The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is away on a book and PBS station tour. On the NewsHour tonight, our summary of the news. Then, an update from Iraq on the latest surge in violence there. A newsmaker interview with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai. Flag Day at the Supreme Court, as it rules on the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit. A dialogue on religion and politics between former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and prominent Catholic scholar Michael Novak. And the Clintons return to the White House in person, and on canvas.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: A car bomb killed at least 13 people in Baghdad today, including one American. It followed another deadly bombing on Sunday, and the assassination of two senior officials in the interim government. We have a report on the latest attack, narrated by Lindsay Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Easy to identify: The kind of four wheel drive vehicle favored by foreign contract workers. The suicide bomber attacked a convoy of them right in the center of Baghdad at rush hour. The front of a nearby hostel was sheered off in the blast. They carefully carried out the living from the wreckage and then removed the dead. The crowds at the scene blamed the Americans for occupying Iraq, not the bombers who were killing so many Iraqis and foreigners alike yet the new Iraqi government is trying to assert itself.

IYAD ALLAWI: We deplore this terrorist act and vow to get the criminals to justice as soon as possible.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Iraqis are waiting to see what meaning all this has. Once again crowds gathered at Abu Ghraib, each person hoping that his or her son or father would be amongst the 600 to be released today.

GWEN IFILL: The International Red Cross said today that Iraq occupation formally ends on June 30. But the agency said Saddam Hussein, and others charged with crimes, should be held for trial. Several U.S. Military interrogators say they raised concerns about prisoner abuse in Iraq as far back as last November, according to a new report. Senior officers have said they knew nothing of the alleged abuse until January. But one of the interrogators told the New York Times, "We were reporting it long before this mess came out." Authorities in Saudi Arabia pressed their search today for a kidnapped American contractor. Paul Johnson worked for Lockheed-Martin. He was abducted Saturday in Riyadh. Hours earlier, militants shot and killed another U.S. contractor. A group that said it was part of al-Qaida that claimed responsibility in both cases. A native of Somalia is now charged with plotting to blow up a shopping mall in Columbus, Ohio. Nuradin Abdi was named in a new indictment today. It said he received weapons and military training in Ethiopia, and hatched the mall plot with other al-Qaida members. Abdi was arrested last November, and has been held since then on immigration violations. The U.S. Supreme Court today left the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, at least for now. A California atheist, Michael Newdow, claimed the phrase violates the separation of church and state. He sued his daughter's school district, but today, the court rejected his right to sue, because he does not have full custody. Later, both sides said they'd hoped for a decision on the pledge itself.

TERENCE CASSIDY: Obviously I think everyone would have liked to have settled the issue of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional once and for all and for all time for our country. But we'll take the standing issue and the win on standing.

MICHAEL NEWDOW: It's still unconstitutional to put in the middle of your Pledge of Allegiance purely sectarian religious dogma that people who disagree with are forced to confront when they want to merely pledge allegiance to their flag; that's unconstitutional. It will be ruled unconstitutional eventually.

GWEN IFILL: The Supreme Court has already ruled children cannot be required to say the pledge. We'll have more on today's ruling and its consequences later in the program. The president of Afghanistan pledged today to go ahead with elections in September in spite of continuing violence. Hamid Karzai told the "NewsHour" Taliban and al-Qaida elements will try to make elections difficult, but he said he hopes more NATO troops will arrive to provide security. We'll have that interview later in the program. The United Nations chief nuclear inspector sharply criticized program. Mohamed el Baradei said some of the information from Iran has been "changing and at times contradictory." He demanded Iranians give "full cooperation" to prove they're not building nuclear weapons. Iran denied it has been dragging its feet in the investigation. The cost of gasoline in the United States has dropped for the first time this year. The Lundberg Survey reported on Sunday the average price fell 6 and cents in the past three weeks, to $2.04 a gallon. The energy department reported even lower numbers today. It said the average price had dropped to $1.98 a gallon. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 75 points to close below 10,335. The NASDAQ fell more than 29 points to close just under 1970. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to an Iraq update; Afghan President Hamid Karzai; keeping "under God" in the pledge; bishops and ballots; and two new White House portraits.

FOCUS - DAYS OF VIOLENCE

GWEN IFILL: The latest violence in Iraq claims 13 lives. Ray Suarez talked earlier today with Jeffrey Gettleman of the "New York Times" in Baghdad.

RAY SUAREZ: Jeffrey Gettleman, welcome. Another bloody day in and around Baghdad. What have you learned about the identity of the victims and how the attacks were carried out?

