Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Mitch Potts, & Chris Tennant, 2/1/2005

Dear Friends,

Why IS that white-bearded man interrupting Ted Koppel's Town Meeting?

It started this way: I was invited to bring a religious voice to Ted Koppel's Town Meeting show on January 27 to address the Iraq war. It was held in the same place, St. John's Church across from the White House, as his Town Meeting had been held in March 2003, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

But at the show itself, the producers asked for a written card summarizing the comments I intended to make. They had invited me knowing in general what my views were. So — with honesty but perhaps a whiff of naivete — I wrote that I intended to speak about a power-addicted Presidency that is bringing down plagues upon our heads, reminiscent of the archetypal power-addicted Pharaoh whose downfall is at the heart of our tradition.

Nothing doing! — They made clear I wouldn't get to speak at all.

I don't take kindly to being silenced, especially when I have been specifically invited to speak, and to spend five hours on a train at my own expense to bring my voice.

And especially when I discover that what had been called a Town Meeting has been rigged to silence almost every voice ready to call for an end to the occupation of Iraq.

And when I discover that the rescinding of my invitation to speak was connected with a decision to give much more time to "the military" - but not to surviving soldiers, or the families of the fallen, who wanted the war to end.

So I spoke anyway. Out of politeness and some measure of respect for Koppel's past work, I waited till a commercial break to stand up and say my piece, off camera. But I think we should all be aware how much even this last sector of what was relatively independent network news has become flackery for the Pharaoh.

Back to when I was invited:

I was told the invitation was sparked by the full-page "Tent of Abraham, Hagar, & Sarah" ad that we had placed in the NY Times, signed by almost 500 Jews, Christians, and Muslims, calling for an end to the US occupation of Iraq (among other things).

I was asked to make sure that twenty of "our group" — Shalom Center members and friends — attended as audience members, with a chance to ask questions. From the people I wrote, I got back responses that indicated about a dozen people would be able to come.

I was told that in March 2003, the pre-war "Town Meeting" had been entitled, "Why now?" And I was told the title this time would be, "What now?"

But now the plot thickens:

The night before the show, I was called by the person who had invited me. With what she said was great embarrassment, she rescinded the invitation. She said that Koppel had decided to greatly increase the military presence on the show, and so what she kept calling the "theological" presence had to be reduced.

She said that now only five of our folks could attend (there was to be a list at the door), of whom I would count as one. She said she would make sure that I got to ask a question even though I would not officially be on the "Front Row." I considered just canceling my trip - going back and forth from Philadelphia to Washington takes most of a day - but decided the voice of religious opposition to the war was too important to just give up.

When I got to the church itself, first thing I noticed — the title of the show, printed on all the leaflets, was "Why Stay?"

"That's a big difference from 'What Now?'" I thought. "I wonder what's up?"

For the rest of what happened, see below. You will find three different and independent reports on what happened— my own and those of two others who were present, whom I did not know.

Before them, you will find my post-event letter to Ted Koppel, in which I explain why his behavior and that of his staff toward all the participants (including me, an invited guest) in what was billed as a "town meeting' on the Iraq war, violated his obligations as a host and as a professional journalist.

My letter urges him to make public redress and, most important, to produce a more honest "town meeting" where a much broader spectrrum of opinion on the war can be expressed, including strong opposition to continuing the occupation.

Shalom, Arthur

THE SHALOM CENTER
A Prophetic Voice in Jewish, Multireligious, and American Life
6711 Lincoln Drive, Philadelphia PA 19119
215/844-8494 www.theshalomcenter.org office@theshalomcenter.org

February 2, 2005

Mr. Ted Koppel
ABC New
1717 De Sales St., NW,
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Koppel,

Though I was an invited guest to your recent town meeting at St. Johns Church to discuss the Iraq War, the upshot of my participation is that I feel both your audience as a whole and I individually were treated abominably by your producers and yourself.

I was originally invited to take part in what you call the front row, with an assurance I would get to comment as a leader of America's religious communities. (The Shalom Center had placed a full-page ad in the New York Times, signed by almost 500 Jewish, Christian, and Muslim leaders, calling for an end to the US occupation of Iraq among other things.)

