Clinton, Clinton, what do you say?
Who made the undies you're wearing today?
One, two, three, four,
Keep your shrimp outside our door!
For many activists, it's the last great road trip of the
century.
Depending on whom you talk to, somewhere between 1,500
and 5,000 Portlanders headed north this week to shut down
Seattle. They carried with them giant puppets, detailed
protest schedules, intricate signs and instructions on how
to make bail.
At least 42 Portland union locals ranging from the Portland
Association of Teachers to the Columbia River Masters and
Mates sent representatives. The AFL-CIO chartered its own
Amtrak train. Local environmental and human-rights groups
such as the Cascadia Forest Alliance, the Unitarian Church,
Jobs with Justice and the Portland Fair Trade Coalition
also made the trip.
The WTO, it seems, has become a lightning rod for all the
frustration and anxiety that people feel about the world.
Unions fear that cheap foreign labor will steal U.S. jobs.
They point to Pendleton Woolen Mills, which moved hundreds
of Oregon jobs offshore.
Environmentalists say the WTO has created a race to the
bottom and will wipe out decades of progress. They point
to the local seafood aisles stocked with Malaysian shrimp
caught in nets that kill sea turtles.
Seattle police were expecting 50,000 demonstrators to hit
town by midweek.
Not since the Vietnam War have so many Americans risen
up in anger. But that protest was significantly different.
When American soldiers came home from Southeast Asia in
body bags 30 years ago, the protesters' message was simple:
Get the United States out of Vietnam.
The outcry against the Word Trade Organization is more
complex.
To be sure, the Pat Buchanans of the world would love to
kill the WTO. But, despite the mainstream media's fascination
with the "Stop the WTO" banners, the critics we talked to
have no desire to put the organization out of business.
In fact, they'd like the WTO to be far stronger--at least
when it comes to linking trade to environmental and human-rights
considerations.
In an attempt to help our readers understand the nuances
of the events that will be unfolding this week, WW
invited nine people to our offices on Nov. 19 to talk about
everything from the trade of Pakistani underwear to the
sale of Oregon wheat. Some of them were strong defenders
of free trade. Others were planning to take to Seattle streets
to protest the WTO.
Sustained only by Oregon water and a pot of coffee that
had its origins in four continents, they went at it for
more than two hours. As they say in diplomatic circles,
the discussion was "spirited" and "frank."
The transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity.
THE
PLAYERS
PETER DEFAZIO
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, OREGON'S 4TH DISTRICT
SAMUEL SAENZ
TRADE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, STATE OF OREGON
CHRIS WOLD
INSTRUCTOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, LEWIS & CLARK'S NORTHWESTERN
SCHOOL OF LAW
JONATHAN SCHLUETER
VICE PRESIDENT, PACIFIC NORTHWEST FEED AND GRAIN DEALERS
ASSOCIATION
IVAN MALUSKI
CO-FOUNDER, CASCADIA FOREST ALLIANCE
RICK SCHULBERG
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
FOUNDATION
JEAN EILERS
STATE FIELD DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO
CYNDI CHAN
CO-CHAIRWOMAN, PORTLAND JOBS WITH JUSTICE
BILL CONERLY
BOARD CHAIRMAN,
CASCADE POLICY INSTITUTE, INVESTMENT MANAGER
WW: Why is there so much heat surrounding the
Seattle meeting?
Chris Wold: I think we're fighting for the primary agreement
for regulating local and national environmental issues and
labor disputes. Citizens are saying it's time we learn about
this process and participate to the extent we can. What
we're talking about with world trade is equivalent to a
constitution that only has a commerce clause. The WTO doesn't
say anything about the environment, and that's what is important
to the thousands of activists who plan to show up in Seattle.
But hasn't that always been the case with international
trade? Why is there such outrage this year?
Peter DeFazio: Part of it is because all these fabulous
promises were made for NAFTA, none of which have come true.
In fact the environment is greatly and dramatically harmed
on the borders. The U.S. has lost jobs and created a large
trade deficit with Mexico. We've lost very successful laws
involving the degradation of dolphins. For the first time,
Americans are seeing that their laws are vulnerable to other
countries. Basically, the world has changed, and there is
this opportunity in Seattle to either keep moving in that
direction or change to a direction that promotes labor rights,
the environment and consumer protection. People are finally
beginning to see that trade agreements affect their daily
lives. This is a new thing in America.