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, we learned that the victims in today's bombing in Baghdad this morning were five foreign contractors. I think the breakdown is one American, two British, a French, and a Filipino. And they all were connected to General Electric, working on projects related to the power industry here. What happened this morning was I was in our bureau, which is about a mile away, and I heard this enormous explosion about 8:00 A.M. The traffic is really bad in Baghdad, so I took a translator with me and we went by foot -- sort of jogging through the streets to get to the scene of this attack. And when we arrived we saw three cars that had been really badly damaged. Some were flipped on their sides, some were completely burned, windshields smashed, the whole bit. We had been told by a bunch of witnesses there that as these contractors were driving through town in their four-wheel-drive vehicles, another truck came up driving the wrong way through traffic and rammed into them and caused this enormous explosion. But what was striking to me was sort of the scene afterwards that really gave the impression that this country is sort of slipping towards chaos. There's a number of Iraqi police there and a few American soldiers, but they didn't really do much after the bomb had gone off. And this huge crowd formed with this mob running towards the burned-out vehicles, and a bunch of guys jumped on top of one car and they started smashing it with poles. Some other people were kicking in the windshields. And then somebody came up with a quantity of kerosene and doused it on one of these cars and lit it on fire and there was this huge fireball in the middle of, like, a busy neighborhood in Baghdad during rush hour with policemen standing by and American soldiers there, and nobody was really taking control of the situation.

RAY SUAREZ: In some of your most recent articles, you've written of what you call a "growing tolerance for disorder." What did you mean by that? Is there a feeling that there is no ability on the part of these security forces to control these events?

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, I think preventing suicide attacks has always been really difficult. I mean, the thinking is if somebody is willing to give their life to pull off an attack, it's pretty hard to prevent them anywhere. So it's not so much preventing the attacks that seems to be different. What seems to be different is sort of the tolerance or the acceptance of these unruly scenes unfolding afterward. What really struck me today was the fact that none of the security forces were doing anything, and there was a lot of journalists there and a lot of TV cameramen there. And they're filming these scenes that sort of reinforce the idea or the image of Iraq as completely out of control, which is a destructive and discouraging image to be putting out to the Iraqi people right now. But we're at this sort of sensitive time because right now, the American officials have said that there's going to be a lot of attacks, that this transition that's going to happen on June 30, where they hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people, that's going to be a moment of sort of greatest danger where everybody is going to be tested. But at the same time, while they're sort of bracing for an increase in attacks, they're trying to give Iraqi security forces, who haven't been well tested or well trained, more authority. So we're sort of in between, you know, handing off the occupation and the Iraqis taking over, and it seems like the issue of control just isn't that clear.

RAY SUAREZ: The targets of these attacksappear to be foreigners in many of the cases, yet during these attacks many Iraqi die, and then the anger is directed at the U.S. rather than the people doing that. Am I reading this right?

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Yeah, you're reading it exactly right, and this has been going on since I've been here, since I got here in January where these terrorists or these insurgents attack foreign targets and usually they bring down many more Iraqis with them. The problem is that nobody can really prevent what's going on, and trying to communicate this to the people, they're frustrated. They see attack after attack, fireball after fireball, crater after crater, and they say "well, why can't you do something to stop this?" They're very angry at the foreigners, and they say this will continue until the foreigners leave Iraq. The problem is, even after the hand-over on June 30, there's going to be 140,000 troops here and there's going to be a number of contractors just like the guys who got killed today that are going to be here trying to rebuild the country's infrastructure. So it's not quite clear how the June 30 hand-over is really going to solve anything.

RAY SUAREZ: Today's attacks follow a weekend in which members of the new Iraqi government were assassinated. Tell us more about that.

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, that's part of the same campaign. We've been told that there's going to be more targeted assassinations, more bombings. We had a deputy foreign minister who was killed a couple days ago, and then yesterday, I think, an official with the ministry of education was shot down in the streets. And this has been going on... I did a story back in February about assassinations, and the numbers are overwhelming. I mean, people think there have been, you know, 500 to 1,000 professionals assassinated -- very deliberate, targeted killings; not something like this bombing, but actually looking for somebody, following them for a while, and then figuring out a time to strike. And it's frightening to people in the governing council-- or it was on the old governing council-- and in the new government because even though they're intensely protected by American soldiers and security forces, they're still well known people and quite vulnerable once they leave their offices or homes.

RAY SUAREZ: Does this have the effect of confining them to their homes or government buildings, making them much less a presence in the capital or the country at large?

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Well, I think everybody's really careful about sort of staying off the streets. I mean, both me as a foreign journalist and the people in the government and the American advisors, everybody's sort of very cautious about where they go, when they go, how they go. I was following Ambassador Bremer the other day. He's the top administrator in Iraq. And he had this intense security entourage just within the green zone, which is a heavily fortified area within Baghdad where the American administration is run out of. And he had, you know, dozens of security guards with him going from point "a" to "b", and a helicopter flying around with a guy leaning out the window pointing a gun down at the ground just within the green zone. So I think it's a real fear, and people are just hoping that no big terrorist attack happens before June 30 that would discourage this transition or this transfer of power from happening.

RAY SUAREZ: Jeffrey Gettleman of the "New York Times," thanks for being with us.

