The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight as the Iraq confrontation continues a look at war and public opinion; a report from Indianapolis about preparing for biological and chemical attacks here at home; a debate over the Starr investigation's latest conflict invoking executive privilege; and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about artist Claudia Bernardi. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton said today the American people support attacking Iraq, if necessary. He was responding to the reaction his national security team received yesterday in Columbus, Ohio. They were repeatedly interrupted by hecklers as they tried to explain the rationale for striking Iraq. Mr. Clinton said he hoped U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's trip to Iraq would bring a peaceful end to the standoff. Annan stopped in Paris today on his way to Baghdad and met with French President Jacques Chirac. He spoke to reporters upon arrival about his mission.

KOFI ANNAN: We have all the elements to succeed if everybody works conscientiously and with goodwill and a determination to avoid unnecessary pressure for the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough. Iraq doesn't need another military action. The region doesn't need it. The world doesn't need it, and I hope the Iraqi leadership realizes this and shares my hope and work with me in resolving this issue peacefully.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Albright was on the road again today explaining U.S. policy. She appeared at Tennessee State University and the University of South Carolina. And she said again the United States wanted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Secretary of State: We want--I would really like to repeat this because I know that there are people who don't want us to go to war. I don't want to go to war. I was not selected for this job in order to go to war. I was selected for this job because I want America to protect its national security interests in every conceivable way and mostly in peaceful ways.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Iraq and public opinion right after this News Summary. Former President Jimmy Carter offered his opinion today. He said a bombing attack would weaken the United States in the eyes of the international community and make Saddam look like a hero. In Kuwait and in Iraq preparations for military action continued. We have reports from Robert Moore and Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

ROBERT MOORE, ITN: More American troops have been arriving in Kuwait, this time infantry, part of several thousand being flown in. This latest U.S. airlift may take several days but the soldiers will end up with pre-positioned tanks and artillery, meaning they can quickly assemble into a strong defensive force to protect Kuwait if diplomacy fails and Saddam seeks to counter attack. Australian special forces have also arrived. They are likely to play a highly specialized role of working inside Iraq, either rescuing U.S. and British pilots if they're shot down, or guiding in attack aircraft.

JULIAN MANYON, ITN: The U.N. workers left at dawn, 29 of them from various humanitarian agencies, evacuated in what's being called a precautionary move. A little later we were escorted by Iraqi officials to the Mother of Battles military factory just outside Baghdad, part of their continuing campaign to convince the outside world that their country is no longer a threat.

JULIAN MANYON: (speaking to escort) But what about the nuclear components?

JULIAN MANYON: Our escort acknowledged that the factory had been suspected of contributing to Iraq's nuclear program, though he insisted that it had never done so. Inside video cameras installed by UNSCOM inspectors keep watch on a grimy machine hall, where a few precision tools are still thought capable of making nuclear components. As a result of their defeat in 1991, the Iraqis were forced to accept the presence of U.N. video cameras inside what were previously top secret military factories, the idea, to ensure that these factories can only now produce what is permitted under the cease-fire agreement. Then on to another military factory, a sprawling array of bunkers built to manufacture fuel for missiles. Short range ones are still permitted. Again, the Iraqis wanted to show us the UNSCOM system, which keeps watch on their activities. But here the main impression was of the great investment Iraq has made in its missile program.

JIM LEHRER: Back in this country today in the Starr investigation story lawyers met to resolve the grand jury testimony of White House aide Bruce Lindsey. There have been suggestions President Clinton might invoke executive privilege on some questions. Lindsey spent a second day at the U.S. District courthouse in Washington. He said his several hours before the grand jury had been cordial. Earlier, he and several White House lawyers met with the judge supervising the proceedings. The panel is looking into allegations concerning President Clinton and former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton's private attorney, David Kendall, was also at the courthouse. He left without commenting. We'll have more on the executive privilege issue later in the program. Also at the federal courthouse in Washington today former Democratic fund-raiser Maria Hsia was arraigned. She pleaded "not guilty" to charges she disguised illegal campaign donations made by members of a Buddhist temple from 1993 to '96. Hsia was born in Taiwan but is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She's the second person to be indicted by the Justice Department for alleged Democratic Party fund-raising abuses. Her trial was set for April 27th. Two men were charged in Las Vegas today with possessing a deadly toxin believed to be anthrax. The FBI arrested them late today. Officials said material in a car was being tested to see if it was, in fact, anthrax. They declined to confirm that two were members of white supremacist organization. The FBI ruled out early reports they were plotting to release the poison in the New York City subway. We'll have more on this story later in the program. The 1997 U.S. trade deficit was the highest in nine years. The Commerce Department reported today the gap between imports and exports rose 2.4 percent to nearly $114 billion. Officials blamed it on a nearly 7 percent increase in the deficit with Asian nations. President Clinton said today having 40 percent of the nation's waterways too polluted for fishing or swimming was unacceptable. He spoke at a Baltimore environment education center where he tested water samples with Vice President Gore and two schoolchildren. Mr. Clinton said he has budgeted $2.3 billion over the next five years for state and local clean water efforts. He called on Congress to re-authorize the 1972 Clean Water Act. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to war and public opinion, preparing for biological and chemical attacks at home, the debate over executive privilege, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - MAKING THE CASE

