The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight an update from the hostage situation in Lima, Peru, a Jeffrey Kaye report on the Latino vote, the tapes of Richard Nixon as seen by John Ehrlichman, Tom Wicker, and Monica Crowley, and a David Gergen dialogue about the dangers of too much knowledge. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Israeli police today arrested a second soldier in connection with yesterday's shooting in the West Bank town of Hebron. He was charged with having known about the attack and failing to stop it. The gunman, himself, appeared before an Israeli magistrate and was ordered held for psychiatric observation. He told journalists he acted alone and wanted to block the pullout of Israeli forces from Hebron. We have a report by Robert Moore of Independent Television News.

ROBERT MOORE, ITN: In Hebron, itself, today security remains extremely high. It follows yesterday's indiscriminate shooting attack by an apparently deranged Israeli soldier. The vegetable market where it happened is open again, but the bitterness felt by Palestinian towards the militant Jewish settlers is still mounting. The armed settlers, in turn, say that in this hostile environment it is suicidal for the army to continue with its withdrawal plans which gives most of the city over to Yasser Arafat's security police. The attack yesterday, when a massacre was only prevented by the quick thinking of an officer who wrestled the gunman to the ground, has prompted an investigation in Israel. The army is now probing why a man with a history of psychiatric problems was issued with an assault rifle.

JIM LEHRER: Militant Palestinian groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have vowed to avenge the Hebron shooting. In Washington, a State Department spokesman warned Americans traveling in Israel and the West Bank of increased threats of terrorist attacks. At least nine people were killed and forty-four injured when a bomb exploded aboard a bus in Damascus, Syria. It happened on New Year's Eve, but the Syrian government did not make it public until today. The official announcement blamed the explosion on Israeli intelligence agents trying to derail the peace process. An official in Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's office called that allegation "sheer nonsense." No one has claimed responsibility for the bombing. And in downtown Washington today police found and detonated two letter bombs in the National Press Building. They were discovered at the offices of the Saudi Arabian newspaper "Al-Hayat." The building was partially evacuated after two more suspicious packages were found this afternoon. The press building is home to many news organizations. It is two blocks from the White House. Peruvian President Fujimori spoke publicly today only for the second time about the hostage crisis. In a speech to the Judiciary, he said the terrorist siege of the Japanese ambassador's residence at Lima would not upset the Peruvian economy. He said the Marxist rebels holding the embassy were bent on pointless violence. The terrorist still holds 74 hostages after 16 days. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. In this country today there was more flooding out West. In Reno, Nevada, seven inches of rain fell, damaging downtown and causing hundreds to evacuate homes and businesses. In California, rising waters on the Merced River closed three roads at Yosemite National Park, stranding almost 2500 visitors inside. More than 40 counties in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, and Nevada have been declared disaster areas. Bad weather has been blamed for 14 deaths since last week. Winter weatherhas also hit overseas. Ten days of bitter cold is blamed for at least 150 deaths in Europe. In Poland, 30 people died after temperatures dropped to minus 4 degrees. In Eastern France, ice up to four inches thick sealed canals, delayed high speed trains, and silenced the Strasbourg Cathedral bells. Officials feared they would shatter. Back in this country, the Food & Drug Administration has issued a warning about liquid synthetic drugs. It concerns drugs with names such as Orange FX Rush, Lemon FX Drop, and Cherry FX Bomb. About 50 people became ill after drinking them during a New Year's Eve concert in Los Angeles. The FDA is analyzing the liquid. The warning issued late yesterday said it can cause dizziness, nausea, shortness of breath, and respiratory arrest. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Peru hostage story, Latino voters, the Nixon tapes, and a David Gergen dialogue. UPDATE - HOSTAGE STANDOFF

JIM LEHRER: An update of the Peru hostage story is first tonight. Our coverage begins with this report by Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: The hostage crisis began on the night of December 17th, when about 20 armed Tupac Amaru guerrillas burst into the Japanese embassy in Lima during a party celebrating the emperor's birthday. At first there was some confusion over the number of hostages, but it turned out that the guerrillas had captured more than 500 top members of Peruvian society, ambassadors, cabinet members, generals, even President Fujimori's mother and other members of the president's immediate family. During the first 24 hours there appeared to be a real possibility of violence. The guerrillas threatened to execute some of the hostages if their demands were not met, and there were reports that Fujimori was inclined to use force to end the standoff before it escalated even further. But then the guerrillas backed off. Instead of executing hostages they began releasing them, women, including Fujimori's mother and sister, and older men first, then several of the ambassadors.

SPOKESMAN: Viva Peru. Viva Peru.

CHARLES KRAUSE: On December 22nd, the guerrillas released 225 hostages, among then six American diplomats and British diplomat Roger Church.

ROGER CHURCH, British Diplomat: The treatment during my time in captivity was--there was no threat--there was a threat in so much, of course, they were carrying arms, but at no time was anybody mistreated as far as I'm aware. I was on the second floor in the- -in the Japanese ambassador's residence. We were not allowed to move around. I was not allowed to go downstairs, but as far as all that, nobody was ill treated, they treated us as well as can be expected.

