The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is away this week. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a Senate committee probes terror and violence in Iraq; President Bush on the world stage; political analysis with Mark Shields and David Brooks; finding a new home for Laotian refugees; and the politics of a hot new movie.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: U.S. forces in Iraq targeted a major terror network today, a day after insurgents killed more than 100 people throughout Iraq. American warplanes blasted a suspected hideout for militants in Fallujah. The U.S. military said it had multiple confirmations the site was used by followers of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Jordanian-born figure claimed responsibility for yesterday's attacks. CNN and NBC reported al-Zarqawi himself was almost killed in yesterday's air strikes. The U.S. Military did not confirm that, but it did say up to 25 Iraqis were killed. Earlier, insurgents in Fallujah denied al-Zarqawi is hiding there. U.S. and Iraqi forces set up checkpoints around Baghdad and elsewhere today to intercept terrorists and their weapons. A U.S. Military spokesman said there's concern about new car bombings. Iraq's interim defense minister said the time has come for "a showdown" with terrorists. He spoke through a translator.

HAZEM SHAALAN (Translated): The Iraqis are now aware of the dirty game that these foreign, alien forces are playing. And with God's help, and with the greatest of help, we will pursue these people and we will keep the Iraqi people secure, safe and secure, and establish democracy in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Iraq's interim vice president warned today the government might have to resort to martial law. But Secretary of State Colin Powell told a German newspaper he opposes that step. He said: "It would make our task in Iraq more complex because implementing martial law is more a policing problem than a military one." The militia of Shiite radical Muqtada al-Sadr formally announced a cease-fire with U.S. forces in Baghdad today. A similar truce ended standoffs in Najaf and Kufa. The group offered today to work with Iraqi police and help secure public buildings. We'll have more on Iraq and the transition right after this News Summary. Two U.S. Marines were killed in Afghanistan overnight. The U.S. Military said today they were shot during an operation near the Pakistani border. U.S. troops have been hunting Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in that mountainous region. Also today, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged NATO members to send more peacekeeping troops to Afghanistan. He said the country still isn't safe enough for elections in September. President Bush flew to Europe today, hoping to win new help in Iraq. He arrived first in Ireland, to attend a summit of the European Union. At least 6,000 Irish police and soldiers are guarding Shannon Airport and the Dromoland Castle, the site of the summit. Tomorrow, Mr. Bush flies to Turkey for a NATO summit. Before leaving, he told a Turkish TV network he doubts NATO will send more troops to Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think most of the NATO countries that have participated with troops are at their limit, and I think some of the NATO countries that haven't put troops in, you know, are really not interested in doing so. But I think we can get a training mission, hopefully. Prime Minister Allawi has asked for NATO to help train police and troops in order to help stabilize the country, and that's really the only solution. The long-term solution is for the Iraqi people to be in a position to secure their own country.

RAY SUAREZ: In Turkey today, police conducted heavy security sweeps in advance of the NATO gathering. Yesterday, a bomb in Istanbul killed four people, and another bomb went off outside the Ankara hotel, where President Bush will stay. We'll have more on the president's historic trip later in the program. There were conflicting reports today that North Korea threatened to test a nuclear weapon unless it receives major energy assistance. Wire service accounts said the North Koreans issued the warning during six-party talks in Beijing. The meetings include the two Koreas, the U.S., China, Japan and Russia. But in Washington, a State Department spokesman disputed the reports. He said the talks have been constructive. They're due to end tomorrow. Germany and Britain condemned Iran today for deciding to reactivate part of its nuclear program. Iran sent a letter to the two nations and France yesterday, saying it would resume building equipment to enrich uranium. Last fall, the Iranians had promised to stop such work. The Tehran government has denied U.S. claims that it's trying to build nuclear weapons. The U.S. economy grew more slowly at the beginning of the year than was first announced. The Commerce Department reported today the Gross Domestic Product increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent from January through March. That's half a point below an earlier estimate. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 72 points to close above 10,371. The NASDAQ rose nearly ten points to close at 2025. And for the week, the Dow lost a fraction of a percent. The NASDAQ rose 2 percent. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: The troubled transition in Iraq; the president and the rest of the world; Shields and Brooks; the last refugees from an old war; and politics on the big screen.

UPDATE - ROCKY TRANSITION

RAY SUAREZ: Now to a look at the transition in Iraq, as explained to a Senate committee by top administration officials. Kwame Holman has that story.

KWAME HOLMAN: Deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz came to Capitol Hill for a second time this week to talk about the unstable security situation in Iraq and next week's transfer of power. He was joined by the State Department's Richard Armitage and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Arizona's John McCain said he was worried, citing yesterday's deadly coordinated attacks.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: What went wrong?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: We've spoken to this. One, I think we underestimated the enemy and we didn't destroy him in our initial attack, and he melted away and we're seeing him again. That's number one. I think number two, we didn't reckon correctly with the extent to which Iraq had become a criminal society under the attempts to evade sanctions and everything else that had happened, particularly in the last 12 years. And number three, I think we underestimated the degree to which this enemy had a central nervous system, and I think the attacks the other day show that it does have a central nervous system.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, I may have to leave some of this to the historians, but it's interesting that very little mistakes were made, and yet we find over a hundred people killed and wounded and coordinated attacks all over Iraq, and clearly some of this is being orchestrated out of Fallujah. As Secretary Armitage said, this is a central nervous system. But we didn't make any mistakes.

