeks More Power to Pursue Terror Suspects by Eric Lichtblau  WASHINGTON, June 5--Attorney General John Ashcroft today defended the Justice Department's detention of hundreds of illegal immigrants after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and urged Congress to give the authorities still greater power to pursue terrorism suspects. Mr. Ashcroft, in five hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, made his first public comments on a report from his inspector general that criticized the department's treatment of 762 illegal immigrants after Sept. 11. He said "we make no apologies" for holding suspects as long necessary to determine whether they had links to terrorism. In the end, none of the 762 suspects were charged as terrorists. "Al Qaeda is diminished but not destroyed," Mr. Ashcroft said. He said the nation "must be vigilant." We must be unrelenting," he said. "We must not forget that Al Qaeda's primary terrorist target is the United States of America." Mr. Ashcroft told lawmakers that the authorities need still greater powers to track and pursue terrorists. The USA Patriot Act, as the sweeping antiterrorism law that grew out of the Sept. 11 attacks is known, has sparked official votes of protest from more than 100 communities around the country because of civil liberties concerns. But Mr. Ashcroft said the law does not go far enough and "has several weaknesses, which terrorists could exploit undermining our defenses." Mr. Ashcroft, a strong proponent of capital punishment, said the penalties for some terrorism-related crimes should be toughened to include the death penalty. He also urged Congress to allow the authorities to detain terrorism suspects before trial without bond and to clarify what constitutes illegal "material support" of terrorists, the standard the Justice Department has used against terror suspects. "We must make it crystal clear that those who train for and fight with a designated terrorist organization can be charged under the material support statutes," he said. Mr. Ashcroft's lengthy and impassioned defense of the Justice Department's counterterrorism campaign and his push for greater authority met with strong endorsement from many, but not all, of the Republicans on the judiciary panel. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Republican chairman of the panel, said that while the Justice Department had made impressive strides in fighting terrorism, he remained concerned about the potential threat to civil liberties posed by the long reach of counterterrorism efforts. "To my mind," Mr. Sensenbrenner said, "the purpose of the Patriot Act is to secure our liberties and not to undermine them." Just last month, the Senate rebuffed efforts by senior Republicans to make permanent some critical provisions of the Patriot Act that are to expire in 2005. The concerns raised by Mr. Sensenbrenner, and echoed in even stronger terms by virtually all the Democrats on the panel, signaled that Mr. Ashcroft may face a tough sell in seeking to broaden the Justice Department's authority to pursue terrorists. "Some of us find that the collateral damage may be greater than it needs to be in the conduct of this war," said Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California. Democrats said they were particularly concerned about the report released on Monday by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general. The report found "significant problems" in the way the authorities arrested and treated hundreds of illegal immigrants as part of the Sept. 11 investigation. The report found that the authorities had made little effort to distinguish real terrorist suspects from those who became ensnared by chance in the investigation. Many suspects were jailed for months, often without being formally charged or given access to lawyers, and some inmates in Brooklyn were physically and verbally abused before they were cleared of any terrorist ties, the report said. While the report drew no conclusions about the legality of the Justice Department's actions, Representative Robert C. Scott, Democrat of Virginia, suggested that the denial of the detainees' civil rights and evidence of physical assaults by Justice Department employees might have risen to the level of criminal conduct. The congressman asked Mr. Ashcroft whether he planned to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the accusations further, but the attorney general responded that "I have no plan at this time to employ a special counsel in this matter." Mr. Ashcroft said the department's civil rights division had investigated 18 complaints of abuse by guards against immigrant prisoners and had found in 14 cases that there was not enough evidence to bring criminal charges. Four investigations are pending. "We do not stand for abuse," he said. Mr. Ashcroft said he also wished that the department could have resolved cases against many of the 762 illegal immigrants more quickly. "God forbid, if we ever have to do this again, we hope that we can clear people more quickly," he said. "We'd like to clear people as quickly as possible. There's no interest whatsoever that the United States of America has in holding innocent people, absolutely none. It's costly. It takes up resources that makes it difficult for us to do what we need to do with other people who are threats." But Mr. Ashcroft stressed repeatedly that he believed the policy of detaining people for as long as it took to clear them of terrorist ties was the right one, and he said that several illegal immigrants did have terrorist connections that are still considered suspicious. One suspect was the roommate of one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and another was found with "jihad material" and more than 30 pictures of the World Trade Center, Mr. Ashcroft said. Mr. Ashcroft said past data showed that people who were facing deportation and were released from custody on bond fled about 85 percent of the time, and he said he was not willing to take that risk with the suspects apprehended after the Sept. 11 attacks. "We had to balance the risk," Mr. Ashcroft said. And in doing so, he added, "we did not violate the law." Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) 11:38:44 AM

