Letters

The TIME 100

TIME's list of the 100 most influential people in the world was a fascinating celebration of human spirit, ideas and drive. EMILY HAMEL FLAUTT Brentwood, Tenn.

Reading your selections was like taking a complete college course on modern issues [April 26]. Your list was a rare source of information for those who want to know more about what's happening in today's world. MARCIA MONTEIRO New York City

There are three kinds of people on your list: those we have been fawning over far too long (Pope John Paul II, Nelson Mandela, Bill and Hillary Clinton), those we should not be fawning over at all (Nicole Kidman, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates) and people I have never heard of (Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Jurgen Habermas, Azim Premji?). Enough already! JERRI BENNETT--VAN HOUTEN Anaheim Hills, Calif.

If a judge on the TV show American Idol, Simon Cowell (whom I love dearly), is among the top 100 notable people, then we are in great trouble indeed. DOUG STOKES Ann Arbor, Mich.

In his profile of George W. Bush, Andrew Sullivan said the President is an unassuming man who became a "radical gambler." But as the death toll in Iraq grows ever higher, please note: Bush is gambling with other people's lives. VICTORY VAN DYCK CHASE Princeton, N.J.

Sullivan stated that the president has conducted "historically successful" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last time I checked, we were still fighting in Iraq, despite having "won" there. The Bush Administration keeps saying the real winners are the Iraqi people, although they don't seem so victorious when they keep getting blown up by bombs. Others argue that the real winner is al-Qaeda, which is filling its ranks with young Arabs and Muslims galvanized by this great American "victory." How nice! A war in which everyone wins! BOOMER PINCHES Istanbul

While I applaud the effort that went into selecting TIME's 100, it made me uncomfortable that the Heroes & Icons category, which listed the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela, also included Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mel Gibson. Schwarzenegger and Gibson became icons as film stars, and their real contributions to the world have the importance of mere pinpricks. BRONWYN NOBLE Madison, Wis.

President Vladimir Putin may be a nuisance to the West, but Russians approve of him. Russia is experiencing economic growth, is paying its debts and is a growing influence in world politics. Compared with the era of Boris Yeltsin, today Russia shows overall improvement. And certain individuals who became billionaires by robbing the public are facing justice. Putin will probably amend the constitution so he can run for a third term, and Russians will overwhelmingly re-elect him. If that's not democracy, what is? DIMITRIS RAPTIS West Chester, Pa.

Are we really supposed to accept that Britain's place in the world and the influence and standing of Tony Blair, its most effective Prime Minister in years, have slipped so far that Blair doesn't merit a place on the TIME 100 list? Is John Kerry more influential than Blair? ROBERT COCK Wiltshire, England

Thank you for selecting singer Norah Jones. She is unassuming and humble, but she still comes out on top. Why is it that Jones is so appealing? Because she offers a refreshing break from look-at-my-body pop stars who focus on image over substance. NEAL STOLAR Pottstown, Pa.

One for the Top 10

In "Being No. 101," Joel Stein lamented that physician Paul Farmer had the ignominious distinction of placing 101st on the list of the TIME 100 [April 26]. Stein suggested that the exclusion of Farmer, an infectious-disease specialist who spends most of his time at a charity hospital in Haiti, hinged on the selfless doctor's lacking "a publicist, agent, manager or even a stylist." Let me remind Stein of author Tracy Kidder's Mountains Beyond Mountains, a brilliant and poignant testimonial to Farmer's altruism as well as a chronicle of his dedication to eradicating diseases in poor countries. With Kidder as Farmer's credible biographer, I'd place the good doctor in TIME's Top 10. EDWARD D. TOLAND III Indian Wells, Calif.

Don't Fiddle with the FBI

FBI agent Coleen Rowley showed clarity of vision and courage in risking her career to disclose intelligence failures within the FBI in 2002. In her Viewpoint, "What the FBI Needs--and Doesn't Need" [April 26], she wrote that taking domestic intelligence gathering away from the FBI and giving it to a new agency modeled after Britain's MI5 would undermine post-9/11 intelligence-agency reforms and would not be a positive move. A new government entity cannot help prevent another 9/11. The best possible strategy for handling terrorist threats is to steel our resolve, use our common sense and not repeat the actions that led a former FBI official to say, "We did not know what we knew." M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY Chicago

For Smarter Intelligence

To those who claim that nothing could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, the failures of American intelligence agencies say otherwise [April 26]. The provocative leads on activities of known al-Qaeda members that were not adequately pursued make it clear that both the FBI and CIA could and should have done much better. Complaining that hindsight is 20/20 does not absolve these agencies. The tips and memos they received were not meaningless gossip but important information. We need to put more serious effort and resources into the U.S.'s intelligence infrastructure to prevent future attacks. It's better to do that than launch pre-emptive wars. CAROLYN KAHANT Ingram, Texas

