The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Day 13 of military action against Iraq. We have the developments, today's briefing by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Myers, military analysis from our colonels and others, embeds, a firing and other media stories, plus a non- war report on today's Supreme Court arguments over affirmative action.

JIM LEHRER: U.S. and British planes swarmed over territory south of Baghdad today. They were setting the stage for a major ground offensive toward the capital. Gwen Ifill has our war news roundup.

GWEN IFILL: Moved north, coalition forces engaged in increasingly sharp fighting across central and southern Iraq. Ahead of them, hundreds of bombs and missiles rained down on elite Iraqi troops, with deadly effect. (Explosions) Today, fresh air strikes pummeled Baghdad's southern and western outskirts, hitting two major Republican Guard units in the area. U.S. Military officials said those elite troops are now at less than half of their original strength. (Explosions) Huge blasts rocked the area overnight. Smoke rose from one of the city's presidential compounds. Another explosion triggered a fire at the Iraqi Olympic Committee headquarters. Saddam's son Uday used the building as a torture chamber. The resulting damage was easy to see. Even so, some residents remained defiant.

AHMED KHALIF ( Translated ): We would defend our homeland until the very last drop of our blood. With the help of God, we will make our land a graveyard for the invaders.

GWEN IFILL: The most intense ground fighting occurred near Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad. A marine spokesman said 90 Iraqi soldiers were killed and 20 were captured. And fighting between U.S. Military units and Iraqi soldiers continued at Hindiyah. The major battle centered around a key bridge over the Euphrates River. U.S. troops also advanced to the nearby town of Hillah, and during fighting with Iraqi forces, captured a general who later provided tactical information. Iraqi officials escorted camera crews to the town to show them what they said was the aftermath of last night's coalition bombings. Iraq's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, said nine children, including an infant, were killed in the raid. North of Baghdad, near the Kurdish town of Kifri, massive predawn explosions lit up the sky. The constant, heavy bombing by U.S.-led forces continued into the morning. (Explosions) And several hundred miles north, in the town of Biyare, near the Iranian border, U.S. Special Forces commanders gave details of Saturday's raid on what they said was the compound of Muslim extremist group, Ansar al-Islam.

CHIEF U.S. SPECIAL FORCES COMMANDER: The exploitation of the site is ongoing. We have found various documents and equipment, et cetera, that would indicate the presence of chemical and/or biological weapons. Most of the samples that have been taken have... are being flown back to the states for further study and for testing.

GWEN IFILL: The commanders said they also found computer discs and other material belonging to the fighters, including lists of suspected militants living in the United States. They also confirmed that one of the POW's captured in the raid was a member of al-Qaida who had served in Afghanistan. In southern Iraq, intense fighting continued near Basra, Iraq's second largest city. U.S. officials confirmed that British forces destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks and personnel carriers inside the city, an Iraqi general was also captured. And American navy officials said warplanes from the U.S.S. "Kitty Hawk" dropped bombs on an Iraqi presidential yacht in the port of Basra. However, outside Basra, tension between Iraqi civilians and British forces seemed to be diminishing. In the cities of Umm Qasr, Zubayr, Rumelia, and Safwan, troops felt secure enough to swap their combat helmets for less protective berets. But farther north, in the town of Shatra, checkpoint operations were not running as smoothly. An unarmed Iraqi driver was killed, according to central command. This comes one day after at least seven Iraqi women and children were killed at a checkpoint near the Muslim holy city of Najaf, in southern Iraq. U.S. Military officials are investigating the circumstances in which troops fired on a van carrying the civilians when the driver refused to stop.

BRIGADIER GEN. VINCENT BROOKS: Our checkpoints have to remain alert and vigilant to any type of threat that would approach that which is being protected and secured. We have not had a change in rules of engagement in recent days. There is increased vigilance because of the tactics we have seen being used on the battlefield by the regime and the death squads that are out there.

GWEN IFILL: Brooks also said he had no information to confirm Iraqi claims that two buses carrying peace activists were attacked by U.S. planes near the Iraqi/Jordanian border. The status of Saddam Hussein remained an open question today. He did not appear in person, but a government minister read a statement on his behalf. It called for the Iraqi people to wage "holy war" against coalition forces. Earlier, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia urged Saddam to step down and save his people. But Iraq's vice president fired back, telling the Saudi minister to "go to hell." The Iraqis claimed today that more than 650 civilians have been killed during the war, and nearly 4,900 have been injured. They did not provide figures on military casualties. On the U.S. side, according to revised figures from the military today, forty-six soldiers have died, at least sixteen are missing, and seven remain prisoners of war. The British have reported 26 of their soldiers killed. Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Gwen.

Congress went to work on funding for the war, and the fight against domestic terrorism. A House committee approved most of the $75 billion that Pres. Bush wanted. A Senate committee approved a similar bill. Both versions include limits on the president's discretion in spending the money.