JEFFREY GETTLEMAN: Thanks a lot, Ray. Appreciate it.

NEWSMAKER

GWEN IFILL: Now, to our newsmaker interview with Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai.

Although the war in Iraq has continued to dominate U.S. Headlines, the war in Afghanistan has never quite ended. This weekend U.S. Marines there announced they have killed more than 80 insurgents during the last three weeks in southern Afghanistan. Last week, 11 Chinese road builders helping to improve the country's infrastructure were shot to death as they slept in their tents near Kanduz,120 miles north of Kabul. And earlier this month, five workers with Nobel Prize winning medical relief group Doctors Without Borders were killed apparently by Taliban fighters. That added to the total of 45 aide workers killed since the first of the year. U.S. casualties tees have continued to mount as the hunt continues for the remnant of the al-Qaida terror network. 125 U.S. troops have died since the Taliban was ousted in 2001. And it was also in Afghanistan where U.S. Army Ranger Pat Tillman, a former professional football player, was killed by friendly fire in April. Tillman was one of the 20,000 U.S. troops that remained in Afghanistan. Amid the instability in the security situation, the U.N. now says the country's long profitable drug trade, fed by the widespread growth of poppies has begun to boom once again. Afghanistan has received some recent international help. At an April conference in Berlin, donor nations promised the struggling nation $8.2 billion in aid over three years. Meanwhile, much delayed national elections are now scheduled for September, but only about 3.7 million of 10 million eligible voters have registered to cast ballots. Karzai who was selected two-and-a-half years ago by four tribal and ethnic groups has been meeting with leaders of the several of the nation's political faxes actions he defends but which his critics say could endanger democracy. President Karzai plans to address a joint meeting of Congress and meet with President Bush in Washington tomorrow. I spoke with him earlier today.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. President, welcome.

HAMID KARZAI: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: Let's start by talking about security in Afghanistan. How would you assess it now?

HAMID KARZAI: We expect this year, because of our elections, to have more of a security problem, we believe, as a result--before the elections for the Afghan Constitutional Assembly, that terrorists will try to increase attacks in Afghanistan in order to make elections difficult or in order to make a bit more trouble for us.

So we will have security incidents occurring in Afghanistan before the elections, but generally in the fight against terrorism, this war, this fight against the remnants of terrorism will go on for some time. It will not end this year. It will not end next year. We may have it for many years to come. So Afghanistan will continue to have security incidents as it builds its security institutions.

In the meantime we'll be building our national army, our national police, and other institutions that are necessary to fight terrorism and to bring an orderly government to Afghanistan and the rule of law.

GWEN IFILL: You know as well as anyone, because your personal security has been threatened, what that can reap on the ability to start a peaceful democratic process. Last week we saw the killings of the Chinese road workers in what we thought was a safe area of the country. Do you think that this represents a resurgence of the Taliban?

HAMID KARZAI: That incident I don't know yet. We are investigating it. We'll, we'll find out as to who committed that incident. This was a ghastly act against Afghanistan's reconstruction, and really killing people who come from a far off place to help Afghanistan.

The resurgence of the Taliban, no. The Taliban movement, the terrorism that was associated with them, they were, as I mentioned earlier, the ruling government in Afghanistan. They have been removed. They have been defeated. They are now hiding. They are seeking targets of opportunity. They are seeking soft targets, aid workers, reconstruction workers. They're not engaging militarily with us. They cannot do that.

So as far as terrorism or the Taliban, as the structure is concerned, it is gone. As far as they're concerned as elements or groups that seek targets of opportunity and hit and run things, they're still there. They will remain with us.

GWEN IFILL: Let me read to you something in this morning's Financial Times, the NATO top commander, NATO's top commander in Afghanistan, General Rick Hillier, was quoted as saying, "Perhaps some day Afghanistan will become self-sustaining, but there are speed bumps in the road. If they are not handled properly, they could derail the process of creating a state."

HAMID KARZAI: That's very true. That's very right. We have in Afghanistan achieved a lot, but we have significant difficulties as well. The difficulties are the poppies that are growing in Afghanistan. The difficulties are the continuation of, of the private militia forces in Afghanistan. These are two major obstacles that we have to remove alongside fighting terrorism. And poppies, the highest on the list because--

The poppy is the highest on the list because poppies are not only criminalizing the Afghan economy, destroying our agriculture, destroying lives, addicting people, but they are also going hand in hand with terrorism, with extremism and with warlords in Afghanistan. So we have to attack it.

But this cannot occur on our effort alone. We have to have the assistance of the international community on a sustained, regular, intensive basis in order for us to be able to attack this menace.

GWEN IFILL: The second thing you mentioned was the rise or the sustained--

HAMID KARZAI: No, the militia.

GWEN IFILL: --the private militia.

HAMID KARZAI: Yes, the continuation.

GWEN IFILL: Continuation.