Checking Bill's Record

Your article "Did Clinton Do Enough?" [April 26] described what Bill Clinton's Administration did to stop Osama bin Laden. The Republican Party would have vilified any action Clinton took that ended in the death of bin Laden. The Republicans would have jumped on Clinton's acts as proof that he was engaged in something wrong or illegal. Did Clinton do enough? Who knows? But had the CIA assassinated bin Laden on presidential orders, Clinton would have been roasted. CAROLE SHUMWAY Seattle

It should have been a simple matter of Clinton's telling the CIA director to find bin Laden and shoot the so-and-so. But government officials got caught up in legalities. That's what happens when lawyers monkey around with policy. TERRY REDFEAR Greensboro, N.C.

Should Bush Say He's Sorry?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer's "The Trouble with Apologies" [April 26] missed the point. As Krauthammer stated, Franklin Roosevelt did not apologize for Pearl Harbor, Harry Truman did not apologize for dropping atom bombs, and Clinton did not apologize for the Oklahoma City bombing. But those men did not pre-emptively launch a war against another country. By invading Iraq unnecessarily, by misleading the American public about the WMD threat of Saddam Hussein and his so-called ties to al-Qaeda, Bush put American lives at risk and U.S. influence on the line. For that, he owes the American public an apology. RITA L. MCKEE New York City

Thanks to Krauthammer for articulating the political reality behind a presidential apology, appropriate or not. The only thing Bush has done wrong since 9/11 is to stop emphasizing how truly difficult the war on terrorism is and will continue to be. Our enemies will sacrifice everything to destroy us. There is nothing to apologize for when it comes to forcefully combatting terrorism. CARL BROWN Grand Rapids, Mich.

I DON'T expect bush or any other official to apologize for terrorist attacks. But true leaders admit their strategic errors and try to fix them, especially when they cost billions of dollars and American lives. The combination of arrogance and simplistic, black-and-white thinking ensures that this Administration will never recognize error in its radical policies. If the climate in Washington is poisoned, it is because of the meanspirited, self-righteous tone set by the Bush White House. There is a failure of leadership. JOHN T. COMPTON New York City

A Doctor Gone Wrong

One shouldn't forget that Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas leader who was killed in an Israeli missile attack [April 26], was a pediatrician. Pediatricians specialize in maintaining children's health and growth. They should have an underlying respect for human life. Where did Rantisi go wrong? When did he abandon nurturing life and turn to cultivating hatred among adolescent Palestinians, openly applauding young men for blowing themselves--along with the innocents around them--to bits? A destructive influence is now gone from the Palestinian fabric. LUCY RUBIN Pretoria

Bold Steps in Iraq

Re "New Thugs On The Block" [APRIL 19], on the insurgency of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Shi'ite militiamen: After years of diplomacy failed to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions, the hard decision was made to employ military intervention. In international relations, humanitarian military intercession can be justified. The U.S. took a bold step in Iraq, even if it was also strongly driven by its national interests. It is unfair for European countries to condemn every U.S. action in the Middle East. Thugs like al-Sadr prove that people are ready to destroy their homeland for personal gain and power. You cannot deal with hoodlums by resorting only to diplomacy and negotiations. The U.S. has risked its troops, resources and security to tackle evil and greed in Iraq. For that, it should be praised. RAJIV THIND Christchurch, New Zealand

The increasing violence in Iraq raises questions about the Bush Administration's policies in that country. Bush has no real answers and no concrete plan for how to successfully deal with the insurgents there. All he can say is that the U.S. will not be cowed and will still transfer sovereignty to the Iraqis at the end of June. He wants to stick to that date to show that Iraq isn't Vietnam and to boost his chances of re-election. I'm sure Bush hopes the symbolic transfer of power will take attention away from the 9/11 commission hearings, which have cast doubts on his leadership. DEEPAK KUMAR VIDHYARTHI Muzaffar, India

The population of Iraq consists mainly of Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds--three groups who detest one another. Perhaps the only unifying factor in Iraq is a hatred of the West. For 30 years, Iraqi citizens were suppressed by a brutal dictator who murdered them by the thousands and involved them in ruinous wars while plundering the country for his personal benefit. How can the coalition ever hope to "restore" democracy to Iraq, when it is doubtful that it ever existed there in the first place? The solution for the U.S. and its allies is to put a new dictator in charge and go home. DAVID LENHOFF Perth, Australia