Samuel Saenz: With all due respect to the esteemed congressman,
we've heard this debate for years that NAFTA and all trade
agreements are going to be rivaling the plagues of Europe.
Remember Ross Perot with his giant sucking sound? There's
always going to be this doom and gloom on the other side
of the coin. But there're successes as well. There are winners
and losers on both sides of NAFTA.
DeFazio: What were the promises and which ones have been
delivered on? We were promised giant surpluses with Mexico,
and that hasn't happened. We were promised the environmental
conditions and that Mexicans would get labor rights and
none of those things have happened....
Saenz: NAFTA created 600,000 new jobs just in the last
couple of years, according to a congressional report. So
to say that 400,000 new jobs weren't created is wrong--the
evidence is there.
Jonathan Schlueter: Let me give you an example from the
grain industry. Exporters in Portland and from the Pacific
Northwest couldn't be happier with NAFTA. We have seen trade
between Canada and the U.S. reach record proportions. A
billion dollars' worth of services and goods cross that
border every day. There's been an increase of 10 percent
a year in the five years that NAFTA has been in effect.
We asked a question about the WTO. Why are we talking
about NAFTA? What's the connection?
Schlueter: They're quite similar. Basically, they amount
to tearing down trade barriers and tariffs all over the
world. NAFTA specifically opened up trade opportunities
on this continent. With the WTO, free trade is growing all
over the world, and in that context, it would be presumptuous
in the extreme to think that because we are hosts at the
party in two weeks that we can influence 133 other trading
nations about how to feed their people or whether to trade
with us or against us.
Rick Schulberg: I disagree with that last part. It's in
the area of sustainable development that we could truly
influence the WTO, and yet that's where they've really missed
the boat. The U.S. has the clout and the domestic policies
to make a difference globally, but its only been in the
last couple of days that the White House has decided to
address environmental issues in the WTO.
It's understandable that Bill Clinton should weigh in
on the WTO. But earlier this week, both the Portland City
Council and the Multnomah County Commission passed resolutions
that essentially told the WTO to leave local governments
alone. Is this global body really such a threat to local
sovereignty?
Bill Conerly: I have no problem with local governments
expressing their opinion on the WTO. I just don't know if
there's a need for anyone to take them very seriously. In
general, I prefer local decisions to national decisions,
but international trade is one area where there's a clear
constitutional mandate for federal action.
Wold: I want it make clear that the local resolutions are
not anti-WTO. They support trade, but it must be fair trade,
which includes the ecological and social costs of trade,
not just the monetary benefit.
Jean Eilers: Our people just have the sense that the WTO
is going to overrule U.S. laws.
Is there any evidence of that being a credible threat?
Eilers: In Massachusetts, the state government decided
not to do business with companies who are active in Burma.
Basically, they wanted to do the same thing that many governments
did to companies active in South Africa during apartheid,
yet this was against WTO rules.
Conerly: One of the most important aspects of sovereignty
is the sovereignty of individuals to make decisions. But
our current trade policy essentially forbids American consumers
from buying underwear made in certain countries. Basically,
our laws say you've got to pay an extra premium if you want
to buy underwear made in Guatemala or Pakistan. That's protectionism,
and it's morally bankrupt because it relies upon brute force
to control choices that people make.
One of the critics' favorite examples is the WTO telling
the U.S. that it's unacceptable to ban Mexican tuna simply
because it's caught in nets that kill dolphins. What's wrong
with our importing the Mexican tuna, then simply labeling
it so the consumer knows how it was caught?
Cyndi Chan: As a consumer I would welcome having that information,
but under WTO rules, labeling the tuna by how it's caught
could be illegal.
We've talked about underwear and fish. Ivan, why are
you here? What's the WTO got to do with saving trees?
Ivan Maluski: Let's talk about the logging agreements being
crafted by the WTO. Right now, the U.S. doesn't levy significant
tariffs on wood products coming in. However, U.S. companies
like Louisiana-Pacific and International Paper and others
are pushing the Clinton administration to make other countries
eliminate their tariffs. According to the industry, this
would lead to a 3 to 4 percent increase in consumption of
wood products globally. Is that what the Clinton administration
wants as its environmental legacy?