HAMID KARZAI: The continuation of private militia is something that the Afghan people are really inaudible . It slows down our movement towards building a nation that has institutional order, that has democracy, that has the rule of law, that can collect taxes, that can pay for its own bread and butter.

Therefore, in order for us in Afghanistan to have a state that is free from terrorism, from drugs, we must attack all the three menaces that are--that can, that do, do enhance to make things difficult for us and for the region, for the world. So private militias have to go.

We have a problem in Afghanistan called the DDR, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. Through this program we are trying to take weapons away and those of them that want to be part of the national army, will be taken in, others to the police. Others will be taken in the civilian part of the economy.

GWEN IFILL: So far in that disarmament program only 6,000 of the 40,000 militia have been disarmed. Is that a success?

HAMID KARZAI I am personally not happy with the way the disarmament program has gone on, and the Afghan people are not happy, and they're pressuring us very, very hard, pressuring us very, very hard to accomplish what we have promised to them.

GWEN IFILL: Let's talk about politics Afghan style. In September you're supposed to have elections. They've been delayed before. Will they happen?

HAMID KARZAI: They--the elections delayed or postponed from June to September was not a delay that was related to security or any other matter. It was purely a technical delay because we were not ready with the registration of voters. We need voters to go to elections, and the voters were not registered.

Yesterday we had registered 3.7 million voters, and if this trend continues, by the time of the election we hope very much to have more than 6 million voters in Afghanistan. That should be good enough for us, a basis for--to go to elections.

Yes, I'm very much looking forward to the elections. The Afghan people are looking forward to the elections, and we will have it.

GWEN IFILL: Is it possible to have fair, free elections without security stability?

HAMID KARZAI: No, no. That's a very good question because it also reminds me of something that I forgot to tell you earlier.

GWEN IFILL: Okay.

HAMID KARZAI: The, the question of the removal of private militias is also very important for free, fair and just elections in Afghanistan so that the Afghan people can have the right to vote the way they want without coercion, without intimidation.

GWEN IFILL: So can that happen in time for September I guess?

HAMID KARZAI: Well, for that there are two other ways as well. One is the deployment of NATO forces which we hope will occur before, before the elections. The other is the deployment of the national army and the national police of Afghanistan to the extent possible in areas where we fear there is private militias or warlordism, to go and address it. But we will try both, and we will try other means as well to enable Afghanistan to vote freely.

GWEN IFILL: One of the most severe criticisms that have been lodged against you is your, your willingness to--I don't know if the word is negotiate or coalesce or meet with, at the very least, the warlords or representatives of many of the people who people felt brought Afghanistan down even pre-Taliban.

HAMID KARZAI: Yes, yes, that is the feeling in the people in Afghanistan. But a lot of the people that I speak to are part of that country, part of that establishment, and they were part of the whole process which was initiated by the international community.

And quite a few of them are, on the other hand, very respectable Afghans that were part of the Afghan resistance against the Soviets. They are part of the establishment. They are recognized persons in Afghanistan.

And after all, I'm the President of Afghanistan. I'm supposed to be talking to all Afghans. It is my job to take Afghanistan peacefully towards a better day. It is my job to take Afghanistan towards stability by enhancing it, by talking to people. What should I do? Not talk to them? Shun them away? Fight them? Is that my job, or is my job to create an environment whereby the Afghan people begin to talk to each other, whereby the Afghan people go to voting, go to elections by reaching compromises, by reaching agreements.

Aren't we beginning a democracy? Isn't democracy about talking?

GWEN IFILL: Is there any danger, however, that you will endanger your own credibility in these negotiations or these conversations?

HAMID KARZAI: You see, these gentlemen or these groups are the reality of Afghanistan, and our organization is as good as the people in it. You can't do without, without that. I have to talk to them.

But whether I will deviate from the path that we have taken, the path of reform, the path of the building of Afghanistan, the path of institution building, the path of ending corruption and warlordism, and drugs, and fight against terrorism, never.

I have a platform. That platform is for a secure, stable, prosperous, democratic Afghanistan. Now, whoever joins me in that platform for the future of the country the Afghan people will like. And those who do not join me will not be part of that platform regardless of who they are.

GWEN IFILL: You have been quoted as saying that corruption is a mirage, something you can't quite nail down. Is it a mirage or is it a roadblock to democracy?

HAMID KARZAI: The ability of Afghanistan to attack corruption is--has many sides. One is the weakness of the administrative system which by itself causes corruption. Second is the weakness of the judicial system which was also weakened by years of war. Third is the weakness to really grab someone, to find a fact.

I'm told sometimes that so-and-so is corrupt. And I say, "All right. How is he corrupt? Can I have an evidence? Can I--if I call him to my office and tell him, Mr. so-and-so, you are corrupt, can I tell him this is what you have done and this is what you've--what I have on you that you are corrupt, so get lost and I am going to dismiss you?"