Then on the night before the program, that invitation was rescinded. I was told you had decided to weight the program in the direction of military presence and diminish the role of religion. I was invited to be only a member of the audience, though nevertheless I was assured I would get to ask a question.

When I arrived, that all seemed set. But as soon as I gave your staffer a written note embodying my question, the atmosphere changed and I was told I would not be allowed to ask it.

My question spoke from an ancient religious perspective about the danger that some of those who hold power can become addicted to their own power and can bring destruction on their society. My question connected this memory of the biblical Pharaoh to our present rulers, and asked how to prevent disaster.

Its content was unacceptable to your producers. But in a real town meeting, the people (let alone specially invited guests) speak and what they say is not ruled out by producers.

That was why I spoke out in the commercial break to deliver this message, and the exclusion of such thoughts (as well as their agreement with my views) is why a large part of your audience applauded what I said.

Although I certainly feel misused as an individual, it was not only I who was badly treated. Your entire audience thought they were to get a real town meeting, at least as honest and open as the one you ran in March 2003, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq an act of special courage at that time, for which I still respect you. But this time, what we all got instead was a flack job for the Bush Administrations war and occupation, contradicted only by Congresswoman Schakowski.

Lest you think my assessment bespeaks only the hurt feelings of one individual, I am enclosing similar assessments from two others who were present. I do not know them, and received their comments via Email.

I assume you felt you were adding to your sterling record of good journalism. But I think it is important for you to know that to one of your invited guests, this did not seem like menshlich behavior. And to me and others who were present, the entire program did not seem in any way an act of professional journalism.

I would be glad to meet with you to discuss this face-to-face, and in any case I urge you to make some kind of personal redress to your national audience and to produce a balanced examination of the war, including voices from the religious communities of this nation that you silenced last week.

In the path of shalom,

Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Director

Enc: Comments by AW and two other participants.
*******************************************
Three fuller statements on the so-called "town meeting" follow:

In mid-late January, I was invited to be a "Front Row" participant in Koppel's Town Meeting show to address the Iraq war - in the same place, St John's Church across from the White House, and with the same panel, as in March 2003, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq.

The "front row" seat meant I would be certain of getting to make a statement.

That did not happen. What DID happen is that the religious anti-war voice, including mine, got silenced by the Koppel machinery even though that same machinery had invited me. Silenced except that I made an outside the rules statement anyway.

Why & how is an interesting & enlightening story. Here are three different versions of it, coming from three different people who were there. (We did not know each other.) The reports come from behind the scene, and on the stage. (A very staged stage.)

Back to when I was invited:

I was told the invitation was sparked by the full-page "Tent of Abraham, Hagar, & Sarah" ad that we had placed in the NY Times, signed by almost 500 Jews, Christians, and Muslims, calling for an end to the US occupation of Iraq (among other things).

I was asked to make sure that twenty of "our group" — Shalom Center members and friends — attended as audience members, with a chance to ask questions. That's why I wrote you. I got back responses that indicated about a dozen people would be able to come.

I was told that in March 2003, the pre-war Town Meeting had been entitled, "Why now?" And I was told the title this time would be, "What now?"

But now the plot thickens:

The night before the show, I was called by the person who had invited me. With what she said was great embarrassment, she rescinded the invitation. She said that Koppel had decided to greatly increase the military presence on the show, and so what she kept calling the "theological" presence had to be reduced.

She said that now only five of our folks could attend (there was to be a list at the door), of whom I would count as one. She said she would make sure that I got to ask a question even though I would not officially be on the "Front Row." I considered just canceling my trip - going back and forth to Washington takes most of a day - but decided the voice of religious opposition to the war was too important to just give up.

When I got to the church itself, first thing I noticed — the title on all the leaflets said "Why Stay?" That's a big difference from 'What Now?' I thought. I wonder what's up?

The staffer who had invited me sat me near her so that it would be easy to arrange for me to speak.

The event began with Congresswoman Jan Schakowski being called on. Koppel said that in March 2003 she had been the only accurate predictor of the war's disaster. She called for immediate withdrawal, and said she had gotten thousands of supportive Emails a week ago when she and other Members introduced a resolution calling for that.