CHARLES KRAUSE: Throughout the crisis the Red Cross has delivered food and medicine to the compound, while Catholic bishop Juan Luis Cipriani has played an increasingly important role communicating between the guerrillas and the government. The Tupac Amarus are one of two guerrilla groups active in Peru over the past decade. And although the Fujimori guerrillas thought they'd been defeated, the embassy siege indicates they still have some support and armed capability.

DUNCAN GREEN, Latin American Analyst: They believe in the traditional ideas of guerrilla organizations in Latin America, that an armed group can seize power if it makes an alliance with lots of other groups like peasants and the poor in the shanty towns and that kind of thing. They believe basically in some kind of socialism.

CHARLES KRAUSE: So far, almost miraculously, no one has been killed since the siege began. Publicly, at least, there's been no sign of progress toward ending the standoff either. On Tuesday journalists were allowed inside the embassy for the first time. There, they heard guerrilla leader Nester Serpa Cartalini repeat his principal demand; that the government release some 300 Tupac Amaru prisoners being held in Peruvian jails. But Fujimori's government has already rejected that demand, leaving Serpa to say that he could see no immediate solution to the crisis. Yesterday, the guerrillas released seven more hostages, leaving a total of 74 still captive inside the embassy. Today, Fujimori responded by condemning the guerrillas for using violence but gave no hint of whether the government was now ready to negotiate an end to the current crisis.

JIM LEHRER: Now, for more on the current situation we go to a reporter on the scene, Jonathan Miller. He's been covering the story for National Public Radio and NBC Radio. I talked with him a short while ago.

JIM LEHRER: Jon Miller, welcome.

JONATHAN MILLER, Journalist: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Just in general terms, where do matters stand tonight on the possibility of a resolution of this?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, there's been little activity today at the compound, itself, but there has been some activity outside. We've heard from President Fujimori today, only the second time he's addressed the Peruvian public on how he wants to approach this. And he restated his position, a position that he's been stating all along, that he does not want to negotiate with these--with these rebels. He would be willing to talk if they lay down their arms, if they release the hostages, but for now, he's not willing to talk.

JIM LEHRER: And as long as he continues to have that position nothing's going to happen, is that your reading of it?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, things are certainly happening, and I think that what we've seen, this has been more than two weeks, and both sides have been expressing their positions over and over again, and the positions may not have changed much, but certainly the circumstances have changed. You've got fewer people in the residence by quite a lot, hundreds of people have been released. You've got sort of a series of people who have been tried as mediators and people who are developing roles in this drama. So it's hard to know what is going to contribute to resolution, but certainly things have been happening.

JIM LEHRER: From the rebel's point of view, is their position-- does it remain hard and fast on the idea that these 300 of their colleagues who are in prison must be released?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, Jim, there had been some hope, and people I think reading between the lines of some of the rebels' statements earlier, that they might be willing to accept something less than that, that they might be willing to accept, for example, the commitment on the part of the Peruvian government to improve prison conditions. On Tuesday, the rebel leader, Mr. Serpa, invited in a group of photo journalists and cameramen to have the sort of a strange, impromptu press conference. In that press conference he said, no, this is--I'm not going to accept anything less than what I've asked for, and that is that our comrades--three to four hundred people in the rebel movement who are in prison--be freed from jail.

JIM LEHRER: Now, reading between the lines or otherwise, is there--is it possible to ascertain what the government position is on the issue of improving prison conditions if there were some deal being made along those lines? Is the government willing to go along with that?

JONATHAN MILLER: The government has indicated publicly in the past, before this thing ever happened, that they were willing to look at prison conditions and at human rights conditions in the country. In fact, a couple of major prisons that have had political prisoners in them have been improved, not improved a lot, but have been improved. But it wouldn't be a very politically risky thing at all for the Peruvian government to make some sort of commitment to improving prison conditions. But what we've heard from President Fujimori is that he's not really willing to make trades for hostages. And so he's not, I think, inclined to make an offer and say, say if you folks let the hostages out, I'll promise to do this to improve the prison conditions or anything.

JIM LEHRER: What is your understanding about what the nature of negotiations are at this point? I mean, who's doing it, and are there--are there really serious negotiations underway?

JONATHAN MILLER: There are talks going on. There are people-- there's certainly communication. There's been some discussion of whether there were negotiations is the right word to use, whether contacts, talks, dialogue, all those words have been used-- negotiation is kind of out at the moment because clearly there's communication between the two sides but as for negotiation on substantive issues, what the rebels have demanded, what the government is willing to give, those sorts of things have apparently not been discussed. And interestingly, on Tuesday, when the rebel leader did invite these stunned journalists in to see the interior of the house and to talk with them about his position, he said as far as he was concerned, negotiations haven't started yet, that nothing has been discussed, and that, in fact, all the rebel- -all the hostage releases that we've seen so far were--he said-- his decision, unilateral decisions based on their own interests and not on dialogue.

JIM LEHRER: On these hostage releases, is there any pattern to them?

JONATHAN MILLER: It's hard to detect a pattern. I guess an overall pattern you could say would be that they're not the most important people, as far as the rebels are concerned. Actually, the names of the people who are released on any given day is, is anybody's guess. There have been a couple that have been released specifically for reasons. The Guatemalan ambassador, for example, was released in honor of Guatemala's coming to an agreement with the rebels there just prior to the signing of that treaty on Sunday. But others have been released in groups. It's a little bit hard to find a pattern of exactly why--certainly the people the rebels want in the house are still in the house.