JIM LEHRER: The President did make his case again today for striking Iraq. He spoke to reporters in response to that raucous reception his national security team received yesterday at a public meeting in Columbus, Ohio.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I have just had a very good conversation with the president of France, Jacques Chirac. We agreed that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's mission to Baghdad is a critical opportunity to achieve the outcome that all of us would prefer, a peaceful and principled end to this crisis. The secretary-general is backed by the unambiguous position of the Security Council. Saddam Hussein must give the weapons inspectors full, free, unfettered access to all suspected sites anywhere in Iraq. That is the clear standard which Saddam, himself, agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, and that the Security Council has reiterated on many occasions since. He simply must adhere to that standard. We hope the secretary-general's mission will succeed, but let me be clear, if diplomacy fails, we must be, and we are prepared to act. The choice is Saddam Hussein's. We hope he will accept the mandate of the world community. He has, after all, agreed to it already years ago. If not, he must bear the responsibility for the consequences.

REPORTER: Mr. President, what did you learn, sir, from the divided town meeting yesterday?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I thought it was a good, old-fashioned American debate. But I would say I was first of all very proud of the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and Mr. Berger. I thought they answered the questions well, and I believe strongly, that most Americans support our policy; they support our resolve. I think the overwhelming majority of Americans also want a peaceful resolution of this. But if it's necessary for us to act, I believe America will do what it always does. I believe it will unite, just as we did in 1991. I believe it will unite behind taking the necessary action.

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you believe Saddam Hussein is emboldened to stiff-arm the international community based upon what happened in Columbus yesterday?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Not if he understands the first thing about America.

REPORTER: Mr. President, are you ready to deal with the deadline for Saddam Hussein to give unfettered access?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I've made no decision about a deadline.

REPORTER: Mr. President, will you bring a more formal address to the American people about the need to deal with Saddam?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: If further action becomes necessary, I will obviously speak directly to the American people about it.

REPORTER: Mr. President, will you speak to Boris Yeltsin?

REPORTER: Do you feel like you've articulated the goals of this policy if you do, indeed, decide to attack Iraq?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I believe that the speech I gave at the Pentagon was quite clear about that. We want to significantly reduce his capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons and his capacity to deliver them and to visit them on his people, his neighbors, and people throughout the world. I believe the more the American people learn about the dangers of chemical and biological warfare, the kinds of problems they can present to us now and in the future, the stiffer their resolve will be. And so I feel that time is on our side, and I believe that 10 years from now, not in the heat of this moment, 15 years from now, when people look back at this time, they will want to look back at a period when those of us in positions of responsibility fulfilled our responsibility by trying to rid the world of this danger. Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Phil Ponce has more on war and public opinion.

PHIL PONCE: We get it from NewsHour regulars Andy Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, and Journalist and Author Haynes Johnson. Joining them tonight is Robert Dallek, professor of history at Boston University; he's written extensively on Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. Welcome all.Andy, first of all, what do recent polls show about how the public feels about the use of force versus sanctions and diplomacy?

ANDREW KOHUT, Pew Research Center: Well, when the public is asked what are their preferences, what do they think should be done, and asked to choose between peace and measures of diplomacy or sanctions, they're divided. As many say, 54 percent say sanctions, 41 percent say the use of force in the latest Gallup Poll. That's about what the public said in January of '91 just before the start of the Gulf War. As long as the diplomatic and economic options are in play, the public will gravitate to that. I think the more important question is: How much public acceptance is there if force is used?

PHIL PONCE: And what do the polls show there?

ANDREW KOHUT: There the polls show a historic level of support--76 percent this week in the Gallup Poll said they would support the use of air attacks, and 19 percent opposed, 60 percent said they would even support the use of ground force. Now, 36 percent oppose the use of ground force. That's--that is a very sizeable minority. And you really do need a super majority to successfully sustain public support for war. But these are big numbers in comparative terms.

PHIL PONCE: And these numbers are--reflect the general population, not just those people who are inclined towards military action? This is the general population?

ANDREW KOHUT: This is everyone, and when we compare it to other recent uses of force, it's double and triple the levels of support for the use of force in Bosnia--

PHIL PONCE: Walk us through the figures in those previous engagements.

ANDREW KOHUT: In Bosnia, in the fall of 1995, only 32 percent favored the use of force there because the American public doesn't like peacekeeping, at least it's divided about peacekeeping. Even in Haiti--near our own shores--nation building, 43 percent favored, 50 percent opposed. And the Gulf War, itself, back in January of '91, the Pew survey found 55 percent favoring, 38 percent opposed, which is lower than the percentages we now see, which is an indication and, in a sense, support for the Gulf War, an attack on Iraq, has been pre-sold. The public goes back to its views about Saddam Hussein, the importance of controlling weapons of mass destruction, protecting the world's energy supply, and there is more support for this use of force than the polls have shown for sometime, Columbus, Ohio, notwithstanding.

