The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of what happened today; a look at the dispute over Saudi Arabia's commitment to the war against terrorism; an update of the military campaign in Afghanistan; a debate over the pulls at times of war between journalism and patriotism; two differing views of the Microsoft settlement; and some closing thoughts about the post- September 11 world from former poet laureate Robert Pinsky.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Afghan opposition forces claimed their first significant advance today. The Northern Alliance said its forces captured territory near it said increasingly heavy air strikes had opened the way. In Washington, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said coordination between the various opposition groups is improving.

DONALD RUMSFELD: How it will evolve over a period of time, I just can't say. But certainly one would hope that by providing assistance and creating an environment where it is possible to succeed and have success on the ground, by doing a good deal of damage to the forces opposing them, that we will see a greater degree of cohesion on their part and that we'll see more success.

JIM LEHRER: Rumsfeld said U.S. planes were now flying up to 120 sorties a day in Afghanistan. That's double the number from earlier points in the campaign. We'll have more on today's military action later in the program. The FBI concluded today a threat against major bridges in the West was not credible after all. The initial warning involved eight western states, but in a new message to police the Bureau said agents have found no evidence to back up that threat. President Bush warned today Osama bin Laden might be trying to obtain nuclear weapons. He first raised the issue in a speech via satellite to eastern European leaders meeting in Poland. Later, at the White House, he met with French President Chirac and was asked again about the threat from bin Laden.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The reason I said that is because I was using his own words. He announced that this was his intention, and I believe we need to take him seriously. We will do everything we can to make sure he does not acquire the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction. If he doesn't have them, we will work hard to make sure he doesn't. If he does, we'll make sure he doesn't deploy them.

JIM LEHRER: Later, a White House spokesman said the President's remarks were not based on any new evidence about bin Laden. The White House was pressed today about whether the President had apologized for U.S. media criticism on Saudi Arabia. It involved Saudi cooperation in the war on terrorism. Today the "Washington Post" quoted the Saudi crown prince as saying Mr. Bush apologized during a phone call last month. A White House spokesman said only that the president called the criticism "incorrect." On the anthrax story today, a senior FBI official said there's no evidence the anthrax used in tainted letters was stolen from a registered laboratory. But at a Senate hearing, James Caruso said any number of people with university training could have produced this with the right equipment. "The New York Times" reported investigators think a city hospital worker could have crossed paths with those responsible. She died last week of inhaled anthrax, but had no obvious contact with the germ. The Federal Reserve today cut a key interest rate for the tenth time this year. It reduced the Federal Funds rate half a point to 2%. That's the rate banks charge for overnight loans, and it's now at its lowest since 1961. In a statement, the Fed said it still saw weaknesses in the U.S. economy. The Fed's action spurred a late afternoon rally on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 150 points, or about 1.5%, at 9591. The NASDAQ Index was up 41 points, or more than 2%, at 1835. Nine of the 18 states suing Microsoft agreed to a settlement today. They said they would join the U.S. Justice Department in the agreement announced last week. Six states wanted more time to review the deal, and three more said they planned to keep fighting in court. A federal judge in Washington set hearings on the proposed settlement, and on further court action. We'll have more on this later in the program tonight.

FOCUS - THE KINGDOM

JIM LEHRER: The Saudi questions: What are they doing in the war against terrorism, and is it enough? Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves-- 25% of the world's total-- have bound the desert kingdom in a close 70- year relationship with the United States. The bond intensified in 1990, when the US deployed more than half a million troops to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and prevent an invasion of neighboring Saudi Arabia. Most of the GI's went home after the Gulf War, but 5,000 remained on Saudi soil. It was the presence of US Forces in the home of Islam's holy places that provoked the militant anti-Americanism of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden, the now disowned heir of a wealthy Saudi family, has denounced the US As "crusader occupiers of the Arabian peninsula," and has denounced the Saudi royal family for permitting the American presence. Yet the September 11 attacks also exposed strong links between Saudi Arabia and bin Laden and his militant Islamic supporters. The FBI has said that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and that private Saudi money has helped support the al-Qaida terrorist network. Saudi officials quickly expressed support for the US campaign against terrorism, and broke diplomatic ties with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which has been harboring bin Laden. But despite a visit from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Saudis have not allowed the US to launch operations from Prince Sultan Air Base, though the US is using it for command and control. And US officials have said privately that the Saudis haven't given them enough help in investigating the hijackers and their backgrounds, nor have they done what they could to freeze the assets of al-Qaida supporters in Saudi Arabia. All this has led to growing editorial criticism in the United States. On October 14, a "New York Times" editorial noted the lack of cooperation on freezing bin Laden's assets, investigating the hijackers, or letting US planes operate from Saudi air bases. "This is hardly the performance Americans expect from a country that is nominally its closest ally in the Persian Gulf region...decades of equivocation...have left American relations with Saudi Arabia in an untenable and unreliable state. The deformities must be honestly addressed before they do further damage to both nations." And just yesterday, the "Chicago Tribune" editorialized: "At the outset of the war against terror, the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia proclaimed that it stood firmly with the victims and against the terrorists. The Saudis, it turns out, have an odd definition of the word 'firm.' Their action has not matched the rhetoric." Late last month, the White House tried to offset the criticism. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer reported that president bush had called Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to thank him for his cooperation.