FOCUS - WAR PLANS

JIM LEHRER: Now, today's major briefing. It was at the Pentagon this afternoon, conducted by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and joint chiefs chairman Gen. Myers. Highlights included a vigorous defense of the Iraq war plan, and a counterattack on retired and active military officers who have been criticizing Rumsfeld's management of the war.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS: I would love to comment. My view of those reports-- and since I don't know who you're quoting, who the individuals are-- is that they're bogus. There is... I don't know how they get started, and I don't know how they've been perpetuated, but it's not been by responsible members of the team that put this all together. They either weren't there, or they don't know, or they're working another agenda for... and I don't know what that agenda might be. It is not helpful to have those kind of comments come out when we've got troops in combat, because first of all, they're false, they're absolutely wrong, they bear no resemblance to the truth, and it's just... it's just harmful to our troops that are out there fighting very bravely, very courageously. I've been in this process every step of the way as well. There is not one thing that Gen. Franks has asked for that he hasn't gotten on the timeline that we could get it to him. And it wasn't because of a late signing. It might be because we didn't have A... you know, a ship or something. But I mean, it's not... it's been for mechanical reasons, not because of administrative reasons; I can guarantee you that. Every member of the joint chiefs of staff signed up to this plan and the way it was executed from the first day, and they'll be signed up to the last day, because we still think it's a good plan. Every member of Gen. Franks' component commanders signed up to this plan as it was changed over time, and as it finally came down to be the one we went to war with. And they all stood up and they gave a thumbs-up to the plan. So I wish we just kind of... this subject is not useful. It's not good for our troops and it's not accurate. You've got to be careful with the sources you use and try to figure out what they're really trying to say. I will stick by my statement that this is a great plan and it's one I've signed up to. It's one all the joint chiefs signed up to. And it's one we're going to see through to completion.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, are you distancing yourself from the plans? You know, every time you say...

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, let me answer that. I'd love to.

REPORTER: Every time you say, "you know, it's not my plan; I'd like to take credit for it," the people around you are saying, "see? He is distancing himself."

DONALD RUMSFELD: Not at all. As I said, I think it is a superb plan. I was involved...

REPORTER: But... with your philosophy, and didn't your philosophy have a lot to do with how this came out?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Goodness, gracious. You know, it's like having a process that goes on for five or six months with a lot of people in the room, people all talking, discussing, asking questions. I mostly ask questions.

REPORTER: But you're the boss, though.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I'm the boss, but I'm not the person who designs war plans.

GEN. RICHARD MYERS: And it changed --.I mean, it changed in the last couple of months dramatically. I mean, this was complete... I mean, it was changed a lot in the last...

DONALD RUMSFELD: And nobody should go out of here with any idea that I or anyone else are distancing themselves from that plan, because I am not. I think it is an excellent plan. I think Tom Franks is doing a superb job.

REPORTER: Well, we kept hearing that you kept sending the plan back-- wasn't imaginative enough...

DONALD RUMSFELD: You keep hearing things. It's the same thing like we cut the force in half. The fact that one person prints it, and then everyone else runs around and copycats it and writes it again, then pretty soon it's been printed 16 times, and everyone says, "well, it must be true"-- that's nonsense.

REPORTER: So Tom Franks... get his way in the end? Did he get exactly what he wanted out of it?

DONALD RUMSFELD: He seems to tell the president and me and Dick Myers that he thinks this is the plan he wants. And we have agreed to it. And we participated in it. And we like it. And no one's backing away from anything. And the fact that people been writing this stuff over and over and over again and misinforming the world is really not terribly important. What's important is what we've said and that we're winning this activity, and it is going to end, and it will end with Saddam Hussein gone.

JIM LEHRER: And to our nightly military analysis from two of the NewsHour's retired colonel corps: Former Special Forces officer and Middle East intelligence analyst W. Patrick Lang, and Marine Corps urban assault expert Gary Anderson. They are joined tonight by Eliot Cohen, professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. He's also a member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises the secretary of defense.

Colonel Lang, do the secretary and Gen. Myers have a legitimate complaint?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: Well, you know, I think they're a little overly sensitive about this. In fact, you know, there's so much heat in this subject now, I don't quite understand why that is. I mean it's perfectly clear that the secretary of defense has every right to intervene in military affairs whenever he wishes to. It hasn't been done all that often at the upper echelon level in American history at least probably not since the civil war, but he has every right to do so. So I don't quite understand why they're so worked up about this. The troops in the field, the argument about affecting the troops in the field, the troops in the field are professionals. They know what their situation is. They know they're about to assault Baghdad. They're concerned about what the battle is going to be like. They're not interested in what some retired general is saying on nightly television.

JIM LEHRER: Prof. Cohen, how do you feel about it? Do you think the retired officers including the ones called Lang and Anderson on this program and others as well as the officers currently serving who have also been quoted extensively not by name in some cases in newspaper stories, is this harmful? Is this a bad thing that's going on?

ELIOT COHEN: Well, I draw a big distinction between the retired community and the active duty community.

JIM LEHRER: Let's take the retired community first.

ELIOT COHEN: Well, the retired community, you know, they're welcome to say whatever they think. My general view, I must say as somebody who has been watching the war rather than commenting on it, is they're as much in the dark as the rest of us. Sometimes they can contribute insights, but the truth of the matter is most of this war is invisible to most of us, which is why I haven't particularly had a lot to say about it. We're going to be to sort a lot of this out afterwards. The active duty community is something very different. This is behavior which is disloyal and it is profoundly unprofessional. I think that's why....

JIM LEHRER: Disloyal?

