The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Tuesday; then, an extended interview about Iraq with President Bush in the Cabinet Room of the White House, and analysis by Mark Shields and David Brooks; plus, an update on the Libby trial from Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post; and thoughts about buying and selling American by guest essayist Allen Morris Jones.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Baghdad had one of its bloodiest days in weeks today. A wave of bombings and shootings killed nearly 100 Iraqis, wounded more than 100 others.

At least 65 people died in the worst attack, near a university in eastern Baghdad. It happened as students were leaving class. Two more bombs tore threw a market for used motorcycles; at least 13 people were killed.

The Shiite prime minister, al-Maliki, blamed Sunnis for the attacks. He said it was revenge for the executions of two of Saddam Hussein`s henchmen.

The U.N. today reported a sharply higher count of Iraqi deaths for 2006. It estimated more than 34,000 civilians were killed in sectarian violence last year; that`s almost three times more than figures the Iraqi government reported. The Iraqis had no official comment on the U.N. report.

Four more U.S. soldiers were killed Monday in Iraq. The U.S. military said today they died in a roadside bombing in Nineveh province in the northwest.

And President Bush said today he expects more killing, even as he sends more troops. But he said the old U.S. policy amounted to "slow failure." We`ll have that interview right after this news summary.

Secretary of State Rice pursued support in the Middle East today for the president`s new strategy in Iraq. Her latest stop was in Saudi Arabia, where the foreign minister had this to say.

PRINCE SAUD AL-FAISAL, Foreign Minister, Saudi Arabia (through translator): On our part, we agree with President Bush on the need of the situation in Iraq to a new approach and strategy, with clear aims and objectives that respond to the current developments and are applicable in the field.

Saudi Arabia agrees to the objectives sought in halting security deterioration, through dealing with all sources of violence and terrorism and armed militias in all regions.

JIM LEHRER: The foreign minister also said what happens ultimately is up to the Iraqis themselves.

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan complained today of a surge in Taliban attacks since September; that`s when Pakistan reached a peace deal with tribal leaders in northern Waziristan, along the Afghan border.

U.S. Defense Secretary Gates was in Kabul today and raised the issue. He said there are several points to be made.

ROBERT GATES, Secretary of Defense: Pakistan has been an extraordinarily strong ally of the United States in the war on terror and that the border area is a problem, that there are more attacks coming across the border, that there are al-Qaida networks operating on the Pakistani side of the border. And these are issues that we clearly will have to pursue with the Pakistani government.

JIM LEHRER: Gates also said he was "strongly inclined" to recommend adding U.S. troops in Afghanistan, if commanders want it. Currently, there are 24,000 Americans on duty there.

The Gates visit came as Pakistan launched a helicopter strike at a suspected al-Qaida hideout. As many as 10 people were killed.

Jury selection began today for Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak trial. The vice president`s former chief of staff arrived at the federal courthouse in Washington. He`s accused of perjury and obstruction.

Libby was charged in the investigation of who leaked the identity of a CIA officer. We`ll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

A major winter storm moved out of New England today, after blasting much of the country. It was blamed for 46 deaths across seven states. Heavy snow in Ohio and Indiana made for dangerous road conditions, and frigid air followed the storm east, after weeks of unusually warm weather.

In California, a cold wave the last few nights has destroyed up to 75 percent of the state`s citrus crop.

British oil giant B.P. failed to focus on operational safety before a fatal explosion at a Texas refinery. An independent panel, led by former Secretary of State James Baker, reported that today. Fifteen people were killed in the blast in Texas City in March of 2005. More than 170 others were hurt.

The Baker panel said B.P. improved its personal injury rate, but should have done more about overall plant safety.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 26 points to close at 12,582. The Nasdaq fell five points to close at 2,497.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: our interview with President Bush; Shields and Brooks; the Libby trial; and keep on trucking.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And now, what President Bush had to say about the situation in and about Iraq. I spoke with him this morning in the Cabinet Room at the White House.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, welcome.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: Thank you, sir.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about the way the Iraqi government handled the hangings of Saddam Hussein, and now, more recently, two of his top aides?

GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, I was pleased with the trials they got; I was disappointed and felt like they fumbled the -- particularly the Saddam Hussein execution.

It reinforced doubts in people`s minds that the Maliki government and the unity government of Iraq is a serious government, and -- which makes it harder for me to make the case to the American people that this is a government that does want to unify the country and move forward.

You know, the Saddam execution, however, was an important moment in some ways because it closed a terrible chapter and gives the unity government a chance to move forward. In other words, there`s people that were around Iraq saying, "Well, I think he may come back."

And that obviously is not going to happen. But I expressed my disappointment to Prime Minister Maliki when I talked to him the other day.

JIM LEHRER: Message not a good one about the government?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, the message is that it`s a confusing message. It basically says to people, look, you conducted a trial and gave Saddam justice that he didn`t give to others. But then, when it came to execute him, it looked like it was kind of a revenge killing.

And it sent a mixed signal to the American people and the people around the world. And it just goes to show that this is a government that has still got some maturation to do.