But according to the Northwest Forestry Association,
the harvest of national forests has dropped from 12 billion
to 3 billion board feet per year since Clinton took office.
How will the WTO change things?
Maluski: I'll give you an example. Here in Oregon, we have
a ban on exporting raw logs, [which saves Oregon trees and
mill jobs]. Under WTO rules, Japan may be able to challenge
that.
At the simplest level, the WTO's mission is to increase
global trade. And even with all the well-publicized problems
with places such as Mexico and Indonesia, aren't workers
in those countries better off than they would be without
global trade?
Eilers: Are Mexican workers today across the border in
better shape than before? No. Do we have more workers coming
into this country across the border today? Yes. And what
do they find? We have busloads of Oregon farmworkers going
to Seattle. And why are they going? Life is not better in
Mexico, and life is not better in this country in terms
of workers.
Wold: Are workers better off? I think that's the wrong
question. What do we aspire to as a society--simply paying
people a few extra cents per hour or paying them a living
wage? And what about improving human rights and the environment?
Through the WTO we could pursue those goals, but we're not.
So is China worse off because it's engaging in foreign
trade?
Chan: I would say an elite few are better off, but for
masses of workers it's not the case.
If they're worse off today, will they be better off
five or 10 years from now when some of the benefits of trade
have trickled through the economy? A lot of evidence suggests
environmental consciousness and human rights depend on a
society's wealth.
Chan: Not necessarily. Even in the U.S. today, there are
plenty of places rendered uninhabitable by irresponsible
industry.
Conerly: But in the U.S., we're worried about parts-per-million
of possible carcinogens in our water, but you go to the
Third World and they've got people dying every day from
cholera and dysentery. That's a far greater problem than
Portland's water quality. If a poor country allows kids
to work at 14, and we say it should be 16, I think it's
presumptuous to tell them what to do just because their
laws don't align well with the way we think life ought to
be here in Portland.
Schlueter: You asked whether China would be better off
in five years or 10 years if it joins the WTO. I think we
can make the case that it would be. For one thing, it'll
be buying a lot more American agricultural products. Trade
between the U.S. and China has boomed in the '90s, but in
the grain industry, we don't sell bushel one to the Chinese
right now because they say our wheat carries a disease,
so they've effectively blacklisted us from shipping to them.
But about 25 percent of the Chinese are malnourished or
hungry. They could benefit from eating our wheat, and we
would like to be able to feed their people.
What would the WTO say about the Chinese refusal to
buy Northwest wheat?
Schlueter: It could be challenged by the U.S. unless the
Chinese can prove a scientific or safety reason to justify
their decision.
Chan: It sure would be nice if everyone in the U.S. had
enough to eat.
Let's switch gears. One of the most compelling criticisms
of the WTO is that it does its business in private. Can
someone explain that?
Saenz: Yes. Actually, there are some discussions that can
only occur in private; otherwise they can easily be taken
and twisted. In the WTO, there are 134 countries pursuing
various agendas simultaneously. They're talking about economic
integration, free trade, social agendas, reform on economic
and political levels. And then when you have a commercial
dispute, it just makes sense to resolve that in private
where people can be candid without airing dirty laundry.
It absolutely makes sense to me.
DeFazio: I want to get back to a major objection to the
WTO. There's no floor, nothing that reins in bad behavior.
For instance, if the WTO had been in effect, we probably
could not have enacted laws against apartheid. Whether there
will be environmental issues in this round, actual binding
issues as opposed to empty, unenforceable platitudes, should
be part of any future trade agreement.
But should environmental and human-rights and labor
issues be mixed up with trade policy?
Saenz: Let me address that from an Oregon business perspective.
Small businesses employing fewer than 100 people make up
the vast majority of our exporters. As soon as you start
bringing all kinds of non-economic policy issues and red
tape to the table, then you cut out the heart of their operations.
Exporters account for over 225,000 jobs in Oregon. When
you start adding all kinds of human-rights and environmental
issues to the discussion, you could basically wipe out most
of those jobs.
Can you give me an example of trade policy hurting local
businesses?
Schlueter: An example in the grain industry would be Thailand.