ARI FLEISCHER: There's been a suggestion that Saudi Arabia is not acting as a good partner with the United States, and the President could not more strongly disagree. The President is pleased that everything that has been requested of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has worked with us productively on.

MARGARET WARNER: Fleischer reiterated that support today.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on all this, we go to Adel al-Jubeir, a foreign policy advisor to Crown Prince Abdullah, who effectively runs the government in Saudi Arabia. Fawaz Gerges is a professor of Middle East and international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College. He's the author of an upcoming book, "The Islamists and the West." And Larry Johnson was deputy director of the State Department's counter-terrorism office in the first bush administration, and worked in counter-terrorism at the CIA before that.

Welcome, gentlemen. First to you, Adel al-Jubeir. What's your response to this editorial criticism about Saudi's efforts in the war against terrorism?

ADEL AL-JUBEIR, Adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah: We were very surprised frankly because that's a far cry from the reality and from the truth as we see it. We see criticism being leveled at us in the media and anonymous officials that's not reflected in the reality of the cooperation nor in the clear public statements by senior American officials from the President on down.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you want to give us an idea of the cooperation?

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: It's very simple. When your President says everything we've asked the Saudis to do, Saudis have done, you cannot be more clear than this. We are accused of not freezing assets. We have frozen assets. We're accused of supporting terrorism. We do not support terrorism. We're accused of whisking the bin Laden family out of the US without giving the FBI a chance to question them when, in fact, they were whisked out of the US after we obtained the FBI's approval and after the FBI interviewed each one of them. The laundry list goes on. Each single one of them is very simple to rebut.

MARGARET WARNER: Larry Johnson, you're talking to people in the government. Are you hearing something different?

LARRY JOHNSON, Former State Department Official: We're back at a situation sort of like depending on what the definition of cooperation is. The White House is being very legalistic. Mr. Adel al-Jubeir's presence here, you have to understand this is the Michael Jordan of Saudi Arabian diplomacy. You know, they didn't send us an amateur. They sent us a great professional. But the reality is the Saudis have drug their feet in helping identify these hijackers. They've drug their feet in allowing US investigators access to the families of those hijackers. The finance minister is saying okay we'll freeze the assets. But unless we have proof that it's tied to terrorism we're going to unfreeze them. There is cooperation but what we're looking for in this-and the Saudi government has got to understand this-- that the American people... We're not going to play the games that we have over the last 20 years. There are almost 5,000 Americans dead in this attack. And it has been aided and abetted in part-- not by the Saudi government but by the Saudi government's inability to take action.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's stay on the cooperation. Professor, your view of this.

FAWAZ GERGES, Sarah Lawrence College: Well, it remains to the professor to balance the two differing perspective. Let me say that initially, the royal family kept silence and practiced inaction as the most effective mechanism of avoiding to make hard decisions on this particular crisis. Now the situation is entirely different. I think the Royal Family now appreciates the enormity of the crisis and its inherent danger, not only to American vital interests in the region but also to the stability and viability of the conservative kingdom. In this particular sense, let me mention some of the steps and initiatives taken by the Royal Family in the last two weeks. Yes, the authorities in Saudi Arabia have helped the American authorities identify the identity of the 15 hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia. This is number one. The authorities in Saudi Arabia arrested many of bin Laden's alleged associates and fans in the kingdom in the last two weeks. Third, the authorities in the kingdom have removed some of the hard-core religious authorities and prevented them from delivering their pro Osama bin Laden sermons, and yes the authorities in Saudi Arabia have frozen many bank accounts with links to terrorist organizations, but let me stress the most important element here. In the last few days what's really impressive is that some influential members of the Royal Family have become very outspoken and critical not only of the destructive message of Osama bin Laden but also of Islamic extremism and militancy. It's really very refreshing to read the Arab press in the last few days and to read some commentators from Saudi Arabia writing in the Arab press criticizing the hard-core religious authorities who basically are xeno phobic and who call also these... These commentators call for tolerance and acceptance of the other. There is some movement on the ground although initially the royal family was a bit ambivalent I think know it appreciates the danger and the enormity of the crisis.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. al-Jubeir, would you at least concede what the professor said that there's been an evolution in the approach the royal family has taken?

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: I don't think there has been an evolution. I think there's been an evolution in our expressing our views. I want to go back to the comments that were made earlier about Saudi Arabia's definition of cooperation as legalistic. I have met with your ambassador in Saudi Arabia. I have met with senior officials in your government over the last week. I have not heard one single person telling me we need to do something that we haven't done. How come that all these charges are leveled at us by people outside the government and by anonymous officials? I'd love to sit down and meet with those officials who think we need to do something we haven't done so we can do it. I can't find them.

LARRY JOHNSON: It's one of the unfortunate problems of the diplomacy aim. The Bush Administration clearly... It's a stylized dance and has always been with the government of Saudi Arabia. I think most Americans are still... We're at a watershed movement. We want to think of Saudi Arabia as our friend and still have friendly feelings, but it's not just this incident. We go back to Khobar Towers. There was a lack of cooperation.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about the bombing of the barracks in '96.