JIM LEHRER: Today, the United Nations issued a report that said 34,000 Iraqi civilians have died in sectarian violence in the last year. What`s the message of that, Mr. President?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Message is we better help this government stop the sectarian violence.

You know, I hear all kinds of different numbers, but the fact is that too many have died as the result of Shias killing Sunnis, Sunnis killing Shias, and that I have made the decision that it is best to try to help this government stop this sectarian violence.

Because otherwise, the violence -- in my judgment, and I think in the judgment of others -- if we don`t help them stop it, it`s going to get a lot worse, believe it or not. In other words, that if the United States does not step up to help the Iraqis secure Baghdad in particular, in other words, if we don`t crack this now, that there is -- the violence will spiral out of control.

And if that were to happen, it will embolden Iran; it will provide safe haven for Sunni killers; I mean, it would just really create a very dangerous situation for the American people in the longer run.

JIM LEHRER: Just today, another 35 people were killed in bombings, 80 over the weekend.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, there is a difference between -- look, death is terrible -- but. remember, some of these bombings are done by al-Qaida and their affiliates, all trying to create doubt and concern and to create these death squads or encourage these death squads to roam neighborhoods.

And it`s going to be hard to make Baghdad zero -- to make it bomb- proof. We do believe it`s possible to help the Iraqis, working side by side with the Iraqis to secure some of these neighborhoods, which this government must do. It must provide for the security of its people.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, do you have a feeling of personal failure about Iraq right now?

GEORGE W. BUSH: I`m frustrated at times about Iraq because I understand the consequences of failure. And, you know, I want the Iraqis to succeed for our own sake.

This is a war, part of a broader war, and that if we fail in Iraq, there is a better likelihood that the enemy comes and hurts us here. And so, I am frustrated with the progress.

If you were to take it and put me in an opinion poll and said, do I approve of Iraq, I`d be one of those that said, no, I don`t approve of what`s taking place in Iraq. On the other hand, I do believe we can succeed.

Look, I had a choice to make, Jim, and that is, one, do what we`re doing. And one could define that maybe a slow failure. Secondly, withdraw out of Baghdad and hope for the best. I would think that would be expedited failure. And thirdly is to help this Iraqi government with additional forces -- help them do what they need to do, which is to provide security in Baghdad.

And I chose the latter because I think it`s going to more likely be successful. Failure -- and this is what is hard, I think, for the American people to understand and one of the reasons why I appreciate talking to you, is that people have got to understand that, if we fail in Iraq, it is likely there will be safe haven from which people will be able to launch attacks from America. It is likely there will be enormous clashes between radical Shia and radical Sunnis. It is likely that moderate governments can be toppled, in which case, people could get a hold of oil resources.

And you mix all that with an Iran with a nuclear weapon and we`re looking at, you know, a generation of Americans threatened. And so, therefore, we`ve got to get it -- we`ve got to succeed. And that is why I put out the plan I put, because I think it`s one that has got a better chance of any one I`ve seen around here that will succeed.

JIM LEHRER: But to be very direct about it, Mr. President, you had a few years here and you`ve been in charge. And you`ve made a lot of decisions; you`ve made a lot of judgments about things, and they haven`t worked. And so now you`ve made a new one. So why should anybody expect the new ones to work when the prior ones did not?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, actually -- not to sound defensive -- but some of my decisions actually have worked, like getting rid of Saddam Hussein and helping the Iraqi government form a unity government that is based upon a novel constitution for the Middle East.

As a matter of fact, in 2005, I thought -- I mean, in 2006, I thought I`d be in a position to remove troops from Iraq, in other words, hand over more of the authorities to the Iraqis so they could take the fight, and then this sectarian violence that you described broke out.

And the question is, do we try to stop it? Do we help the Iraqis stop it? And a year ago, I felt pretty good about the situation; I felt like we were achieving our objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain, and defend itself. No question, 2006 was a lousy year for Iraq.

And so the question I`m now faced with is, do I react to that or do we just begin to leave, which is -- you know, some people -- decent people on Capitol Hill think we ought to do. I made the decision let`s succeed; let`s work for success not work for failure.

JIM LEHRER: What does success mean in these terms now, Mr. President?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, well, success, Jim, means a government that is providing security for its people. A success means for the American people to see Iraqi troops chasing down killers, with American help initially.

A success means a Baghdad that is, you know, relatively calm compared to last year so that people`s lives can go forward and a political process can go forward along with it.

Success means the government taking steps to share the oil wealth or to deal with a de-Baathification law or to encourage local elections. Success means, you know, reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis.

Success also means making sure al-Qaida doesn`t get a foothold in Iraq, which they`re trying to do in Anbar province. In other words, success is measurable; it`s definable; and last year was a year in which there was a setback to success.

JIM LEHRER: I guess the real question that remains on top of all of this, how was this allowed to happen that there was a bad 2006? I mean, that`s 365 days; it was reported on a daily basis. People kept talking about it. There were all kinds of comments about it. So how did this happen, Mr. President?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, first of all, let`s start with the Samarra bombing. And there was actually a fair amount of constraint by the Shias after the Samarra bombing, which took place I think in February or March last year.

