The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Excerpts from last night's Republican presidential debate in Iowa, plus analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot; a debate over the handling of the case against Wen Ho Lee, the fired Los Alamos scientist; and a discussion among Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Haynes Johnson, and Richard Brookhiser about George Washington, who died 200 years ago today. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. handover of the Panama Canal was marked today at a symbolic event in Panama City. The official transfer happens December 31. Former President Jimmy Carter represented the United States. In 1977 he signed treaties to give control of the waterway to Panama. Today he said a new relationship has started between Panama and the U.S..

JIMMY CARTER: We must pride ourselves on part of the United States of America to be a full partner, a harmonious partner, an equal partner in answering any request that come from Panama to make the operations of the canal now even greater in the next millennium.

JIM LEHRER: Israeli Prime Minister Barak departed today for Israeli-Syrian peace talks in Washington. He's scheduled to meet with Syria's foreign minister tomorrow to resume negotiations that stalled in 1996. Before leaving, he met with Jewish settlers from the disputed Golan Heights. They warned him against forcing them from their homes. He promised not to endanger Israeli security. In Chechnya today, Russian forces fought with Chechen rebels on the eastern edge of the capital Grozny. Artillery pounded the city as residents tried to flee, but thousands remained trapped. China has again denied that it tried to steal U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. The Chinese foreign ministry said today such claims are lies. On Friday, fired scientist Wen Ho Lee was charged with violating security at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab. The indictment said he meant to pass secrets to a foreign nation, but did not name China or any particular country. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. The U.S. put Afghanistan's ruling militia on notice today. It said it would hold the Taliban responsible for any terror attacks by Osama bin Laden's group. He's been living in Afghanistan. White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart commented on the warning.

JOE LOCKHART: We just wanted to make sure that their support and harboring of the Bin Laden organization was noted here in the United States. I can tell you that recently there were some suspects arrested and that we believe that they belong to the Bin Laden organization and were planning terrorist acts. But, beyond that, I can't go into any more detail.

JIM LEHRER: Those arrests led the State Department to issue a weekend caution to Americans traveling abroad. U.S. officials believe Bin Laden plotted the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa last year. The six Republican presidential candidates mixed it up last night in Iowa. Texas Governor George W. Bush and Senator John McCain clashed more than they had in previous meetings. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. There were new findings today on the most commonly diagnosed disorder in children, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Researchers said using drugs and therapy together may be the best way to treat it, but medication alone is better than counseling alone. About 3 to 5 percent of school-age children have ADHD. It causes impulsive behavior and trouble with concentration. The studies were done by the National Institute of Mental Health and Columbia University. Peanuts is retiring. The comic strip's creator, Charles Schulz, made that announcement today. He said it will come to an end at the beginning of the new year. Schulz is 77 years old and was recently diagnosed with colon cancer. Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, and the Peanuts gang made their debut nearly 50 years ago. They became part of the popular American culture, appearing in 2,600 newspapers, among other things. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Iowa debate, Shields & Gigot, the Wen Ho Lee secrets case, and some perspectives on George Washington.

FOCUS - IOWA DEBATE

JIM LEHRER: That Republican debate in Iowa, and to Gwen Ifill.

MODERATOR: Good evening from Des Moines.

GWEN IFILL: For the third time in only 11 days, the six Republican candidates met face to face, this time in a lively debate in which they devoted their energies to grilling each other.

MODERATOR: Governor Bush, you're directing your question to Senator McCain.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: You've been talking a lot about pork in Washington. I appreciate that. Here's my view: If you want to get rid of pork in Washington, stop feeding the hog. I have proposed a $450 billion- plus tax cut plan, which you called excessive. My question to you is, in reviewing your plan, that single mom with two children, making $40,000, gets no tax cut. And I'm wondering why.

SEN. JOHN McCain: Well, I think it's something that's worthy of consideration. But I also believe that if you raise the 15 percent tax bracket to singles or couples who make $70,000 a year, that would go a long way in that direction. It's funny you mentioned about pork, because really what the American people need is their money back. And they're not going to get it back until we get out of the hands of the special interests, these huge six- and seven-figure donations, the $100,000 checks, the $200,000 checks that have basically taken the government away from the people and put it into the hands of the special interests and has made all these young people so cynical and even alienated. I will tell you what. In all due respect to my friends here, you and I can stop that tonight - because we can commit, as nominees of the party, that we will have nothing to do with soft money, with these huge $100,000 checks. I hope you'll make that commitment right here tonight in Iowa.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: And I'll be glad to talk about it. (Applause)

MODERATOR: Do you want to talk about it any more right now, or do you want to wait? (Laughter and applause) We've got time, Governor.

GOV. GEORGE BUSH: I'd love to talk about it. Here's my worry with your plan. It's going to hurt the Republican party, john. And I'm worried for this reason.

SEN. JOHN McCain: Then how did Ronald Reagan...

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Let me...

SEN. JOHN McCain: How did Ronald Reagan get elected in 1980? There was no such thing as soft money then.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: May I finish? The Democrat Party is really the Democrat Party and the labor unions in America. There's a lot of laboring people who are Republicans and conservatives. And yet, under the vision you've got, or I guess you've got, or people in Washington have, it's okay that they just take their money and spend it the way they want to spend it. I don't think it's fair, and I think that's unilateral disarmament.