ELIOT COHEN: Disloyal.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

ELIOT COHEN: If you had say an infantry division and a battalion commander was going around to the press and whispering things about the commanding general of the battalion that were really very, very negative that would be regarded as unprofessional behavior and disloyal behavior. The truth is the secretary of defense is in their chain of command. I think Gen. Myers is quite right. This is unhelpful. It's implicitly by the way also an attack on him and on Gen. Franks who have been saying things that are very opposite in public. It's also, you know, this is cowardly behavior. These people are not willing to attach their names to it. I do believe there are active duty officer s who are speaking to reporters. I know some of the reporters, I know that's true. But this is improper behavior.

JIM LEHRER: Improper behavior, Col. Anderson?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Yes, it is. Quite frankly, I'm very distressed. Let's not talk about the military side of the thing or the retired side of the thing. Let's talk about the active duty military.

JIM LEHRER: We'll get back to the retireds in a minute. Go ahead to the actives.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Let's talk about the active duty side, the side that is not going public, the side that's carping in the rear echelons and so forth. That really concerns me. You know, if they are so concerned that this is a bad plan and that it's ill conceived, where are the piles of stars and the piles of eagles on Sec. Rumsfeld's desk of people that have resigned in protest? I don't see any of them. I don't think... I think Gen. Myers is absolutely correct. This is a terrible time to be having those kinds of debates in public while our troops are in the field.

JIM LEHRER: Col. Lang?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: I think that's, with due respect to my colleague from the Marine Corps, I think that's an unrealistic view of things. In fact, I think it's... I also think it's a rather extreme thing to apply words such as cowardice to officers serve inning the field in combat. I think that's a bit much to tell you the truth. These officers, in fact, are not employees of the Department of Defense. They hold a constitutional office under the United States. Their commissions are approved by the Senate. They have a professional obligation to the people and to the republic they think something is not going well they have an obligation to speak up. Gen. Wallace spoke up very publicly. And he expects, I'm sure to pay whatever priceis necessary.

JIM LEHRER: He's the one, just to refresh people's memory, he's the one who said we didn't war game for the war we're having to fight and we're adjusting -- words to that effect.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: That's right. He's out on the line around Karbala or Najaf or some place. And if he feels it necessary to speak up I think people ought to have certain amount of respect for that. As a matter of fact Gen. Myers in his press conference today said he thought that if officers had not spoken up in discussion s with the secretary of defense about this plan, then they had been derelict in the duty to the republic. How is this different from what Gen. Wallace did in the front line a few days ago?

ELIOT COHEN: I think there's a big difference. First, Gen. Wallace is out in the open and his name is attached to it, but what he's saying is something that's a basic truth about war that we didn't plan everything in advance. There's nothing knew in that, there's no particular critique of his superiors that is involved in that; that's very different from somebody in uniform back in Washington and some of this is back in Washington, some of it may be in the field, going to a reporter and not just saying we don't like the plan but also saying it's because of what the secretary of defense did and the secretary of defense has been denying us resources. That is very different from the kind of honest give-and-take that you want to have and you have to have it. It's undercutting not only the secretary of defense, it's undercutting chairman of the joint chiefs, it's undercutting the theater commander all of them who would deny this. It would not be tolerated if all those people were wearing uniforms.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you this. You said you're in contact with a lot of the people who are doing the talking. Is this a legitimate... is this an honest belief on their part? Is somebody playing games here or do they honestly believe?

ELIOT COHEN: What I said I know the reporters who they're talking to.

JIM LEHRER: I see.

ELIOT COHEN: They protect their sources. I think there are a number of motivations for this. Judging by the newspapers a lot of this is coming from the army. There are people in the army who have very bitter feelings about Sec. Rumsfeld because of the cancellation of the Crusader artillery system, because of arguments about transformation, because of his relationship with Gen. Shinseki, the chief of staff of the army. There's a lot of other stuff going on.

JIM LEHRER: Not a good relationship.

ELIOT COHEN: In some cases it's not a good relationship. And of course we have no idea how many sources there are for this. You know, when you pick up a newspaper and you read story you have no idea if this is, you know, fifty colonels and generals out there or two. But there's a lot of other stuff going on. The idea that this is disinterested criticism in the interest of the country I think is baloney.

JIM LEHRER: Baloney, Col. Lang?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: Well, you know, this is all very strident and shrill. I'm amazed at the tone of this, in fact.

JIM LEHRER: You mean of what the professor is saying.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: Exactly. In fact, to think that a flock of colonels reside inning the Pentagon are going to go and throw themselves on their swords in front of Rumsfeld's desk is about as far away from reality as possible. These guys all have kids in college and mortgages to pay for and they have to go on with real life. That doesn't mean that they're not unhappy about what they perceive to have been errors that were made in the way the plan was made up. The real issue that ought to be discussed here is, in fact, whether or not the plan was, in fact, a wise one rather than this defensive crouch over whether or not people are attacking the administration.

JIM LEHRER: Col. Anderson, I know you're shaking your head.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: Horse hockey.

JIM LEHRER: Horse hockey. What specifically are you....

COL. GARY ANDERSON: If you don't believe that your country is doing the right thing, then you ought to put your stars or your eagles on the line. I don't care if you have kids in college. Go out and work at a 7-11 - if it's that important. You know, that's absolutely not a reason not to speak up. If you don't feel that way, if you don't feel strongly enough, then shut up.