And the sectarian violence really didn`t start spiraling out of control until the summer. Part of the failure for our reaction was ourselves. I mean, we should have found troops and moved them. But part of it was that the Iraqis didn`t move troops. And I take responsibility for us not moving our own troops into Baghdad...

JIM LEHRER: Why didn`t we move the troops, Mr. President?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, because I think the commanders there felt like it was important to make sure the Iraqis did first, or that the Iraqis made a focused, concerted effort. And they just didn`t. There were supposedly six brigades committed, and they sent two.

And what`s going to change this time is that they`ve now -- we will watch them move brigades in that Baghdad -- brigades that they promised they would. But we want the Iraqis in the lead in this fight. This is their government; this is their country. They were elected by 12 million people.

And the American role is to help them. And help them this time means embedding with them, which we have done before, continuing to train an Iraqi force, expand the Iraqi force, help them get better equipment -- but also, in this case, serve side by side with the Iraqi forces as they secure these neighborhoods in Baghdad.

JIM LEHRER: Is there a little bit of a broken egg problem here, Mr. President, that there`s instability and there`s violence in Iraq -- sectarian violence, Iraqis killing other Iraqis -- and now the United States helped create the broken egg and now says, OK, Iraqis, it`s your problem. You put the egg back together, and if you don`t do it quickly and you don`t do it well, then we`ll get the hell out.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, you know, that`s an interesting question. I don`t quite view it as the broken egg; I view it as the cracked egg...

JIM LEHRER: Cracked egg?

GEORGE W. BUSH: ... that -- where we still have a chance to move beyond the broken egg. And I thought long and hard about the decision, Jim. Obviously, it`s a big decision for this theater in the war on terror.

And you know, if I didn`t believe we could keep the egg from fully cracking, I wouldn`t ask 21,000 kids -- additional kids to go into Iraq to reinforce those troops that are there.

What`s different is an Iraqi attitude, and it is -- look, failure last time was not enough troops in Baghdad, and the rules of engagement were such that our troops couldn`t move when given an order. Their order was countermanded by Iraqi politicians.

In other words, you need to go get this guy in a particular neighborhood, and they would be moving in toward him, and then the Iraqis would pull -- say, well, we`d better not make that move right now, we`d better -- it may be too much politics.

And Prime Minister Maliki has assured his commander and our commander that the rules of engagement will be different this time. And so things have changed. In other words, I`m not putting troops into a situation where there hadn`t been enough changes to assure me that we can make progress.

JIM LEHRER: General Casey said yesterday that the commander said that it may be spring or even summer before we have any signs of success from the new program...

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: ... from the new strategy, and even then I can`t guarantee you that it`s going to work. That`s the general; that`s the guy who is the commander.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I -- look, I mean, I think that`s ...

JIM LEHRER: That`s...

GEORGE W. BUSH: ... that`s a sober assessment. Well, it`s a sober assessment. I think he`s not going to stand up and make guarantees that may or may not happen, but he is also the general who felt like we needed more troops, and he`s also the general that believes this is the best chance of working. And I think he`s giving a realistic assessment for people.

I also said in my speech, you can expect more killing. In other words, it`s still going to be a dangerous environment because the enemy is likely to step up attacks to try to discourage the Iraqi government and to discourage the American people.

JIM LEHRER: Well, Mr. President, how can there then be a strategy based on trying to attain success if even more people are going to die, Americans, as well as Iraqis?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, the -- the purpose of the strategy, Jim, is to settle Baghdad down, is to secure neighborhoods, is to give the Iraqi people a chance to live in peace, which is what they want.

And the way to do that is to send troops into neighborhoods to clean the neighborhoods of insurgents and terrorists, and it`s to hold the neighborhoods. And the problem in the past, there weren`t enough troops to hold the neighborhoods after neighborhoods had been cleared. And then to build is to have a political process behind it that will work.

We think this is the most comprehensive way of succeeding. The question is: Is it worth it? And my point to you earlier was -- and the point I made to Congress is -- is that failure shouldn`t be an option. As a matter of fact, most people in Washington agree with that.

My point then is that, if failure is not an option, what is your idea for success? And I`ve listened to all kinds of ideas on this. One idea was just keep doing what you`re doing; another idea was to pull out of Baghdad, make it a slow-withdrawal concept.

A lot of people believe -- me included -- that that would exacerbate the situation. It would make it impossible to succeed in Iraq.

And then the final option is secure the capital and at the same time chase al-Qaida into Anbar. And what`s different is that there would be more troops this time and better rules of engagement so that the Iraqi troops and our troops, working side by side, will be able to go after the enemy.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, is 21,500 troops really that many more troops to 130-some thousand? Is that really enough to do all the things that you intend and hope will do?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, that`s certainly a question I had to consider. It`s a -- at some point in time, you know, the president -- you listen to all the different points of view. I`ve heard somebody say none, and people say 40,000, but it`s really going to be up to the military to make the final numbers that they think are necessary to achieve the mission, and that`s what I have done in this case.

I`ve listened to the commanders, five brigades -- six brigades are committed to Iraq, five into Baghdad, so it`s not 21,000 into Baghdad; it is...

JIM LEHRER: 17,500.