JIM LEHRER: Who are some of the most important people still in there, Jon?

JONATHAN MILLER: It's an important group as far as the Peruvian government is concerned. They have the foreign minister, the minister of agriculture, the president of the supreme court, five congressmen. There's the president--President Alberto Fujimori's brother is in there. He has no position in the government, but he's obviously a family member. There are Japanese businessmen. There's the Japanese ambassador. There's the ambassador from Bolivia. And Bolivia is important to the Tupac Amaru group because there are some of their comrades in prison in Bolivia. So this is quite--quite a high-powered group still in.

JIM LEHRER: Finally, just in general atmospherics, I guess is the best way to put it, is there a heightened or reduced feeling that this thing is going to end peacefully, or with violence by either side?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, everything we've heard all along has been pro peace, has been in favor of a peaceful settlement. Now that's come from both the rebel side and from the government side and from all the hostages who have been released and from the people of Lima, the people of Peru. Everyone has been publicly saying that that is what they want. On the other hand, we heard from President Fujimori just the other day saying that he could not finally rule out a violent or a military solution to this thing because not until at least the hostage takers lay down their arms. He said the choice is really theirs. So while all the statements from President Fujimori on down have been in favor of both a rapid and a peaceful solution, the military solution is still hanging out there as a remote possibility.

JIM LEHRER: And the reporters who went in the other day and talked to the hostage takers, did they come back with any reading of the possibility of violence in their end of it?

JONATHAN MILLER: Well, one thing that people noted was that the rebels really are seriously armed, that they are carrying automatic weapons, they have back packs which apparently have explosives in them. They say they've mined the gardens in the back and in the front. They've mined the roof, so the rebels are serious about-- about protecting themselves. And that, I think, if not a suggestion that there may be violence, is at least a reminder that this is a very volatile situation. As far as the--as threats of violence, we had heard that right on the first day of this siege, that the rebels were going to begin killing people if they didn't start to get their demands, beginning with the foreign minister. We haven't heard that repeated since that--really that one time on the first day of the crisis.

JIM LEHRER: Does it still remain a possibility that this could go on for weeks, if not months?

JONATHAN MILLER: People were certainly hoping that--that things would wrap up a lot more quickly than they have already, and the mood here--and I think also based on analysis is that this could go on for an awful long time. Both sides have re-stated their position, and they've restated them again. They've said they are not going to budge; they're not going to talk; the government said it's not going to talk. The rebels have said they're not going to change their, their position, their demand. So it may, indeed, take some time to get through this. It's really hard to say what sort of an avenue there is at this point.

JIM LEHRER: And meanwhile, the Red Cross and other people continue to provide food, clothing, and other provisions, is that correct?

JONATHAN MILLER: That's right. In fact, here in Lima a lot of the discussion has been about the logistics of just keeping such a large group of people going in such a small space. It's getting easier as the hostages are released, but the Red Cross has played a very, very important role, the International Red Cross, in providing not just food and water and some basic sanitation facilities but even music and messages from families and trying to make things as comfortable as possible for the hostages inside. Interestingly, the rebels, themselves, have allowed this to happen. They control that house but they've allowed it to happen, saying that they're not out to hurt anybody. You know, this is--they're humanitarian--they're trying to redress social ills that, that need redressing, that need answering, and so they've allowed quite a bit of comfort to be given for these hostages, although it's certainly not a comfortable place in there.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Jon Miller, thank you very much for being with us.

JONATHAN MILLER: Thank you. FOCUS - LATINO POWER

JIM LEHRER: Now, the growing political clout of Hispanic Americans. Record numbers of Latinos voted in the last election, and their impact was felt nationally. Jeffrey Kaye of KCET-Los Angeles reports.

JEFFREY KAYE: Congratulatory receptions for victorious politicians are nothing new for Washington, but it was clear, even at the buffet table, that this post-election gathering was unusual. Tamales and frijoles, nachos and salsa--not typical fare in the Capitol's halls of power but the power has shifted.

REP. ESTEBAN TORRES: It's a new day for us.

JEFFREY KAYE: Los Angeles Congressman Esteban Torres welcomed newly-elected Latino officials from around the country. They were there for workshops organized by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, or NALEAO. Arturo Vargas, NALEAO's executive director, said the 1996 vote was momentous.

ARTURO VARGAS, National Association of Latino Officials: This is probably the most historic election for Latinos since we've been tracking the levels of participation of this community.

JEFFREY KAYE: There are approximately 5,000 elected Latino officials around the country. In November, a record number of Latinos voted and in states with high Latino populations they appear to have made a difference. Latino voters contributed to rare Democratic presidential victories in Florida and Arizona, and showed their clout in scores of congressional and legislative races.

ARTURO VARGAS: In California, for example, the fact that we went from 10 Latinos in the state assembly to 14 resulting in the election of the first Latino speaker of the assembly, I think that was a monumental achievement for Latinos across the country.

JEFFREY KAYE: The selection of Democrat Cruz Bustamente as speaker of the California assembly, the second most powerful elected official in California, had symbolic, as well as emotional, impact.