LARRY JOHNSON: In 1996 the bombing of the Khobar Towers. There was foot dragging. There wasn't an aggressive point. What we need from your government... Because I know you were sent over here after... There was a meeting in your government last week, and when you all got together... Because you realize you have a problem in the United States. So the message you need to carry back to them is this is not just the United States throwing a fit. Saudi Arabia has got to be proactive and aggressive in going after these terrorists linkages because I'll grant you that even in the United States in the past the United States allowed Irish Catholics to raise money to send to the IRA, but there are Saudi citizens, prominent Saudi citizens, who have been sending money that have financed the armed Islamic group. If we're going to get into a courtroom that's the wrong attitude.

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: We have to. We have received....

MARGARET WARNER: Just one second, professor. I want to get you in here.

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: We have received 300 leads. We have investigated every single lead in the past year-and-a-half. We have not been able to establish a direct link. For people to say that Saudis support terrorism or that Saudi money has gone to al-Qaida -- why on earth would we want to support groups whose objective is to destroy us? We can be a lot of things but foolish we're not.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Professor, respond on that point. Is it true as many, as Larry Johnson just said that in fact a lot of Saudi businessmen have funneled money to a lot of the terrorist network?

FAWZ GERGES: Well, unfortunately in the last 20 years the government of Saudi Arabia and some members of the Royal Family have channeled hundreds of millions of dollars to various Islamist causes throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Some of the money unfortunately reached some terrible and shadowy organizations, including bin Laden's al-Qaida. In fact, the weight of evidence seems to suggest that even up until this fall, some very powerful elements of the bin Laden family and other people in the kingdom kept the money flowing to al-Qaida organization and Osama bin Laden. But let's look at this particular point from a different angle. I don't think this is really conspiratorial. I don't think Saudi Arabia is trying to help Osama bin Laden who are trying to topple the kingdom.

LARRY JOHNSON: I agree with that.

FAWZ GERGES: I think this is part of using religion as a legitimize mechanism. Unfortunately I think the authorities in Saudi Arabia and the Royal Family has not been very strict in trying to somehow have transparency and accountability in where the money goes and to whom it goes and so on and so forth.

MARGARET WARNER: Explain briefly and please briefly because I need to get back to my two guests here, what do you mean about using Islam as a legitimizing device?

FAWZ GERGES: Well, I have just returned from the Middle East after spending two years researching relations between Islamist movements and the West. It seems to me really you cannot understand the rise in popularity of the Islamist movement in the Arab world without understanding the critical part played by the kingdom in helping, supporting, and pampering some of the Islamist leaders throughout the Arab and Muslim world. In fact....

MARGARET WARNER: But why? That's what I'm trying to get at. Why?

FAWZ GERGES: The question of why, remember, there's a social contract between the Royal Family on the one hand and the population on the other. The contract stipulates that the kingdom, the Royal Family preserves and maintains the authentic nature of Islam in Saudi Arabia as the custodian and the guardian of the most sacred places in Islam and on the other hand, I mean, of course the population gives obedience to the Royal Family. In this particular sense the kingdom feels that somehow, I mean the Royal Family feels that by helping Islamist causes in the world, in the Arab and Muslim world in many ways it really reinforces the image of the Royal Family as being custodian and guardian of the most sacred places in the kingdom.

MARGARET WARNER: What would you add to that?

LARRY JOHNSON: Saudi Arabia needs to go from being passive; when they're given specific requests they'll follow through on it. It was a lot like my niece when she lived with us I told her to come straight home from the movies. It was en route. It was on the way home -- very legalistic. They need to go past legalistic being active and progressive offering leads saying have you thought about this, have you considered this? Here are some other angles. They have accessed information they have not shared freely.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Go back, would you, to the professor's point about why Saudi Arabia or individuals in Saudi Arabia and the government perhaps looks the other way, has been funding these organizations?

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: Well I think the premise is incorrect. We have not been looking the other way. Since the early 1990s we have talked to the big philanthropists in Saudi Arabia. Remember most people who give charity give charity out of kindness. The objective is not to have it go somewhere where people harm people. So we went to the big philanthropists and we said you have to be careful where your money goes because there are people out there who try to abuse Islam for evil purposes. We have set up a vetting mechanisms. We have offered services of the government to try to rate or to give them background on different Islamic organizations around the world so that the money goes to proper Islamic organizations. Have we succeeded 100%? Of course not. You ca give money to Save the Children in Afghanistan and people can accuse you of supporting the children of the Taliban leaders and ipso facto supporting the Taliban. That's not a valid charge.

MARGARET WARNER: A quick follow up. Does it surprise you that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and why?

ADEL AL-JUBEIR: It's shocking to us. It's shocking to us. We're ashamed of it. We don't like to be associated with people like this. At the end of the day these were individuals, we had several thousand Saudis who fought in Afghanistan and who continued with bin Laden either in Sudan or who went to Bosnia. Most of them are honorable people. A large percentage of them are evil people. And we see their actions or their evilness reflected in this act. These people are misfits. They're criminals. They're not a part of us. We reject them. Can you tell me that Timothy McVeigh represents America? Can you tell me that Jim Jones represents Christianity? Of course they don't. Does the KKK represent mainstream America? Of course it's not. We all have our deviants and our extremists. What you have seen is the people who committed these murders unfortunately a large number of them were Saudis.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, your view on that question: Whether bin Laden's message as a special resonance in Saudi Arabia or are they just deviance?