GEORGE W. BUSH: ... 17,500 into Baghdad; and 4,000 into Anbar. But this is the number that they felt comfortable with in achieving the mission, particularly with the additional Iraqi brigades that will be going into Baghdad.

JIM LEHRER: And yet, as we just discussed, the commanders say, hey, we need this -- we think we can get this done, but we`re not sure that this will even work. That`s what the commanders...

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think -- you know, I -- I didn`t listen to General Casey`s comments. The only thing I can tell you is what he told me. He said this has got the best chance of working. And we thought about what is the best way to succeed, and this is the best way to succeed in his mind and in my mind.

JIM LEHRER: Putting the whole thing together, Mr. President, there were two major factors that everybody said that played in your mind and in your decisionmaking. One was the results of the midterm elections. Another was the -- were the findings and the recommendations of the Baker- Hamilton Commission.

And the end result -- some of the folks are saying -- was that you decided a bipartisan approach, that -- come up with something that everybody could accept and try to work together on as a result of the elections, as a result of Baker-Hamilton, you rejected that as an idea. Am I right about that?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Not really. I -- the elections -- you know, what made my determination that we needed to change policy was what was happening in Iraq, not what was happening in American elections. I want to succeed in Iraq.

And I fully understand, Jim, by the way, that the American people are going to say, OK, show us whether this works. When it`s all said and done, what really matters is not my speech or my interview with you, but what happens on the ground.

And that`s my primary concern in coming up with something different -- was that it wasn`t working in Baghdad, so therefore we`ve got to do something different. One option was to leave, one option was to step up -- but let me talk about Baker-Hamilton.

I welcomed James Baker and Lee Hamilton`s work. First of all, I respect them as good, solid citizens who care a lot about this country. Second, they had some really good ideas in there, some of which I embraced.

The notion of kind of embedding and removing combat troops makes a lot of sense to me, but not now -- until we crack the -- help the Iraqis crack the sectarian violence in Baghdad.

They have a good strategy inherent in their report toward the role of U.S. troops inside Iraq. It`s just that there needs to be an interim stage in order to achieve that objective.

As a matter of fact, their report itself at one point suggested more troops might be needed in the interim before we implement their recommendations on -- particularly for the military in their report.

JIM LEHRER: But the bottom line, Mr. President, was that when you put the plan together -- you spent, you know, five or six weeks developing the plan...

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: ... that it was not driven primarily by, hey, we want something that the American people -- Republicans and Democrats -- and members of Congress -- Republicans and Democrats -- that the experts -- these and those and whatevers -- can support. That was not what drove you?

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, listen, I fully understand the president has got to convince the American people it`s worth it and that we can succeed, and no doubt -- and I`ve spent a lot of time during my presidency talking to the American people and educating the American people about the stakes and what we`re trying to get done.

But my first consideration -- and, listen, I hope Republicans and Democrats support this, but no question there`s a headwind. There`s a lot of skepticism in Washington, D.C. There`s skepticism about whether or not there`s enough troops, whether we should be putting any troops, and there`s skepticism whether the Maliki government will make the tough decisions necessary to succeed.

The common ground is -- that I`m finding is most people say, we can`t fail, and no question I`d love to have bipartisan support. I mean, I`d love for Democrats and Republicans to stand behind me in the Rose Garden as I outline the plan, but the primary objective has got to be to succeed in Iraq.

And so I`m not surprised that people are saying, "OK, you may think this is necessary for success, but we`re skeptical." And so we`re in a period of -- there`s some pessimism and some skepticism here in Washington that I`m going to have to continue to work through. And -- but ultimately, Jim, what`s going to matter is whether or not there is success on the ground.

JIM LEHRER: But when -- but when, Mr. President, does the skepticism and the criticism become so heavy and so prevalent that it becomes a factor? In other words, simply put, how in the world does any president of the United States run a war without the support of a majority of the American people and a majority of the Congress of the United States, no matter what the ins and outs are?

GEORGE W. BUSH: No, and no question about that. And that`s why I`m having this interview with you. I`m trying to do my very best to explain to people why success is vital.

In other words, people have got to understand that, if we decide and we grow weary of -- and there`s a lot of war-weariness in this country, and I fully understand that -- and we say, OK, well, let`s just leave, we can leave in stages, but let`s just leave, or let`s just pull back and hope that the Iraqis are able to settle their business, the consequences of that decision will be disastrous for the future of this country.

And, therefore, we got to keep working on ways to succeed, as far as I`m concerned. And, again, I want to repeat this, if you don`t mind.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

GEORGE W. BUSH: The world will see -- 20 years from now, it`s conceivable the world will see a Middle East that`s got Shia -- radical Shia and radical Sunnis competing against each other for power, which will cause people to have to choose up sides in the Middle East, supporting ideologies that are the exact opposite of what we believe.

Secondly, it is likely, if that scenario were to develop, that Middle Eastern oil would fall in the hand of radicals, which they could then use to blackmail Western governments.

Thirdly, when you throw a nuclear weapon race in the midst of this, you`ve got a -- you know, a kind of -- a chance for radicals to use weapons of mass destruction in a form that would cause huge devastation. In other words, there would be a cauldron of radicalism and extremism that a future generation would have to deal with.