JIM LEHRER: Col. Lang.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: Well, you had a professor, you had another professor was on this program a few nights ago who said very specifically that there is no tradition in American military history of resignation in protest over your inability to satisfy a political administration. Maybe we ought to have one but we don't have a tradition like that in fact. I can't recall a single instance in my own mind-- I'm sure he will -

JIM LEHRER: He just did. He just put his hand up.

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: -- of an American officer doing that. It is certainly a rare thing.

ELIOT COHEN: Somewhat different point. You know, I topped out as a captain in the army reserves so I've got a somewhat different perspective. The truth is these colonels would not tolerate that behavior in captains. Generals would not tolerate that behavior in colonels but somehow it's okay when it's directed at the civilian head of the Department of Defense. It really is not. I think it's also very important to remember something else. Ultimately officership is about character and it's about honor. That's absolutely essential for the functioning of a military machine. It's not a question of being strident or not. This may have been a good plan; it may have been a bad plan. That's a reasonable discussion. That's separate. But if you cannot trust the honor and the character of your subordinates, the system has a large problem.

JIM LEHRER: Col. Anderson, let me ask you this. You heard what Eliot Cohen said, that most of this is coming from the army because after problem they've had with secretary Rumsfeld. I know that you're in regular contact with active marine officers that you've served with in the past. It's just part of what you do. Whether they're speaking publicly or not, are there active marine officers involved in this war who don't like the plan, who believe they're not being supported by the civilian leadership?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: If there are, I'm not....

JIM LEHRER: You haven't talked to any?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: I honestly don't... up haven't heard anybody that's said anything, you know,... I haven't been talking to my friends in the field and so forth. But I haven't heard that, no.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, if the marines....

COL. GARY ANDERSON: It's not to say that there aren't, Jim. I haven't heard that.

JIM LEHRER: In other words, if the marines are not talking, it isn't necessarily because they're not happy... they're not unhappy. It's just that they're not talking? Is that what you're saying, or are you dodging me?

COL. GARY ANDERSON: No, I'm not dodging you. I think the marines are doing what the marines do, which is to go kill people in the field and then they'll worry about it afterwards. But I honestly have not heard a marine publicly criticize this plan. It doesn't mean it's not happening. I just haven't heard it.

JIM LEHRER: No. But what I meant was privately are they criticizing it but not speaking up along the lines of what Prof. Cohen said because they don't think it's the proper thing to do? That's what I was trying to get at.

COL. GARY ANDERSON: I understand what you're saying. I just have not heard that said.

ELIOT COHEN: If I could just make one more point. This kind of behavior can do no good. The plan is the plan. It's not going to get a single additional tank there any quicker. It's not going to get an additional soldier there any quicker. It's not going to change tactics. It's not going to change operations. It's not going to change strategy. It's just a question of settling scores. That's all it's about.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that? It's not going to help anything?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: Well it's not going to bring armored reinforcements to the battlefield any faster by complaining about the fact that the plan was set up a certain way. They're certainly following the plan they adopted. There's no doubt about that. I think you have to accept the fact that if people are unhappy, they're going to make noises about it. They always do. I don't believe that the troops in the field are affected by this. These are professionals. They always grouse about civilian leadership. It's their right.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask you a quick question, Pat Lang, about before you go, and it's on Saddam Hussein, they smoked him out or at least they were trying to smoke him out. I talked to Gen. Pace last night. Today they ran the tape of the information minister reading. What do you think is going on? Is this man alive, dead, whatever?

COL. W. PATRICK LANG: You know, it's just a matter of guessing. My instinct tells me that he was wounded and is somewhat incapacitated. And a very fine analyst who I know suggested to me that the fact that the Iraqi defense is as coherent as it is suggests he may be incapacitated and somebody like the Gen. Sultan is running it. I would vote for incapacitated.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Thank you all three very much.

FOCUS - WAR STORIES

JIM LEHRER: Now a look at the Pentagon's journalist embedding program, and other media war stories, and to our media correspondent, Terence Smith.

CORRESPONDENT: They call this Gulf II.

TERENCE SMITH: For the first time in decades, since Vietnam, American journalists are traveling side by side with U.S. troops in combat.

CORRESPONDENT: The enemy continues to fight, but they also continue to die, according to unit commanders. (Gunfire)

TERENCE SMITH: Using state-of-the-art technology, some 600 embedded print and broadcast reporters are sending back real-time reports. As a result, the American public is getting an up-front and personal view of the war around the clock.

TED KOPPEL: As they moved towards their first target, and I'm not in the position to tell you what that is...

TERENCE SMITH: Under the embedding guidelines, journalists agree not to disclose exactly where they are or everything they see.

CORRESPONDENT: We've basically been in a communications blackout for three days.

TERENCE SMITH: Many reporters say the conditions are difficult, but the access so far, good.

COLIN SOLOWAY: I certainly haven't had the problems that other people were concerned about in terms of being restricted-- restricted in what you can learn, restricted in what you can report.

TERENCE SMITH: The initial embedded coverage has been broadly favorable to the U.S. Military, but Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the images come so thick and fast that...

DONALD RUMSFELD: We have seen mood swings in the media from highs to lows to highs and back again, sometimes in a single 24-hour period. For some, the massive TV - the massive volume of television -- and it is massive-- and the breathless reports can seem to be somewhat disorienting.