PHIL PONCE: And in Vietnam, what--that was one where obviously the issue of public support was key. What do the polls show--

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, in Vietnam it's a little tricky because in 1963 and 1964, which would have been the period prior to the build-up, there weren't many polls. But in 1965, the first readings found kind of a divided view, 50 percent favoring the use of force, 28 percent thinking it wasn't a good idea that we're sending a lot of troops to Vietnam. What's key is that 22 percent--not shown on the slide--said they didn't know because this wasn't an issue that was debated. We got into that war without much debate, purposefully. This was before it was recognized that you really do need public support to withstand a military effort.

PHIL PONCE: And finally, reaching back to World War II--

ANDREW KOHUT: Reaching back to World War II, we were at 26 percent in November of 1941, favoring U.S. entry into World War II, even though the American public recognized the great threat that the axis powers had--Germany and Japan--had on the United States, particularly if England were defeated. The American public was very reluctant to enter that war. This was a different public. It wasn't an internationalist public. This was a different world.

PHIL PONCE: Doris, what is your sense of the public mood at other times when the United States has had to take, or chosen to take military action?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, Presidential Historian: Well, there's two very different stories that I think are provided by World War II and Vietnam. While it's true, as Andy says, that the majority of the public did not want in World War II right prior to the war, to use force, nonetheless, Roosevelt used his leadership from 1937 on really to begin to build and nurse public opinion to understand that preparedness was the first step if we were going to do something about the situation in Europe. He gave a quarantine, the aggressor speech, in 1937, and it produced such an outroar among the public at large and in the Congress that he said it's a terrible thing when one tries to lead and looks over one's shoulder and sees nobody there. And he then pulled back and realized that it was his responsibility to educate, to shape, to move public opinion. And he did so, despite those figures in the sense that he finally got the public to understand the need for a peacetime draft; he got the public to accept lend-lease by a majority; he had the destroyer deal worked. America was mobilized. Its factories were working. Its soldiers were being trained even before Pearl Harbor. It was an extraordinary example of successful leadership, of public opinion. In contrast, when Lyndon Johnson faced his fatal decision in 1965 to escalate the war in Vietnam and really send those ground troops in, he didn't want to go to the public and make a big debate; he wanted that great society he loved so much to keep alive and feared he would lose it as a result of the war. So it was almost like an undeclared war. He didn't declare a state of emergency. He didn't ask for the reserves to be mobilized. He simply thought he could do it with his back hand. And, as a result, even though those figures show that the people supported the use of force as the war dragged on year after year after year. Nobody believed after a while his word, his trust, his credibility that there would be a limited war over soon, at the end of the tunnel it would come. So when the TETE Offensive seemed to suggest we weren't doing as well as we thought, it completely exploded. So you needed that support, especially if the war goes on for a period of time.

PHIL PONCE: Haynes, how much of the dialogue that we're seeing now- -particularly the reaction among some audience members in Columbus--has to do with the shadow of Vietnam?

HAYNES JOHNSON, Journalist/Author: I think we've had 23 years since that helicopter lifted off the American embassy in Saigon. That's a quarter of a century. And that has so scarred the country, so deep, forget the polls for a minute, and just--it's deep in the bone of the country, and I think the commitment of ground forces is something that the military, itself, ever since then has worried about. We haven't even had support among the joint chiefs for major land forces. Yes, the Gulf War, but it was a war which could be over very quickly, without the--look at Somalia, is a good example. We sent troops to Somalia. One day eighteen died, we were out of there; the Secretary of Defense was gone. I think the imprint of Vietnam cannot be exaggerated on the culture and the psyche of the country, particularly those who are now part of the post Vietnam generation. It either didn't serve in the military, never did at all. We have an all volunteer force, or like Bill Clinton protested against the war of his own country.

PHIL PONCE: Robert.

ROBERT DALLEK, Presidential Historian: Oh, I couldn't agree more. I think Haynes is absolutely right. Johnson used to say Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, and I think it's still with us. People are so skeptical about getting into a conflict of this sort, which could be a quagmire of a sort. We did this in 1991, and here we are again confronting this issue of dealing with Saddam Hussein. People, I think, are worried. Behind these numbers, I think, is a basic fear that you get into war, and it's going to become a quagmire. Of course, lots of questions have been raised about what the bombing is going to do. We went through this in Vietnam--bomb, bomb, more bombing. And it never seemed to resolve the issue.

PHIL PONCE: Doris, prior to Vietnam, were there any instances where public officials, national leaders would go before the public, a group, and be subject to cat calls, jeering, heckling, that sort of thing, or is it that something that's--

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, certainly not that we saw on national television in quite the same way. I mean, it's an extraordinary sense in which public opinions and media see with the leaders of our country, it's almost like their living in bed with public opinion now in both a good and a bad sense. I mean, there's no question that a war in a democracy requires, as Roosevelt understood, the support of the people because you're asking people to send their sons and daughters, you're asking them to mobilize the resources of the nation, to put their focus on a war, so in that sense public opinion is a good thing. But if leaders begin to worry on a daily basis about taking the pulse of the nation through these polls, if they begin to have these kinds of debates where the television shows and seems to over-emphasize the dissent that may not be as strong as it seems, I think it's a real problem for our country. This is one of those cases where leaders have to make the decision, but their real requirement is they have to educate the country to the objectives and do it well. Clinton better not wait too long before he goes to the public and explains more fully what our objectives are and what he hopes to accomplish.