GWEN IFILL: Utah Senator Orrin Hatch also took aim at McCain, who has been gaining strength in New Hampshire, while scarcely campaigning in Iowa.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: John seems to think that every problem in America is going to be solved by the McCain-Feingold bill, an unconstitutional bill that basically penalizes Republicans. Have any of you ever wondered why all the Democrats support it and hardly any Republicans in the Congress? (Applause) Just think about it.

GWEN IFILL: Front-runner George W. Bush, criticized in past debates for seeming disengaged, promoted his tax cut plan and took aim at Democrats as well.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: It's important to cut the taxes, Tom. Otherwise government is going to spend it. And it's important to cut the taxes to keep the economy growing. The only way... the only way to get rid of the so-called surpluses in the short term is to put Al Gore or Bill Bradley as President of the United States, and they'll spend it all. (Cheers and applause)

GWEN IFILL: But for John McCain, the evening was a chance to stand out of the crowd, by attacking a program popular with Iowa farmers: Federal subsidies for the corn- based fuel, ethanol.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I am here to tell you that I want to tell you the things that you don't want to hear as well as the things you want to hear. And one of those is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. Those ethanol subsidies should be phased out, and everybody here on this stage, if it wasn't for the fact that Iowa was the first caucus state, would share my view that we don't need ethanol subsidies. It doesn't help anybody. (Applause, cheers and boos)

GWEN IFILL: None of the other candidates would follow Mr. McCain onto that limb.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I support ethanol because it's good for our air. It's good for the air. It's good for the quality of the air. It also reduces our dependency upon foreign oil. And if I become the President, I am going to spend money on research and development to find additional uses for agricultural products.

GWEN IFILL: But Bush was the favorite target last night, especially for candidate Gary Bauer.

GARY BAUER: I want to ask you a simple yes-or-no question: Will you commit tonight to having a pro- life running mate? I'm willing to say that Governor Christy Todd Whitman of New Jersey, the pro-abortion Republican governor, doesn't need to stick close to her phone. I won't be calling her to be my running mate. Are you willing to make a similar commitment for a pro- life running mate?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: I think it's incredibly presumptive for someone who's yet to earn his party's nomination to be picking vice presidents. I'll tell you what I will do. I'll name somebody who can be the President. That ought to be the main criterion for any one of us who has the opportunity to pick a vice president, Gary -- it's going to be, can that person serve as President of the United States? I'm also going to ask the question, will the person be loyal?

GWEN IFILL: Each of the candidates appeared to be competing for their share of the Christian conservative vote. Asked which philosopher-thinker he identified with, half of them mentioned the same individual.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Christ, because he changed my heart.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: I bear witness to Christ, too.

GARY BAUER: There is no figure in human history who through His life,His death, and resurrection, has changed the world for millions, billions, countless people.

GWEN IFILL: On foreign policy, the candidates talked about trade and America's role abroad.

ALAN KEYES: I have to draw a contrast here on the trade issue between myself and, I guess, everybody else who's sitting up here, because they're busy arguing about whether China should be in the World Trade Organization or out of the World Trade Organization. And I look at an organization that is unrepresentative, elected by no one, where dictators and tyrants have the same right to send representatives to make substantive decisions that the representatives of this free people have, making decisions that will affect our jobs and our livelihood in a fashion totally contrary to our Constitution.

STEVE FORBES: One of the great destructive forces in the world today, I think, is the International Monetary Fund and the disastrous prescriptions they give to countries, raising taxes, devaluing their money, wreaking havoc. Their prescriptions, along with our Treasury Department, have cost farmers $30 billion in agricultural exports. They've brought about a huge disaster in Mexico. Would you agree with me that the International Monetary Fund should go the political equivalent of Jurassic Park and we have true free enterprise, free market economic prescriptions for these countries instead of this unnecessary austerity and devastation?

GARY BAUER: We're being plagued by succors, by international bureaucrats, and the good taxpayers of this state are having their hard earned money to not only subsidize the politicians in Washington D.C., but a lot of bureaucrats in these international organizations that they can't touch through the election process.

GWEN IFILL: But the policy disagreements occasionally gave way to lighter-hearted digs as well.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Now, let me ask Steve a question, and I'm going to give you a home run ball, Steve.

STEVE FORBES: Look -- that usually means hold your wallet. (Laughter)

SEN. ORRIN HATCH: Steve, I couldn't even lift your wallet is all I can say. (Laughter and applause)

GWEN IFILL: Now, analysis of last night's debate from Shields and Gigot. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot, both on the campaign trail tonight checking in from Iowa and in South Carolina.

So, gentlemen, we've been longing for an engaged debate. Did we finally get it last night?

Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: I think so, Gwen. I don't think there's any question it was a lot more engaged, a lot more animated, George W. Bush, front runner, than we had seen in the first two events -- almost audible on the seismograph at Georgetown University was the sigh of relief among his supporters because they were mindful of -- and admitted afterwards and some even before, of his lackluster performance in the first two debates and the doubts that there were being expressed not within the campaign, but among those supporting him.

GWEN IFILL: Paul, what do you think? Are they finally in it?

PAUL GIGOT: Oh, he sure wins the most improved player award. No question about that. He had to do two things, I think. And he did pretty close on both of them. One was show more command to engage more to show more comfort, a greater comfort level. I didn't notice much of that famous smirk. He had a sober kind of demeanor. And he did that well, I think even McCain people -- I was covering John McCain down here, they can see that he improved his performance notably. The other thing he had to do was - I think -- show some contrast with John McCain on some issues. He tried to do that on taxes. And he tried to do that on campaign finance reform.