TERENCE SMITH: But at the National Press Club last night, there were questions about how the arrangement will work long-term.

BILL PLANTE, CBS News: I don't think this has been put to the test just yet. I don't think you've yet had the case of a reporter, who is present with gear-- maybe television, maybe not, but let's say television-- when a terrible mistake is made, a stupid order is given -- things which the American military would rather not have the American public see may happen.

TERENCE SMITH: A list of very detailed coverage ground rules governs the relationship. So far, no embedded reporters have been sanctioned for violating the rules, but at least two reporters traveling alone have Philip Smucker, a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor, who disclosed the location of a Marine unit; and Geraldo Rivera of Fox News -- Rivera is being withdrawn from Iraq after the military contended that he had compromised security by drawing a battle map in the sand.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining me now to assess the war coverage so far are Geneva Overholser, columnist and a professor at the University of Missouri, School of Journalism. Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations. And Alex Jones, director of the Joan Shorenstein Center on the press, politics, and public policy at Harvard University. Welcome to you all.

Bryan Whitman, you're one of the people who helped organize and establish this really very different new program to embed and place these reporters in military units and give them a first-hand look and an opportunity to report back. From the Pentagon's point of view, how is it going?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, it is a very ambitious and aggressive program that we embarked on. But I think by all accounts even at this very early stage, indications are that it's working rather well. I think it's working rather well for the media who are out there covering this conflict and I think from the military's perspective we haven't had any serious incidences in which we have compromised the mission or endangered personnel out there.

TERENCE SMITH: Geneva, from the consumers' point of view, the public, how is it going?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Well, Terry, I think it's a phenomenal amount of access. I'm grateful for it. I think the public can be grateful for it. What we're getting is a dazzling array of kind of splinters of reality though. And I worry some about what we're not getting. I worry that we may not see these splinters in any kind of whole. I worry that we need to be mindful that for very good reasons these journalists who are embedded are not report in a completely independent way. This is not a criticism of the Pentagon, but there are 19, I believe, unreleaseables categories, most of them quite understandable, but some a little worrisome to me about ongoing engagements and so I think it's important that we recognize that. I also worry a little bit that in our kind of phenomenal "gee whiz" feelings about this new embedding and the new technologies and the video cameras that bring it all home that we may be forgetting that there's an awful lot else going on about the war. We shouldn't be too dazzled by what we have here.

TERENCE SMITH: Alex Jones, too "gee whiz"?

ALEX JONES: I think I'm more on the "gee whiz" side than Geneva is. I compare it to what happened in Grenada, what happened in the first Gulf War, what happened in Afghanistan and I find it such a breath of fresh air to have this access that the worm's eye view and the splintered aspects of it don't trouble me very much. I think that the embeds so far have been something of a truth squad. They've done what they were supposed to do, which is give confirmation or challenge to what's being said from headquarters. I think that's very important. I think it's important to remember that the first, you know, sense that things were not going to be a cakewalk came when embeds a week ago, over a week ago, made a kind of analysis about the Apache raid on the Republican Guards that was very different from the one that was expressed at headquarters and turned out to be a much more realistic one. I think that was their job and they did it. So I'm-- on the balance of things, I'm very much on the pro side.

TERENCE SMITH: Bryan, what about that example that Alex Jones just cited or other examples where the first-hand reporting from the front may not square precisely with the version that is being described at central command headquarters?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, one of the things that we've actually learned is that the media have the same problems that we do when dealing in information in the fog of war.

TERENCE SMITH: Getting it right.

BRYAN WHITMAN: And that the first reports quite frequently are not completely right and so we have to take those reports and those slivers of combat life that you're seeing out there and the conflict and we have to be able to put them in context. I don't think anyone professed from the beginning that embedded reporting should be the only way in which this conflict would be covered. But I think that the embedding gives the American people a very important view of what's going on in near real-time on the battlefield. When we sat here a few weeks ago, I said that truth needed to be an issue in this conflict, if there was one. I think that what we're seeing out there with some 600 reporters out there in the field is that they are reporting in a very factual, matter of fact, truthful way, both the good and the bad.

TERENCE SMITH: Geneva, do you see that as a plus? And do you see any other pitfalls?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Absolutely. I don't want to un-embed. I commend the Pentagon. I think this is extraordinary. I agree totally with Alex that compared with what we've had before it's a marvelous, marvelous advance. However, just as you said, we need more than embedded reporting. And it is very hard, which is nobody's fault, to do independent reporting. In fact we are hearing far more from these five hundred to six hundred embedded reporters. We haven't comparable numbers of American independent reporters and those we have are under enormous pressure.

TERENCE SMITH: Alex Jones, is there a danger in your view or have you seen reporting that reflects reporters getting too close to those units and soldiers that they are traveling with, eating with, sharing danger with and it certainly would be a human reaction but does it jeopardize the objectivity of their reporting?