KWAME HOLMAN: Kansas Republican Pat Roberts wanted to know exactly who was responsible for the violence.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: What level of coordination among these divergent groups are you seeing? Who are these guys now?

RICHARD ARMITAGE: Look, I don't think anyone in this administration can tell you with a great deal of accuracy who they are and how many they are. I may...

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, I have some concerns about that, because as chairman of the intelligence committee...

RICHARD ARMITAGE: ...You understand what I'm saying. I said one of our mistakes was that we didn't understand there was a central nervous system. Well, clearly there is. And how many are former regime elements and how many are Zarqawi and his evildoers, I can't say. I don't think any of my colleagues can say. We don't know.

KWAME HOLMAN: Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy asked how to gauge progress in Iraq.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Are we going to know success when there are elections? Are we going to know that there's a success when we... reconstruction... have construction? How much security is going to be success? Who is going to... how are the American people going to know when there's success?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: The biggest problem here is that the war hasn't ended; the enemy hasn't given up. Part of success is going to be when that enemy is either defeated, or some of them may just decide actually, in a formal or semiformal way, to come in and join the new Iraq. I think the most important milestone here is going to be, particularly with respect to those families of servicemen and women, when the Iraqis are on the front line and the Iraqis, if casualties still have to be taken, are taking the bulk of the casualties. That will be a huge milestone.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rhode Island Democrat Jack Reed wondered when that time will come.

SEN. JACK REED: The strategy seems to be, let the Iraqis do it, that we have to put an Iraqi face on this, yet they don't have the capability to do it alone. The suggestion that they can carve out pieces of the country, put their security forces in, even if we disapprove, I think is not reflective of the situation on the ground.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ: Senator Reed, I think the strategy is clear, which is to... not to change things overnight-- because you can't change situations like this overnight-- but to build their capacity over time and as rapidly as possible. We have incredibly courageous Iraqi leaders who are determined to succeed here, who have indicated in all manner of ways that they are committed to a free Iraq, a democratic Iraq, but also understand the nature of the enemy that they're confronting. And their own lives are on the line in doing this.

KWAME HOLMAN: Wolfowitz added that the U.S. is working on getting NATO countries to train Iraqi forces. Armed Services Chairman John Warner told the State Department's Richard Armitage he has doubts about NATO's capacity to help.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: How can we expect NATO to perform this mission given the current status of its inability to live up to commitments in Afghanistan? How can they take on this additional mission in Iraq?

RICAHRD ARMITAGE: They've taken the political step of working out of area. What they haven't done is taken the funding step of bulking up their defense boat in such a way that allows them to have the capabilities to continually do that. Having said that, I believe that if NATO as an organization, at Istanbul or after, can take on the general mission, then this will give a lot of political cover to countries that do participate.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Thank you very much --

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush will appeal to NATO countries for help in Iraq during meetings at a summit in Istanbul this weekend.

FOCUS - BUSH & THE WORLD

RAY SUAREZ: The Bush administration and the world. Margaret Warner has that.

MARGARET WARNER: As President Bush arrives in Europe to meet with longtime allies, his stewardship of foreign affairs remains a contentious issue abroad. Here, for example, is an exchange he had with an Irish television reporter shortly before he left.

CAROL COLEMAN: No doubt you will be welcomed by our political leaders. Unfortunately, the majority of our public do not welcome your visit because they're angry over Iraq, they're angry over Abu Ghraib. Are you bothered by what Irish people think?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Listen, I hope the Irish people understand the great values of our country. And if they think that a few soldiers represents the entirety of America, they don't really understand America then. There have been great ties between Ireland and America, and we've got a lot of Irish Americans here that are very proud of their heritage and their country. But, you know, they must not understand if they're angry over Abu Ghraib... if they say "this is what America represents," they don't understand our country.

REPORTER: I think there is a feeling that the world has become a more dangerous place because you have taken the focus off al-Qaida and diverted into Iraq. Do you not see that the world is a more dangerous place?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I do believe the world is a safer place and becoming a safer place. I know that a free Iraq is going to be a necessary part of changing the world. Listen, people join terrorist organizations because there's no hope and there's no chance to raise their families in a peaceful world where there is not freedom.

MARGARET WARNER: The president's handling of foreign affairs is also contentious here at home. Last week, a bipartisan group of 27 retired Foreign Service and military officers issued a statement lambasting the administration's performance, and saying, "it's time for a change" in the White House. Here to debate the points raised are two retired Foreign Service officers: Former Ambassador William Harrop, who signed the statement. He served as ambassador to five countries including Israel, and as a deputy assistant secretary of state. And Joseph Sisco: He served as undersecretary of state for political affairs, and held two assistant secretary posts. Welcome to you both.

Ambassador Harrop, this was a very unusual move for former Foreign Service officers who rarely take a partisan plan, to call for the defeat of a sitting president. Why did you do this?

WILLIAM HARROP: You know, it is very unusual. We've worked with republican administrations, democratic administrations. We keep domestic politics to ourselves. It's something that career professionals, whether military or diplomatic, don't just get involved in. We just feel so seriously that the performance of this administration has been deleterious, it has injured our overseas position, it has injured our security and our ability to lead the world that we felt we had to speak out.