PHIL PONCE: Haynes.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Well, it's very useful to think back to the Franklin Roosevelt experience because here today everyone said Hitler was evil; we had to go to war and the war--we are literally blowing up the world, and we were threatened. And even then only 26 percent--when the war started--favored us going in. But that has changed so dramatically today. I mean, that's the--and the kind of leadership--Churchill gave that great speech--I ask you to have only blood, toil, tears, and sweat--nothing that was going to be easy. And I think that's one of the tests of leadership too, to lay out very clearly what the consequences may be if you commit forces. In the age of air war and missiles it seems sanitary, it seems somehow bloodless. It's not bloodless.

PHIL PONCE: Is that why, Andy, that recent figures show that, initially speaking, the public seems more inclined to support military action than in the past?

ANDREW KOHUT: Well, I have a different point of view. I mean, I think that people remember the last war, and I think we have put Vietnam behind us. If you look at the way the public feels about the American military, the dividing line is before the Gulf War, after the Gulf War, I think that what's going on here--to get real support, strong support, you need the American public to feel that this is in our national interest. And when we ask the public, what are our top national priorities, they say controlling weapons of mass destruction; they say protecting our energy supply; and they say protecting our jobs. Now, if Saddam Hussein was somehow threatening jobs in Ohio, we'd really be in trouble. We have very, very strong support based on people's conceptual view of what America's foreign policy should be. So, again, my view is just quite different about how much of the Vietnam legacy exists.

PHIL PONCE: Let me follow up with the research aspect, Andy, and that is, do you see any recurring pattern as far as the ebb and flow of public opinion during the conflict?

ANDREW KOHUT: I think what you see if you took--we had another slide here showing what would reaction be to the use of force once it occurs, we'd see that we never got--we never had strong support and the administration has never had support for Bosnia, even after the troops were there, and so that was also the case in Haiti, because the public had not signed onto the mission. The significant thing here is that the American public agrees conceptually with the mission, and that was not the case in Bosnia; it's not the case in Haiti; and ultimately it wasn't the case in Vietnam, because it was fuzzy and the domino theory didn't compel people long enough.

ROBERT DALLEK: I think what the public remembers was the terrible divisiveness in this country, and that episode yesterday in Ohio, what it brought back to mind was the vehemence of protest that existed during that Vietnam War, and the anguish which can occur again if this is a long war, by which I mean we start bombing and you bomb for days on end, and it goes on for several months, questions are going to be asked. The center's going to be evident in this country, and it's going to make for a painful division in the society, and I think people remember that as part and parcel of the whole Vietnam experience, and they don't want to repeat it.

ANDREW KOHUT: I don't think college campuses are good places to express or hold forums of public opinion. Part of the anti-war protest movement still is part of the culture of colleges, but the culture of colleges doesn't speak broadly to the culture of America, I guess is my point.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: But, you know, Andy, it seems to me that what was even more interesting than those few people who screamed yesterday at that town hall were the kinds of probing questions that almost everybody asked, which suggest that even if people agree that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and that's where I think that support is coming from, I'm not sure that the actual objectives are clear in people's minds as to what we're going to do when we get there and what's going to allow us to come out and feel successful. I know how Clinton has explained it, but those questions were very probing yesterday from everybody, not just those that were screaming.

PHIL PONCE: Haynes, final comment.

HAYNES JOHNSON: And they really were, and they kept asking you the question, what next, and then what, and then what and then what, and that's the problem with wars, what happens next; how do we get into this process, and when casualties start to come in, if they do, which inevitably they will?

PHIL PONCE: Well, thank you all. We'll have to leave it there for now.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, preparing for the worst kind of war, the executive privilege debate, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - PREPARED FOR THE WORST?

JIM LEHRER: There was, in fact, a domestic American angle to the weapons of mass destruction story today. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: At a hastily-called news conference in Las Vegas late this morning Bobby Siller, special agent in charge of FBI operations in Nevada, described the arrests of two men on charges of possession of a dangerous biological agent. Acting on a tip, the FBI last night arrested Larry Wayne Harris and William Leavitt, who authorities say may have been about to test the material.

BOBBY SILLER, Special Agent, FBI: They were charged with Title 18, U.S. Code Section 175, which prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, transferring, acquiring, retaining, and possession of any biological agent, toxic delivery system for use as a weapon, or conspiracy to do so. These individuals pose a potential chemical and biological threat to all communities. It was suspected that these individuals were in possession of a dangerous biological chemical, anthrax.

KWAME HOLMAN: The two men were arrested in a parking lot in a town outside Henderson, Nevada. Their beige Mercedes Benz was seized, sealed, and taken to nearby Nellis Air Force Base for examination. Units from the army and the FBI's hazardous material response team from Quantico, Virginia, also were involved in the operation, as were state, county, and local police. Special Agent Siller said the arrests were made within 12 hours after the FBI got its tip.