JOE BACA, [D] State Assemblyman: It's a proud moment for a lot of us. I cannot describe the feeling that I have inside of me to elect the first Latino speaker in the state of California.

JEFFREY KAYE: The surge in Latino voting is based in part on the increase in new Latino citizens. In recent years mass naturalization ceremonies have been held, largely as a result of the 1986 federal law which legalized about 3 million illegal immigrants. Voter registration drives targeted new citizens.

SPOKESPERSON: And have you ever been registered to vote?

JEFFREY KAYE: In the last four years, according to the Southwest Voter Research Institute, the number of Latinos registered to vote rose nationally by more than 1.4 million. That turned out to be good news for President Clinton and Democrats, in general. This year, Clinton received 71 percent of the Latino vote, up from 55 percent in 1992. In California, where Latinos accounted for 11 percent of the vote, the shift to the Democrats was symbolized by the heady victory of Loretta Sanchez. Sanchez unseated nine-term Republican Congressman Robert Dornan, a conservative firebrand known for his bombast.

ROBERT DORNAN: He is a world-class womanizer. He is a draft dodger.

JEFFREY KAYE: Loretta Sanchez.

JEFFREY KAYE: Just mention of her name brings glee to the face of Art Torres, chair of the California Democratic Party.

ART TORRES, Chair, California Democratic Party: Clearly, we had the help in 1996 of the Republican Party and their leadership. And we owe a letter of thanks to Pete Wilson and Newt Gingrich and all the Republican leaders who really put the Latino community in a very defensive position by creating fear, by creating animosity, by essentially removing any kind of welcome mat to America, and waking my community up to realize wait a minute, we know what's at stake here, we'd better participate.

ARTURO VARGAS: I think Republican efforts to get the Latino vote peaked in 88 and has been dwindling since then.

JEFFREY KAYE: And the reason for the dwindling is--

ARTURO VARGAS: I think the reason for the dwindling is that the Republican Party's policies have become much more anti-Latino and a little too strident in its rhetoric for the vast number of Latino voters.

JEFFREY KAYE: In 1994 in California, just as vast numbers of Latinos were joining the electorate, many were becoming politically galvanized by Proposition 187. That was the Republican-supported measure to cut benefits to illegal immigrants.

ARTURO VARGAS: What the Republican Party has also done is to turn the enemy in 1996 America as being the immigrant. And they've done that very effectively using broadcast media.

ANNOUNCER: They keep coming--2 million illegal immigrants.

ARTURO VARGAS: The kind of ads we saw both in 94 and 96 that were designed to secure the re-election of Pete Wilson in 94--

JEFFREY KAYE: That's the California governor.

ARTURO VARGAS: That's the California governor. And to try to get Dole to win the California race for the presidency in the general election, the advertisements for the Republican Party were very, very offensive to Latinos.

JEFFREY KAYE: Advertising executive Ray Durazo agrees. Durazo is a Republican, but he accuses his party of pandering to immigrant bashers.

RAY DURAZO, Advertising Executive: I am an American first but I'm also attached to my culture, my heritage, my history, and I can feel compassion for--I can empathize with those people who are coming across the border today because my parents did it fifty, sixty, a hundred years ago, and I know their struggles, and I know that they were good people when they came here.

JOHN HERRINGTON, Chair, California Republican Party: I will tell you that the Republicans are not anti-immigrant, and they are not racist.

JEFFREY KAYE: John Herrington, chair of the California Republican Party, says the GOP message was misunderstood by Latino voters.

JOHN HERRINGTON: I think we need to get our message out better. Our message is a very good message for the Hispanic and Latino communities in that we are talking about more individual freedom, better family values, religious base, strong and loving families, lower taxes. That's our message, and we don't need to change our message because it's going to appeal to that group. What you may have run into is a strong, strong after effect of all that misleading advertising, painting Republicans as ogres, that the Democrats did.

RAY DURAZO: The great irony here is that the principles of the Republican Party historically--i.e., hard work, individual responsibility, don't depend on government, the value of the free enterprise system--all those principles are near and dear to the hearts of most Hispanics. And yet, the great irony here is that here is a party, either consciously or unconsciously, and I'm afraid the case here is consciously, alienating the very group of people whom I think most naturally identifies with their principles.

JEFFREY KAYE: The political principles of Latino officials run the gamut.

CRUZ BUSTAMENTE, Speaker, California Assembly: I want to see the floor become a battleground ofideas, good ideas.

JEFFREY KAYE: California assembly speaker Bustamente is a political moderate. Congresswoman-elect Sanchez, who was treated as a conquering hero at the NALEAO reception, is also considered a mainstream Democrat. She feels Latino issues cannot be pigeon- holed.

REP.-ELECT LORETTA SANCHEZ, [D] California: In my opinion there is not "just" a Latino agenda. You have a good agenda about jobs, you have a good agenda about education, it's a Latino agenda, like anybody else's.

JEFFREY KAYE: Arturo Vargas says Latino officials have long shown concern for immigration and bilingual education. He now sees a growing focus on urban issues in general.

ARTURO VARGAS: I think what we're going to start to see is perhaps a renewed interest in urban communities. Latinos are the most urban, urbanized community, much more urbanized than Anglos or blacks or Asians in this country, and maybe a new attention to public schools. Those are where Latinos--I mean, those are the issues for Latinos.