FAWZ GERGES: I want to stress two critical points here. The first point is that Saudi Arabia today is not Iran of the late 1970s, that... I mean, most of the nonsense talk about social revolution or upheaval in Saudi Arabia, I think it's basically false. But I think there are some worrisome signs emanating....

MARGARET WARNER: Some worrisome signs?

FAWZ GERGES: Yes, emanating from the kingdom. I think social and religious upheaval exists deeper under the surface in the kingdom. Bin Laden's message resonates the most unfortunately in the imagination of many younger people in the kingdom and also among some of the hard-core religious elements as well. 15 of the hijackers came from the kingdom. And this particular piece of evidence tallies was the shifting pattern on the part of Osama bin Laden. The last time, by the way, last summer Osama bin Laden was seen in public during his son's wedding almost hundreds of foot soldiers surrounding Osama bin Laden seemed to come from the Gulf particularly from Saudi Arabia. And the question here, what's going on in the kingdom? It's not just, by the way, that we are ashamed of the 15 hijackers. There seems to me serious social and religious social upheavals under the surface in the kingdom itself.

MARGARET WARNER: Professor, I'm sorry, we have to leave it there. Thank you all three very much.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, a military update; mixing journalism and patriotism; the Microsoft settlement; and words from Robert Pinsky.

UPDATE - MILITARY CAMPAIGN

JIM LEHRER: Our update on the military campaign in Afghanistan. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: Fresh from visits to Russia and several of Afghanistan's neighbors, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pronounced his efforts there a success. He then expanded on his recent statement that the anti-Taliban military campaign will be over in months.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It is clearly an estimate. I did not suggest one, two, or three months; I said months rather than years. That means it could be as long as 23. I've got a full range, from one or two to 23. And I thought to myself when I was asked that question, I spontaneously responded to the best of my ability and said, "Hmm, I'll bet you it's months, not years." Could I be wrong? I suppose. Do I think I am? No.

KWAME HOLMAN: Beyond the military campaign, Rumsfeld said it indeed will take years to root out terrorism around the world. On the battlefront, the U.S. concluded a full month of bombardments, using B-52's to hit suspected large concentrations of Taliban troops. In addition, officials confirmed the U.S. now is using a lethal bomb known as a daisy cutter. General Peter Pace is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

GEN. PETER PACE, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: They are 15,000-pound bombs that literally are fit on a pallet on a C-130. They're pushed out the back of the C-130 and float down by parachute. They have a probe that sticks out so when the probe hits the ground, they explode about three feet above the ground, and as you would expect, they make a heck of a bang when they go off, and the intent is to kill people.

KWAME HOLMAN: Regarding the ground war, Rumsfeld would not confirm reports the Northern Alliance is moving on the Taliban-held city of Mazar-e Sharif. He said all theanti-Taliban forces will face degrees of success.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It's going to vary from place to place in the country. It is not going to be a steady march forward across the front. It is going to be probes and pushes and successes and steps back. That is the nature of it, and I think we just have to face that fact.

KWAME HOLMAN: For weeks, Washington has provided the outnumbered Northern Alliance with weapons, ammunition, and the expertise of Special Forces troops. The Pentagon says it has doubled the number of elite American soldiers in Afghanistan in the several days, and more are on the way.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It is helpful to the United States to have Special Forces involved on the ground to assist with communications, liaison, resupply, humanitarian activities, as well as targeting, and that is their goal and their purpose, and they're doing it well. So as soon as the others can get in, the better from our standpoint. With respect to the air campaign, there's no question but that the better targeting information we have, the better the effect is on the ground.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rumsfeld confirmed that over the weekend, U.S. forces extracted the anti-Taliban leader, Hamid Karzai, from Taliban-held territory. And he repeated his confidence in Pakistan's stewardship of its nuclear stockpile.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Countries that have nuclear weapons spend a lot of time and a lot of money and a lot of effort getting them. And they tend to have over a period of time a very healthy respect for the lethal power of those weapons. They tend to be quite sensitive to the safety of those weapons. And there is not a doubt in my mind but that the President of Pakistan and his senior officials have exactly that respect for the power of those weapons.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Secretary said the U.S. hopes to resume military ties with Pakistan which Washington cut back a decade ago in response to Islamabad's growing nuclear program. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Chancellor announced plans to deploy as many as 4,000 soldiers into the Afghan campaign, but did not say when or where.

FOCUS - JOURNALISM & PATRIOTISM

JIM LEHRER: Now, striking the balance between duty to country and duty to story: Media correspondent Terence Smith has more.

TERENCE SMITH: Can journalists be both objective and patriotic? What is the media's appropriate role in a time of crisis? Those questions have arisen following the comments of two heads of news organizations. CNN's Walter Isaacson, seeking balance in coverage from Taliban-controlled areas, recently sent a memo to his foreign correspondents urging them to "redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from their perspective. We must talk about how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people." And ABC News President David Westin caused a stir two weeks ago at Columbia University when he was asked whether he thought the Pentagon was a legitimate military target. Westin replied, "I actually don't have an opinion on that, and it's important I not have an opinion on that as I sit here in my capacity right now. As a journalist, I feel strongly that's something that I should not be taking a position on." Westin later apologized for the remarks, saying, "I was wrong. Under any interpretation, the attack on the Pentagon was criminal and entirely without justification. I apologize for any harm that my misstatement may have caused."