BOBBY SILLER: We conducted search warrants. We did not know where these individuals were going to take this, this supposed or suspected biological chemical. When they did finally arrive to where we thought they were going to test it, we immediately executed a search warrant, arrests of these individuals. We immediately had the Air Force already on scene or approaching the scene. We completely sealed the vehicle in plastic for any contamination. We immediately took this vehicle from that scene to a safe site.

KWAME HOLMAN: One of the suspects, Larry Wayne Harris, is a microbiologist and reportedly a member of the white supremacist group Aryan Nation. Last year, he pleaded guilty to a charge of illegally obtaining bubonic plague bacteria from a laboratory. He said he never intended to hurt anybody and was sentenced to 18 months' probation. Initial reports today said the two men were plotting to release biological toxins in the New York City subway system. But at a hastily-called news conference of his own today Mayor Rudolph Giuliani downplayed that report.

MAYOR RUDOLPH GIULIANI, New York City: The connection to New York here is a much more attenuated one. It goes back possibly to comments that were made by one of the individuals arrested in the past over a year ago and possibly even longer.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Las Vegas, agent Siller also refused to speculate on what the man intended to do with the material that was seized but said the FBI moved before the two men could act.

BOBBY SILLER: I think any potential biological agent poses that threat, and that is why we have the FBI laboratory hazardous response team. The coordination of that team in the military and even local police departments, this is something that we practice. This is something that we'd put in place, and that's why we were--that's why we were in a position to so quickly respond on this. I think the interest here and the main thing here is that we got this information, we acted very quickly, we coordinated all of our efforts, and we resolved this. Now, what will come out of this, the issue here is a threat presented itself to this country, to this community, and the people responsible for protecting this country and this community came together to put an end to that, or to resolve it, and that's what we did here.

KWAME HOLMAN: In a statement released at the White House late today President Clinton praised the work of the FBI and other law enforcement officials and assured the American people the situation in Las Vegas is under control.

JIM LEHRER: And now, preparing for the unthinkable. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

SPOKESPERSON: It's not as if we're not into a realm of terrorism. It's here It's met our shore.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: All over the country firefighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, people known as first responders, are getting ready for a new threat. During the Gulf War military leaders thought Iraq might target American soldiers. And a sarin gas attack by terrorists in Japan in 1995 showed civilians were capable of getting and using chemical weapons. John Hamre is the second highest ranking official at the Pentagon.

JOHN HAMRE, Deputy Secretary of Defense: It was a wake-up call, frankly, to us and to the entire developing world, or developed world, that people in the future are going to use these rather terrible weapons in ways that will--that could potentially just bring an entire city to its knees.

SPOKESMAN: What kind of rescue could we do? Walking wounded, we can talk 'em out, put 'em in the isolated area.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: In addition to heightened intelligence, the Defense Department is spending more than $100 million over a three-year period to teach first responders what to do in the event of a chemical or biological attack. The program will be taken to the nation's 120 largest cities. So far, 14 have completed the course. In Indianapolis, 350 people recently received four days of instruction. These highly- trained professional men and women have responded to all kinds of disasters. They've had years of training to deal with fires, chemical spills, even bombings. Now they're learning new scenarios for responding to chemical or biological terrorism. In this practice triage drill there has been a sarin gas attack on a city subway. These paramedics have mere minutes to figure out how to react. A gunshot wound to the head, a seizure caused by a chemical agent.

SPOKESMAN: So what's his decon priority? One? You need to get him immediate--

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They are also taught the difficult fundamentals of getting exposed people into decontamination showers.

SPOKESMAN: Get them out of their clothes. Put 'em in bags. Find out how we're going to track those bags. What am I going to do with watches and rings and eyeglasses and all those valuable kinds of things? The problem we faceis all the walking wounded have already fled by the time we get there. Getting these people corralled and headed toward a decon corridor is the most difficult task.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Peter Beering is in charge of the program for the city of Indianapolis.

PETER BEERING, Public Safety Specialist: In its simplest terms what we're teaching them and what's being delivered here is the recognition of the various types of agents, the symptomology that a victim might show, some of the things that they can detect so that they themselves don't become victims and also then what to do to decontaminate those people who have been exposed to something.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: For career firefighters like 30 years veteran Charles Miller the program has not only raised his awareness of chemical and biological agents, it has also shown him how much more cities need to do to adequately respond.

CHARLES MILLER, Firefighter: The resources we commonly use and the resources we have are probably not enough. That we need the whole emergency response system needs to be brought to another level to deal with this.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar co-sponsored a bill that started the program, which he sees as just a beginning.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR, (R) Indiana: This is not an antidote to the disasters that could befall America. It could be an antidote to total panic and to chaos and to anarchy that could occur with a lot of people dying and people having no idea how to respond. That is the kind of horror that I think we can mitigate substantially by thinking this through in a calm way now, not at a time of panic.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Garry Briese, executive director of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, thinks the program isn't enough to deal with a terrorist attack, and he says it was poorly conceived.