Now is the time to succeed in Iraq. That`s why, in my State of the Union address, and why in other speeches I have and will spend time talking about the need to defeat this ideology with an ideology that is hopeful -- the ideology of hate with an ideology of hope, and that would be democracy.

And so the -- Iraq is -- Jim, is -- must be viewed in a context just larger than that single battlefield. It must be viewed in context of how Iran reacts. It must be viewed in the context of democracies like Lebanon and the Palestinian territories -- all being -- these young democracies, by the way, being attacked by the same type of extremists that are attacking the democracy in Iraq.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you a bottom-line question, Mr. President. If it is as important as you`ve just said -- and you`ve said it many times -- as all of this is, particularly the struggle in Iraq, if it`s that important to all of us and to the future of our country, if not the world, why have you not, as president of the United States, asked more Americans and more American interests to sacrifice something?

The people who are now sacrificing are, you know, the volunteer military -- the Army and the U.S. Marines and their families. They`re the only people who are actually sacrificing anything at this point.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we`ve got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war.

Now, here in Washington when I say, "What do you mean by that?," they say, "Well, why don`t you raise their taxes; that`ll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that.

If that`s the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I`m not for it, because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy. And one thing we want during this war on terror is for people to feel like their life`s moving on, that they`re able to make a living and send their kids to college and put more money on the table.

And, you know, I am interested and open-minded to the suggestion, but this is going to be...

JIM LEHRER: Well...

GEORGE W. BUSH: ... this is like saying, why don`t you make sacrifices in the Cold War? I mean, Iraq is only a part of a larger ideological struggle. But it`s a totally different kind of war than ones we`re used to.

JIM LEHRER: Well, for instance, Mr. President, some people have asked why -- and I would ask you about -- have you considered some kind of national service program, that would be civilian as well as military, that would involve more people in the effort to -- not just militarily, but you talk about ideology, all this sort of stuff -- in other words, to kind of muster the support of young Americans, and other Americans, in this struggle that you say is so monumental and so important.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, I have considered whether it ought to be compulsory, non-military service, I guess is the best way to put it. I`m not for compulsory military service, by the way. I think the volunteer army is working and we got to keep it strong.

I made the decision early on to set up what`s -- something called the USA Freedom Corps, which could encourage volunteerism, call people to take time out of their lives to serve our country with compassionate acts. And, by the way, volunteerism is high in America.

But, no, you know, I thought through compulsory national service and thought that the route that we picked was the best route.

JIM LEHRER: The best route. How would you define, finally, where the best route is going to end? If you -- in other words, you have a plan now...

GEORGE W. BUSH: Right.

JIM LEHRER: ... and, eventually, the plan is going to have to result in something. You said yourself it`s going to have to result in something on the ground.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Right. Right. Right.

JIM LEHRER: What is that result going to be?

GEORGE W. BUSH: A Baghdad which is less violent, neighborhoods that are not being cleansed of sectarian violence, and a government that has got a security force -- army and national police force -- that is chasing down killers, whether they be Sunni killers or Shia killers.

In other words, a country that is beginning to function, first and foremost -- a government functioning as -- to provide security for people. Most people want to live in peace, and yet, the violence is such that they`re not able to do so.

Secondly, I want to see a political process that tends to unify the country as opposed to divide the country. And that would be an oil law; that would be reforming the de-Baathification law; that will be local elections.

The Iraqi government said they`re going to spend $10 billion. We want to see the $10 billion spent equitably. We`d like to see this country continue its small business growth and continue to flourish. We want the country to be territorially intact. We want it to be an ally in this war on terror, not a safe haven for terrorists. And this is doable.

I would like very much at some point in time, of course, to have fewer U.S. troops. But there is no timetable to do this on. All timetables do is embolden the enemy.

Look, I want the Iraqi government to work. And it`s in our interests that we help it work, it seems like to me, and that`s why I made the decision I made.

JIM LEHRER: And you`re an optimist -- you`re optimistic about it all at this point?

GEORGE W. BUSH: I am. No question there`s a -- look, a year ago if we`d been having this discussion prior to the Samarra bombing, I`d have been -- look what happened. And then the enemy responded.

And, by the way, it was al-Qaida that bombed the Samarra mosque. It was al-Qaida that said, "We`re losing. Democracy is something we can`t stand, so let us kill innocent lives and bomb a holy site in order to try to provoke sectarian violence." And they were successful. This guy, Zarqawi, did a good job.

It`s important for the American people to understand it is al-Qaida that is doing a lot of these spectacular bombings. Why? Because they want a safe haven. They still have ambitions about hurting America.

The very same guys -- type of guys that flew those airplanes on September 11th are still the ones that are battling against a young democracy in Iraq. And we`ve got to defeat them; we got to defeat them there.

And what changed in 2005 was this level of -- and 2006, was this level of sectarian violence that you have accurately described. And the decision I had to make was, does it make sense to help the Iraqis with additional U.S. forces go in and secure those neighborhoods, and not only drive them out, drive the insurgents out, but to have enough troops to hold them, and so that the politics and the reconstruction could go forward?