TERENCE SMITH: Joining us to discuss the media's role are former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson. He is now a visiting professor at the University of Wyoming and media critic Geneva Overholser. She is a member of the faculty of the University of Missouri School of Journalism. Welcome to you both. Senator Simpson....

ALAN SIMPSON, Former Wyoming Senator: How are you?

TERENCE SMITH: Glad to have you.

ALAN SIMPSON: Pleasure.

TERENCE SMITH: As you can tell from those statements that we just quoted, news organizations are groping for what the appropriate role is right now. What do you think the appropriate role is?

ALAN SIMPSON: Well, they're not there to be cheerleaders. We wouldn't expect that of them. But they're there to replace one ism with another ism. They're there to replace skepticism with patriotism. That sounds corny. I can just hear them now. Oh, Simpson there he is whacking around on us. I just think... I would like them to think of one thing, and that would be if they were overseas in the uniform of the United States of America, how would they feel if this were happening to them, if they were seeing, you know, continually stuff from bin Laden and stuff, you know, of babies dying and so on; and then become the ugly ones. I think as a media person or as a human being, think of the people who are serving our country. Do you want them injured? Do you want them maimed? Do you want them killed because some of the questions they ask in this situation are so stupid as to, you know, where will they attack? What will they use? And they seem to have kind of rocks for brains when they don't understand that they're watching everything that comes over our television.

TERENCE SMITH: Are you arguing that journalists ought to be Americans first and reporters second?

ALAN SIMPSON: I could just say it in an old western vocabulary, I sure as hell do.

TERENCE SMITH: Geneva Overholser, wonder-wonder what you think about that and what your reaction was to Walter Isaacson's cautionary note to his troops.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Well, Terry, I always hesitate to differ with Senator Simpson, but the fact is that I think American journalists are best patriotic when they retain their skepticism. That isn't cynicism. But we need to think about whether the public more needs a flag-waving journalist who says I'm here because I'm mostly an American and not a journalist or whether they need good, reliable, solid information in order to be citizens who....

TERENCE SMITH: What did you think when Walter Isaacson issued that sort of note to his correspondents?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: I understand Mr. Isaacson's concern that they not be used as propaganda arm of the Taliban but the fact is there are far more constraints on the free flow of information than there are forces calling for good reporting. I think, frankly, it sounded more like he was worried about what people think of CNN than he ought to be. We can't be out there vying for popularity. We've got to be giving people information they need, which isn't always a popular thing to do. What we need to remember is they also serve who do the reporting. We hope they are over there, Senator Simpson, seeing what's going on. But it's a hard war to report on.

ALAN SIMPSON: I don't....

TERENCE SMITH: Senator.

ALAN SIMPSON: I don't have any problem with those things. I think you've taken my point a little further than I did. I'm just saying we are all Americans first. That doesn't mean you get on and distort your vision as a journalist and neutrality and so on. But the question was asked, are you an American first or a journalist first? Are you a patriot first or are you someone who remains neutral? I did a show with Fred Friendly years ago and the question was asked in a hypothetical, journalist walking behind a group in Vietnam and they see an ambush coming. The question was asked, it your duty to advise the commander of the troops that there's an ambush coming or is it your duty as a journalist just to record what you see is going to happen. This journalist said my duty is to record what happens. The light colonel jumped out of his seat and practically pummeled his brains out. I don't blame him a whip.

TERENCE SMITH: Senator, journalists often feel and believe and know that they're being used by one side or the other or both sides. How do they walk a fine line in your view between being used by, let's say, the Taliban, or, on the other hand, by the Pentagon?

ALAN SIMPSON: Well, common sense would be a wonderful place to start instead of deadlines, marketing, and advertising revenue. It would be a wonderful place to sit with just common sense and ignoring these other pressures, which have never been there in any war where every day we see a new logo, watch CNN, watch ABC, watch CBS, watch NBC. We've got a new one for you. Stick around. You'll have gas ulcers and heartburn before we finish with you today. That's marketing. I think you have to really watch that one.

TERENCE SMITH: What about David Westin's initial point when he was arguing that he and journalists should set aside their emotions, even about something like the attacks on September 11th?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Well it was certainly made inelegantly; I think, but his essential point that we need to be very careful about letting our grief, our desire

for others to understand us, our willingness to go along with the government concerns, of course, about very valid reasons we can't be reporting on troop movement, all of those things are real; but we can't let them stand in the way of pressing for information. We can't afford to be a propaganda arm for the Taliban, nor can we afford to be a propaganda arm for the American government. The public needs us to be pressing. The place I do differ with you, Senator Simpson, is to say we replace skepticism with patriotism. Skepticism is patriotism for a journalist.

ALAN SIMPSON: Let's try cynicism then. That might be a better word.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: I agree with that. Let's do away with that one. I also agree with you at doing away with the marketing. That's one more reason that journalists pull punches frankly because now increasingly they're owned by corporate owners who really don't want them to be doing unpopular things.