MARGARET WARNER: But now some people in the Bush/Cheney campaign say really most of you are sort of Democrats in non-partisan clothing.

WILLIAM HARROP: Well, you know, that... I suppose that would be a natural counterattack to make when they're criticized, but it simply is not the case. I was appointed to four presidential appointments by Republican presidents, almost all of our group were. We've all really worked for Republicans and Democrats alike. And we have not been gauged in domestic politics, now we're doing it and we knew we'd be accused of partisanship.

MARGARET WARNER: What about, Secretary Sisco, their overall critique, which is simply that the Bush administration's foreign policy has just been damaging to America's standing in the world?

JOSEPH SISCO: It's made mistakes. But what we've got to look at is the long term, particularly with respect to Iraq. Saddam Hussein is gone. There was undoubtedly a major intelligence failure. And perhaps I'm being unduly optimistic, I happen to think that we're moving in the right direction. And the question of whether there should be a change in the administration, I'm perfectly comfortable in leaving it to the American people in November. But there is a plan, the plan is June 30 on to some sort of a constitution and election. There is a plan for reconstruction, although we're in the business of really correcting a number of things that we should have done earlier. Moreover, I'm struck, too, that it goes beyond Iraq. We're on the diplomatic course in Iran, and Iran is a great challenge in the nuclear field. I believe in 2005-- and we're marking time right now-- the real threat will be North Korea. They're ahead of Iran. And here, again, the Bush administration is moving collectively in Iran with the Europeans in Japan, collectively in Asia with our Asian allies so that mistakes, yes, but it's moving in the right direction.

MARGARET WARNER: Ambassador Harrop, your statement takes a totally different tack. You say that essentially the Bush administration from the outset had an overbearing approach to America's role in the world relying on military right and righteousness insensitive to traditional friends and allies and disdainful of the United Nations.

WILLIAM HARROP: Well, you see, the Bush administration, I think, being leading the last superpower, the only superpower, felt that it was in a position to make the decisions itself, in a position to dictate what was to be done, not to consult, not to work with the United Nations, not even with NATO, as a matter of fact, to any great extent, to step out on its own, unilaterally. We feel this was unwise. We feel that most of the world's problems today, whether they are terrorism, whether they are ethnic disputes, whether it is drugs, whether it is HIV/AIDS, all these things, they require multilateral solutions. They require the United States to lead. The United States really is not going to be in a position to lead when the polls show globally that the United States is held in disrespect, the United States is not only disliked but lacks credibility now. It's hard to lead when you're in that circumstance.

MARGARET WARNER: What about that point - the Pew polls and other global attitude polls have shown that the United States is deeply unpopular even in... among the European public much less in the Middle East.

JOSEPH SISCO: I don't deny there's been some loss of credibility. But the inherent fact is that the United States is the number one superpower and I believe that it can and will lead. Moreover, as I look as the two parties-- and I don't want to get into the politics of it all, because Bill was indicating that he had several appointments... I was... I had two appointments under a Democratic administration, one under the Republicans for 25 years. And my father read the "Chicago Tribune", a conservative... and he never voted anything but Democratic. So I think that proves my independence, Bill. But in any event, I think that credibility can be restored. I think we are in the process of restoring it, and as far as I'm concerned, Kerry and the president will face the very same problems. And I've cited them just a moment ago, and that is that, yes, it's got to be more collective and moreover the fight on terrorism has to get at the root of terrorism and moreover it cannot be fought effectively unless it is fought globally. And that is critically important in terms of the next decade.

WILLIAM HARROP: Yes. And I think really that you need to have global leadership to fight globally. The war in Iraq was billed as a war against terrorism but, in fact, it's a war which has created terrorism. And I think that now we have to get into a posture in which we can lead the rest of the world. I think it's going to be very hard for the Bush administration to remake itself, to repair the disarray that it has caused in the respect in which it is not held around the world. I think a new administration with a fresh start would have a much better likelihood of being able to rebuild those confidences and credibilities.

JOSEPH SISCO: I believe that, again, I would repeat what I said, that only time will tell in this regard. I believe in diplomacy, as Bill does.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just ask a point Ambassador Harrop made, though. Do you think-- and your statement makes the same point-- that actually Bush administration has made America less secure, that there's now more terrorism not less?

JOSEPH SISCO: No, I don't... I reject that particular notion. I think that there is a basis to terrorism globally. What I was interested in is what Lee Hamilton said in the commission report. There is this -- these headlines all say that there has been no credible collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. I think that's factually supported. But by the same token, Lee Hamilton said there were links. There were connections. They did meet with one another. And so that I think we have to take that into account. Not that Saddam Hussein was a direct threat, but if there were weapons of mass destruction-- and there's been a massive intelligence failure in that regard -- very easy for interchange between al-Qaida and Iraq and therefore I believe, I supported going in to try to bring representative government to Iraq. I'm impressed with the new leadership, and I believe a satisfactory result will come about, costly, painfully, but I think we will prevail.

MARGARET WARNER: What, Ambassador Harrop, would you say if President Bush manages on this trip, for instance, to get NATO to help with training missions in Iraq? I mean, is his position not evolving, in fact, quite close to Sen. Kerry's position at this point on Iraq?