GWEN IFILL: Much abuzz about John McCain, Paul. Do you think that he fared best perhaps aside from George W. Bush who obviously had the most to prove?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I don't know if he fared best, I thought he did well, though. I mean, there's no question that he -- he's been doing well on all of these debates. And he showed the same command on foreign policy that he showed in all of the debates. And the one thing he did was appeal to independent voters, not in Iowa, where he's not running, but in New Hampshire with that ethanol answer -- going right at the ethanol subsidy. And it fits in with the persona he's trying to project in this campaign which is he's the independent guy, he's the outsider, he's the anti-Clinton, and in a Republican primary, running as a truth teller, running as somebody who they can look up to is really helping them.

GWEN IFILL: Mark, the Des Moines Register newspaper notes today that John McCain hasn't been in the state since April and that he only spent 12 hours there yesterday. Is there any chance at all that he can score at all in this - in the Iowa caucuses come next month?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, he's laying it very risky strategy, Gwen, and that is to ignore Iowa, which has historically been the first and coupled with New Hampshire the most important primaries and caucus states in the nation. He's going to leap frog that into New Hampshire - and Paul's right -- what did he last night was to repeal to voters in New Hampshire and beyond, but the last poll here showed that he had jump to third place behind George Bush, who has a big and comfortable lead here -- unlike his precarious position in New Hampshire in recent surveys and behind Steve Forbes, who I don't think had a good night last night, and I think he needed one badly. But as far as McCain was concerned, he did something I've only seen done - this is the third time in 32 years. Robert Kennedy did it in 1968, at the Indiana University Medical School when pushed by medical students, who is going to pay for this great society of yours as a presidential candidate he said, you are. And Fritz Hollings, the Senator from South Carolina, when he ran for President in 1984, went before the American Association of Retired Persons and called for a freeze on the cost of living increase of the Social Security recipients in the interest of their grandchildren. It really is - I have to say -

GWEN IFILL: Yes, Mark. But one forgets that Fritz Hollings ran for President.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. I know it. And Robert Kennedy didn't win either. But I would just point out it is so novel that it's refreshing.

GWEN IFILL: George W. Bush had planned, Paul, to stay above the fray. At least that's what he seemed to be doing in the previous debates. Now he seems to have abandoned that. Is that a good idea?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I think he had to, Gwen. I mean, he wanted to try to avoid making a mistake, to avoid engaging other people on the level where he could make a mistake. But the truth is he made a bigger one, which is he seemed aloof and too programmed in the first two debates. And what he had to do was come in and say, look, I'm going to fight here. I've got to mix it up, and I've got to show that I have some command over the issues and John McCain is giving him a run for his money in New Hampshire, certainly but they have to worry about beyond down here, so he had to go after McCain say, let's contrast on taxes. And I think that was smarton his part. My tax plan is better than yours -- he was essentially saying. And he was appealing to women, that working single mother; John McCain doesn't do as well right now in the internals of polls with women. So, that was part of the strategy too. I think it was smart on Bush's part.

GWEN IFILL: When we talk about Steve Forbes the fact that he may not have fared in the debate as he had to in some -- in your eyes, I think, what exactly -- we know that the Iowa Caucus benefits some credible organization. Do we actually think that John McCain has that? That's to you, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: I don't think John McCain has anything on the ground here in Iowa. They have no campaign, they have no phone number. You know, I think what he was hoping is that people saw him, were impressed by the fact that he dared to speak truth to conventional wisdom and power in this stage certainly on the ethanol question -- that he seemed different; that he had Governor Bush making the argument, campaign finance reform not on the basis of the First Amendment, but it was going to hurt Republicans. That was sort of a self-interest argument. And I think that maybe he appeals differently, if he if he finishes third, or were to, then the McCain people can claim this is a great victory he's only been in the state for 12 hours all year long. And I think that is it. But there's no question the Forbes organization is impressive, he's been getting very good crowds. That's why last night's performance was probably disappointing to his people. He's been getting very good crowds and enthusiastic crowds in his personal appearances here.

GWEN IFILL: Mark, it's just you and me for now, because we've lost the satellite signal from Paul in South Carolina, so I'm going to ask you about Alan Keyes. Last night at that debate he always seems to win the applause-o-meter and the Internet polls, dubious as they may be. Exactly what -- can he stand to have any impact on this race?

MARK SHIELDS: You know, I really don't know. I mean there's not a Keyes organization of any magnitude or -- that impresses one that gives a sense that there's some super structure or some structure underneath that campaign. He is always a compelling personal figure. And people walked out of the room saying, gee, I was impressed with a couple of people last night I talked to said they had gone in as Bush people, came out saying that they were inspired by Alan Keyes. I don't know where they go with their inspiration and how long it lasts.

GWEN IFILL: Paul, I gather you're back with us. Welcome back.

PAUL GIGOT: I'm back.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask you a little about religious references in last night's debate. There seemed to be much more emphasis on actually mentioning the two words, Jesus Christ, by at least three of the candidates when asked about - you know -- the greatest philosopher, thinker. That's unusual. We wouldn't have seen that some years ago.