JEFFREY KAYE: As to their voting habits, Vargas cautions that Democrats should not take Latinos for granted. He expects Republicans will pick up Latino support, particularly if immigration recedes as a political issue.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the recorded words of Richard Nixon and a David Gergen dialogue. FOCUS - ON THE RECORD

JIM LEHRER: Now to the Nixon tapes and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: Scholars of the Nixon presidency have a new treasure trove of White House tapes at their disposal now that the Nixon estate has dropped its longtime battle to keep them private. We'll talk with three veteran Nixon watchers about what these latest tapes add to our understanding of the former President but first this background report from Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Over the past few weeks the National Archives in Washington has released 204 of the more than 3500 hours of tapes secretly recorded by President Nixon in the White House Oval Office. Those tapes provided an insight to the President during some of his most troubling times. The tapes included a September 1971 conversation Nixon had with his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in which he orders that the IRS investigate big Jewish contributors to the Democratic Party. Nixon: "Please get the names of the Jews. You know, the big Jewish contributors to the Democrats. Could you please investigate some of the--" and then an expletive. Nixon continued the conversation the very next day. Nixon: "What about the rich Jews? The IRS is full of Jews, Bob." Haldeman: "What we ought to do is get a zealot who dislikes those people." Nixon: "Go after them like a son of a bitch." Also from that same day, Nixon responded to Haldeman's idea that Republicans secretly finance a black independent presidential candidate in 1972 to drain off Democratic votes. Nixon: "Put that down for discussion--not for discussion, for action." During a conversation with Haldeman in June 1971, Nixon ordered Haldeman to break into the Brookings Institution, a Washington research organization. Nixon believed Brookings had copies of the Pentagon Papers revealing military secrets about U.S. strategy in the Vietnam War. Nixon: "They have a lot of material. I want--the way I want that handled Bob is get it over. I want Brooking. Just break in. Break in and take it out. You understand." Haldeman: "Yeah. But you have to get somebody to do it." Nixon: "Well, you--that's what I'm just telling you. Now don't discuss it here. You're to break into the place, rifle the files, and bring them out." Haldeman: "I don't have any problem with breaking in." Nixon: "Just go in and take them. Go in around 8 or 9 o'clock. That's right. You go in and inspect and clean it out." It is unclear what action, if any, Haldeman may have taken, but the Brookings Institution never was broken into. And there are tapes from April 30, 1973, in the midst of the Watergate investigation. Nixon had delivered a nationally televised speech announcing chief of staff Haldeman and domestic adviser John Ehrlichman were being fired for their role in the cover-up following the Watergate break-in. About an hour later, Nixon talked with Haldeman by phone. Nixon: "Hope I didn't get you down." Haldeman: "No, sir. You got your points over. You've got it set right." Nixon: "Well, it's a tough thing, Bob, for you, for John, the rest, but goddamn it, I'm never going to discuss this son-of- a-bitching Watergate thing again. Never. Never. Never. Never." The National Archives also has released two drafts of a 1974 Nixon speech. According to one of the drafts, both prepared by Nixon speech writer Ray Price on August 3 and 4, 1974, President Nixon was ready to fight to keep his office and refused to admit any wrongdoing in the Watergate cover-up. The President also would announce his intention to answer questions from the Senate Watergate Committee and to face the consequences. But Nixon put that draft aside and delivered the second one--his historic resignation speech on August 8, 1974.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, three perspectives on these latest Nixon tapes. John Ehrlichman was President Nixon's chief domestic adviser from 1969 to 1973. He was convicted for his role in the Watergate cover-up. He's now a writer in Atlanta and currently working on a documentary film about Watergate. Monica Crowley was a foreign policy aide to the former President in the final years before his death. She's the author of "Nixon Off the Record: His Candid Commentary on People and Politics." And Tom Wicker covered the Nixon White House for the "New York Times." He's the author of "One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream." Welcome all of you. John Ehrlichman, starting with you, what is--you've been actually sitting and listening to these tapes at the National Archives. What is most striking or revealing to you from what you've heard so far?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN, Former Nixon Aide: [Atlanta] Well, I think the lack of context. The archivist has snipped little tiny segments, in some cases six or eight seconds, and you don't know what was said before or after. And it's tough on a listener.

MARGARET WARNER: And why is that? Explain to our viewers why there are just these short little segments.

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: Well, it's not for--I think there could be a lot more context given. What they've done is try and select out the things that embodied abuses of government power under their regulations, and that's what they're giving you.

MARGARET WARNER: That was part of the agreement, I gather, or the conditions under which these were released?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: I guess this settlement, but they really don't give you enough to go on in some cases.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom Wicker, what is striking to you about what you've read about what's in these tapes?

TOM WICKER, Journalist/Author: [New York] Well, first, I agree with John that it's very difficult to put those into context, but secondly, when I was doing research for my book, I was told by many people who knew Mr. Nixon very well, including, I think, John Ehrlichman, that he had a habit of one might say popping off, i.e., saying, do this, and I don't want any argument, find that fellah today, and I don't want any argument. And then they, knowing that, that he did that, they wouldn't do anything about it, and then the next day he'd forgotten. Now I'm not saying that these remarks that we have just heard were like that, but it seems to me some of them could have been, and if we don't know any more than what we heard, why it's possible to make that judgment.