Then we find out that we have no evidence. So when I say that it's a mirage it's because I cannot catch the person that's corrupt and tell him, "You are corrupt and you are fired." I'm trying to do that. Now we have began a number of institutional structures to address corruption. I've asked the intelligence, I've asked the attorney general, I've asked other to bring me even the slightest evidence against people that are corrupt, and I will not ask for more, and I will act on it. So let's see how, how this will work.

GWEN IFILL: Final question for you. You're here in Washington to meet with President Bush and to speak to a joint meeting of Congress. Do you bring to this task any concern that Afghanistan has become the forgotten war in the United States.

HAMID KARZAI: The United States has not forgotten Afghanistan, fortunately. There was a feeling as the war in Iraq was beginning that perhaps Afghanistan would be forgotten and we expected that we'd be forgotten. But after the operations in Iraq began we found out that, no, the United States remained focused on Afghanistan. Assistance to Afghanistan has actually increased in the past two years.

In the past year since Operation Iraq, Afghanistan's receiving close to $2.2 billion this year from the United States, and last year it received the same. And the United States has made commitments for the future as well. It has not reduced its attention to Afghanistan.

Whether we in Afghanistan require, need more attention, of course, we do. But the attention that we are receiving today is all right and Iraq has not affect it at all.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. President, thank you very much.

HAMID KARZAI: Thank you very much, ma'am. It's good to talk to you.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the Supreme Court and the Pledge of Allegiance; a catholic dialogue; and the new White House portraits. Margaret Warner has the Supreme Court story.

MARGARET WARNER: Both sides said they were disappointed in today's Supreme Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance because it sidestepped the question of whether the "under god" phrase is constitutional. Here to explain what the court did is Marcia Coyle of the "national law journal." Welcome back, Marcia. Well this was a long-awaited ruling. Briefly reminds us of the facts inthis case.

MARCIA COYLE: All right. Michael Newdow who is a lawyer as well as a doctor sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in California about two years ago because it had a policy requiring teachers to lead the students in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day. His daughter was an elementary school student in that school district. The school district and the Bush administration argued that he did not have a legal right to bring this suit and also argued that the Pledge of Allegiance, which Mr. Newdow said amounted to unconstitutional, religious indoctrination, was not a violation of the Constitution. It was a ceremony, an historical practice that simply recognized our nation's founding.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Newdow is an atheist, correct?

MARCIA COYLE: Yes, he is.

MARGARET WARNER: It's worth noting that only eight of the nine justices participated in this decision, in these different opinions. Justice Scalia did not. Why not?

MARCIA COYLE: That's correct. Well, Justice Scalia had made comments during a speech in Virginia about the ninth circuit ruling and Mr. Newdow's position in the case. So he basically criticized the ninth circuit's ruling which struck down the school district's policy on the pledge here. That amounted to a conflict of interest. He was asked to recuse himself by Mr. Newdow and he did.

MARGARET WARNER: So all eight justices agreed to set aside the ninth circuit ruling, all eight of them did but for very different reasons. Five of them did it saying Mr. Newdow just didn't have standing. Explain what that concept is legally and how it applied in this case.

MARCIA COYLE: All right. Standing was really... has always been the 800-pound gorilla in this case. Our judges, our federal judges are not elected; they're not representative of the people. They have lifetime tenure so there have to be some checks on the power that they use in deciding cases. One of those checks or limits is in the Constitution, Article 3 says that our judges have to decide only cases in controversies. For example, if you sue, you have to have been injured and the court has to have a remedy for that particular injury. Then there's another kind of standing that figured in this case today. It's called prudential standing. And that's basically, for example, a court may decide generally that you cannot sue to vindicate the rights of third parties. Prudential standing was the main question in Mr. Newdow's suit.

MARGARET WARNER: And it involved the status of his custody of his daughter.

MARCIA COYLE: It did. This case came up during a custody battle between Mr. Newdow and his daughter's mother whom he was not married to. And throughout the case, there was a question of how much custody did Mr. Newdow really have. There was a California court order that said that he shared custody of his daughter but the mother had the legal authority to make ultimate decisions about her daughter's education.

MARGARET WARNER: If these five justices - as you said -- this issue has been before the court -- the question of his custody. Why would they even agree to take the case if they were going to just dismiss it that he didn't have standing?

MARCIA COYLE: First of all the answer to the standing question was clear at the time the justices took the case. Also remember it only takes four justices to agree to hear a case. There may have well have been four justices including Justice Scalia who wanted to take this case.

MARGARET WARNER: So that takes us to the three justices, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas who felt otherwise, felt he did have standing and wanted to uphold the pledge. What was their argument?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, they basically addressed the merits question. Was this practice unconstitutional? They all approached it in different ways coming to the same conclusion that it was constitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist followed the bush administration's line that this is really ceremonial deism much like what we have on our coins "in God we trust." There's nothing in the establishment clause that prevents that. Justice O'Connor applied all the different tests that have... the Supreme Court has announced under the establishment clause and found also that this phrase does not violate the constitution. Interestingly, Justice Thomas said if the court were faithful in applying all of its establishment clause rulings, the pledge would fall. But he thinks the court's establishment clause jurisprudence is wrong and he called for a reworking of it.