GARRY BRIESE, International Association of Fire Chiefs: Initially, the training that was developed in draft for our review was done by outside consultants who did not even understand the chemicals that they were doing the lessons plans for and were giving advice that was, in fact, lethal advice. It was to the point that we said this is absolutely lethal to proceed ahead with this training.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: What do you mean?

GARY BRIESE: Well, they were telling law enforcement officers to drive into this contaminated zone, to sort of count the number of casualties that you see. Well, the first thing you want to tell somebody is if you think there is a hazardous chemical there, don't go in.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: James Warrington is civilian head of the program for the army's chemical, biological defense command.

JAMES WARRINGTON, Director, Domestic Preparedness Program: I can tell you substantively that we would never send anybody into an area like that where it would be lethal and instruct folks to go in there where it would be dangerous to their health and safety.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: D you think his charge is fair?

JAMES WARRINGTON: No. I believe it's unfounded. What motivated the charge, I don't know but I can tell you that we are so far beyond that now that we have developed a course that we are very, very comfortable with.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Briese also said his own independent association could have done a better job of training first responders for less money.

GARRY BRIESE: We costed out the cost it would take to deliver the training programs and we came up with a figure considerably less than what's being spent by the Department of Defense, I mean considerably.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Like how much?

GARRY BRIESE: How much lower? Oh , $90 million lower.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Briese accused Warrington's office of cronyism by hiring retired army career officers who once worked for the chemical and biological command and paying them more money than his association would have charged. Warrington said his command hired the people who could best do the job.

JAMES WARRINGTON: I would see no problem taking advantage of expertise. The expertise was garnered as a result of their careers, and if these people have spent a lifetime dealing with these issues and problems, then I think they're the people who have the expertise and experience, and why not take advantage of that?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Senator Lugar says he welcomes the criticism as a way to improve the program.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR: Well, I'm not concerned that charges are being made. As a matter of fact, I think these are constructive criticisms that have led to very substantial changes in training. Now the fire chiefs have made a number of other criticisms from time to time, and there have been responses to this. It's important they do speak up. But we're a threshold here in which we've never done this before.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lugar expects over time there will be continued improvement, and the Senator said he intends to seek re-authorization funds when current legislation expires. FOCUS - EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

JIM LEHRER: Executive privilege and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: A confrontation looms between the White House and independent counsel Kenneth Starr over executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. At issue, whether Starr can compel Deputy White House counsel and close Clinton adviser Bruce Lindsey to disclose to the grand jury discussions he and the President have had on the Lewinsky matter. The White House has threatened to invoke executive privilege to block such questions unless a satisfactory arrangement can be negotiated with Starr. For perspective on all this we're joined by two former White House counsels: C. Boyden Gray held the job in the Bush administration. Jack Quinn served in the first Clinton term.Why would the White House even be thinking about invoking executive privilege in this situation?

JACK QUINN, Former Clinton White House Counsel: The White House and all White Houses will always think about invoking executive privilege whenever anyone tries to intrude on that area of communication between a president and his senior advisers. The reason that's so important is that sitting presidents and for all future presidents there's a vital public interest in making sure that they can have candid, honest, forthright advice from their advisers. If people have to worry that what they tell a president will later be disclosed, they might not give the president their best advice. And that is not in the public interest.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think executive privilege applies in this situation potentially?

C. BOYDEN GRAY, Former Bush White House Counsel: I don't think so. Of course, we don't know exactly what they're being asked, what Bruce Lindsey is being asked, but the Nixon tapes case, which is the leading case, suggests that it's really rooted, the executive privilege is, in national security, military, and diplomatic matters. So I don't think--

MARGARET WARNER: Explain that a little bit.

C. BOYDEN GRAY: Well, historically, the privilege was designed to protect the office of the presidency in its dealings in matters of diplomacy so foreign governments could have confidentiality, military so military secrets can be maintained, national security so that national security intelligence matters can be held confident. It is true, as Jack says, that a president should be able to get advice, but advice on these matters, not advice about potential criminal activity. So if a grand jury were to subpoena--if Starr were to subpoena, seek to compel testimony, I believe in a litigated court case the White House would lose. But it is true that this White House and every White House would use the potential of this privilege to control the questioning and narrow the questioning to keep the scope as clean as possible. And that's a legitimate tactic, and that's probably what they're doing here.

JACK QUINN: Let me take issue with Boyden. The executive privilege is not that crimped. And in--

MARGARET WARNER: As you start, though, explain. This is not in the Constitution. So where does it even come from? Then go ahead.

JACK QUINN: Well, it's really rooted in the separation of powers, principles, and the important purposes of allowing a President to carry out his constitutional functions. And, indeed, that's precisely the point I was just going to make, that really executive privilege protects those communications that are necessary to enable a President to carry out his duties. A significantly more recent decision than the Nixon case is called "In Re: Sealed Matter," though it is no longer sealed, and it is on the public record, it involves the Mike Espy investigation.

MARGARET WARNER: Former Secretary of Agriculture in Clinton's first term.