PAUL GIGOT: No. It was unusual. And I think there's no question that the case of Governor Bush, while sincere, it was also a bit of calculation there. There's no question that he is trying to appeal to religious conservatives in Iowa, who are big component of the -- of the caucus electorate there and to try to minimize Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer's appeal to those voters. So, while sincere, I'm sure it was also something he thought out in advance.

GWEN IFILL: It was three debates in eleven days, I gather these candidates take a little break now until after the holidays. What do you expect to happen in the next big debate, Paul?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I don't know, I think it will be more of the same. I think you'll see the candidates as they go into even more of these, get even more comfortable and mix it up more. But I think the attention is going to focus more and more on the McCain/Bush exchange, because it's clear right now they both are emerging as having -- being well ahead of the others in the pack. And more and more they're going to have to contrast with one another and without appearing to be mean, go after one another.

GWEN IFILL: Mark, do you think that that's true, a two-man race for all intents and purposes?

MARK SHIELDS: I had one of the smartest politicians I know say that the next President's one of four people: Bill Bradley, Al Gore, George Bush, and John McCain. And I don't see evidence to quarrel with that. Now, Iowa surprised us a number of times, if Steve Forbes would have finished - and his people are very candid about this, Gwen. He has to finish within ten points of George W. Bush here in Iowa. If he were to do that, and say it was seven points behind, then he would get a big bump coming out of here going into New Hampshire with the Manchester Union leader editorial -- that maybe you scramble the Republican race there. But I have to say, right now that I think it is a Forbes -- I think it is a McCain/Bush race on the Republican side.

PAUL GIGOT: I disagree with that in this one sense, Mark. I think he has to be within five points or less, even maybe closer. Forbes has all of his marbles bet on Iowa.

GWEN IFILL: Okay. Thank you very much. Paul Gigot and Mark Shields, you guys travel safe.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The Wen Ho Lee case, and some words about George Washington.

UPDATE - TRACKING SECRETS

JIM LEHRER: The case against, and for, a former scientist at the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Lab. We start with some background from Betty Ann Bowser.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: On Friday, after months of allegations in the media and elsewhere, scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested and charged with mishandling classified nuclear weapons information at the Los Alamos labs. The government alleges Lee, while an employee at the lab, illegally transferred large amounts of classified information from a secure computer to another much less secure computer network. But the 59-count indictment against the Taiwan-born, naturalized American included no charges of passing information to a foreign power, something Lee has consistently said he never did.

WEN HO LEE: I never gave classified information to any unauthorized person, period. I am innocent.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Lee's lawyers say the scientist has been unfairly singled out by government investigators because of his ethnic background. Lee remains in custody in New Mexico. At a hearing on Monday, held in federal court in Albuquerque, government prosecutors urged he be held without bail. Lee pleaded innocent to all charges at that hearing. Lee is a former employee at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He has been under scrutiny for five years in connection with a government investigation to find out if China obtained the formula to build a miniaturized warhead by stealing secrets from the Los Alamos nuclear lab. The investigation became public last spring, when Department of Energy Secretary Bill Richardson removed Lee from his job - stating: "This kind of egregious security breach is absolutely unacceptable and we now have a strong barriers in place that will prevent these kinds of transfers." The case created a furor in Congress, and a special committee was created to investigate possible loss of nuclear secrets. China has consistently denied allegations of spying. Today a government spokesman made this statement in Beijing.

SPOKESMAN: (speaking through interpreter) I'd like to point out there are that some people in the United States are still clinging stubbornly to the Cold War mentality, and fabricate the lies on the so-called China theft of nuclear technology from the U.S. with ulterior motives, in an attempt to defame China and undermine China's relations. The facts have proven that the attempt will never succeed.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: A trial date for Lee has not been set. Meanwhile, his attorneys say they will appeal the denial of bond decision.

JIM LEHRER: For more on all of this, we go to Paul Moore, former FBI chief analyst for Chinese intelligence; and Nancy Choi, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. Miss Choi, you are critical of the way this case has been handled. State your criticism.

NANCY CHOI: Well, there have been reports in the news that the investigation of Dr. Lee was profiling, that he was targeted because of his ethnicity. And we feel that that is not -- that is a concern for us because it reflects not only on Dr. Lee, affects - but I think it also affects the Asians in the community as a whole and in particular, the Asian Pacific American scientists who are working in the labs presently.

JIM LEHRER: So, your position is that he would not have been targeted, he would not have been investigated had he not been a Chinese-American?

NANCY CHOI: Well, he was initially investigated for giving information about this W-88 warhead. And he's not being charged with that now. He's being charged with mishandling classified information. So, I think that, you know, it started out that he was investigated but he was the only person who was investigated for its W-88 warhead issue. And that hasn't come to pass, he's not being charged with espionage or anything really related to the warhead, he's being charged for mishandling classified information.

JIM LEHRER: But you think this would never have happened if he had been of some other ethnic group?

NANCY CHOI: I don't know enough about the facts. I just know that one of the senior intelligence officials who investigated this case had said that race was a major factor, that there were 13 other individuals who had access to the same information that Dr. Lee had, who had similar contacts that Dr. Lee had and that those people were not investigated.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Moore, what about that? That's been -- Miss Choi's charge has been made by others - racial profiling. Mr. Lee is the end result.