MARGARET WARNER: Monica Crowley, does the President Nixon you've read about in these tapes, how does that compare with the Richard Nixon you knew in the final years of his life?

MONICA CROWLEY, Former Nixon Aide: [New York] Well, let me start by saying that I think that once politicians leave the arena and have no intention of ever going back, most go through a transformation. Their political characters often change. In Nixon's case it changed but not by much. You know, every so often when the National Archives releases more hours of Nixon's taped conversations, we are treated to isolated conversations from the early 1970's and fragmented, out-of-context comments, like the ones that you treated us to before. Apart from the fact that there's no evidence that Nixon knew about or ordered the break-in that did occur, Watergate, there's no evidence that any of these other so- called orders were carried out, and that's because they weren't orders at all. I think all presidents say things in the heat of disappointment, frustration, anger, even fatigue, that they never intend to have acted upon. And Nixon's rantings have become a lightning rod for criticism because we can hear his but we can't hear those of other Presidents. In my experience now--I worked with President Nixon during the last four years of his life, so he was no longer in power and had no intention of going back, but I did have some similar experiences with him where he did, in fact, as Tom says, pop off. On one occasion when he was extremely frustrated that President Bush had not taken his advice to increase substantially the amount of aid given to the democratic forces in Russia, he once ordered me to call Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Bush's national security adviser, and inform him that Nixon would never again furnish any advice to President Bush on anything. Now, knowing that--that Nixon was just reacting to Bush's refusal to consult with him or to act on his advice, I did not execute the order. And Nixon never followed up. And as I'm sure Mr. Ehrlichman will attest, Nixon always followed up on orders that he wanted executed.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. John Ehrlichman, let's go to the conversation that we just heard about and were slightly discussing, which is the orders to break into Brookings Institution. Now, did that come as a surprise to you to hear this on the tape? Why was it never carried out?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: Well, it wasn't ever carried out because I shot it down. I didn't know that he had instructed--I got wind of this. We happened to be at San Clemente at the time. And John Dean flew out to tell me about it. I tracked down who had followed up--who was proposing to do this thing and I told em to stop. It sounded ridiculous to me. So that was the end of it.

MARGARET WARNER: Give us a little context, if you would, why--I mean, the Pentagon Papers had already been--were being published by the "New York Times." Why did the President want Brookings burglarized?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: The setting is that there were, I think, thirty or thirty-five sets of these Pentagon Papers, very top secret stuff, highly classified. And it was evident that some of them hadgotten out of the government's possession. Daniel Elsberg had stolen several sets and had turned them over to newspapers and foreign embassies and what not. And the President was extremely upset about the breach of security. Now, listening to these tapes, you see a side of Richard Nixon that was very interesting to me. He says, in effect, this man is another Alger Hiss. He says, Alger Hiss gave me a mighty boost in my political career and Daniel Elsberg can do the same.

MARGARET WARNER: Alger Hiss being a State Department employee who was accused of being a spy for the Soviets, and Richard Nixon had made his early career in Congress on prosecuting him.

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: That's right. And he saw Elsberg as another jet- assisted take-off. He was coming up toward re-election, and he said this. You can hear him on the tape say as much. I'm going to destroy this man in the press.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, explain one other thing to me and to our viewers. Why--you say you countermanded this order when it sort of moved down the food chain and you finally heard about it about Brookings, but why is no one on the tape heard saying, you know, Mr. President, that's illegal? I mean, Henry Kissinger, the national security adviser, supposedly was in the room, the attorney general, the defense secretary.

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: Yeah. That's a very curious audience for this kind of rhetoric. You'd have to ask Henry why he didn't object. I think Henry and I agree that there were many times that you simply did not call Richard Nixon in a situation like that if you wanted to continue to do business with him. He could freeze you out. So they were being very politic, I guess, and letting him spout off. That was the Queen of Hearts syndrome, we called it, "off with their heads." The next day he would say, what did you ever do about that? And you'd say, well, I haven't gotten around to that yet. He'd say, good, I've thought about it, and I'd just as soon we'll put that off to another time.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom Wicker, do you--being a student of these years in the Nixon White House, do you think, though, that a conversation like that, that the President would have had with his aides, ordering the burglary somewhere else, has any other significance--I mean, do you think it could have had any--I'm not asking you to speculate here--I guess I am--but I'm just asking you, do you think it's insignificant or significant in any way?

TOM WICKER: No. I think it's significant, even if, as we speculated here in this conversation, it was just a pop-off, or something of that sort. Even so, I think to think in those terms or even possible--or to speak in those terms, and I suppose he forgot that the tape recorder was going, so I wouldn't put that into it--but I think it shows something about an attitude that, generally speaking, we wouldn't like in anybody that we knew, and certainly we wouldn't want to see in a President. I think Richard Nixon in many ways--although I don't claim to have known him very well or to have understood him, but I think he clearly was a man of some considerable insecurities and some--some internal angers. And I think these comments reflect that, and they're not very pleasant to hear.