ALAN SIMPSON: I was so privileged to know Bill Kovach at Harvard as he directed the Nieman Center. Let me tell you there's a journalist with class. He's the guy who told the Atlanta Constitution to stuff it because they wanted him to stop doing things that irritated one of their big advertisers. He said this is not journalism to me. Those are the things you have to watch. I think that's... That's what I say. Ratings and so on and, look, you look now and it says guess who's watching CNN and coverage of the war? And there's these little percentages and timetables. That's phony. People don't like that.

TERENCE SMITH: Senator, Reuters News Agency has caused something of a controversy in recent days by refusing... Its policy... refusing to refer to the people who perpetrated September 11th attacks as terrorists. They refer to them as hijackers or others. They argue that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. What do you think of that?

ALAN SIMPSON: I think they've had a serious overdose of political correctness and they ought to go gather up some new vapors somewhere. I think that's bizarre. But if that's what Reuters wants to do, but you have got to remember the American people here who have sons and daughters over there, who see in their brain every night the destruction of these two towers and who are dealing with human beings that are spouting rattlesnake convenient venom. I mean that's what we're dealing with. This isn't the Wanda Wallflower league. These are the most evil people... I always... I can't believe as I guess it's... You get too old. You get 70 years old and you remember World War I. We were told that loose lips sink ships. Didn't have anything to do with making journalists feeling lesser. It had to do with protection. It's protecting our people. You can't protect them when you have stupefying, bone-headed questions coming from journalists saying what are you using now in the bomb? Was anybody hurt over here? Let me tell you if we didn't have secrecy in World War II, you'd be speaking German.

TERENCE SMITH: What about the words terrorist or hijacker?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: I think we ought to worry less about that kind of terminology and know we've got to be willing to ask those questions. Ever since those loose lips sink ship days we have been narrowing the access. We can't afford to fail to ask questions.

ALAN SIMPSON: A narrowing of the access (laughing) --

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: -- whether or not routers is using the right terminology, we have definitely narrowed the access. Right now in Afghanistan is it is extremely hard, much harder than in the Gulf War, much harder than in Kosovo for our forces to be accompanied by the press. It is... We know that during the Gulf War, which was known as a briefing war itself that these kinds of constrictions meant that we would have smart bombs that weren't striking the right targets and the people would never be told. This is a dangerous thing when the thing we say is these are evil people over there, which clearly they are, I couldn't agree with you more, rattlesnake venom and all. They need to be reporting on this war.

ALAN SIMPSON: What do you want to do? Do you want journalists to go in with the commandos and the Special Forces and intrude on their work? I was an old infantryman. You don't want some guy wandering around in the field of battle while you're doing& heavy lifting.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: They did wander around in Vietnam. They're not going to wander around here.

ALAN SIMPSON: Well, at least they wandered around with the troops.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: That's right.

ALAN SIMPSON: During Iraq we the peter Arnett being put to bed every night by the enemy government with clean sheets. He was reporting back to us. Who do you think the only instrument of the propaganda left was? Peter Arnett.

TERENCE SMITH: The issue Senator is is it important to have a record, an independent record of what happens and what the U.S. troops are doing in Afghanistan?

ALAN SIMPSON: It sure is if you want to do it the right way. And that's just mount up and have journalists going in with Special Forces. And no commander is going to allow that to take place, so if you want to sit and pout about that, I can't do anything about that.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Nobody wants to sit and pout. We need to be getting information.

ALAN SIMPSON: Then go get it, but the military will not allow you to go get it because it's too hazardous unless you want to kill some of your own. Maybe you want martyrs instead of reporters.

TERENCE SMITH: Thank you both very much. We're out of time.

GENEVA OVERHOLSER: Thank you, Terry.

UPDATE - MICROSOFT - THE SETTLEMENT

JIM LEHRER: Now an update on the long-running and far-reaching case of United States versus Microsoft. Gwen Ifill has that.

GWEN IFILL: At one point in this high-stakes legal battle, the breakup of giant Microsoft seemed a real possibility. But that was two years, one administration, and several courtrooms ago. On Friday, the Justice Department and Microsoft announced a settlement. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates spoke in separate news conferences.

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General: The proposed settlement puts in place enforcement measures that will require Microsoft to disclose internal operating system interfaces and protocols. These disclosures, in turn, will create opportunities for independent software vendors to develop products that will be competitive with Microsoft's products. The settlement also gives computer manufacturers flexibility to connect-- pardon me-- to contract freely with competing software developers and to place on Microsoft's operating system their middleware products, such as browsers, instant messaging software, and media players. Additionally, computer manufacturers and software developers will be free to do business with Microsoft's competitors without fear of retaliation. This settlement is the right result for consumers and for businesses, the right result for the economy, and the right result for government.

BILL GATES, Chairman, Microsoft: We have said for some time that we would go the extra mile to resolve this case. That is exactly what we did in reaching this settlement. This agreement contains significant rules and regulations on how we develop and license our software, but it allows Microsoft to keep innovating on behalf of consumers. It goes beyond the court of appeals' decision in some areas, and provides for ongoing oversight by an independent committee. We are resolved to implementing this settlement promptly and fully, and we will put all the necessary resources in place to ensure this.