ALEX JONES: I don't think it's a question of objectivity. I think what you have is empathy, which I think is appropriate. It comes with knowledge. I think that what we've had is a reporting corps that has no experience with the military whatsoever. They weren't in the military the way they were in my day. There was not a draft. And so we have got two generations I guess of journalists who have never had any military experience. I think what we've got now is 600 journalists who are getting a dose of what it's like to be a soldier. I think that's automatically going to give empathy and knowledge and insight, but I don't think that means that the reporters who are out there are not also going to be reporting the truth. And if it's a harsh truth, if it's a negative truth, if there is a war atrocity, if there's some appalling thing, if the war is going bad, I don't think that you're going to find that the journalists are going to sugar coat it; I think they're going to do their job. But part of what they're reporting is a more sort of nuanced understanding of what it's like to be a soldier. And that does include getting close. I don't have a problem with getting close. I think that's what journalism is for.

TERENCE SMITH: Bryan Whitman, we mentioned the case of Geraldo Rivera and the other reporter, Philip Smucker, who were in effect asked to leave the Iraq because of what were seen as compromises of operational security. How serious were they? What does that say to you about the situation of reporters being so close to the front lines?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, let's be clear about these two situations that have received some visibility. Both of these cases were individuals that were not embedded with our U.S. forces.

TERENCE SMITH: Traveling with but not fully and legally embedded.

BRYAN WHITMAN: So we should look at them separate from the 600 or so reporters that are out there that are embedded for which we have had virtually no problems with operational security. In these two cases, we did have concern over the reporting that was being done in real-time about the position, the location, the mission, its relationship to other units, what it was about to do, and these were real-time reports. In both cases, the news organizations took our concerns very seriously. They understood and we appreciate their cooperation and their understanding in the matter. And I think they made the right decision in both these cases.

TERENCE SMITH: Geneva, there was another case obviously that got a lot of attention. Peter Arnett, a veteran reporter, gave an interview to Iraqi television about his views on how the war was going and was promptly fired by his employers, cut loose. I wonder what your reaction is to what he did.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: He wasn't as promptly fired as I'd have fired him. I found it very hard to believe that Peter Arnett, a smart reporter, would have thought that was an acceptable thing to do, to go on Iraqi television and give an interview which he knew would be used for propaganda purposes. I have trouble anyway with news reporters going on the air, on our own air, and opining. I just think it's not a good idea. But that was a spectacularly bad idea, it seems to me.

TERENCE SMITH: Alex Jones, does the Arnett case, does it point up some of the difficulties and the delicate situation that the remaining American reporters-- I understand there are only about 16 still left in Baghdad-- reporting as they are from an, you know, the enemy capital back to the United States on a U.S. assault on Baghdad?

ALEX JONES: I think it goes to the heart of the very, very delicate situation you find yourself in when you go to the enemy's heart and try to report. That's never happened until the first Gulf War. Peter Arnett was right there doing that. And I think that as long as he, you know, reported what he saw, he was fine. My problem with Peter Arnett is not what he said. It's where he said it,just as Geneva said. He knew it was for propaganda purposes or he certainly should have because this is totally state controlled. If Peter Arnett had gone on Iraqi television and said, you know, fellows, all these American soldiers are about an hour's drive from here and you're being bombed every night, things aren't going very well for you -- that would not have gone out. I think that the point is, you should not confuse going on Iraqi television with, you know, going on a news program. It was not news. He should have known it. It was open and shut as far as I was concerned.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you agree, Bryan Whitman, that it was where he said it, not so much what he said?

BRYAN WHITMAN: Well, how I feel about it probably isn't appropriate for your audience -- my true feelings on it. But let me just say that I think the news organizations that were using his material did the right thing even if it was a bit slow.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Geneva, step back a little. Look at the coverage of this war up to this point. Tell us how you think the viewer, the reader, is being served. Are they getting a good, well rounded picture?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: I think they're getting a spectacularly thorough picture of the operations of war thanks to this embedding procedure, thanks to technology. I worry though that we are so focused on that, for understandable human reasons, that we are not getting the kind of picture we should of what's happening in the larger sense of what other nations think of us, of whether pan Arabism is growing, a sort of setting the war into a context of a dangerous and fast-changing world. I don't see much of that.

TERENCE SMITH: Into its political context.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Into a political context, exactly.

TERENCE SMITH: Alex Jones, what did you think of the point that Bill Plante of CBS made in the taped piece that presided this that the difficult days lie ahead, that news will not always be good after all?

ALEX JONES: Well, news has not been good. I mean there have been some bad news moments that I referred to originally. This Apache raid was one that turned out not to be as good news or at least that's the way I think most people interpreted it. But, you know, you've got 600 reporters over there embedded. Many of them are the very best reporters or among the best reporters of some very important news organizations. Is Ted Koppel not going to tell the truth when the moment comes? I can't believe it. I think that most of the people who are over there embedded are at the top of their game for very big, important news organizations, and I don't think you're going to find that that will happen. Now, does it mean that the information may not get out if the military decides to impose censorship for a time? Well the military can do that. They have the power. But that won't last for long. I think we'll know the truth in a much shorter time frame than we would have otherwise.

TERENCE SMITH: Alex, Geneva, Bryan Whitman, thank you all three very much.

UPDATE - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a non-war story: The affirmative action arguments today before the U.S. Supreme Court. Ray Suarez is in charge.