And I spent a lot of time thinking about it, Jim, obviously. You mentioned five weeks. This is what presidents do; they take time, they listen. I listened to a lot of folks, a lot of good, decent folks, and came up with this answer as the best way to succeed.

And my only call to Congress is that, if you`ve got a better way to succeed, step up and explain it. I fully understand your skepticism, I say to them, but if you share with me the concern that failure`s not an option, then what is -- what`s your -- what`s your prescription for success? And I think they owe that explanation to the American people.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. President, thank you very much.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, sir. Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, some analysis of what the president had to say from Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, the president`s stated purpose for this interview and others was to convince the skeptics about his new Iraq plan. Did he make any progress today?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: I don`t think so, Jim. I think the president put it bluntly himself. The secretary of state did, as well, yesterday.

And that is that all the words, all the rhetoric, I mean, you could be Churchillian at this point, but it`s the reality on the ground in Baghdad. And you led the news tonight and you prefaced your first question to the president by what`s going on, in terms of the American casualties, in terms of Iraqi -- the crisis that is Iraq.

JIM LEHRER: Is he making his case, David? How would you say he`s doing making his case?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, this is the best I`ve heard him on the past, on the troop deployments, on the inability that we had for a couple of years to hold any territory that we cleared.

I thought it was very interesting what he said, after the Samarra bombing, that he didn`t commit enough troops into Baghdad to quiet what was followed. I hadn`t found him saying that before.

I found him also pretty compelling on the future, what would happen if we don`t succeed there. And he was nothing if not wanting to return to that theme.

Where I found him less compelling was on the present and on this plan. And he identified sources of skepticism and I thought did very little to fill in, in any substantive way, why we should not be skeptical.

One, why should we trust the Maliki government now when they`ve let us down almost every time in the past? Why is 17,500 the right number to go into Baghdad? Will that make a difference?

And, third, you know, are we going to go into Sadr City? How exactly are we going to do it? He talked vaguely about clearing neighborhoods. But how exactly are we going to do it?

You know, Americans have been following this issue for a long time. And they`re pretty well educated about it, especially viewers of this program. They want some details. They don`t just want the grand assertions.

And his problem, I think, throughout his presidency -- he`s very declarative; he`s very assertive. But when it comes to the details and the arguments and the evidence, he doesn`t put it together the way a lawyer had. And, therefore, I found myself less persuaded about the present course.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that?

MARK SHIELDS: I do. I thought the president`s strength was in describing the failure, or at least what he saw as the possibility, the dimensions of the failure, of a failed policy in Iraq, of the failure of the Iraqi government.

JIM LEHRER: The dominos, in other words?

MARK SHIELDS: The dominos. I mean, he started with a positive domino. That was the neocon dream going in, that Iraq would be Iowa and a democracy and that it would just spread throughout the entire Middle East. Now it`s the reverse domino, that it`s going to be worse. But I thought he made that case quite well.

I thought, Jim, his answer on the sacrifice question I thought was just absolutely less than defective. I mean, this is a man who is ahistorical. Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, every president who has presided over a war -- and the president describes this as a nation at war, this the battle, the ideological battle of the century that we`re engaged in. It`s an all-out global effort.

And every one of them saw the need to call upon their nation, two Republicans, two Democrats, for collective and individual sacrifice, that war does demand equality of sacrifice. And that just eludes him. He just becomes a tax-cutter again. He reduces the whole argument to that.

JIM LEHRER: What did you think about that answer?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess I agree with it. Fundamentally, I don`t think anybody -- first, let me say that I don`t think anybody thought Iraq was going to become Iowa. I think that`s a caricature of what the argument was at the time.

As for the (inaudible) sacrifice, he`s absolutely correct. I mean, what Mark said is absolutely correct, which is that he`s been asked this before -- I`ve been in a session where he`s been asked this before. And you hear this from the military constantly: The phenomenal sacrifices they and their families are making is not reflected in what the rest of us is doing.

And he`s got to have an answer to that. Not only does he have to have an answer, he has to have a policy. And he really has been afraid to do this. And it`s symptomatic, I think, of a lot of the other things that have gone wrong.

He`s wanted to make this as easy as possible for the American people. That`s fundamentally why there are only 17,500 going into Baghdad, because he wants to make the policy as easy as possible.

Even in his presentation last week, he said Iraqis will be in the lead. Iraqis are going to be in the lead. It sounds easy to the American people. It`s not true: Americans are going ill be in the lead.

But in each case, he`s tried to make this easy in order to sell the policy more easily. Well, it may be good publicity, but in the long term it`s just not, because people see the reality.

JIM LEHRER: What about the series of questions and answers about basic leadership, in other words, decisions that he made, his own fundamental decisions and judgments that he made. How did he think he handled that?

MARK SHIELDS: There was one rhetorical open field running on the part of the president when asked about -- he was asked about to responsibility and do you feel any sense of personal failure? And he said, if I were asked, do I approve of Iraq, no, I don`t approve of what`s taking place in Iraq, if I was asked that in a poll.

That isn`t the poll question. The poll question is: Do you approve of the president`s handling of Iraq? And he just distanced himself.