JACK QUINN: Yes. This is a very instructive case because it has nothing to do with military secrets or national defense. There the prosecutor sought notes that people made when they interviewed different people about perspective cabinet nominees. The White House took the position that the President's power to appoint people to positions of great public trust, cabinet positions, was a vital duty that the President has to carry out, and that the President has to be free to get again candid, forthright, honest advice from people about the people whom he's thinking of appointing to office. The court agreed and said that those notes did not have to be turned over. But that is precisely the kind of situation where you can see an incredibly strong public interest in making sure that the president can get honest advice from people. If you thought that by telling Boyden what you thought about me--if a president was considering me for a job--that that information might be out in the public in a year, you might not be as forthcoming as you would be if you were assured of confidentiality. And the public interest demands confidentiality. That's what executive privilege is all about. That's why it's so important. It is, in fact, about encouraging honesty in these communications at the senior-most levels of government. It's not about hiding things; it's about making sure that these communications are honest and candid and forthright.

MARGARET WARNER: Help us understand what was going on today. We, of course, don't know what was happening inside that courthouse, but Bruce Lindsey arrived for a second day of testimony with a lot of lawyers with him, and they went before a judge first outside of the grand jury hearing. They apparently talked for about an hour, and he went on to the grand jury room, while the White House issued a statement saying the negotiations were continuing. What do you think went on inside that room with the judge? What was there to negotiate about? What would the arguments have been like?

C. BOYDEN GRAY: Well, they probably discussed with the judge how they would deal with individual questions of privilege as they might come up. I doubt if they argued and decided that particular general issue at that particular time. My guess is--not knowing--of course not having been there--my guess is what's happening is that the--that Starr doesn't want to have to press the claim because it would take him weeks, maybe months, to get the final answer. And my guess is by the same token, the White House doesn't want to assert the privilege because it looks like they're trying to hide something, as legitimate as the privilege may be, and as long and old as it is, they don't want to assert it. So there's this jockeying back and forth in the negotiation process over what can they ask Bruce Lindsey, and that's all part of the process of an investigation. And I think it's legitimate, and they may end up never asserting it, and Starr will never have to probably, therefore, contest it.

MARGARET WARNER: But, I mean, would the judge today--would she have been in a position to decide this?

C. BOYDEN GRAY: I don't think so because if the President didn't assert it, which he didn't, then there's nothing for her to decide. I think she was setting up the framework, the procedure by which the issues would be raised, and I gather that my predecessor, Jack's predecessor, Charles Ruff, was down there probably going over what would happen in the event that they had to contest a particular question. It never did materialize. So I guess Starr was jockeying back and forth. And that's all part of the process, all legitimate, and it does vindicate the privilege, even if I would again insist. I mean, I don't think it would apply in this because this was not a discussion, I suspect, about cabinet level appointments.

MARGARET WARNER: Does that sound plausible to you, and do you agree that both sides are probably trying to avoid having this come to a head?

JACK QUINN: I disagree there too, I'm afraid. I think, in fact, the likelihood is that the independent counsel here wants a confrontation. This is part of a pattern of the independent counsel pushing the envelope, insisting on intruding into the relationship between the President and the Secret Service, insisting that one's secrets can't be safe even with one's mother. You see here an effort, I believe, to create an atmosphere in which the independent counsel can assert that the White House is hiding things, is covering up, is not being forthcoming. I think that that is probably a very calculated, strategic move on their part, and for that reason I'm not optimistic about where this is going to go. Now, let me also comment on Boyden's point about whether this is private or public. Mr. Starr can't have it both ways. The Constitution and the independent counsel statute and Mr. Starr all indicate that if there is evidence here of wrongdoing on the part of the president, it will be referred to the House of Representatives. Mr. Starr, in other words, is not prosecuting the private single case of Paula Jones against Clinton, or any other private civil matter.

MARGARET WARNER: Or even whether there was a relationship between him and Monica Lewinsky?

JACK QUINN: Correct. He is looking into matters that go very much to the question whether the President will be able to carry out his constitutionally prescribed functions.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean because the practical effect could be--

JACK QUINN: Hearings in the House of Representatives or so on.

MARGARET WARNER: --an impeachment proceeding or something.

JACK QUINN: Now, deliberations about how to handle this matter go right to the heart of the President's ability day in, day out to carry out his duties. This is not a private matter. This is very much a public matter.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, what about that point?

C. BOYDEN GRAY: Well, we don't know again what they're trying to ask Bruce Lindsey. If they're trying to ask him about how are you going to deal with the House of Representatives in the event there's an impeachment inquiry, well, that might be protected. But we don't know that that's what they're asking about. And the same issue came up, I suspect, in the Nixon tapes case. There was no way Cox was going to indict President Nixon. He was going to refer the matter to the House of Representatives, where, in fact, it ended up. But still the materials had to be released.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. If they can't come to an agreement, then who trips the confrontation? I mean, what happens?

C. BOYDEN GRAY: Well, it's a cat and mouse game, I suspect. But it probably will be tripped by the--by the independent counsel, who would say, all right, I want you to answer that question, and Bruce Lindsey there with us, he comes out of the grand jury room, sees his lawyers, and says, should I answer the question, and the lawyers say, no. And at that point Starr has to decide will I move to compel an answer.