WILLIAM HARROP: Well, I'm not defending Sen. Kerry's position. We're completely autonomous from Sen. Kerry. I think that there has been a turn toward the better, certainly. The Bush administration found that its going it alone posture in Iraq was completely dysfunctional. It was a failure. They found they had to come back to the United Nations; they had to get international certification for what they were trying to achieve. They received a unanimous vote. They're now trying to go to Istanbul to try to get forces to try to get support. The chances of getting what is really needed, which is boots on the ground, the security situation is disastrous, every morning we hate to open the newspapers about this. They need more forces, international forces to maintain order. None of the members of the Security Council, none of the members of NATO have offered fresh troops and are unlikely to do so. It puts us in a very difficult position.

MARGARET WARNER: But when you call for the defeat of the current president, the main alternative-- and I'm sure we'll get e-mail from Ralph Nader supporters here-- is John Kerry. How different would John Kerry be on the points that you have raised?

WILLIAM HARROP: Well, I think it's evident that John Kerry would be more interested in multilateral solutions. I think John Kerry would be interested in listening instead of claiming, I think he would be interested in working with NATO, with the United Nations. He's made very clear and his history shows that he is someone who wants to work with the rest of the world and lead it and not dictate to it.

MARGARET WARNER: And you don't think President Bush, despite this evolution, can do that?

WILLIAM HARROP: I think what we've seen is a tactical change in the administration. I think that president bush is a forceful, willful president. I think he's... he thinks that in moral terms he's leading the country where he thinks it should go. I don't think he's leading it correctly. I don't think he's going to easily change or shift his overall world view. I think it's there.

MARGARET WARNER: A forceful, willful president leading in moral terms only making a tactical shift?

JOSEPH SISCO: I think he's a strong president. I think that he's already made the tactical shifts. That's the point I'm making. And it's evident in how he's proceeding in Iraq in trying to go to get a few additional help. He won't get it. He answers the question himself. "I don't expect any troops, but maybe they'll help with training." We're already moving in that direction. We're involved in Iran in that way. We're involved in North Korea that way. Has he learned some lessons? You bet he has. I don't accept the view that one president is going to be more flexible than another. I think the whole history of American foreign policy is continuity and change; and we're very pragmatic, hard-hitting people.

WILLIAM HARROP: I think our present administration is less pragmatic Joe, than many we've had in the past.

MARGARET WARNER: I'm afraid we have to leave it there. Thank you both.

JOSEPH SISCO: Thank you.

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, political analysis, refugees a long way from home and Michael Moore on the silver screen.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

RAY SUAREZ: And now, on to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and David Brooks of the New York Times. And there was a pause in the presidential campaign during the morning period for President Reagan.. It's over, the campaign started up again, how does it look to you, David?

DAVID BROOKS: I guess the main thing to me is Kerry's weakness as a candidate. Right now the striking thing is if you compare Republicans and Democrats at the congressional level, the Democrats have a significant lead, just significant lead. It's debatable how big it is, but it's....

RAY SUAREZ: In this t question about which party you vote for?

DAVID BROOKS: Which party do you generally think is - do you trust, and the Democrats have this huge lead. And, yet, the head-to-head, Bush v. Kerry, even when you throw in Nader, it's basically tied. In some polls, in many polls Bush has a one or two point lead. So Kerry is underperforming his party. The story, I guess, right now to some it up is people have doubts about Iraq clearly, the U.S.A. Today" poll showed that for the first time more Americans think it was a mistake to go in than not. They have still some fears about the economy but they somehow feel some connection with Bush still that's quite residual loyalty. They don't feel it yet with John Kerry.

RAY SUAREZ: What do you make of that, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I disagree with David's interpretation of it. I think that President Bush is probably in worse shape right now than any incumbent I can remember atthis stage of reelection year, any incumbent president including those who lost, Jimmy Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush, the first President Bush. And I say that for a couple of reasons. First of all, little noticed in the poll was the fact that in the Washington Post/ABC Poll they asked the question, Ray, "Please tell me which candidate the following statement applies to: George W. Bush or John Kerry. He is honest and trustworthy. Now, whatever you say about George W. Bush, straight shooter, you know, lets you know where he stands, and all the rest of it, by a 52 percent to 39 percent margin, American voters say it applies to John Kerry whom they really don't know very well rather than to George Bush. It's cumulative. You can see erosion of the president's credibility. It's more than a crisis. It's a growing gap.

DAVID BROOKS: But you would see it....

MARK SHIELDS: Let me continue. I think that that's the first thing. The second thing is that George W. Bush is playing with a very reduced playing field, the electorate that's available to him; 43 percent of voters, registered voters, adults in the country say under no circumstances would they vote for him. So he essentially is playing with 57 percent of voters, that's all he has. I mean, so there's very little margin, room for error there. And just underlining what David said, the first time a majority of Americans say not only are they opposed to the war in Iraq going in but they also believe the war in Iraq has not made the United States less safe... more safe against terrorism but in fact less safe. And I think, you know, those combined... I just think... I really look at it and say it's reaching the point where there's an anxiety of Republican ranks. I can tell you among office holders and office seekers that I haven't seen for a long, long time, even since 1992.