The one point that he did take responsibility and assumed responsibility -- and, I have to say, it was the first in my experience of listening to him -- was in the failure to send troops after the bombing of the shrine and send troops into Baghdad. But, I mean, that`s the only time there was even an acknowledgment.

And even though he went through this whole series about 2006 being a terrible year and all that had gone wrong and in the summer and everything else, apparently it didn`t really sink in until November 7th, when the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, that there had to be a profound and dramatic change in both personnel and policy, that the secretary of defense left the next day.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I do think they knew there had to be a change before the election. And they just waited until after the election to announce it.

I found -- one of answers I found interesting was on, again, going back to this issue of 17,500 troops in Baghdad. You asked him, will that be enough? And he said, I`ll do what the generals tell me to do basically.

Well, that was his answer for three years when they told him they didn`t commit enough troops, as he now acknowledges. So why should we believe him now? And which generals are these?

And what he`s trying to do is absolve himself from having to make a judgment and give us the reasons for the judgment, because there are all different generals and colonels and everybody else giving different analyses of how many troops it will take.

And he doesn`t give us any military reason. And when pressed, he always gives you a personal reason. "Well, I trust this guy, General Casey. I like that guy, General Abizaid." Well, they`re good guys, but the president has to have made -- has to have heard the different arguments and have a substantive reason why this number of troops will work and that number of troops won`t work.

And he never really answers on that. He just says, "I defer to the generals." Again, that`s not good enough anymore. I haven`t heard that many other plausible arguments. And I`m willing to give this policy a chance, as other people who know more about the military situation, more than me, are willing to give it a chance.

But you`ve got to ease the skepticism based on three years of failure. And, again, that involves granularity; that involves evidence; that involves treating people like adults and not talking down to them.

JIM LEHRER: Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I can`t argue with anything that David said there. I would just add that I thought the president`s explanation of the successes in Iraq, getting rid of Saddam Hussein and that, I was fascinated by his use of the term "kind of a revenge killing."

I mean, there are millions of people who think that capital punishment is a revenge killing, it`s an institutionalized revenge killing. But when the president talked as he did about the successes, I don`t think they have created a unity government. I don`t think anyone really believes that.

It`s a sectarian government, and that`s one of the real problems that we`re dealing with right now. And so maybe he just wants to believe that, but it`s not true. Saddam Hussein is gone.

The other thing that just amazed me was that he said we have to stop al-Qaida from getting a foothold in Iraq. That was in the resolution to go to war in the first place, that al-Qaida did have a foothold in Iraq. So, I mean, here we are, five years later.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, David, thank you both.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The Scooter Libby trial. Gwen Ifill has our story.

GWEN IFILL: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney`s former chief of staff, is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying about how he learned and who he talked to about the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame`s identity to the press in 2003.

Jury selection for his trial began today. And before a verdict is reached, the vice president himself is likely to testify. Carol Leonnig was in the courtroom today for the Washington Post, and she joins us now.

Welcome, Carol.

CAROL LEONNIG, The Washington Post: Thank you, Gwen.

GWEN IFILL: So, Carol, what is it the prosecution is seeking to prove here?

CAROL LEONNIG: The prosecution is seeking to prove here that Scooter Libby, on behalf of Cheney, allegedly, sought to discredit a critic of the war and lied later when asked about it about his conversations with reporters that provided information about this critic`s wife, who was a secret CIA operative named Valerie Plame.

GWEN IFILL: And as far as we`ve been able to see so far in court filings, what is Scooter Libby`s defense?

CAROL LEONNIG: Well, I have to say that, today, the opening of the trial didn`t showcase so much the defense. I can tell you it quickly. The defense is, "I forgot. I was very involved in national security matters that were much more serious, much more crushing. And when the FBI came to me in this leak investigation, trying to figure out how Valerie Plame`s name appeared in a column by Bob Novak, I, Scooter Libby, just couldn`t remember and misspoke."

"Later on, I remembered that I had learned this information, not from Tim Russert at NBC, but I learned it from my boss, Vice President Cheney, and that I had shared it with other reporters."

GWEN IFILL: Just to remind people, because it`s been a while, this case is not about the actual leak, about who leaked this name, right?

CAROL LEONNIG: Excellent point. And critics of this investigation have said over and over again, if there wasn`t a leak, why are we charging a crime of perjury and lying about a non-existent leak?

And what the special counsel has argued is, if you lie in the course of an investigation about conversations you had about secret information that may or may not have been classified, that he can`t prove whether or not you were a leaker with criminal intent, but what he can prove is that you lied to him.

GWEN IFILL: So jury selection begins today. And basically the prosecutors have and the defense have to choose from a jury of people who live in the District of Columbia who might not, according to polls anyway, seem to be terribly sympathetic to this administration. Did that come up in the jury selection?

CAROL LEONNIG: In fact, it was the central issue that came up today. Rather slowly, the defense and also the prosecution, with a lot of help from Judge Walton, who is the presiding judge here, questioned jurors.

In the course of almost a full day, a shortened day, but almost a full court day, they were only able to interview nine jurors. And of those, three were dismissed, two for expressing very harsh and negative opinions about the Bush administration.