MARGARET WARNER: Can we infer anything about how the five justices who dismissed it on the standing issue feel?

MARCIA COYLE: This is speculation obviously, but I think it was clear that in this case there were three justices who would uphold the pledge. They were unable to get two more votes to get to the magic five. On the other side it was clear that there were not five votes to strike down the pledge. I think we know from the result that there were five votes to address the standing question. Going forward we know there are four justices who would uphold the pledge. The question is where is that magic fifth? It may not be that difficult to get. Based on the oral arguments some justices seemed to be leaning that way. We won't know until the next case.

MARGARET WARNER: Is there another case in the pipeline? It's been reported there are three cases coming from three different states so I think eventually the court may face it again.

MARGARET WARNER: Marcia, thanks so much.

MARCIA COYLE: You're welcome.

FOCUS - BISHOPS AND BALLOTS

GWEN IFILL: Catholic bishops from across the nation began a week-long retreat today in Englewood, Colorado. One key agenda item is a controversy over Catholic politicians, abortion, and the church's teachings. The political stakes in this debate could be high: The nation's 64 million Catholics account for about 27 percent of the electorate. We begin with this background report from Betty Ann Bowser.

FATHER BILL CARMODY: We can't just be Catholic in our homes and in our place of worship. We have to be Catholic when we vote.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: At a recent Mass in Colorado Springs, Father Bill Carmody told his parishioners not to vote for politicians who support abortion rights. His remarks came during a political season when several bishops around the country have said that Catholic politicians who support any form of abortion rights should not receive communion. Although no specific politicians were named, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry fits that description. So do seven Republicans and 79 Democrats in Congress. In May, one church leader went a step further. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs wrote in a pastoral letter than any Catholic who votes for an abortion rights politician should not receive communion. Some Catholics, like Rhonda Miller, have welcomed that statement.

RHONDA MILLER: What he said is, if you do anything such as vote for a candidate that is in direct opposition through supporting abortion or any of these other anti-life issues, then you've sinned yourself. And that is the teaching of our church.

RIC KETHCART: The person saying that to me is saying that I will go to hell and I cannot receive communion. Them's fighting words. And it's that that I object to.

RIC KETHCART: Here you go.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Businessman Ric Kethcart says he's against abortion, but in the past has voted for several Colorado Democrats who support abortion rights. Kethcart wrote a letter to Bishop Sheridan saying his statements were heavy- handed and reminiscent of the inquisition, when the church tried to pummel Catholics into correct thought. Kethcart also said if the bishop did not recant his statement, he would revoke a $100,000 pledge to the diocese.

RIC KETHCART: It's going to polarize people and create controversy-- unnecessary controversy-- within a church that's suffering right now to step away from its recent problems with pedophilia. My concern with this position is, it can create a schism itself that could really make it very difficult for the most supportive Catholics to remain supportive.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It's not just lay people who are upset by the bishop's position. Father Patrick Kennedy is a priest in the Denver diocese.

FATHER PATRICK KENNEDY: How can you use communion as a whipping stone? Never, Eucharistic theology never allowed to do that. But we have allowed ourselves to start using it as a threat, a club-- you know, "I'm holding this over you. You cannot go to communion unless you do what I tell you to do."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Father Kennedy says even though he supports the church's pro-life position, he will vote for John Kerry, because he thinks abortion is just one issue Catholics should consider when they vote.

FATHER PATRICK KENNEDY: What about somebody who votes against education programs for children? What about the inequities of the tax system? Is this not immoral?

SINGING MASS: Do this in memory of me.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Father Carmody says the life issue takes precedence over all others. He told his parishioners they cannot overlook a politician's stand on abortion just because that politician does other good things. Carmody said it was like the German people overlooking what Adolf Hitler was doing to Jews.

FATHER BILL CARMODY: Because before Hitler, I didn't have bread on my table. After Hitler, I had bread on my table. So they overlooked it. How many of us, when we vote, overlook the life issues because it puts bread on our table? And we need to understand Bishop Sheridan is telling us that the life issues are just like that. It trumps everything.

SPOKESPERSON: The body of Christ.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: An advocacy group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State thinks the Colorado Springs diocese has gone too far. It has asked the internal revenue service to investigate, saying Bishop Sheridan may have crossed the line into unlawful partisan politics.

GWEN IFILL: Now, a dialogue on this issue between two prominent Catholics, led by Jeffrey Brown.