RAY SUAREZ: Go ahead, David.

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with that point, especially about the House and Senate. I think most Republicans would say "we think we're going to hold on to the House, we'll still probably keep the Senate" -- but real doubts, real anxiety-- a sense of anxiety because of these numbers of the two parties, the head-to-head match-up. Nonetheless, you know, there are one or two polls that show this lack of faith in Bush's credibility. Nonetheless, when you take a look at the whole list of polls, the job approval ratings which is a key determinant, if you average the last six, Bush is up around 48, 49; that's pretty good. When it's head-to-head with Kerry, he's tied. He's had the worst year imaginable and Kerry can't pull ahead even in these circumstances? I think that shows you two things: One, it's all going to be about Iraq but, two, there's not that many swing voters. We have right now an orthodox Republican southern conservative versus an orthodox liberal northeastern and you're just not going to get many swing voters. And something will happen the last two weeks of the campaign that will just nudge one or two of them over the top and that will be the election.

RAY SUAREZ: Mark, I want you to respond to David's original point that when you look at all these broken out variables: The economy, the war, right track/wrong track, Bush is either sliding or behind yet he's right up there with John Kerry in the "who are you going to vote for" question.

MARK SHIELDS: I spent yesterday in York, Pennsylvania, with undecided senior... seniors retirees. These people have no idea who John Kerry is and yet their disaffection with President Bush is real. John Kerry hasn't made the sale. He hasn't knocked at the door. I mean, people don't know who he. You think -- they've been spending now... they've spent somewhere around $75 million to say John Kerry is a flip-flopper. I mean, you know, that's the biggest... hedger and all the rest of it. Yet he has a majority of Americans thinking he's more honest and trustworthy than the president who is the straight shooter. I think that there's no question... I mean, Kerry... fate, fortune and future will be determined by his ability to make the sale. And I think that's going to be seen in large part whether he's going to be successful in July. He's got a name... he's got to himself... he names a running mate. That's the most important decision a candidate makes in terms of he's making a decision, he is picking somebody, that person has to stand up to a test of scrutiny and all the rest of it, the quality of the person, he has a convention, whether he can manage that convention, whether it's going to be... there's going to be resistance or even riots or just rebellion among any groups that are dissident, whether he makes a speech that inspires people. He's being introduced to the American people. If he comes out of the convention, I would say given these numbers right now less than six or seven points ahead, I would be frankly surprised and I think then David's argument would start to say maybe he can't make the sale.

DAVID BROOKS: Just to go back to this question where all the issues seem to favor Kerry but the overall doesn't seem to favor Kerry. Voters make two decisions, one is on policy and one is on person, to feel a sense of social bondedness with that person. Is that person representing my values? Is that person basically like me? And they clearly do not feel that about John Kerry. Just one poll out there showed from Time magazine -- showed that only 7 percent of Americans think John Kerry is a man of strong religious faith. Most Americans are... do consider themselves of strong faith and if they don't consider that person a man of faith, then there's just not a sense of bondedness there.

RAY SUAREZ: On the "cares about people like me" question, Kerry is....

DAVID BROOKS: Kerry does okay. It's more personal and visceral and I think that's as yet lacking.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me move on because during the past week two very thick sheaves of documents have been released by the administration: First the communications regarding what would be allowed and what would be legal, legal opinions regarding the treatment of detainees in the war on terrorism; then responses from various people in the administration about what they think they're going to do. What did you make of those, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, first of all, I found it disturbing that the underlying premise seemed to be whatever the president wants to do is unconstitutional from the Justice Department.

RAY SUAREZ: Whatever the president wants to do is constitutional?

MARK SHIELDS: Constitutional, sorry. The president determines by his actions what is constitutional. And, Ray, I think what was most revealing in those huge sheaves you described is what was omitted. I mean, the fact is, the people who objected most strenuously that torture is not only violative of our values, our principles but it is also counterproductive, it doesn't help. The people who made the strongest arguments against them were the military lawyers, the lawyers for the Marine Corps, the lawyers for the army, the lawyers for the navy, the lawyers for the air force, the lawyers for joint chiefs of staff, the lawyers for Colin Powell, the State Department. And they are not even included. Once they made the argument and made the case that this violates all U.S. and U.N. values and principles and treaties, that it not only doesn't work but it's a threat to the future American detainees and, third, there's going to be a public uproar if and when this ever becomes public, all of which are absolutely true. I mean, I don't know anybody in the military who thinks torture is right let alone successful -- that you're far more apt to get better information from rewarding someone who help yourself rather than punishing someone and getting them to say what you wanted to hear.

DAVID BROOKS: Sort of the implication of your remarks is that there was a big pro-torture community out there in the administration which, I don't think there was. I think when you take a look -- step back and take a look at the whole body of work, what you see is an administration faced with a new kind of threat from al-Qaida. You see the possibility of... imagine a relative of ours, Paul Johnson sitting out there in Saudi Arabia about to be beheaded, the need to get intelligence, to find out where somebody like that might be being held -- so a new threat and an imminent threat. So then the question becomes: What can we do? Does this raise new standards for us? And it seems to me what you saw in all these documents was deliberation. The Bush administration is sometimes criticized for never deliberating. But here they had some memos saying some things that struck me as intelligent; some only a lawyer could have written, that it's okay to inflict pain so long as you don't intend to inflict pain even if you know you're about to inflict pain. Some of the memos were just unbelievable; some about injuring body organs. But it was deliberation.