RAY SUAREZ: The narrow question before the justices was whether race can be used at the University of Michigan and its law school as a factor to admit students in order to promote diversity. Under Michigan's policies, prospective undergraduates are awarded points for a wide variety of factors, academic and personal, including for being African American, Hispanic, or Native American. These points are often the decisive factor in admission. At the law school, special preferences had been given to minority students since 1992. Two white women-- one rejected by the law school, one rejected by the college-- sued the university. They said these admission practices violated their equal protection rights under the Constitution. For only the second time in the history of the court, today's argument was released on audio tape. The last time was when "Bush V. Gore" was heard. To help us sort through the argument, we're heard by NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, Supreme Court reporter for the Chicago Tribune. And I guess anybody approaching the court today, Jan, knew that today was a special day.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that's right, Ray. This case is widely considered the most important affirmative action case that the court has taken up in a generation, and the mood inside the courtroom and outside the courtroom reflected those high stakes. Thousands of demonstrators gathered out in front of the courtroom protesting any kind of ban on affirmative action. Inside, senators, government officials took coveted seats with the spectators, who began camping out for a seat last Friday. This case deeply divided the Justices, as many cases do involving questions of race. And as we saw today, when the justices are so narrowly divided, all eyes will generally turn to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the moderate, the swing vote that we like to call her. And today, in the argument, she got the ball rolling, and jumped right in with the first question, asking an attorney attacking these programs why they were or were not unconstitutional.

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: A university, or a law school, is faced with a serious problem when it's one that get thousands of applications for just a few slots, where it has to be selective. And inherent in that setting is making choices about what students to admit. So you have an element here that suggests that there are many reasons why a particular student would be admitted or not, and a lot of factors go into it. So how do you single this out, and how are we certain that there's an injury to your client that she wouldn't have experienced for other reasons?

KIRK KOLBO, Attorney for Rejected Students: Well, Your Honor, first of all, race is impermissible because of the constitutional command of equality. The university is certainly free to make many different kinds of choices in selecting students and to look for all kinds of different diversity-- experiential diversity, perspective diversity-- without regard to race. But race, because, Your Honor, of the constitutional command of equality, must be beyond the bounds.

RAY SUAREZ: It sounded like the justices wanted to hear from the attorneys when race is okay to be in there, when it's not okay to be in there, and what factors are admissible for admission.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's exactly right. The last time the Supreme Court took up this issue was in 1978, and then it said strict quotas are unconstitutional; that schools cannot set aside a certain number of seats for minorities. But it left the door open for schools to consider race as one of many factors in getting a diverse student body. Lower courts have split on that, and so that was really at the heart of the argument today: When race could be taken into account, if it could be taken into account, or, as opponents suggest, whether or not there are other ways to achieve diversity, more race-neutral ways.

RAY SUAREZ: And again, attorney Kirk Kolbo for the rejected students, quizzed here by Justice David Souter.

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: Do you believe that that would be an adequate at least means of experimenting? As an alternative?

KIRK KOLBO: Taking race-neutral alternatives into consideration?

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: Well, taking, for example, economic disadvantage.

KIRK KOLBO: Yes, Your Honor. I think...

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: Do you seriously believe that that would be anything but a surrogate for race? It would take the word "race" out of the categorization, out of the label that we put on it, but do you believe it would function in a different way, but as a surreptitious approach?

KIRK KOLBO: It certainly can function differently, Your Honor. Race-neutral alternatives...

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: Do you think it would?

KIRK KOLBO: Yes.

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: Is there any reason to believe that it would?

KIRK KOLBO: I do, Your Honor, because it's not just minorities that are socio-economically disadvantaged in this country. That happens with respect... across racial lines. So race-neutral alternatives...

JUSTICE DAVID SOUTER: But the object, I would have assumed, given the dialogue, the object is to increase the racial number, the percentage of minorities. If that is the object, then whatever it is, it's not a race- neutral measure.

KIRK KOLBO: Well, I would disagree, Your Honor, because I think if you have a race-neutral means, it accomplishes many purposes, and one of them is race, that is not necessarily, under this court's precedent, unconstitutional.

RAY SUAREZ: Also, besides the attorney arguing for the rejected students was the president's lawyer, the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Ted Olson.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right. The Bush administration has weighed in on this case. It says that diversity, of course, is a very important and compelling reason; that we need diverse educational opportunities for students, but that there are other ways to get there. We can take race off the table, because there are these other race-neutral alternatives. The Bush administration flagged that point early on, and it took up much of the argument today.

RAY SUAREZ: Here's Solicitor General Ted Olson and Justice Stephen Breyer.

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: The reason for it is, they want to produce a diverse class. And the reason they want to do that, using it as a plus, they say, is to do the things I said before. They think it breaks down stereotypes within the class. They think it's educationally beneficial. They think it supplies a legal profession that will be diverse, and they think a legal profession-- like business and the military-- that is diverse is good for America. From a civics point of view, it sets or breaks the cycle. All right, those are the arguments, which you well know. So what is your response?

THEODORE OLSON: Well, a response to those many arguments is that they're using stereotypes in an effort, they say, to break down stereotypes. They're using race as a surrogate for experience. And if they want to look at experience, they can look at experience. If they want to improve the educational opportunities of minority groups, one of the biggest....

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: That's not what they say. They say they're not using race as a surrogate for anything, because if you have a person who went to Exeter who is very rich and happens to be black and is a conservative Republican, it's great for the class to know that, too.