Then came the panel. To a man, and I mean man (four white men), they supported continuing the occupation. Even those who had opposed the war said it was impossible to quit. I should note — one of them was Richard Perle, who was convicted of lying to Congress about the criminal Iran-Contra arms swap, and avoided prison only because an appeals court ruled he had been given absolute immunity for his testimony, even if it was a lie. Why he is given any legitimate platform whatever is a mystery to me. --- No, not a mystery - it's just a vile kowtow to money and power that he gets invited.

Then audience members were invited. Two in a row, —m as I recall one from a dead soldier's family and then one returned soldier — called for an end to the occupation. Koppel rebuked the second one — he had thought the second one would have an "opposite" opinion. And from then on the questioners were almost all pro-war, often from pro-war marines or soldiers. The "military presence" Koppel had chosen.

The staffer who had promised me a voice wanted questions written down. By this time it was clear to me what needed to be asked, and I wrote it — honestly and explicitly. (I thought afterward that it would have been smarter to be vague.) She muttered it over a muted mike to the back-stage producers, and I could see her face change as the producer replied.

So I wrote her a note: Straight up or down, would I get to ask my question? She wrote back: "At this point, seems not. Sorry. I'm not in charge."

So I sat there schvitzing, trying to figure out what to do. Disrupt the program? Just leave?

I decided on a middle course. I waited till a commercial break, stood up, and explained how I had first been invited to speak in a religious voice, and then excluded. Then I explained that I was speaking during the break out of politeness and respect for Koppel, and I said more or less what follows:

"Two years ago and ever since, most American religious communities have opposed the war. Not because we are just 'idealists,' but because out of our thousands of years of life-experience, we look at the big picture.

"Out of that history, we recall a Pharaoh who became addicted to his own power and forgot to govern justly. Disaster after disaster, plague after plague followed. - But he was so addicted to his own power, so arrogant, that he shrugged off every disaster, until his own country was ruined.

"And we of the religious communities recognize that syndrome today. We recognize that those in power are so power-addicted that they cannot listen to reality. They are starving our schools, our health-care system, even local fire-fighting, in order to pursue a crazy and destructive war, built on lies.

"We see the death and maiming of thousands of our soldiers, the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, deaths at home. We see the plagues that are coming on us, each one worse than before. And we see those in power smirking through the plagues, insisting we must just keep going.

"So my question is not directed to the panel, but to the people — How do we stop that power-addict who is now in power, before he ruins us all?"

From the audience there came a storm of applause, I guess from folks who were feeling as fed-up with the one-sidedness of the "Town Meeting" as I was. I walked out.

Since then, especially after I read the descriptions below of how the event looked to two other participants, I have wondered whether I chose the right course. Maybe I should have interrupted the program itself. (But it is taped for later broadcast, so they probably would have edited me out anyway.) Maybe I should actually have asked the audience to start answering my question without waiting to be called on.

Or ------- ????

There's my report. I would be delighted to have your thoughts. Write us at Office@theshalomcenter.org

Shalom, Arthur
**************************************************

2)What you will NOT see on tonight's ABC Nightline!!!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/27/221941/519

Mitch Potts, Thursday Jan 27, 2005

I just came from the townhall meeting hosted by Ted Koppel at St. John's Episcopal Church across from the White House in Washington D.C.

The topic is IRAQ: Why Stay?

The panel consisted of Joseph Wilson, Sen. George Allen (R), and Rep Marty Meehan (D)

There was some good dialogue, but mostly ended up that time was given primarily to the pro-war agenda. There were a few outbursts that will probably be edited out, and one major outburst from a Rabbi Waskau that you will not see because it was during a commercial break.

I am posting this now, so you are aware, and will watch Nightline, but am going to keep adding to this diary continuously until I can accurately describe the event as I witnessed it.

Diaries :: NewWay4NewDay's diary ::

It started out seemingly okay. People were asked to submit questions to producers.

I submitted a question... it was about the effects of Depleted Uranium on our military personnel and Iraqui Civilians, and I wanted to ask what has been done to protect our troops from exposure to radioactive dust particles, and wanted to know if the Veterans Administration is prepared for the long term health effects to soldiers & their offspring caused by over exposure to DU.