MARGARET WARNER: John Ehrlichman, do you think that it would have created any kind of atmosphere in which other people at the White House thought this should be the kind of behavior that the President would condone when it came to dealing with political opponents?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: I don't know that there's any basis for that. You can't extrapolate from what you hear on these tapes to Watergate, for instance. I just don't think there's any relationship. But it--it certainly showed the sensitivity that the President had toward national security breaches. That's not the only one. We had leaks all the time, and some of them very serious, that cost lives. And he was very sensitive to that. And his reaction in some cases was pretty extreme.

MARGARET WARNER: Monica Crowley, what are your thoughts on this particular conversation?

MONICA CROWLEY: Well, I think it's interesting that, as I've said before, we can hear Nixon's comments but we can't hear those of other Presidents. And I think it would be very interesting, for example, to hear behind-the-scenes conversations of the Kennedy White House on any number of issues, or behind the scenes at the Lyndon Johnson White House talking about the failures of Vietnam with great frustration. As we know, Lyndon Johnson was a very earthy man as well, who perceived a lot of enemies out there, or, you know, behind-the-scenes conversations in the Reagan White House and Iran-Contra, or in the Clinton White House on Filegate or Travelgate or any number of other issues that have cropped up there. So I think you know we are left to hear these tapes, despite the fact that all other Presidents, despite dubious behavior and congressional investigations, have been able to keep their conversations private. And that's why it seemed so shocking to us to hear Nixon's comments.

MARGARET WARNER: John Ehrlichman, let me ask you about one other thing that we heard or in Kwame's report we read, and that was-- and this is where I think "you" were asked to do something, which was to investigate major Jewish donors--no, you weren't-- one account said you were in the room; another one said it wasn't. What was his--why was it major Jewish donors to the party that he was most concerned about?

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: Well, it was probably Tuesday. On Wednesday it was major Italian donors to the Democrats, and on Friday, it would be black contributors. He was constantly in the re-examination process, what's happening on the other side, what are they doing, who's contributing to them, what success are they having in their fund-raising, and he was always looking for more information. He broke it down along ethnic lines. He broke it down along socioeconomic lines. I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the fact that he was talking about Jewish people in this particular segment.

MARGARET WARNER: Tom Wicker, briefly before we go, what impact, if any, do you think these tapes are going to have on the Nixon reputation? Do you think it changes it in any way?

TOM WICKER: Well, I don't think it changes it very much, but I think it will certainly reinforce the view of a lot of people that this was an evil man because the tapes just taken in the way that we hear them or the way that we read them in the newspaper, all we know is here's a man who ordered a burglary and so forth. And I think it will confirm many people in their dark view of Mr. Nixon.

MARGARET WARNER: John Ehrlichman, briefly on that point, impact on his reputation.

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: Well, I've said for some time that his rehabilitation after he resigned was extraordinary. He had Ms. Crowley to help him. But that lurking, hanging over his head were these tapes that sooner or later were going to come out and give him a lot of trouble.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you--

JOHN EHRLICHMAN: There are other tapes that are going to give him trouble on other bases.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And I'm sure we'll be back to discuss them. Thanks very much, all three of you. DIALOGUE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight a Gergen dialogue. David Gergen, editor-at-large of "U.S. News & World Report," engages Roger Shattuck, professor of literature at Boston University, author of "Forbidden Knowledge: From Prometheus to Pornography."

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Shattuck, much of your argument in your book centers up on the great works of literature and of religion, the stories there. So let's start with the story of Prometheus. What does it tell us?

ROGER SHATTUCK, Author, "Forbidden Knowledge": Well, the Prometheus story is one of the most misunderstood and little known stories. Everyone tells the story of Prometheus, the friend of mankind, stealing fire from the gods and then he's heroized for that very reason, forgetting the fact that Prometheus is accompanied by Pandora, the way Adam is accompanied by Eve. That is, Pandora is sent down from the gods as retribution for Prometheus's act, and she opens her box and all kinds of unfortunate things happen to mankind. So Prometheus as a hero is misunderstood because also he causes great grievance.

DAVID GERGEN: By going too far, by stealing the fire.

ROGER SHATTUCK: By going too far, by transgressing all kinds of boundaries. But it's a story that matches almost perfectly for the Greek tradition the Adam and Eve story in the Old Testament tradition.

DAVID GERGEN: Just refresh us on that as well, just--I know most people know--but just so we all know.

ROGER SHATTUCK: Of course, everyone thinks they or he or she knows the Adam and Eve story.

DAVID GERGEN: Right.

ROGER SHATTUCK: But here it's the one--with one prohibition, which is put up to Adam and Eve, is not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And Eve is tempted by the serpent and eats of the tree because the serpent plants in her mind certain ideas of experience and of becoming divine, and then Adam follows her.

DAVID GERGEN: Well, the objectionable feature, of course, about both of these foundation stories, as you would call them, is the role that women play. I mean, they're the vessel that brings-- unlooses all the ills of the world. But beyond that, the point of both stories in both traditions is that man can go too far, he can be tempted to go too far, to know too much, in effect.

ROGER SHATTUCK: That man can go too far and that humanity is defined for us by some sense of limits. There is--if you try to become divine, if you try to leave the human condition and achieve another tradition, that you have really betrayed your condition as men. And the--but these two stories lead us, I think, to what for us is a more important set of stories, which I try to emphasize in the book, and that is Faust, which is modern. Faust does not go back to the Greeks or to the Old Testament.