They impose a tariff on wheat of $45 a ton, which is about
a dollar a bushel. They want to nurture their small farmers
at the expense of their consumers, who would be better off
nutritionally eating wheat.
Conerly: At this point, despite all the controversy, we
probably have the freest international trade environment
in history. There are few local businesses who can credibly
say free trade has been bad for them.
DeFazio: Let's stop talking about free trade. It doesn't
exist. NAFTA, for instance, contains thousands of pages
of tariffs and schedules. None of these agreements are free
trade. NAFTA picked and chose winners and losers. Look at
Dennis Uniform in Southeast Portland--the company is getting
killed by cheap Mexican imports, but they can't send their
products there.
Saenz: But trade is not fundamentally about jobs. It's
about creating wealth within the community. If you think
trade is dedicated to creating and keeping jobs, then you're
on the wrong sheet of music.
If the WTO is not the appropriate forum to deal with
labor and environmental concerns, what is?
Saenz: I'm not saying it isn't. I think it is. But I don't
think we should put environmental and human rights on the
trade wagon and dilute the argument.
Wold: But without economic leverage, environmental laws
get ignored.
DeFazio: Look at the case on shrimp. The U.S. said, 'We
won't buy shrimp from countries that don't use turtle-safe
nets,' but the WTO tribunal says the U.S. is discriminating
and that's against the rules.
Can you give us an example of someone who has been a
clear winner under NAFTA?
Saenz: Take Freightliner for instance. They've established
operation in Mexico, and they're taking advantage of the
demand for trucks that can be used both there and in the
U.S.
Eilers: Well, believe me, there is a busload of Freightliner
machinists from Portland who are going to Seattle to protest,
and why? They can see that if Freightliner is manufacturing
in Mexico, that can't be good for wages and jobs here. These
people have faces and they have families. Freightliner workers
here live in fear that something is going to happen to their
job and that it's imminent. Is this the sort of society
we want to create?
Saenz: That's the purpose of global trade.
Eilers: To make people feel nervous? It seems to me that
the purpose of trade is to promote consumption. But who
are going to be consumers if our workers don't make living
wages? Go to Coos Bay and look in the restaurants--nobody
can afford to eat out.
Schulberg: Freightliner just announced it's going to create
another 1,500 jobs here. I guess I don't understand why
their local employees are nervous.
Eilers: Because they know people who have lost their jobs.
Are you saying that Freightliner workers have some sort
of entitlement to their jobs?
Eilers: Well, in America, it used to be that we went to
school and then we found solid jobs, and if you were a good
worker and obeyed the law you'd keep that job.
If free trade is such a bad thing, how come our economy
is so good? In Oregon, unemployment is near record levels,
tax receipts are at an all-time high, property values have
never been stronger....
Eilers: And use of the food banks is higher than it's ever
been in this state, the signs of poverty are higher than
they've ever been, and the gap between rich and poor is
growing.
DeFazio: You have to look below the surface. We're losing
good jobs and replacing them with lousy ones.
Because we're bringing in cheap wood from Canada? Isn't
that good for Oregon, because we aren't cutting down Ivan's
trees?
Conerly: All trees are Ivan's trees.
Maluski: We are cutting down old-growth forests of Canada,
which are no less important than the old-growth forests
here. And laws that encourage the destruction of trees anywhere
are not desirable.
Schulberg: I think part of the WTO opportunity is to get
people to look at sustainable development before it's too
late. In fact, the WTO, from a sustainability standpoint,
is a preeminent opportunity to sneak up on the bad guys.
The problem is, and congressman DeFazio has said this, they're
not doing it. The U.S. is not taking advantage of the opportunity
to push for sustainable policies. We are not using political
muscle.
Wold: That's right. We don't have to say that the only
way to do sustainable shrimping is to prohibit all killing
of sea turtles. Maybe there are several options that are
good for trade and good for turtles. Let's talk about what
they might be. The problem is that the WTO is not having
that conversation--about turtles or anything else.
Schulberg: Does this mean we shouldn't have a WTO, or a
WTO that properly reflects those values?
DeFazio: We should have a WTO that reflects our values.
I really can't believe we belong to an organization that
makes its decisions in secret, has no conflict-of-interest
laws and no public oversight of the process. You've got
to understand that many of the WTO nations don't believe
in our system of jurisprudence.