There was one panel member, a woman in her 30s, who was in career professional ware. And she said emphatically, "I have absolutely no objectivity about the Bush administration," when asked a question about that. And she was summarily dismissed. She said she couldn`t think of anything positive about the administration.

GWEN IFILL: So that is one hurdle. And the other hurdle, this has been a very public case. A lot of people might know about it.

CAROL LEONNIG: Yes, another good point. And the defense is using that in some motions they made this morning in which they`ve said on behalf of their client, Mr. Libby, that there`s been a lot of inflammatory coverage of the case. It`s been all over the cable news channels.

It`s been on the front pages of the Post, the Times, et cetera, and that there`s little chance that Libby could have a fair trial, because exposure means you`re indicted, you`re charged, you`re walking into the courthouse every day on television cameras, you must be guilty.

That`s what they fear, is the view of D.C. residents who might be chosen as jurors. So far, though, when interviewed, the prospective jurors said they`d seen the news coverage but they weren`t entirely sure what Libby was charged with, and so they hadn`t formed an opinion, they said.

GWEN IFILL: But one thing we`re expecting in this case, which would be quite precedent-setting, is the vice president himself could be called to testify. Any sense what the timing is going to be on that?

CAROL LEONNIG: No firm dates at this point, but it seems as though it would not be at the very start of the case, when the prosecution is going to be bringing forth its witnesses. But many sources are now indicating that he will likely testify in court, in person, and that he believes very strongly that this was an honorable public servant who`s been caught up in an unfair hunt for a leak of which he is not -- of which he is not guilty.

GWEN IFILL: In court, in person, not by videotape?

CAROL LEONNIG: That`s what we`re hearing.

GWEN IFILL: OK, Carol Leonnig from the Washington Post, thank you for covering this trial for us.

CAROL LEONNIG: Thank you, Gwen.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, guest essayist Allen Morris Jones talks about a symbol of rural America: the pickup truck.

ALLEN MORRIS JONES, NewsHour Guest Essayist: Have you ever paid attention to all the various ways we try to make ourselves unique? Tattoos and tongue piercings, stock portfolios and alligator shoes; we all seem to be identically anxious to prove that we are one of a kind.

Consider the cars we drive. They`re kind of like rolling billboards, aren`t they? Our Hummers and hybrids, our tailgates full of bumper stickers and rearview mirrors strung with fuzzy dice. One glance, and it`s like peeking inside a wallet, into a voting booth.

For my part, I`ve lately been filling up the tank of my little 18- mile-a-gallon truck glum as a German philosopher. With a gallon of unleaded gotten as pricey as a gallon of milk, watching the dollars spin around like a possessed slot machine, I can`t help but ask myself, why? Why am I hanging onto this expensive, environmentally iffy truck?

Maybe it`s the utility. Here in Montana, a working truck is the equivalent of a doctor`s black bag, stuffed with every little thing that you need to do your job.

One of my former high school teachers, a bird hunter with a set of famous Brittany spaniels, has dog kennels built into his bed. And most fishing guides I know tow their boats along behind, the beds filled with waders and rods and oars.

If it`s warm enough, a lot of us give our old black labs a ride. There are ranchers with rifles in the back window and snips of bailing wire on the dashboard. Passing each other on the county road, you wave a few fingers off the steering wheel. "The day is going pretty well, thanks."

At the corner cafe, you pass the time with your forearms on the tailgate, catching up on what Ron and the family have been up to since the last time you saw them.

Then there`s the good, old-fashioned Iacocca patriotism, the clarion call to buy American, Ford versus Chevy. If you read the Wall Street Journal, maybe it doesn`t matter anymore. But, you know, it feels like it matters.

But most of all -- and as high gas prices have come to threaten the pickup`s future -- I`ve been thinking that maybe this particular machine finds its real value as a kind of American archetype, a symbol for something larger than itself.

In this ponderous, unconscionable arrangement of steel, oil and vulcanized rubber are all the possibilities of a good sunset horizon, of cowboys with stoic squints behind cigarette smoke, the 21st-century equivalence of Trigger and Silver.

If the novels of Zane Grey and Louie L`Amour are any indication, we might not be the smartest guys on the block, but at least we have moral clarity. We have nobility of purpose. We have the self-righteousness of an unwavering belief.

Certain politicians have understood this allure better than others. Red state or blue state, our heroes have always been cowboys. Here in Montana, we have a populist, gun-toting governor in a bolo tie. We have a new United States senator who used to be an organic farmer. But when they each climb into their carbon-coughing pickups, you can bet they are giving us a lesson in at least some part of what finally fuels American politics.

As for me, and for now anyway, I`m keeping my truck. I`m Allen Morris Jones.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day.

Bombings and shootings in Baghdad killed nearly 100 Iraqis.

President Bush told the NewsHour he knows sending more troops won`t stop all the killing, but he said the alternative was "slow failure."

And jury selection began for Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak trial.

Tonight`s edition of "Frontline" is about the Catholic Church`s child sexual abuse crisis and the experience of one Massachusetts family. Please check your local PBS listings for the time.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.