The producer told me that since there were no health experts on the panel, it was not a proper question for the theme of the show, and So, I restructured my comment, and she said it was better and would run it by the executive producer: "As a navy veteran who was deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991, I am concerned that America is not prepared for a resurgence of Gulf War Syndrome" and that the Veterans Administration is ill-equipped to deal with the long term health issues faced by soldiers who have been exposed to Depleted Uranium".

So, We all sat and waited for the program to begin.

It starts out with a Democratic congresswoman from Illinois (can't remember her name) underscoring that she felt the war was based on a lie etc.

Then Ted Koppel asked if their were any military people who wanted to respond. The first woman who got the mic (I think by accident) was a woman who had lost her husband in the war last year and said she was a part of a group (I think Military Families Speak Out, but not sure) who gave a heartfelt plea to pull out of Iraq before anymore spouses had to go through what she had gone through.

From there, it started becoming clear that the pro-war people were going to be given more time to speak than people who dissented. The next comment came from a woman who also lost her husband (actually in the same unit as the other wife) and she gave a patriotic speech about how proud she was that he had died for his country etc and that we needed to finish the job of bring freedom to Iraq.

So, it went on this way, with the pro-war side taking precedence.

Then, during the third commercial break Rabbi Waskow stood up and loudly said, "I was invited hear to speak, but then was told I could you would not allow anyone from the religious community to sit in the front row and that I would be allowed to make a comment later if I would take a seat in back. But now I have been told that I will not be allowed to speak at all." (upon hearing that, I realized that nobody had spoken from a religious/faith based perspective, and wondered if that was indeed intentional).

He went on, "So I will ask my question now during the break so as not to cause embarrassment to you Mr. Koppel"

Ted Koppel said, "Thank you, go ahead"

The Rabbi spoke: "You do not want the religious community to speak because we DO see the BIG picture (reffrencng a marine who had spoken earlier saying that people who were for ending the occupation in Iraq do not see the big picture) "We know the story of the Pharoah, who tried to hold back God's people, and that the Pharoah's lust for power was so great that we pushed his army against the Hebrews again and again no matter how many time's he failed... he continued to deny the circumstances until the amry of Egypt was beat down and depleted at the expense of his subjects." (I wish I could communicate the eloquence with which he spoke)... "President Bush is the Pharoah, and he has stripped the American people of basic social services such as healthcare and education in order to arrogantly keep up his holy war. I will no longer stand for the U.S. governmen and the media denying the religious community our voice. The common people of the Untied States and of Iraq and elsewhere are suffering."

Then he said he was done, (there was definitely some applause during parts of his speech) and he was escorted out the church where the Nightline episode was being taped.

Antother outburst happened toward the last half hour when a tall older African American gentleman went up to a mic without permission and siad, "ask Richard Perle about the PNAC... that's all I've got to say... I'm outa here!"

Then, it went on and during the last break their was a similar occurence as to the rabbi's, when an Iraqi spoke loudly saying, there are many Iraqi's here sitting in the back, and we were told we could speak, but have been denied."

Before it went further, Ted Koppel said they would be given a chance to speak in the last seven minute segment.

However, when the show started again, one man was brought to the microphone from another section... not from where the first Iraqi said he and others were sitting. That one man said he was an Iraqi and represented the majority of Iraqi's and he supproted the U.S. freedom fighters, and only a small percentage of Sunni's were angered by the U.S. presence in Iraq. that was all.

Ted Koppel went to the closing statements and let each of the four guest panelists have their say, then started to do his closing. I was upset that nothing was said about the health of our troops mentally, physically or otherwise.

So, I started chanting "GULF WAR SYNDROME" over and over again, very loudly so it filled the church and drown out Ted Koppel.

He replied, "I am sure I have no idea what you're talking about"

and I yelled, "It's about Depleted Uranium!"

Then I shut up, and he finished his closing and it was over.

As I was waiting to filter out with everybody else, I heard one of the Iraqi's, who was very upset, talking to a producer: "This is not what we expected, we were told we would get a chance to speak in the press release you sent us, and you did not give us the chance to say what we came to say."