PAUL MOORE: There is racial profiling based on ethnic background. It's done by the Peoples Republic of China. It's the mainstay of their intelligence effort against the United States. They are committed and have been for as long as I've been looking at them, more than 20 years, to getting as much of their intelligence as they possibly can from Americans of Chinese ancestry. And what they do is they find a facility of interest they walk in and they look around and they say, nice facility, is there anybody here who is Chinese, ethnic Chinese? We see this over and over and over -- my whole career. Now the FBI comes along and it applies a profile, so do other agencies who do counter intelligence investigations -- they apply a profile, and the profile is based on Peoples Republic of China, PRC intelligence activities. So, the FBI is committed to following the PRC's intelligence program wherever it leads. If the PRC is greatly interested in the activities of Chinese-Americans, the FBI is greatly interested in the activities of the PRC as records Chinese-Americans.

JIM LEHRER: It had no choice then but to go after Mr. Lee rather than the other 12 along the lines of Miss Choi just outlined.

PAUL MOORE: That's right -- because of the quality of contact that was perceived with Lee. So the FBI -- we know that the Chinese, the PRC will come into a facility and they will be interested in any and all people who are of ethnic Chinese ancestry. So that means that that becomes a factoid, they're interested in everybody who is ethnic Chinese and that doesn't really help you so you see them being interested, if they were found somebody that they weren't interested in, that would be interesting. They're interesting in everybody who is ethnic Chinese. And so when we see their interest in the FBI we know why they're interested. He's ethnic Chinese. So the FBI immediately passes by that and they'll look for other things. What about the quality of this interest and what the FBI normally does, is they look at past cases where we know that there has been hanky-panky and we see whether there are instances of activity, which seem to parallel those other cases. When these pile up, then you say, ah ha, there is probably something going on here, but you have to bear in mind that the PRC has really got the U.S. over a barrel, because it has perfected a means of committing espionage against the United States - even nuclear espionage -- without leaving behind the evidence necessary for the U.S. to prosecute that espionage.

JIM LEHRER: I want to come back to that in a moment. But first, Miss Choi, what about that, I mean, it's China that is targeting. You heard what Mr. Moore just said.

NANCY CHOI: I mean, there's no question that the protection of the U.S. national of the nuclear secrets as a grave national security concern. But I also think that the United States has a Constitution, a bill of rights, history of discrimination - you know -- we try not to discriminate against people based on race and ethnicity. It makes it even more important for, I think, the people investigating espionage to be diligent in not using racial profiling in doing their investigation.

JIM LEHRER: What would be the alternative to what Mr. Moore just outlined? In other words, if they -- if the FBI was on a case where involved, say, China, looking for nuclear secrets and they traced their technique to talking to Chinese -- to ethnic Chinese, Chinese- Americans, what then should the FBI do under a desirable way that you would want?

NANCY CHOI: Well, I think that they should investigate everyone whose who has contacts, whether they're Asian or not, everyone who has contacts, everyone who might - you know -- be committing potential espionage I think that everyone should be treated fairly and - you know -- not selected based on their race. I think it's dangerous to make a generalization that all Chinese-Americans are - you know -- potential -- you have the potential to commit espionage.

JIM LEHRER: Is that the point you're making, Mr. Moore?

PAUL MOORE: No. It's exactly the opposite point. What is happening here is that the PRC has a program where they're trying to sell the idea to Chinese Americans that you should help the ancestral land. Let me in on a little secret here: Ethnic profiling does not work. Ethnic profiling doesn't work for the PRC, it doesn't work for the FBI. You cannot predict somebody's intelligence, somebody's espionage behavior based on his ethnic background. It flat out doesn't work. What you have here in the PRC is a sales program very much like junk mail -- where they have decided that instead of sending everything to a zip code and soliciting help from everybody in that zip code with their particular message, they're going to go to an ethnic community, the one they identify most strongly with. And they do this because they figure that however bad they are at some aspects of intelligence, the thing that they do absolutely the best is sell their message to ethnic Chinese. They don't care whether they only get one percent of the people responding positively to that message, one-half of one percent, doesn't matter to them because they're going to go after everybody that they possibly can.

JIM LEHRER: That makes sense to you, Ms. Choi?

NANCY CHOI: I mean, I still think that -- what about the non-Asian who approaches the Chinese, then you're keeping those people out of your investigation?

PAUL MOORE: The Chinese - non-Asian who approaches the Chinese that is almost the mythical non-Asian who approaches the Chinese in counter intelligence investigations, the Chinese normally will deflect people who approach them who are not of ethnic Chinese ancestry often to something like the U.S.-China People's Friendship Association. The Chinese are not very much interested except in certain military intelligence matters in dealing with people who are not ethnic Chinese who come forward and try to volunteer their services for them. It's one of the phenomena of Chinese intelligence practice.

JIM LEHRER: I want to come back to a point you made earlier, Mr. Moore, and that is you said essentially that dealing with the Chinese, they leave no footprints, they leave no evidence behind, does that speak to the question that Miss Choi raised at the beginning that all of these early reports was that Mr. Lee had committed espionage but yet he was not charged with that at all - all he was charged with violating some security regulations.

PAUL MOORE: Right. There is great misassumption in the land, and that is where there is espionage there must therefore be proof of espionage. And what the Chinese have done, as I mentioned before is they have come up with a way to commit this espionage without leaving the kind of proof that you need in order to conduct your prosecutions. I'm talking about money flowing into bank accounts, briefcases full of documents disappearing into planes carrying people overseas; meetings in the park, that can be surreptitiously videotaped by the FBI, and confronted -

JIM LEHRER: They don't do that? They don't do that?