JEFFREY BROWN: For Mario Cuomo, the challenge facing a Catholic public official is not a new one. He's been there before. During his years as governor of New York, Cuomo, who is personally opposed to abortion, was sharply criticized by church officials for supporting legalized abortion. For Michael Novak, the nexus of private belief in public responsibility has been a long- time area of study. Novak, a leading Catholic scholar, is author of 25 books and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The two joined us last week in the Mullen Library on the campus of Catholic University in Washington, D.C.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mario Cuomo, Michael Novak, welcome to you.

Mr.Novak, in our set-up report from Colorado, we heard a priest who asked, how can you use communion as a whipping post? What's the answer?

MICHAEL NOVAK: Well, there's no question of a whipping post. There is a question of a kind of truth in advertising, and it's hidden in the word "communion." Communion means communion with the Church; that means with its teaching. What's happened in America over the last 30 years is abortion has had a deeper and deeper hold in our life, distorting our politics and our culture. And the number of those, particularly of Catholics, who are supporters of... they might say they're personally for pro- life, but they're supporters of abortion, are growing in numbers. It's ten, it's 20, it's 30, it's 60. And so the bishops have to say something because the only point of being Catholic is to be faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and to the sacraments, and so just a kind of truthfulness requires them to say whether what politicians who do this are doing is right or is it not right?

JEFFREY BROWN: So, Governor Cuomo, for the Catholic lawmaker, to what extent is there freedom of conscience then in voting?

MARIO CUOMO: There's always total freedom of conscience. As a matter of fact, our religion teaches you have to follow your conscience. It's what is the well made conscience. And I agree with what Mike said as a description of one theory, but the question really is, are you in communion with your church if, for example, you're a Catholic who accepts the abortion teaching, as I did, and lived by it for say 50 years, which we have, but refuses to take the position that now I have to make the whole society of non-Catholics, non-believers, and even those Catholics who do not accept abortion; I have to impose the law upon them or attempt to. And if you do it, you had better do it about just war, which also takes life, the death penalty, which also takes life, care for poor and sick children, which also takes life. And if you do that, you're talking about a Catholic theocracy. If you tell people that, they'll never vote for a Catholic.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Novak, are you suggesting that the Catholic lawmaker, if he or she wants to remain Catholic and a lawmaker, does not have the kind of freedom of conscience that we're talking about?

MICHAEL NOVAK: Oh, sure. You have the freedom of conscience. If you disagree with the church there's nothing in the world that obliges you to stay in it. And even if you disagree on a relatively minor matter, that's perfectly acceptable. But abortion is a little bit different from most other issues because it's a deliberate taking of innocent human life and that may not be done under any circumstances. The pope has made that perfectly clear, and he's asked statesmen around the world to, if they are Catholic, if they are Christian, and if they are reasoning from the point of view of natural rights, this is not a matter of doctrine. There is nothing specifically Catholic in this doctrine. It's a matter of natural rights. If people are reasoning, that he's urging them to argue for that in public. Don't let the culture go by drift the other way -- just as we overcame slavery after many years, but by argument, and by dint of more and more people turning sides.

MARIO CUOMO: The Church didn't slavery in the 19th century because it wasn't prudential for them to do it, because it was a weak church. Number two, the argument that this is the taking of life, that's the Church's position at the moment. It wasn't always. It wasn't Saint Ambrose's, it wasn't Aquinas', it wasn't Augustine's. And it turns on this proposition that life begins at conception. This is very complex stuff. If you wanted to, you'd have to start as a church by saying, "let me explain this to you, we conclude that the whole world should believe life begins at conception." That means no woman under any circumstances can ever have an abortion, period, not even to save her own life. Incidentally, that is not a position that the Church has taken. That is not a position that any Republican president or Democratic president has ever taken. Nobody has ever tried a constitutional amendment. If the Church were really serious about this, it should be beating up every Republican and every Democrat stepping forward saying, "pass a constitutional amendment right now: Life begins at conception." And then you can't do stem cells and you can't ever have an abortion under any circumstances. Who takes that position?

MICHAEL NOVAK: In Catholic teaching there has always and everywhere been a conviction that abortion is wrong. But the argument always rests on what science has to teach you at a given time about how far back you can trace the human being. Science has answered a great deal. I believe the church is going to move with it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Pick up on the governor's other issue of the electability of Catholics. If non-Catholic voters believe that the Catholic politician is somehow bound by what the Church says...

MICHAEL NOVAK: There are a lot of doctors... I mean, I have a friend who is a pediatrician, and they advertise that they don't do abortions -- an obstetrician practice as well. And they... it just brings all kinds of people to them who want to be in that kind of environment. So I think with the politicians. If you're honest... look I'm not a politician. Mario can tell you this professionally better than I can. But if you're honest on your position and they like other things you do, they will respect you for it. They'll allow you to be different in this one. Most politicians have that. They have a couple issues where they're very strong. Not everybody agrees with them, but they say this guy is a straight shooter.