RAY SUAREZ: And you think they came down in the right place?

DAVID BROOKS: I would say when you look at the way Rumsfeld behaved there were some things he allowed and then he decided better of it, using dogs, for example, or there was a debate about whether you give prisoners hot food or cold food. But it's still an evolving process. He did something which seemed too stringent, too tough, he pulled back a little. But it seemed to me in general despite some excesses-- and I agree with Mark, I don't understand how this torture could possibly work-- but it seems to me you saw a basic process going forward and... go ahead.

RAY SUAREZ: Time for a last response.

MARK SHIELDS: We don't see any memos after April, 2003. Torture began after. But I think there's an inconsistency, contradictory policy so you just can't say to some American reservist at Abu Ghraib that they were acting as freelancers. I mean, there was a confused contradictory policy being set for the treatment of... mistreatment of prisoners.

DAVID BROOKS: There was nothing like Abu Ghraib.

MARK SHIELDS: No, but they were contradicting each other each time and they brought the guy over from Guantanamo to get more information.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, there's going to be an attempt to introduce just that point into the currently ongoing court-martials in Iraq. We'll see how it all comes out. Have a great weekend fellows.

FOCUS - MOVING TO MINNESOTA

RAY SUAREZ: Now a new influx of Hmong refugees journey across the world to settle in Minnesota. Fred de Sam Lazaro of Twin Cities Public Television reports.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: This Buddhist monastery campus in central Thailand was built as a drug rehabilitation center. Today, it's a sprawling dilapidated village, fenced in by the military, inhabited by perhaps the last refugees from the war in Indochina. For about two decades, thousands of Hmong, an ethnic minority from Laos, have lurched from camp to camp in a stateless limbo. Early this year, the U.S. said it would grant refugee status to about 15,000 residents of this camp. Anywhere from 1,500 to 5,000 are expected to move to St. Paul, Minnesota, which has the largest Hmong community of any American city. (Applause) Anticipating a new influx, St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly brought a delegation to the camp. He said he wanted to assess how many people might move to Minnesota and what their needs would be in areas like education, housing and health care. A huge crowd greeted the visitors.

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: I would like to begin by thanking you for the support that many of you gave to our country in the War in Vietnam.

(TRANSLATOR Translating into Hmong language ) ( applause )

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: It was their close anti-communist alliance with the CIA that forced the Hmong-- people like Chao Lor-- to flee Laos when communist forces took over.

CHAO LOR ( Translated ): I had to carry my sons on my back until it was calloused. We had to run away through the jungle from people trying to kill us. I didn't think we'd make it.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Several thousand Hmong refugees were given asylum in the U.S. during the late 1970s and early '80s. It was a painful transition for an agrarian, isolated community from the tropical Laotian hills, says Mee Moua, the first Hmong elected to Minnesota's legislature.

MEE MOUA: Imagine landing at the Minneapolis- St. Paul Airport in the middle of a blizzard, which has happened to some of my relatives, to say, "and this is America?" You know, it's physically shocking, it's visually shocking and it is emotionally draining to try to process all of that.

( Singing )

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Even as they brought old traditions like Hmong new year festivities to new venues like the Minneapolis Metrodome, the Hmong, more than most immigrants, struggled with language and cultural barriers. Few people in host communities understood either their language or culture. Two decades later, life remains a struggle for many, but St. Paul's Hmong community has made significant strides. Almost half of Hmong families own their own homes, and there are 400 Hmong-owned businesses in the city. Senator Moua, a lawyer by training, is one of many success stories.

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: We have state senators-- Mee Moua; we have a state representative, Cy Thao; we have a school board member, Kazoua Kong; we have a number of Hmong who have been and are very successful in our political life in our community.

WOMAN: ( Speaking in Hmong language )

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Attorney Ilene Her, who came to the U.S at age six in the first wave, thinks the role the Hmong community is playing in the newest resettlement is critical.

ILENE HER: The first time around, like 30 years ago, the Hmong community was not a part of the discussion at all, and now we are. And we're part of the solution. And that, I think, to me is very healing, and I think that's what the community here needs to hear.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Wherever Her and other Hmong Americans went, they found hugs, tears and pleas for help.

ILENE HER: Her husband is old. They don't think they can make it in the U.S. ( Translated ): If we do not come, remember us, love us, help us to stay here.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Some camp residents pleaded for help to remain in Thailand, a place that's become familiar after decades. But the Thai government has ruled out permanent residency for people it considers illegal migrants.

MAN ( Translated ): I fought for the United States, the CIA and General Vang Pao.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Others, especially older people, remain faithful to the original cause of fighting the Laotian government and want U.S. help.

CHAO LOR: ( Speaking in Hmong language )

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: One of Chao Lor's four sons remains a guerrilla in the jungle. Another two went to America in the 1980s. At that time, Chao Lor and her fourth son, Chai Chang, stayed behind to help her husband, who was addicted to opium. By the time he died, the window of opportunity to go to the U.S. had closed. Now, she says, this family's painful separation may finally end. ( Crying )

CHAO LOR ( Translated ): I'm very hopeless. I'm sad because my family's been broken up. One's in laos, one's in America, one's in Thailand. We have no future here.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Her son and daughter-in-law are concerned about their own ability to adapt to life in America.