PAUL MOORE: No. The Chinese, if they meet in the park they meet in the park in Shanghai 12,000 miles away from the FBI's ability to surveil them. So, the Chinese are committed to a philosophy of using exploiting natural contacts to further degree. So, if they find somebody who is authorized from a lab to talk to them about three things, and only three, the name of the game for Chinese intelligence is to get him to talk about a fourth thing or fifth thing. Now the problem for U.S. counterintelligence is, how do you conduct investigation if somebody to determine whether he actually told them a fourth thing off in a meeting room -

JIM LEHRER: Perfectly legal and appropriate?

PAUL MOORE: That's right, and how are you going to even know?

JIM LEHRER: Any comment on that?

NANCY CHOI: Well, I suspect that you have to train your scientists well...and that you know, I don't think that even if the Chinese government is engaging in racial profiling that does not mean that the United States necessarily has to do that, and I think because our country is based on the rights of individuals -- that it means that the government has to be even more diligent -- and not resorting to using racial profiling in its investigation.

JIM LEHRER: Another issue quickly before we go. Is the fact that Mr. Lee was identified in April as having been accused of doing something wrong and when he was arrested by federal agents last week, the cameras were there -- how does that happen, Mr. Moore, that somebody who is accused of a crime is accused of it in public long before he's technically or officially accused?

PAUL MOORE: Well, I think we have to thank you and other members of the news media for helping with that process of bringing this kind of information to light. But what's really happening here with this arrest last week is the U.S. cannot exist, the counter intelligence people cannot be legitimate if they do not have the remedy for espionage. So, now the U.S. in my opinion, this signals that the U.S. is fighting back. This is the situation quite similar to the Al Capone case where they couldn't him up for his racketeering activities, so they cast about and they found something else that they could get him for.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about the publicity on this case?

NANCY CHOI: Well, I think it's very -- I don't want to get into the merits of the individual case of Dr. Lee because we don't have enough information. But I think that it very much affects the Asian community. It reminds me of the internment of the Japanese Americans during World War II where 120 Japanese Americans were taken away from their homes and put in concentration camps here in the United States. And, individually there wasn't any indication that any particular individual who were interned had committed any kind of espionage. I think that this sort of broad brushes the whole Asian-American community as being disloyal. It questions the loyalty of the Asian-Pacific Americans and it feeds into that perpetual view of Asian-Americans as foreigners in this country.

JIM LEHRER: We have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

PAUL MOORE: Thank you.

FINALLY - MAN & MYTH

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some perspective on George Washington, who died 200 years ago today. Ray Suarez has that. (Fife and drums music playing)

RAY SUAREZ: In December of 1799, at age 67, General George Washington still was considered physically strong and in good health, much like the image portrayed today by actor Bill Sommerfield. George Washington already had dedicated eight years of his life to lead the Continental Army through the war for independence, and an additional eight years to guide the new nation as its first President. Now retired from public service for nearly three years, General Washington chose to spend most of his days at his beloved Virginia plantation along the Potomac River. The weather on Thursday, December 12, 1799, was a mix of light snow and sleet changing to rain. General Washington spent several hours on horseback supervising the farm work of his many slaves before returning to the house for dinner with wife Martha and his secretary, Tobias Lear. Christopher Sheels was the general's valet at the time, Eleanor Forbes was the housekeeper. An historical interpretation of their characters was provided by Dale Guy and Katie Pohlman.

"ELEANOR FORBES", The Housekeeper: And rain, quite wet. When he returned he knew only Mrs. Washington and Mr. Lear was joining him, so he did not change his clothes. He simply sat down to dine.

"CHRISTOPHER SHEELS," The Valet: Mr. Lear noticed the hair was wet and the snow about his coat, and made a suggestion to Master Washington to change. But Master Washington said, "my great coat has protected me."

RAY SUAREZ: The next day, the 13th, despite a sore throat, General Washington rode out again, down the slope of the hill towards the river, to mark some trees for removal.

"ELEANOR FORBES": A hoarseness was to his voice. And that evening, he was attempting to read aloud from the newspaper.

"CHRISTOPHER SHEELS": You should have heard him, sir. You are aware about the debates down in Richmond between Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe? He was trying to read about that, trying to laugh, and was having difficulty laughing. He finally passed the paper to, you recall, to Mr. Lear to continue.

"ELEANOR FORBES": Yes, and he continued for him.

RAY SUAREZ: By the morning of December 14, General Washington had developed a fever, his throat swollen, and barely able to speak.

"ELEANOR FORBES": Well, the next I know is that I was receiving word to bring the butter, molasses, and vinegar. Mr. Lear wanted to give it to the general to soothe his throat.

"CHRISTOPHER SHEELS": They did send for the best doctors, sir. Dr. Crake was sent for, oh, roughly about daylight. Mrs. Washington insisted on Dr. Brown being fetched from Port Tobacco, Maryland. Dr. Crake did arrive about the tenth hour.

"ELEANOR FORBES": And the bleedings began.

RAY SUAREZ: In an effort to relieve the swelling and rid his body of infection, doctors took a half pint of blood from the general, a process they would repeat three more times during the day, until a third of his blood had been removed.

"ELEANOR FORBES": But the general, he is an advocate of the bleeding, and he felt that it would be most beneficial. And even when Mrs. Washington is protesting, he is asking for more.