GWEN IFILL: But today, half of the 18 states who joined the original suit against Microsoft balked at accepting the Justice Department's settlement terms. Attorney General Tom Reilly of Massachusetts, one of the states opposing the settlement, told reporters: "There is no question in my mind that five minutes after any agreement has been signed with Microsoft they will be looking for ways to violate that agreement. That is their nature. That is what they have been doing throughout. That's why we're in court." So for now, the case continues on two separate tracks: One leading toward a court-approved settlement, the other toward trial. Here to discuss the latest developments are two law professors: George Priest, of Yale University, and Andrew Gavil, of Howard University. Professor Gavil, how does this settlement work and will this settlement work and what does it do?

ANDREW GAVIL: Well, the settlement settles charges that were brought by the federal government in May of 1998 against Microsoft. It is a process. It actually begins a process under a law called the Tunney Act, a Nixon era law that requires court approval of government settlements of Microsoft type antitrust cases. So there's now a 60-day period in which the court will receive comments from the public, from competitors, rivals, perhaps even from some of the states that have refused to go along with the settlement. At the end of that period, the court is required to determine whether or not the settlement is in the public interest. While that's going on, the states who have refused to go along with the settlement, they will continue pursuing litigation -- in essence, given the court of appeal's affirmance of the district court's finding of liability against Microsoft, the question of remedy now has to be decided. So on these parallel tracks we'll have hearings perhaps on the efficacy of the settlement, but we'll also have a period in which evidence is gathered, and then eventually hearings, which will require the judge to determine what the remedy should be, given the violations.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Priest, is this a good settlement?

GEORGE PRIEST: Well, I think it's a good settlement overall. The settlement basically tracks the ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in June. In fact it goes substantially beyond it. It requires Microsoft to disclose interfaces. It requires Microsoft to publish communications protocols that will make it easier for Microsoft's competitors, far more than could be possible before. Furthermore it vastly enhances enforcement by creating a technical committee that will full-time review everything that Microsoft does. I think that since it goes substantially beyond what the court of appeals ruled that it's surely in the public interest, I think any complaints about it can't be with the settlement agreement itself and can't be with the Justice Department. It has to be with the court of appeals. The court of appeals ruled the states and the government won some things. The settlement agreement vindicates those various issues. It didn't win everything. They didn't win everything. What they're complaining about is what they lost at the court of appeals.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Gavil, what are the complaints?

ANDREW GAVIL: The complaints are serious. First of all, the complaints go to the scope of the agreement itself. The settlement agreement is no broader. In fact, it's far more narrow than prior consent decrees with Microsoft. If you put today's settlement developments in the context of the litigation, that litigation has been going on for over seven years. The government entered into a consent decree with Microsoft in 1994. They then had to litigate that decree because it proved to be ineffective. They then had to bring another lawsuit because the decree that had been entered proved to be unable to control Microsoft's conduct. That decision resulted in an affirmance by the court of appeals in large part that Microsoft had in fact monopolized. It violated federal antitrust laws. To come full circle at this point to a settlement that is no larger in scope than the original settlement is problematic. The second problem with it, it is riddled with loopholes, ambiguous terms, unclear terms. In essence it invites further litigation. Professor Priest refers to the technical committee. The technical committee is a totally non-authoritative body of three software experts who have no ability at all to impose any sanction on Microsoft if it fails to adhere to the agreement. The penultimate authority they have is to inform the government and Microsoft that they think there's been a violation. Ultimately this will wind up back in court for years to come, which means no real remedy.

GWEN IFILL: You say there is no remedy at all. Professor Priest....

ANDREW GAVIL: I wouldn't say there's no remedy at all, no. There are the core aspects of some remedy, but it is unlikely to prove to be very effective in curing the competitive problem that was created by Microsoft's conduct.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Priest, is this the best that the government could have hoped to get?

GEORGE PRIEST: But I think it is because the court of appeals ruled, again, that the government and the states did not win every argument before the court of appeals. What the court of appeals found Microsoft to be guilty of doing, this settlement agreement propose hints them from them from doing. Microsoft has agreed not to engage in those practices before. Furthermore I think with all respect that Professor Gavil is underestimating the impact of this technical committee. Basically this technical committee will be three staff people that constantly on alert for the Justice Department watching everything that Microsoft does. That's a far different situation than was true of any consent decree involving Microsoft; indeed it's far more rigorous than any consent decree I've ever heard of in the antitrust field.

GWEN IFILL: Some of the complaints that you alluded to before come from at least three states who feel very strongly that this is not a satisfactory arrangement. What is left for people who believe this has not gone far enough? What is left for them? What is the option?

GEORGE PRIEST: Well, I don't think there's much left for them to be frank about it. I think ultimately these states are going to see that they don't really have a legal basis to proceed. And so they will have to join the agreement. Basically as Professor Gavil pointed out, they're going to engage in discovery with regard to remedies. When they talk about litigating they're not going to retry the case. None of the claims they lost are going to be relitigated. It's simply a question of what the appropriate remedies are. Since the remedies in this settlement agreement track so closely what the court of appeals ruled to be illegal, I don't see how they can go any farther with that litigation or with that hearing than what has been achieved in the settlement agreement. In fact, I think they would get less by proceeding simply under a strict reading of the court of appeals' opinion than what this settlement agreement provides.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Gavil, the top antitrust lawyer at the Justice Department had indicated some time ago that he was interested in reaching a settlement. Do you think that because of that direction that this Justice Department was heading in that this kind of outcome was inevitable?