Chan: I'm not saying there should be no WTO either, I'm
saying they should have a different set of values.
Conerly: When we talk about winners and losers under free
trade, it's important to include consumers in the discussion.
I bought a new television a couple of years ago. It might
have been made in Mexico or Ecuador...I'm not sure. All
I know is it's got a 27-inch screen, and it costs a certain
amount of money, and I'm sure that TV was cheaper because
of NAFTA and the downward pressure on consumer prices that
happened from having access to Mexican-made products. So
we're seeing big benefits in terms of low prices for consumers.
Chan: But if those prices are brought about by low labor
costs somewhere else in the global system, that has costs
and consequences. People are going to expect more products
cheaper all the time, and logically that can't continue
without bringing things to a lower and lower point.
Conerly: That's not true. What you do is put greater demands
for labor in the poorer countries and the products come
here. The trade benefits both parties.
Chan: But with all the jobs we're losing, who's going to
be able to afford to buy anything?
Conerly: The primary labor problem in the U.S. is labor
shortage, not a job shortage.
Chan: What I see is a lot of people who are underemployed--I
mean the average people who I'm talking to have to work
two or three jobs and are working an excess of 50 hours
a week because their wages are so low.
Schlueter: If you're looking for winners locally, choose
any of the wineries in the Yamhill-Willamette valley region
shipping north into Canada right now. Or Diamond fruit growers
in Hood River shipping fresh pears and apples this time
of year, up into Canada.
That's good for us, but is it good for Canada?
Schlueter: If I were a Canadian and having a forum just
like this in anticipation of the WTO in a couple of weeks,
I'd be very concerned, because I know that Canadians per
capita eat $221 worth of American food every year and the
damn yanks only reciprocate by only eating $32 worth of
our food.
Conerly: Well, every change in trade regime creates winners
and losers, and it'd be nice if we could raise the ante
and pay off the losers. The fact is there are always losers
when the world changes. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact
of life. In a lot of ways, this whole argument boils down
to pro-change forces and anti-change forces. Pat Buchanan
is very much in line with the static world and opposition
to NAFTA and the WTO.
Chan: I think it's incredibly cynical to say that there
will always be winners and losers to the degree that we're
seeing now. This is the time and this is the place to change
that, and a lot of people are coming out over their frustration
of feeling disempowered.
Can we come back to the question
of why so many people are going to Seattle?
Maluski: The reality is that corporations have the place
at the table, so where else can the public be but outside
in the streets protesting? It's the only way to make your
voice heard.
How do the WTO supporters feel about it?
Schlueter: We protest in Seattle because we can. We do
it in Seattle because we have the luxury of full bellies
and a very prosperous economy. That's a good thing, and
we should celebrate that.
Eilers: I know of 1,600 people that are going and they
are extremely serious about it. Remember this is a Tuesday.
These people aren't getting paid for that day off, and the
weather in Seattle is unlikely to be friendly on Nov. 30.
Chan: I think 50,000 protesters are going to Seattle because
the WTO is in some ways a symbol of our frustration with
corporations that view us primarily as consumers of products.
They view concerns such as environment and human rights
and labor rights as external to trade. A lot of people are
starting to resent that. The process is already controlled
by moneyed interests. I think a lot of the cynicism that
kept people from acting before is crystallizing around this
issue. All the WTO currently does is cement the corporate
power structure in place--and people are figuring that out.
We're going to sort of protest everything. This is the time
in history and Seattle is the place.
--Deborah Rossiter and Kate Lopresti contributed
to this story.
The
ABCs of the WTO
WTO--The World Trade Organization, headquartered
in Geneva, is a collection of government-appointed trade
representatives from 135 nations who try to make it easier
for everyone from Oregon wheat farmers to Guatemalan garment
makers to sell their products abroad. Trade disputes between
WTO members are resolved by three-member panels chosen from
lists of trade experts from WTO countries. The panels' deliberations
are confidential.
The Third Ministerial Conference--This is the official
name of the WTO talks in Seattle. The previous two were
held in Singapore in 1996 and Geneva in 1998. It's not clear
what, if anything, the representatives will decide this
week, although they will be talking about agriculture, intellectual
property and the trade in services. Like GATT negotiations
before them, WTO "rounds" tend to last for years and, as
of Monday, there wasn't even consensus on an agenda.