RAY SUAREZ: By late afternoon it became apparent to all in the room, including to the general himself, that he was dying. He sent wife Martha to retrieve two wills he had written, and instructed her to burn the older one.

"ELEANOR FORBES": He was so concerned about others that day. He made sure his accounts were paid. He made sure that all the details for his interment were understood. He asked Christopher to take a seat. He thanked he thanked Mr. Lear for helping to move him so he could breathe easier.

"CHRISTOPHER SHEELS": And thanked the doctors for their attention. And he finally said, "do not bother with me anymore. Let me die in peace."

RAY SUAREZ: Historical records place George Washington's time of death between 10:00 And 11:00 the night of December 14, 1799. His room at Mount Vernon and the bed where he died have remained virtually intact. Throughout the year, funeral tours have been conducted at Mount Vernon to commemorate the 200th anniversary of George Washington's death. This Saturday, exactly 200 years to the day, some 250 mourners dressed in 18th century attire will reenact the funeral of general Washington, including the procession to the old family crypt where general Washington's body was interred. The service will include a detailed replica of the coffin in which General Washington's body was carried by four uniformed soldiers. Dennis Pogue is associate director for preservation at Mount Vernon.

DENNIS POGUE: Washington was buried in a pretty elaborate coffin. It was three pieces: A lead liner on the inside, a mahogany coffin, and then an oak outer case. The oak outer case was also covered in black cloth. And those two coffins also had silver plates on them. The mahogany one basically told when hewas born and when he died. So they were pretty elaborate.

RAY SUAREZ: The remains of George and Martha Washington and other family members were placed in a larger tomb on the grounds of Mount Vernon in 1831. Following Washington's death, the nation went into a long period of mourning. This illustration, which appeared in newspapers six days later, reflects the glorified image many Americans held for their first President.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, four perspectives on the life and legacy of our George Washington. With us are NewsHour regulars presidential historians Doris Kearns Goodwin and Michael Beschloss, journalist and author Haynes Johnson. And joining them tonight is Richard Brookhiser, senior editor of National Review and author, "Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington." Richard Brookhiser, if you look at the signatures along the bottom of the Constitution, if you look at who was who in post revolutionary America, you had a pretty good leadership cast going there. Was America lucky that it got George Washington right then and had him for as long as it did?

RICHARD BROOKHISER: Well, the best indication that it was is that that leadership class felt it was lucky to have that. They recognized his preeminence among them -- some of them with envy, John Adams was admiring, but always envy us of the man that served as vice-president. But they knew they were lucky to have him. They knew they were lucky to have a man who not only won the war, and not only got the institutions of government under the Constitution up and running and presided over them -- but a man who after both jobs were done surrendered his power, retired, went back to private life without a second thought -- without any thought that any other option was open to him. He made limited government with liberty a working proposition.

RAY SUAREZ: Haynes Johnson you saw that last illustration in the taped piece -- the literal apotheosis of George Washington, lifting him up to the level of a god.

HAYNES JOHNSON: I loved it. All the angels taking him off, all these things -- that is the trouble with George Washington we have these pictures in our head that of this sort of sanctified figure, you know. He's a marble man, he's encased in marble. He's the figure on the dollar bill. He's the face on Mount Rushmore, but we don't know him. He was a big man, 6'3 1/2" tall. He could take acorns and crack them in his hands that way. He loved the outdoors, he loved to gamble. He loved to play cards. He loved to dance. I'd like -- it would have been interesting to seen him in action instead of all this, you say apotheosis, and all the myth making. The cherry tree that he cut down, I can't tell a lie -- or superhuman, he could can throw a silver dollar across the Arapahanic. We made him into a sort of a superman in a wig -- powdered wig. In fact he was a very interesting guy. And he was selfless, strong, poised, confident. We owe our country to him. I don't think there's any question about that.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Beschloss, wasn't George Washington a part character in his own myth making? He was hugely self conscious, understood that he was inventing the presidency.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely -- and also inventing the country. And everything he did was a precedent so that he knew, for instance, that if he seemed too humble that might diminish the power of the presidency or if he seemed too august, that might tempt later presidents to be kings. But he also had a little bit of a sense of humor. For instance, there's this contract that he wrote with his gardener 1787, in which he said to the gardener, I expect to you be sober with two exceptions: On Christmas you can get drunk for four days. Easter you can get drunk for two days. It's a little bit different from the image that he projected at the time, that contract was quiet. Another way that he knew -- showed that he knew that his actions would really set policy was at the time he died -- he was a slave owner, he owned hundreds of slaves, he left a will that set them free, and spoke in language that suggested that that slavery was an institution that he, by then, thought was wrong, hoped would end after he died.