JACK QUINN: The directive, I believe, would have to come from the President. It is only the President who can assert this privilege; it's his and his alone. It's not Bruce Lindsey's; it's not Charles Ruff's or anyone else's.

MARGARET WARNER: And if it came to a confrontation, then it goes to another court or to the Supreme Court? What happens?

JACK QUINN: Well, no, I agree with Boyden. What happened is that Mr. Lindsey--presume again--this is all hypothetical--would be under some instruction not to answer the question because of an assertion, invocation of privilege by the President, and presumably at that point the independent counsel would take the matter to the presiding judge.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you--

C. BOYDEN GRAY: Then from there it would go to the court of appeals.

MARGARET WARNER: Thank you both very much.

JACK QUINN: You bet. ESSAY - EXILES IN PARADISE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming considers the work of a California artist.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: For artist Claudia Bernardi, at work here in her Berkeley, California, studio, the making of paintings is labor intensive--hours of putting pigment on paper, hours of rolling the sheets through a printing press, imprinting the colors deeper and deeper, and then scratching through the vibrant texture to delineate and re-delineate the outline of a figure, the fragment of a letter. It's a kind of reverse painting, if you will, a recovery, an exhumation. Claudia Bernardi knows about exhumations firsthand. She grew up in Argentina, and though she moved to California in the late 70's, she went back in the early 90's to help the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team dig up the bones of the so-called "disappeared," the 30,000 people who were tortured and murdered by the government of that country between 1976 and 1983. Their bodies and bones float through her pictures in an almost ethereal way: a leg bone, a scull, a breast. There's a kind of cheerful elegy about the paintings, a festive, unpreachy sorrow. How could this have happened, so much lost, so much cruelty, when there is so much beauty in the world, so many sweet memories, so many blue skies. Bernardi talks about the exhumations with an artist's eye, almost with wonder, and about how they influenced their art.

CLAUDIA BERNARDI, Artist: I don't think anyone can be inside an exhumation and not undergo a transformation of one sort or the other. In my case, I think the transformation is very deep, and it has changed me in many ways because it is that aspect of touching death, so physical, it's something that culturally we are not expected to do. We are not expected to be so close to death. The tools in an exhumation are brushes and spoons and maybe something a little larger, like a dustpan, but the whole exhumation is based on unearthing and touching the least as possible until the whole skeleton has been identified. The tools then are very gentle. It's just brush and spoon and collect and remove and in the artwork, it's the same: smaller brushes, but spoons and collect and move away and collect--

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: After Argentina, there were other exhumations--in El Salvador, notably the massacre site at El Mezote, where a thousand villagers were murdered in 1981, many of them children.

CLAUDIA BERNARDI: It was incredible to find within tiny, tiny little T-shirts bones that hardly looked human; they looked very much like maybe the bones of a bird, or I had the thought at the time of the missing wing of an angel. There was something about the smallness and also something very tender about opening the T-shirt and finding the intact rib cage. When I think about what it meant, it's overwhelming, and it's very dark. Yet, at a time of working on each individual human remain my memory is that of deep tenderness and kindness.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Listening to Bernardi and looking at her work, to realize the extraordinary histories that immigrants bring with them into California, we tend not to think of that. We go along with the mythology that this place is paradise, the land of opportunity, a bright, shiny newness, as for many it is, including our own parents and grandparents who came here in other waves of immigrants. We have a stubborn new beginningness to us, as if people checked their histories at the border in order to reinvent themselves anew on the other side. We loved that idea, the cleaning of the slate, as if it were possible, as if one could ever forget--any of it--homelands left, the dense sugary coffee, or the blue sky over the plaza, or the bones of a brother or sister exhumed from a mass grave. This is a state full of people from somewhere else, exiles in paradise with their unbearable memories. The luckiest or most gifted or most perseverant can, like Claudia Bernardi, turn those memories into art. For the past half dozen years she has helped others do that. Once a week at this Catholic workers shelter in East Oakland she teaches art to political refugees and families from Latin America. This is not meant to be therapy. It's not about healing--a word and a concept that Bernardi rejects.

CLAUDIA BERNARDI: My perception of what I hear in this country about healing seems to indicate that it's time to turn the page and move on, and I am--I am not part of that concept. I can hardly understand what it means. I think culturally in my country we thrive perhaps on the opposite, from the resistance to forget. We thrive, we are determined to continue remembering, and I think for us the almost--in respect of the reason that have caused the pain, we want to look at it in the eye and make sure we will never forget.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: No clean slates; no smiley-faced golden state healing; the preservation of loss--that's what Claudia Bernardi intends with her own art, her soft spoken, brightly colored, bone-filled, strangely optimistic paintings. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, President Clinton said he still believed the American people would support striking Iraq, if necessary. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in Paris he hoped Iraq President Saddam Hussein would work with him to resolve the stand-off, and two men were charged in Las Vegas with possessing a deadly toxin believed to be anthrax. We'll see you on-line and again here tomorrow evening with Shields & Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.