ANDREW GAVIL: In a sense it probably was inevitable. I think that the change of administration clearly affected the course of the case. It seems very unlikely that this kind of settlement would have been agreed to by the prior Justice Department, given how they viewed the case. That's not to question the good faith however of the new administration. I think there really are differences of opinion and very strong differences of opinion about the scope of the antitrust laws and the scope of remedies and the degree to which government should be involved in regulating private conduct. And I think what Microsoft has found in the new administration is common ground in viewing how extensive that degree of regulation should be. They didn't have that degree of common ground with the prior administration.

GWEN IFILL: And you say that they found loopholes as well? Did Microsoft outmaneuver the government on this?

ANDREW GAVIL: I wouldn't say that the government was outmaneuvered. I really think they knew exactly what they were entering into. And in part that's what makes it even a greater source of concern. It doesn't appear to be an agreement that... behind which there was a serious intention of seeing a change in competitive conditions.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Priest, now what are the choices for the judge in this case? She can decide to pursue some sort of remedy with the trial phase, with the continuing... The still unhappy states, and she can also continue to decide whether she will accept a settlement, is that correct?

GEORGE PRIEST: Well it's not clear how the timing is going to work here. From what the original outline is, it appears that the judge will have the hearing... What is called the Tunney Act hearing on the settlement maybe even before she has the hearing or holds the hearing on the complaints by the states, assuming the states don't eventually sign on as I think they will. So her first judgment will be, is this settlement agreement in the public interest? Again because it so closely tracks the court of appeals I think that's an easy case. It certainly is. Then the question is, is there something more that goes beyond... Vindicates further public interest that the states can show? I don't think they really have much of a shot of showing that there's much more here. I disagree with Professor Gavil. I don't think this had anything to do with the administration. It had to do with the court of appeals. The court of appeals' opinion is extraordinarily clear, crystal clear, as to what Microsoft's actions were illegal and which were not and which claims could go forward and which could not. This settlement agreement simply vindicates exactly what the court of appeals said but as I mentioned earlier adds a lot more to it that is going to make it a lot harder on Microsoft.

GWEN IFILL: This settlement agreement will change the behavior of Microsoft?

GEORGE PRIEST: It will change the behavior in the way the court found the behavior to be illegal. The court of appeals found exclusive dealing contracts, retaliation, not allowing manufacturers to reconfigure the first screen, not allowing consumers to delete applications if they wanted to. Those were basically the actions of Microsoft or the practices of Microsoft that the court of appeals found to be illegal. This settlement agreement prohibits all of those. It goes beyond as I say. That's what the court of appeals found, nothing else.

GWEN IFILL: Professor Gavil, quickly, will this affect the rest of the industry as well?

ANDREW GAVIL: It clearly will affect the industry but it's unclear how much it will affect the industry. It's as if there was a company that engaged in activity that excluded other products from the shelves of a grocery store, is found to have done that unlawfully, violated the antitrust laws. At the end of the day what they're told to do is not repeat the same conduct. That's not the same as facilitating the reentry of other products on to the shelves.

GWEN IFILL: All right. Thank you very much for joining us, both of you.

FINALLY - CLOSING THOUGHTS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some closing thoughts about the post- September 11 world, from NewsHour regular and former poet laureate of the United States, Robert Pinsky.

ROBERT PINSKY, Poet Laureate: In these times, we're encouraged to be cautious, but not frightened; to be courageous, but not foolhardy; to be steadfast, but not stubborn. In other words, the wisdom seems to be take the prudent middle ground in our actions and in how we deal with our emotions. Can anyone make poetry out of the middle way? Can anyone be lyrical about moderation? Yes, the ancient Roman poet Horace. Here's one of Horace's poems as translated by David Ferry:

"To Lycaeneus, you'll do better, Lycaeneus not to spend your life venturing too far out on the dangerous waters, or else for fear of storms, staying too close in to the dangerous rocky shoreline. That man does best who chooses the middle way so he doesn't end up living under a roof that's going to ruin, or in some gorgeous mansion everyone envies. The tallest pine shakes most in a windstorm; the loftiest tower falls down with the loudest crash; the lightning bolt heads straight for the mountaintop. Always expect reversals. Be hopeful in trouble; be worried when things go well. That's how it is for the man whose heart is ready for anything. It's true that Jupiter brings on the hard winters. It's also true that Jupiter takes them away. If things are bad right now, they won't always be. Apollo isn't always drawing his bow. There are times when he takes up his lyre and plays and awakens the music sleeping upon the strings. Be resolute when things are going against you, but shorten sail when the fair wind blows too strong."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day: Afghan opposition forces claimed their first significant advance, near a key northern city. The FBI concluded a threat against major bridges in the West was not credible after all. And the Federal Reserve cut a key interest rate to 2%, the lowest it's been since 1961. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, when, one month after the start of the military campaign in Afghanistan, we'll have a special extended interview with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.