The producer just kind of appeased him... nodded and stuff.

That's it.

I think they will probably re-shoot Ted Koppel's closing.

I just wanted you to post this so the whole story could get out there... pass it on as you deem appropriate.

I am really feeling at this moment that the media is intentionally trying to appear as they foster "free speech" and "open dialogue", but are actually doing everything they can to keep dissenting views muted and to a minimum.

**********************************************************
3) From Chris Tennant, UN Consultant and former Programme Officer Middle East/North Africa Region, wrote as follows:

My faith in ABC News and Ted Koppel was totally shattered tonight.

Unlike the first Town Hall broadcast in 2003, which featured an honest look at the situation at that time and involved REAL discussion and debate on the issues involved, today's Town Hall Meeting on Iraq was not only NOT an open and honest look at the issues involved but, moreover, appeared to be an unabashed effort to justify this administration's policies on Iraq.

And, what is even more reprehensible, one which was based on propagandistic rhetoric and fallacious reasoning in arguing in favor of our continued military presence in that country.

The above was clearly evidenced both in the selection of the panelists involved in the interview AND in the selection of those members of the audience who were permitted to make statements and ask questions, most of whom were military personnel and families who, for the most part, propagandized in favor of our continuing military presence in Iraq and in favor of this administration's strategy to "promote democracy" through the use of military force.

In fact, with the exception of two mild regrets expressed concerning this administration's policies on Iraq and the one strong condemnation issued by Senator [sic; actually, congresswoman] Schakowsky, NO opportunities were provided to members of the general audience to voice opposing viewpoints.

And what is even more reprehensible were the leading questions and "refraining" of answers by Ted Koppel in response to the few "participants" who dared to question, even mildly, our presence in Iraq, one such case in point being that of the young man who was seriously wounded in Iraq who was quite obviously not happy about the situation of the military in Iraq but who was pressured into saying that we should remain in Iraq.

And, if that were not enough, NO attention at all was given to the views of the Iraqi people themself nor of the large number of Muslims and other individuals from the Middle East who were present in the audience. In fact, not a single ONE had been selected to speak on their behalf! It was only after it was loudly brought to the attention of Koppel that none of them were being permitted to express their views, that he granted a token Iraqi exile and US Military SUPPORTER a few seconds only to spew forth propaganda about how grateful ALL the Iraqis are for our military presence there and how much they want us to stay, which most of us know by now is a load of BS!!!!

In case ABC, perchance, was not aware, the people sitting in the back half of that auditorium were not at all happy about not being allowed to express their views, especially those Iraqis who clearly did not agree with the spin that Koppel and his "participants" were putting on the topic.

In fact, it appears that, although we were all asked to write down questions that we would like to ask, the entire exercise was obviously a sham since the real participants who did get to express their views had apparently all been pre-selected.

The only conclusion that I can draw from what I witnessed at that "town-hall" meeting is that ABC News and/or Ted Koppel has sold out like the rest of the mainstream news media. Town-hall meetings are supposed to be examples of democracy in action at the GRASSROOTS level and that meeting tonight was clearly anything but that.

For me, and for many other ordinary, but extremely concerned, viewers in America, ABC News and Nightline represented the only remaining hope for honest news coverage on mainstream television. In fact, as I mentioned in my last e-mail, I have been a long-time supporter of ABC News and especially of Nightline, which has been the only mainstream TV news coverage, apart from PBS, that I have been watching since 9/11. However, I have now lost faith even in ABC and, above all, in Ted Koppel, whom I earlier considered to be the most outstanding TV news commentator in this country.

Anyway, I suppose now that I will have to limit my TV news coverage to PBS, and will otherwise have to rely upon NPR and C-SPAN radio, as well as on the foreign written press, since I have neither cable nor satellite television.

In closing, I cannot begin to convey to you the disappointment and disillusionment that I and many other participants in and viewers of that Town-Hall Meeting hosted by Nightline felt tonight. In short, we felt totally betrayed. I sincerely hope that you will convey our regrets to Ted Koppel and to those in charge of programming news specials on ABC.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration.

Chris Tennant

UN Consultant and former Programme Officer Middle East/North Africa Region