CHAI CHANG( Translated ): I'm worried that I won't be able to get a job because I don't speak English.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: But they're excited at the better future their seven children will have. For the past decade, they've shared a 400-square-foot, mud- floor shack. They must walk past open sewers for basic amenities like water and sanitation. Schools in the camp are crowded. Most classes are taught in Thai.

VOICES: Hi, randy!

VOICES: Hi, randy.

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: Study hard.

( Translating )

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: Learn English.

( Translating )

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: And when you come to America, you'll be ready to learn and become very successful.

( Translating )

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Not everyone in Minnesota is thrilled at the prospect of more Hmong settlers. The mayor's office, for example, has a stack of mail and messages critical of his trip.

SPOKESMAN READING LETTER: "Why is the mayor bringing the Hmong immigrants to our city?" There's one that just said, "my son's out of work and is very much opposed to Hmong immigrants resettling here."

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: For his part the mayor insists he isn't inviting new Hmong refugees. Instead, he said, he just wants to get a better handle on the needs of those who'd come to Minnesota anyway. But at the end of a moving day at the camp, Kelly said if his trip made St. Paul seem more hospitable than other places, the Hmong deserve that.

MAYOR RANDY KELLY: We need to show that those people who come forward and assist us and become our allies should be treated properly. And I'm not sure that they have been, so if I can, from a standpoint of representing the united states, extend a hand of welcome when I know they're coming to America, then I'm honored to do that.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Camp residents had to undergo a rigorous battery of clearances for security and health risks, and interviews to determine that they are political, not economic refugees in Thailand.

RAY SUAREZ: The first family of refugees arrived on Monday and as many as 5,000 are expected by November.

FOCUS - REEL POLITICS

RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, the new film Fahrenheit 9/11 and the controversial methods of its creator, Michael Moore. Arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown has that.

JEFFREY BROWN: Fahrenheit 9/11 opened today on nearly 900 screens nationwide. In past films, Director Michael Moore has targeted General Motors and the gun lobby. Here he sharply takes on the Bush administration for, among other things, alleged ties to the Saudis, the Iraq war, and the president's leadership style.

SPOKESMAN: With everything going wrong, he did whatany of us would do: He went on vacation.

SINGING: Vacation all I ever wanted

vacation have to get away

vacation...

JEFFREY BROWN: The film has garnered a grand prize at the Cannes Film Festival, and a major controversy here at home. Two movie critics share their views with us: Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times and Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post. Kenneth Turan, you called this a landmark in American political film making. What makes it so effective in your view?

KENNETH TURAN: Well, first of all, one of the reasons it is a landmark is the timing of when it's coming out, that's it coming out right now almost in the middle of the presidential campaign with really the intent to make a difference in that campaign. For me, what made it a successful film was the fact that they... Michael Moore gathers a lot of information, there's a lot of different focuses in this film. He talks about Iraq, he talks about Afghanistan, he goes all the way back to the Gore/Bush election, and he ties it all together, which is very difficult to do. And he does it largely without-- though not completely without-- his trademark style, which is being on camera himself, being confrontational himself. He does that a little bit, but for a Michael Moore film, he is surprisingly in the background this time around.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, Jonathan Foreman, by contrast, you called this movie "clever if breathtakingly sleazy political propaganda." Is your problem with the movie as movie-making or for its politics?

JONATHAN FOREMAN: I don't really think you can separate those two things in the sense that... I mean, let me rephrase that. My problem isn't with its point of view; it's the way it tries to put that point of view forward, the fact that it's dishonest, the fact that it doesn't adhere to our traditional standards of documentary filmmaking. In fact, even the very modest standards of, say, op-ed writing. It seems to be part of the general degradation of our political culture. It's the sort of reality TV level of political filmmaking. It's more like an advertisement, really. It's like a long political ad, the kind of dishonest thing both parties put out every four years.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let's look at an example. We have a clip just to give our audience the sense of the flavor of the movie. This is Michael Moore confronting several congressmen near the Capitol in Washington.

MICHAEL MOORE: Congressman? I'm Michael Moore.

CONGRESSMAN: Hi, Michael, how are you doing?

MICHAEL MOORE: I'm good.

SPOKESMAN: John Tanner.

MICHAEL MOORE: Nice to meet you, very nice to meet you. Do you have kids? Is there any way we can get them to enlist and go over there and help out with the effort? Congressman? Michael Moore.

SPOKESMAN: How are you today?

MICHAEL MOORE: Good. Good. I'm trying to get members of congress to get their kids to enlist in the army and go over to Iraq. Congressman? Congressman? Congressman Castle? Congressman Castle? Congressman Doolittle, Michael Moore.

SPOKESMAN: No, thank you.

MICHAEL MOORE: I wonder if...

NARRATOR: Of course, not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the

war in Iraq. And who could blame them? Who would want to give up their child? Would you?

JEFFREY BROWN: Jonathan Foreman, let me let you have the first whack at that scene. What do you make of the style?