Re: It's not our fault, claims CIA Dear Friends: Not  only the Central Intelligence Agency, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency state that their reports were manipulated by the administration to imply that Iraq posed a greater threat than it actually did. Charges that the administration massaged information is a serious accusation, especially when this manipulation resulted in the invasion of another country. Whether such misrepresentation resulted from deluded thinking or from the clear intent to mislead, this abuse of power is irresponsible and unacceptable. One hopes that an official inquiry will not be long in the making. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- New York Times June 6, 2003 Cloaks and Daggers by Nicholas D. Kristof   On Day 78 of the Search for Iraqi W.M.D., yesterday, once again nothing turned up. Spooks are spitting mad at the way their work was manipulated to exaggerate the Iraqi threat, and they are thus surprisingly loquacious (delighting those of us in journalism). They emphasize that even if weapons of mass destruction still turn up, there is a fundamental problem--not within the intelligence community itself, but with senior administration officials--particularly in the Pentagon. "As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq," one of my informants rages. Some others see a pattern not so much of lying as of self-delusion--and of subjecting the intelligence agencies to those delusions. One has to take the outrage among the spooks with a few grains of salt because the intelligence folks have been on the losing end of a power struggle with the Pentagon. But that's the problem: the Pentagon has become the 800-pound gorilla of the Bush administration, playing a central role in foreign policy and intelligence as well as military matters. "The basic problem here is that O.S.D. [Office of the Secretary of Defense] has become too powerful," noted Patrick Lang, a former senior official in the Defense Intelligence Agency. One step came in the Clinton administration, when the defense secretary gained greater control over the handling of images from spy satellites. Mr. Rumsfeld then started up his own intelligence shop in the Pentagon. The central philosophy of intelligence--that it should be sheltered from policy considerations to keep it honest--was deeply bruised. A commission led by Brent Scowcroft suggested two years ago that intelligence functions be consolidated under the director of central intelligence. It was an excellent idea--killed by, among others, Mr. Rumsfeld. My own limited encounters with spies reinforce the idea that intelligence needs to be digested by professionals rather than cherry-picked by ideologues. I remember one spy who would call me up periodically for lunch when I lived in China. He would pass on amazing inside tidbits about China's top leaders--and then ask for copies of classified Chinese documents I had obtained. I kept putting him off because I wasn't going to share my documents--but I did want his scoops. Unfortunately, I could never confirm them, so they were unusable. Finally, it dawned on me that he was simply fabricating juicy tidbits so he would have something to trade. That's the way the intelligence game sometimes operates: the information is voluminous, confusing and contradictory, and prone to abuse, and it needs to be protected from policy makers rather than massaged to make them feel good. "The president is a very powerful guy," said Ray Close, who spent 26 years in the C.I.A. "When you sense what he wants, it's very difficult not to go out and find it." As best I can reconstruct events, Mr. Rumsfeld genuinely felt that the C.I.A. and D.I.A. were doing a horrendous job on Iraq--after all, he was hearing much more alarming information from those close to Ahmad Chalabi. So the Pentagon set up its own intelligence unit, and it sifted through everyone else's information and goaded other agencies to come up with more alarmist conclusions. "He's an ideologist," one man in the spy world said of Mr. Rumsfeld. "He doesn't start with the facts, even though he's quite brainy. He has a bottom line, and then he gathers facts to support the bottom line." That is not, of course, a capital offense. Pentagon leaders should feel free to disagree strenuously with foolish judgments by the C.I.A. But for the process to work, top C.I.A. officials need to fight back. Instead, George Tenet rolled over. "Tenet sided with the D.O.D. crowd and cut the legs out from under his own analysts," said Larry Johnson, a retired C.I.A. analyst. Does this mean that Mr. Tenet should be fired? I don't think so. Despite his failure to stand up for his people, he should not be made a scapegoat for problems that arose primarily from the Pentagon's zealotry--and ousting him would leave O.S.D. more powerful than ever. "There was a collective failure here," one senior person in the intelligence world said. "At the end of the day, it should not be George left out to dry."  Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 11:21:14 AM