MARIO CUOMO: The best way for Catholics in my simple, humble opinion to teach people their religion is better than any body or belief they now have is to live it, to show it, to demonstrate it, to stop having abortions, to stop participating in unjust wars, to work the works of charity that Christ did, to have a liberal agenda-- not with a capital "l"-- for all the people who are in trouble, you know, just demonstrate to the whole society that you mean it when you say you're a Catholic and you believe in Jesus and you believe all he stood for. We're not doing that, and that's one of the big problems here, especially with abortion. We don't live up to our hopes, idea as to what's right about abortion. And unless you do, there's no point in trying to teach it to the rest of society.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Well, we couldn't teach anything if we followed that rule.

MARIO CUOMO: Well, then maybe we shouldn't be.

MICHAEL NOVAK: We're a pretty sad group, and the gospels are a judgment on all of us, and we till still have to be faithful to the full message of the gospel. Furthermore, the church that's really a problem here is the Democratic Party. Politically, it's become a matter you have to cow tow to if you want to be a national Democrat. Governor Casey found that out.

MARIO CUOMO: Excuse me. I think this is wrong. Don't you think the bishops should be talking to President Bush about unjust war?

MICHAEL NOVAK: Sure they should.

MARIO CUOMO: Excuse me. But Mike, they're not.

MICHAEL NOVAK: They did, and by the way, it's a different sort of issue, because the Catholic Church.

MARIO CUOMO: But they're not talking about any issues. There appears to be a total exemption of all republicans. Now I didn't raise the political issue, you did. There seems to be... Kerry, yes. But there are Republicans who take exactly the same position.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Bishops should be just as tough...

MARIO CUOMO: But who is going to tell them.

MICHAEL NOVAK: ...On Democrats or Republicans.

MARIO CUOMO: Who going to tell them?

MICHAEL NOVAK: Bishops should be bishops.

JEFFREY BROWN: This obviously is taking place amid a political season.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Sure.

JEFFREY BROWN: So what do you think might be the political impact of this debate over the role of Catholics?

MARIO CUOMO: I can give you the polls. 67 percent of the people said the bishops should be minding their own business, and shouldn't be trying to tell the people. Now that's 67 percent of the whole population. 61 percent of the Catholics said the bishops shouldn't be telling us. Let's not lose perspective: You're talking about a very small number of bishops who are doing this. The others overwhelmingly are not doing it. I'm with the ones who are not doing it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Novak.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Well, the bishops only have to face one election, and that's at judgment day. They have a responsibility. They have three responsibilities: To teach, to sanctify, and to oversee. That's all that they have to do, and that's what they're going to answer for. And it's a sad commentary on them as the polls that show what they do. But they can't be led by those. They have to teach what is right. I think there are a good many more than Mario is saying, and I think the numbers are going to grow, and the pope has already twice spoken on this with the universal church. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were yet another message on this subject.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mario Cuomo and Michael Novak, thank you very much for joining us.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Thanks.

MARIO CUOMO: Thanks.

MICHAEL NOVAK: Good to see you.

FOCUS - FAMILY PORTRAITS

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, Bill and Hillary Clinton met up at the White House today with George and Laura Bush, and they left behind lasting images. Kwame Holman has that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Considering a longstanding tradition, Former President Clinton and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to the White House today for the unveiling of their official portraits which will hang in the presidential residence. President Bush offered glowing remarks about each of the former White House occupants.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: As a candidate for any office, whether it be the state attorney general or the president, Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need and the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president. Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead, and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer.

KWAME HOLMAN: The president made special mention of Mrs. Clinton's achievements since leaving the White House.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: It takes an extraordinary person to campaign and win the United States Senate. She has proven herself more equal to the challenge. And she takes an interesting spot in American history today, for she is the only sitting senator whose portrait hangs in the White House.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Clintons then came forward each to unveil her and his own portrait. They were painted by a former sharecropper and the first African-American to paint a presidential portrait for the mansion. Mr. Clinton thanked the artist who was on hand and then President Bush.

BILL CLINTON: The president by his generous words to Hillary and me today has proved once again that in the end we are held together by this grand system of ours that permits us to debate and struggle and fight for what we believe is right, and because it's free, because it is the system of majority rule and minority rights, we're still around here after over 200 years. Most of the time we get it right. I'm honored to be a small part of it.

KWAME HOLMAN: The former president also reflected on the political climate in Washington.

BILL CLINTON: Most people I've known in this business-- Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals-- were good people and honest people and they did what they thought was right. I hope that I will live long enough to see American politics return to vigorous debates where we argue who is right and wrong not who is good and bad. My experience is most of the people I've known in this work are good people who love their country desperately. And I am profoundly grateful that for a brief period I had a chance to be one of them. Thank you very much.

KWAME HOLMAN: After ceremonies, the Bushes and Clintons attended a lunch together joined by members of the former and current administrations.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: A car bomb killed at least 13 people in Baghdad, including one American, and the United States Supreme Court ruled a California atheist has no legal standing to challenge the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and good night.