JONATHAN FOREMAN: Well, I'm sorry, I just think that's a ridiculous stunt, and it's also deeply dishonest. First of all, there are several congressman and senators who have children serving in the forces. Even John Ashcroft's son just came back from a tour in the navy in the Gulf. Joseph Biden has got a son out there. And what people forget is that, first of all we don't know these congressmen, we don't know how old their children are. Maybe their children... maybe they have five-year-old kids. You can't sign them up into the army. In fact, you can't sign your own children up into the army. We don't own our children as chattel. So it's also a very heavily edited scene and a very dishonest and a very manipulative one. You can't sign someone up to go to Iraq. It just seems so... to me, the whole thing seems to me fraudulent and kind of beneath contempt, really, even as political argument.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kenneth Turan, what's your view?

KENNETH TURAN: Well, I'm just chuckling to hear this. I mean, well, first of all, obviously there are things you can nit-pick about this film. But I think it's trying to make a larger point, and in this particular scene especially. The last figure I saw was that there are several congressmen, members of the House and Senate, who have children who serve. The last figure I saw in the newspapers was four. Four out of 535 is not a large number. The larger point that Michael Moore wants to make-- which other parts of the film do make-- is that this is a war fought largely by poor people, that the services troll for recruits in poor neighborhoods, that really it's not the children of affluence, it's the children of poverty who are fighting this war. And I think that's a valid point to make. And, again, I have to say I was chuckling all the way through Jonathan's screed. You know, I just really think if this had been... if the shoe was on the other foot, he would be defending this film. I think so much of the criticism in this film that pretends to be on aesthetic grounds is completely on political grounds.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Kenneth Turan, tell us, help an audience approaching this movie. Do we go to it and understand it as propaganda, as an op-ed, as art? And if so, what responsibility does the filmmaker have to be accurate, to be fair?

KENNETH TURAN: I think really you have to understand this film, basically. This is... Michael Moore is a provocateur, Michael Moore is a propagandist. But I think propaganda is most effective when it's grounded in truth. There are things we see in this film that I have not seen before. There are things that are... you know, just kind of opened my eyes to situations that I have not been aware of. One of the footage that's been talked about the most is a clip of President Bush after he'd heard about the second plane hitting the second tower sitting for seven minutes in a Florida classroom listening to children read "My Pet Goat." And, you know, this happened. We just haven't seen it. And it doesn't put the president in the best possible light. And, again, this is a partisan film. There's no getting away from it. Michael Moore would not want to escape it. But I don't think this invalidates it. Just like the fact that being partisan doesn't seem to invalidate Rush Limbaugh on the radio. People think, well, he's partisan, that's his right. Well, it's Michael Moore's right to be partisan on the other side.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Jonathan Foreman, it's clear Michael Moore is very up front about his views and what he's trying to do. So how do you suggest an audience approach the movie?

JONATHAN FOREMAN: Well, I think by taking it with an enormous grain of salt. I mean, I think one of the things that... and I appreciate what Stewart is saying, but do we want... do we want to hold the... is the Rush Limbaugh standard the standard that we want to hold our political discourse to? I mean, I'm not a fan of his and I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's. Yes, there are parts of the film that are funny and parts that are amusing and parts that are moving even. It's just that it is a first. It's a full-length political advertisement as a feature film. It's not in the tradition of documentaries of the kind... you know, it's no "Spellbound," it's no "Capturing the Freedmans," it's not like "Harlan County U.S.A." It doesn't give both sides. It doesn't pretend to. It's frankly partisan. That's okay. I mean I haven't got a problem with that. No one's stopping people on the other side from making these sort of films. I just think we should be very careful when we think about, is this... are these things true? There are things in the movie that are really... would offend anyone who really knew the truth. When he shows pictures of happy Iraq before the bombs fall -- I mean, anyone who really knows anything about Iraq knows that that's a very, very misleading piece of footage, and cut suddenly to bombs exploding on, incidentally, the ministry of defense. That's very manipulative in a way that is crude. It's not manipulative... it's not good political cinema in a way that's interesting or artful. It represents a lowering of standards, and I think it's very strange the way that so many people who believe in the anti-Bush message are willing to drop their critical standards because they agree with the message of the film. I mean, I think that's wrong when it happens on both sides of the political fence.

JEFFREY BROWN: Let me ask Kenneth Turan a brief comment. Michael Moore is clear about his intent here. I know it's hard to sit there and say what impact this will have, but does a film like this, do you think, have the power to sway votes or to galvanize voters?

KENNETH TURAN: Frankly, I think that's very much of an open question. It's really unclear. As passionate as this film is, it may turn people off. It may just succeed in, to use the phrase, energizing the base. It's not going to... you know, Vice President Cheney is not going to see this and decide he wants to switch parties. It's not going to have any impact on people firmly on the other side. But it may energize the liberal base, and it may... the big question is: Will it work at all with undecided voters? That is the question, and no one else knows the answer.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post, thanks to you both.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major developments of this day. In Iraq, a U.S. Air raid in Fallujah targeted followers of accused terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. There were reports that al-Zarqawi himself narrowly escaped being killed. And President Bush began a trip to Europe, hoping to win new help in Iraq. A reminder, that Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks for watching. Good night.

8

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Friday, June 25, 2004