DAVID GERGEN: Right.

ROGER SHATTUCK: It goes back only to the Middle Ages and then is brought together first by Marlow and then by Goethe, the great German writer. When Faust first grew up in the Middle Ages, it was the story of a magician and a charlatan who tried by his various enchantments to know too much and to pronounce spells. And he makes a pact with the devil. He lives it up for a few years and, as a result, goes to hell.

DAVID GERGEN: In the old tradition.

ROGER SHATTUCK: In the old tradition. And the jaws of hell opened, they loved these things, and the flames come up, and he goes to hell. Goethe, influenced by another German by the name of Schelling, changed the story and instead of Faust going to hell, Faust goes to heaven because he strives and striving is, of course, the modern version of curiosity, curiosity which can become presumption. If there's too much curiosity, we presume to become something beyond ourselves.

DAVID GERGEN: So in the modern age, Goethe brings us to the notion knowledge is good, and you, in effect, can ascend to heaven with knowledge?

ROGER SHATTUCK: Well, yes.

DAVID GERGEN: But that was answered then by Mary Shelley.

ROGER SHATTUCK: Yeah. The--we have something called the Faustian man.

DAVID GERGEN: Right.

ROGER SHATTUCK: The Faustian man is generally interpreted as positive. This is modern man moving forward with technology and science to release us to some new form of liberty and understanding. But Mary Shelley, who was 19 years old at the time that she conceived and wrote her book, and knew the Faust tradition and was among Shelley and Byron and the great poets, she was obsessed by the masculine desire for glory. The word "glory" appears about five times in her opening and closing chapters, and this is a presumption again, these men who presumed to know more than they should. And the book she wrote, as I try to describe in my book, a very severe criticism of the Faustian legend, that Faust presumed too much, she doesn't talk about Faust, but she presents the figure of a doctor, Dr. Frankenstein, who creates a monster in a very modern story, and that is too much.

DAVID GERGEN: Right. Your sympathies throughout this book are very much with the old tradition, with the Prometheus tradition or the tradition of Adam and Eve, the tradition, indeed, of Dr. Frankenstein because you think there should be restraints, we should show more restraint in our pursuit of knowledge than we do particularly in two areas, science and art. Tell us why you think we should show more restraint and the dangers that we face based on your understanding of this classical literature.

ROGER SHATTUCK: Well, you're bringing out a fact that really this is two books. This is the book that comes out of the fact that I'm a teacher of literature and have read the main books in the western tradition and the first part which is about those works, then in the book that I wrote things flipped over and somehow the book wrote me when it came to the second part. I think part of the reason that I felt I had to write the science chapter is told in the very beginning. That is, I happened to be on Okinawa at the time of the dropping of the two atomic bombs. And first, I thought and believed and still do believe that probably those two bombs saved my life. I would have gone in in the second wave to set up an air strip and might very well not be here to tell the tale. Then I became very much an anti-nuclear arms demonstrator at the University of Texas and suffered from those convictions. Then I've come back part way and realize that paradoxically that this awful instrument, the atomic bomb, probably established the peace at a time that we might not have had it by other means. It's a dilemma for me to know exactly what to think about the atomic bomb, but science in the forms of both weapons and then genetic research has at least confronted us with a possibility that we may be outstripping our capacities to know, that if we begin to tamper directly with the process of natural selection; that is, it is no longer natural, it is we who are doing the selection of the kinds of human being that are perpetuated; we may be going too far.

DAVID GERGEN: So in some ways the cautionary tale of both Prometheus and Adam and Eve come back into play here and the kind of knowledge we are now seeking you think goes beyond the bounds or beyond our reach, as you would call it. And we may not be able to deal with the consequences.

ROGER SHATTUCK: Yes. In a way this is a criticism of the entire direction of western civilization. Western civilization is based on progress, on the expansion of knowledge, and I believe in those entities and in those goals. It is a matter of pace and what Milton calls being "lowly wise." That is, being wise not always through great aspiration and presumption but of being lowly and modest in our attempts to deal with these questions, some of which we can solve, and on the other hand, there's a--well, I have a couple of quotes which I would like to--

DAVID GERGEN: Well, let's finish up. What were those quotes?

ROGER SHATTUCK: Well, Jefferson said, "We shall follow the truth wherever it will take us and deal with the errors as long as we can have" the--"have reason to help us." He felt that there should be no limits on the pursuit of truth, except that you have to be able to use reason. I would say today that it's more than reason. It's judgment we have to have, some kind of sense of proportion. There's a physicist by the name of Sinzeimer, who is very important in the genetic research. And Sinzeimer says we are beginning to understand that the pursuit of truth may be dangerous. And that's the kind of median position that I would come down on. I'm not purely conservative, but it's that sense of the middle ground.

DAVID GERGEN: Mr. Shattuck, thank you very much.

ROGER SHATTUCK: Glad to be here. RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday, a second Israeli soldier was arrested in yesterday's shooting of Palestinians in the West Bank town of Hebron. Peruvian President Fujimori said the terrorist siege of the Japanese ambassador's residence would not harm Peru's economy, and in this country, there was more flooding out West. Forty counties in five states were declared disaster areas. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with our Friday night political analysis, among other things. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.