GATT--Created in 1947, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade promoted postwar economic growth by reducing
tariffs, also called import taxes, that nations levied on
each other's products. GATT's role was taken over by the
WTO in 1995.
NAFTA--In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement
went into effect. It was intended to promote free trade
between the United States, Mexico and Canada, making the
flow of investment, goods and service across borders simpler.
WTO
Links
To get a flavor for what the protesters have been up to
in Seattle, point your Web browser to www.wtoseattle.org.
For more detailed background information, try the following
Web sites.
Public
Citizen
Friends
of the Earth
United States
Trade Representative
World Trade
Organization
New
World (Trade) Order
Editor's Note: On Nov. 17, WW received
the following anonymous message on our voicemail system.
We were unable to verify the allegations made, but, given
the explosive nature of this highly sensitive material,
we felt it was important to share it with our readers.
"I'm giving you some information on the WTO made up of
three different groups: It's the Council on Foreign Relations
from NYC, the Trilateral Commission in NYC and the Bilderburg
Group from Switzerland. Actually they're from the Hague
in the Netherlands, run by the Hapsburg family. They're
descendants of the Roman Empire and also the Ottoman Empire.
"The Council on Foreign Relations in this country is made
up of 600 members; 40 of the members are heads of state
departments, like the Navy, Air Force. They're also head
of the top colleges in the country: Barnard, Columbia, Cornell,
New York University, Rockefeller University.
"The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations
in NYC was founded by David Rockefeller, although it's presently
run by Russell, pardon me Leslie Gelb at 1-212-734-0400.
Some of the other 40 members that are heads of corporations,
they're heads of news media, the media networks, banks,
like the Federal Reserve bank, which is really a privately
owned bank. It's just called 'Federal' to mislead the public.
And it's presently administered by Alan Greenspan.
"They're all part of the Council on Foreign Relations.
They're all part of the Masonic Order. They've all taken
an oath of secrecy at the third degree. At the third degree
in the Masonic Order they take an oath of secrecy. They're
all part of the World Trade Commission, the Council on Foreign
Relations in NYC, the Trilateral Commission in NYC and the
Bilderburg Group in Hapsburg, Netherlands.
"They're making decisions for millions of people behind
closed doors.... They're like a private men's club. Most
of the presidents have been involved in it. Most women are
not allowed to attend. The wives and girlfriends or whatever,
they're told to leave the room when they start talking together.
They get together two or three times a year, the Council
on Foreign Relations and the Bilderburg Group.
"President Clinton has been a member, although he's temporarily
suspended while he's in office. Most of the presidents have
been a member. And at the Masonic Order, at the third degree,
they take an oath of secrecy....
"President George Bush--senior, the senior one, not junior--and
Henry Kissinger are part of this group. And they've made
many decisions with the Hapsburg family from the Netherlands.
They actually run drugs out of Burma. They're head of the
drug dealers in Burma and also in South America. They have
a lot of the drugs brought in to Texas on the ocean where
George Bush's family owns property.
"These are wonderful products that George Bush and his
friends and Henry Kissinger are selling, but they're selling
them in the most stupid, stupid way. They're being sold
in a very harmful way. And the public's been given misinformation
on these wonderful plants. I'm talking about the marijuana
plant, the coca plant and the poppyseed flower.
"They're part of the Council on Foreign Relations and these
businessmen are making decisions behind closed doors. They're
making many other decisions. They're also involved with
the Vatican. The Vatican bank and a lot of the Swiss banks
in Switzerland launder the drug money. And Swiss banks in
Switzerland are all owned by the Hapsburg family. The Vatican
bank, the 12 cardinals pretty much run it, and their business
partners. Pope John Paul II can do nothing without the support
of the 12 cardinals underneath him and their business partners.
He can do nothing. Pope Paul I tried to, but he only lasted
30 days in office....
"I've gotten all my information from a number of books
by Brad Steiger. Also I know one of the dealers for them
that goes to Nepal. He goes back East to get the drugs,
and he brings them into this country. I know the dealer,
I'll just leave his name out right now.
"George Bush senior was head of the CIA. And they felt
they needed..."
[message ends]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published December 1,
1999 |