RAY SUAREZ: And, Doris, I guess there was no shortage of advice he was getting on how to set the tone, how to -- what to call himself, how to dress.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Oh, that's right. Everything was a precedent. He said at one point I walk on untrodden ground -- even the title of what he was going to be called was up for issue. Jefferson wanted it to be Mr. President, because it was a republic we were creating. But Adams thought Mr. President had no dignity, there was no majesty, you could be a president of a garden club. Washington himself said, I think wanted his mightiness. Then there was some idea about His Excellency, the protector of liberty. But, finally of course, it becomes Mr. President. And then the question was, how available should he be to the public. So, at first there were levies every afternoon, people kept coming in and drinking his liquor and eating his food. He said, I can't deal with this. So they finally convinced him that you got to be open to the public. So again there's a compromise, a couple levies a week, but no refreshments as I understand it. How should he come to his inaugural? People didn't know. Should he be a king? Or is he a democratic king? There was a question, should he wear a suit of gold armor, should he come on gold horses? But finally he had, I think, I understand a brown suit with some gold threads in it. So all of this was creating precedence. And even more importantly how do you deal with Congress, do you veto their bills? How is your relationship with the American public? He had an internal dignity. He knew how to wield power but not to seem to want it. They said he swore but without gusto -- that he was smart, but he wasn't an intellectual. So he combined the democratic side of our nature and the kingly side at the same time.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Richard Brookhiser, at the end of his life, did he understand that the republic was secure? I mean, those first couple of years were pretty touch and go sometimes.

RICHARD BROOKHISER: Well, Thomas Jefferson said he was a man of gloomy apprehensions. And, he was, he had a lot to be gloomy about. Jefferson was one of the things he had to be gloomy about. You know, the American republic was not a sure thing, it was not an easy call. The political passions in the 1790s were far higher and far worse than anything in this decade. The level of party strife, as the party system developed, was worse than it's ever been with exception of the run up to the Civil War. The journalism of the period was far worse than it's ever been in American history. The high points were higher, you had the Federalist Papers appearing in the newspapers. But the low points were far lower. Journalists were simply, corrupt, lying scoundrels. Everyone assumed that that is what professional journalists were. So there were a lot of ways in which the experiment could have run on the rocks, a lot of opportunity for it not to work. There also began four months after his inauguration in1789, the Bastille falls. So, the French Revolution begins. Europe is sucked into a world war that lasts for 25 years, and there's great danger that America would be sucked into it, too. So, it was a fragile government in a dangerous world. And it's a great tribute to him that he was able to steer it through those difficulties for eight years.

RAY SUAREZ: At the end of George Washington's life, panel, are Americans something different, George Washington in his farewell address referred to his countrymen as, you Americans -- are they no longer just recycled British?

HAYNES JOHNSON: He thought himself as an American, although he was a British subject. He talked about the Americans when he went back into the woods with - to Braddock's war, and fighting the French and Indian War. So, there was a sense of Americans were a new people and he felt that way. I think in fact after the revolution, and what Richard just said very well, this country survived through a very shaky period and it was a new country, yes, a new people.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And I think if he came back today he'd be very grieved because his idea was, that Americans would be so thrilled that we had this new country, we had our independence -- that we'd be united, we'd feel enormous affection for our national government and the rest of our citizens. I think it would be very upsetting for him to see political parties caught in strife, the degree to which we're all very fractured. And I think that has a lot to do with the fact that especially young kids are not very interested in George Washington these days -- largely because he was a leader so different from the leaders of our own time.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, he advised against party. He also advised against entangling alliances, Doris.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Oh, I think his real fear about the foreign entangling alliances was that it would bring out domestic division at home. I mean, what he's really facing is Hamilton and Jefferson unable even to talk to one another at that point. He gives a talk to them. At one point he said, why can't you tolerate the views of one another? It must have pained him deeply to see these two people who had started the country with him at that point unable to deal with each other. For awhile he couldn't deal with Madison. His real worry was that Jefferson wanted us to get involved in France, that it would bring domestic division at home, and it's such a fragile country at that time. If these parties got aligned to one or another foreign power, it could be the end of our own experiment.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard, I'm sorry, we stepped on you, there.

RICHARD BROOKHISER: Sure. He also knew that the ultimate responsibility for the success of the republic after he goes, after he goes, after he leaves public life, after he dies, it has to be up to the American people themselves. In his first farewell address, which was the Circular to the States in 1783, when he surrendered his commission as commander in chief, a very striking sentence. He says if the people of the United States cannot be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own. It's kind of a shock, reading that is like going over a little speed bump. What he is saying is, I've done all I can but that's all I can do. The rest of it is going to be up to you people. What I am giving you is a pattern and I'm giving you an opportunity. Now take it from here.

HAYNES JOHNSON: What was interesting about Washington, he set examples, you know, he wouldn't take money when he was in the commander of the American forces in the revolution -- wouldn't accept a salary -- went broke with his own money. I mean, he set the example as we've said here, about how to lead the White House, not keep the power in your hands, turning it over to the people. And it was a very factional time, ridden with hatreds and jealousies and knifings and all of these things. So, it was a much tougher period.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, he also got to get on a horse and go be out in the head of his own army on his own soil.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Two horses were shot right from under him, bullets supposedly cut his uniform, didn't hit him. That's part of the myth-making, I guess. I don't know.

RICHARD BROOKHISER: Actually, he exposed himself to enemy fire in the French and Indian War, and then again in the Revolution, the Battle of Princeton. On of his aides when the first volley was fired, Colonel Fitzgerald he pulled his hat over his eyes because he expected to see the commander in chief cut to pieces and was gratified that he wasn't.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, 200 years ago today, the death of George Washington, thank you all, great conversation.

HAYNES JOHNSON: Thank you very much.

RICHARD BROOKHISER: Thanks.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: The U.S. handover of the Panama Canal was marked at a symbolic event in Panama City; Russian troops and Chechen rebels fought on the eastern edge of Grozny; and China again denied it tried to steal U.S. nuclear weapons secrets. We'll see you on line, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.