RAY SUAREZ: Justice Antonin Scalia zeroed in on Attorney Maureen Mahoney, trying to get from her "for instances." And he was using theoreticalcases-- well, what happened if we did this, what happened if we did that? There was one very interesting exchange.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Scalia was very active in argument today, and really tipped his hand that he thinks these programs are unconstitutional. That's no surprise. He's been very suspicious of the use of race. He suggested during the argument that, in some ways, these were problems of Michigan's own making, because it decided it wanted to be an elite flagship institution, suggesting that it could lower its academic standards to get a more diverse student body.

RAY SUAREZ: Justice Antonin Scalia and Maureen Mahoney.

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: The problem is a problem of Michigan's own creation. That is to say, it has decided to create an elite law school. It is one of the best law schools in the country. There are few state law schools that get to that level. Now, it's done this by taking only the best students with the best grades and the best SAT's or LSAT's, knowing that the result of this will be to exclude, to a large degree, minorities. It is... it's not unconstitutional to do that, because that's not the purpose of what Michigan did, but it is the predictable result. Nonetheless, Michigan says "We want an elite law school." Now, having created this situation by making that decision, it then turns around and says, "oh, we have a compelling state interest in eliminating this racial imbalance that we ourselves have created." Now, if Michigan really cares enough about that racial imbalance, why doesn't it do as many other state law schools do? Lower the standards, and not have a flagship elite law school. It solves the problem.

MAUREEN MAHONEY: Your honor, I don't think there's anything in this court's case that suggests that the law school has to make an election between academic excellence and racial diversity.

RAY SUAREZ: Hasn't Michigan maintained that what it has is not a quota, but a target to create critical mass in the student body? That seemed to get a lot of attention from the justices.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: The Michigan officials have maintained from the beginning that these are not quotas. And in fact, the Supreme Court struck down quotas in 1978. These were adopted in response to that decision. They argue that these are just an important way of getting a diverse student body by looking at a number of factors in the law school, for example, and then, at the undergraduate institution, awarding points based on a number, again, of factors. So the school maintains adamantly that these are not quotas. The justices, however-- at least some of them-- suggested that they saw it quite differently, including Justice Anthony Kennedy. Anthony Kennedy suggested that this might actually be a disguised quota.

RAY SUAREZ: Here's Justice Kennedy with Attorney John Payton.

JOHN PAYTON: The benefits from this affect every single student that comes through, and they're dependent on there being meaningful numbers or critical mass of minority students, or the benefits don't come about.

JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: All of the eloquent things you said could easily be met by a quota. That-- let's just assume for argument-- we cannot do. I have to say that in looking at your program, it looks to me like this is just a disguised quota. If you're minimally qualified and you're one of the minority races that gets the 20 points, you're in.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of amici filed in this one. Didn't this get a tremendous amount of attention?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: An unbelievable amount. More than 70 different organizations have weighed in with friend -- you know --of the court briefs in this case illustrating the significance of the court's ruling -- this goes well beyond the University of Michigan, well beyond public universities and into private universities, and of course into the public sector. And business groups have weighed in, saying that they believe diversity is important. A brief that got a lot of attention today was filed by retired military officers who have said that diversity and the consideration of race is an important factor for the service academies. The Justices expressed much concern about how their ruling would affect the very composition of the military leadership. So today's case goes well beyond Michigan, the state of Michigan, the University of Michigan, and could affect, as the lawyers so eloquently put it today, the use of race in a number of contexts, and in society in general.

RAY SUAREZ: Jan Crawford Greenburg, thanks for coming by.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: You're welcome, Ray.

JIM LEHRER: The full audio recording of today's Supreme Court arguments is available on our web site.

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major war developments of the day, and to Gwen Ifill.

THE WAR WITH IRAQ

GWEN IFILL: U.S. and British planes swarmed over a broad section of Iraq, south of Baghdad. The U.S. Military said two divisions of the Republican Guard had lost half their combat power. Late today the U.S. Military reported a major battle between U.S. and Iraqi forces near Karbala, one of the last major towns before Baghdad. An Iraqi official read a message from Saddam Hussein on state TV urging Iraqis to wage holy war against the coalition. In Washington the chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Richard Myers, defended the U.S. war plan and said criticism of it is not helping the troops. Jim.

JIM LEHRER: Again, thanks again, Gwen. For the record, our man in Baghdad, John Burns of the New York Times, is fine; he was just not available to us tonight. In other news today, a hijacked Cuban airlines plane landed safely at Key West International Airport in Florida. After the plane touched down, the hijacker surrendered to local police. A bomb squad removed what appeared to be two grenades. There were twenty-five passengers and six crew members onboard. Others had been set free before the plane left Havana. This was the second hijacking from Cuba to Florida in less than a month. Health officials briefly quarantined an American Airlines plane today in San Jose, California. It had just arrived from Tokyo. Several people on board showed symptoms of a deadly new illness known as SARS: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. Three of those people were later hospitalized. In all, some 1,900 cases have been reported worldwide; at least 64 people have died. Manufacturing in the U.S. slowed in March, for the first time in five months. That word came today from the Institute for Supply Management, a business research group. It said the war was the main factor in the slowdown. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 77 points to close at nearly 8070. The NASDAQ rose seven points to close at 1348.

And before we go tonight: Our ongoing honor roll of U.S. Military personnel killed in the Iraq war, in silence, using official Defense Department listings and photographs made available by the families of those killed.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and, again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.