The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the day's events in the war over Kosovo; the thoughts of a group of Denver citizens about the conflict; and a look at the power of the pictures from Kosovo and earlier wars. Then, with the other news of the day, excerpts from Kenneth Starr's testimony before Congress, and a conversation with playwright Margaret Edson, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

FOCUS - CAMPAIGN FOR KOSOVO

JIM LEHRER: Another day of NATO air strikes brought a dispute over the cause of civilian casualties. Food and water for displaced Albanians within Kosovo grew scarce, and thousands more of them poured into Albania and Macedonia. Spencer Michels has our summary report.

SPENCER MICHELS: Serbia's official media reported today that a NATO missile hit a convoy of refugees and killed at least 64 people and wounded 20. The report said the strike occurred on a bridge near the southern Kosovo town of Jacovitsa. The Serb-run media center in the Kosovo capital of Pristina said two separate refugee convoys were bombed, most of them made up of women, children and elderly ethnic Albanians, who were being escorted by Serbian police. Pentagon officials said NATO was investigating the Serb charge, but that only military vehicles were hit. Air Force Major General Charles Wald gave an overview of how bombing missions work.

MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES WALD, US Air Force: The forward air controller will be cued to a target area by possibly an off-board sensor or some other report, or possibly he will be looking in the area himself and find a - what could be a military target. He loiters over the area to identify the target and train for identified military targets, as you can imagine, and at that time will call in another set of fighters, probably two, to expend their ordinance on their target. But before they do that, the FAC, forward air controller, will talk to the other set of fighters and make sure they both have a hundred percent assurance that they have the correct target, they both identify it, and there's a verbiage that goes on between the two. And then, and not until then, is the pilot cleared in to drop the bomb, and once the forward air controller is assured this pilot is dropping on the right target, he will clear him to drop the bomb. And then from bomb fall till target impact is about 10 to 15 seconds. So, through that 10 to 15 seconds, it's once again basically you're at the mercy of fate. But the fact of the matter is in both minds of the pilot and the air crew that's dropping the bomb, you have to be in your own mind 100% sure of what you're going on before you actually release. So it's about as positive control on a weapons release as you can get.

REPORTER: Tractors from the air filled with people's mattresses don't look like military convoys would you say?

MAJOR GENERAL CHARLES WALD: Well, I've been a foreign air controller in Vietnam, I've flown in Bosnia these types of missions dozens of time, I've flown over Iraq, and I can honestly say that if there's any doubt whatsoever in either the pilot or the air crew that's dropping the bombs, the FAC or the air crew, they will not drop. I can also tell you that it's easy to tell the difference between a tractor and a tank. So, yes, I'd answer your question, you can tell. And, if there's any doubt, you just don't drop.

SPENCER MICHELS: General Wald was interrupted by Pentagon Spokesman Ken Bacon, who said he had just talked with NATO's commander about the attack.

KENNETH BACON, Pentagon Spokesman: I have talked to General Clark. He has received reports from the pilots that they believed they hit only military vehicles. And as Tony Capacio said, he's also received verbal reports of the possibility that after the convoy was hit, military people got out and attacked civilians. He believes that there may be some imagery of that and he is trying to get it now but he doesn't know for a fact that he does have it.

REPORTER: Were civilians in the military convoy?

KENNETH BACON: Pardon?

REPORTER: Were in the convoy?

REPORTER: Can you explain that?

KENNETH BACON: They were in the convoy is what he said -- that there were military vehicles at either end. But I want to be very clear, this is under review, he's looking for film and, again, this is separate from the other incident that I mentioned that we are getting reports from refugees that they have been attacked, some refugee convoys have been attacked by Yugoslav aircraft.

SPENCER MICHELS: In Brussels, the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, Sadako Ogata, meeting with NATO officials, said her agency has been stifled in attempts to aid refugees still in Kosovo -- refugees who are in desperate need of food.

SADAKO OGATA, UN High Commissioner for Refugees: We don't know exactly how many there are because many of them left, were forced to leave, and there may be more who were forced to be displaced, but we will be able to go back only if there is security assured, which would mean the withdrawal of Serb and deployment of international military forces there too. Security assurance is the basic condition under which we can go back and really do the humanitarian work.

SPENCER MICHELS: The UN Food and Agriculture Organization said bombing has destroyed food processing industries, that farm animals have been killed by Serb troops, and that crops have been abandoned. That has created a severe food shortage, especially for refugees who have left their homes but have not crossed the border.

CATHERINE BERTINI, World Food Program: We're extremely concerned about their status. It's been in many cases at least two weeks, and certainly if you have no food or very limited food over a two or three or four week period of time, you become very weak and susceptible to all kind of diseases, especially if you're living outside in the elements, as many of these people are.

SPENCER MICHELS: NATO says it can't drop food from the air into Kosovo because its planes would be vulnerable to Serb antiaircraft fire. At the Yugoslav/Macedonian border, an estimated 3,000 people crossed over today, and more flooded into Albania as well, part of the tide of 1/2 million homeless Kosovars who have escaped their homeland. For both groups of refugees -- those in Kosovo and those who have fled -- the UN's Ogata and NATO's Secretary-General, Javier Solana, said Serb President Slobodan Milosevic holds the key.

JAVIER SOLANA, Secretary-General, NATO: Let me straighten one thing; the responsibility of the situation of these people is, like President Milosevic, can immediately, immediately change completely and drastically the condition of these people which are in the mountains.

SPENCER MICHELS: Allied officials are also focusing on ethnic Albanian women's stories of rape by Serbian soldiers. This mother was terrified as soldiers separated women from their families. Then, she said, they raped ten of them by the side of the road.

WOMAN: [speaking through interpreter] They said to the girls, "You are beautiful. You are for me. We're not going to shoot you, but we want your families to see what you are doing." They threw the girls to the ground, then they ripped every part of their clothing.

SPENCER MICHELS: British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said yesterday there is evidence that Serbs have set up rape camps near the Albanian border. Clare Short is international development secretary, who heads Britain's refugee effort.

CLARE SHORT: The actual rape reports are still in the hundreds, rather than the kind of thousands that they built up to in Bosnia. But they're kind of graphic and deliberate and organized and designed to humiliate often in front of fathers and husbands and children, you know, just to give anguish and humiliation to the whole family.

SPENCER MICHELS: In the bombing campaign, NATO reported 30 new air strikes, hitting a company building, a hydroelectric plant, and a railway bridge. Spokesman Jamie Shea announced NATO has flown nearly 6,000 sorties in the three weeks of the war. He said NATO was "tightening the screws" on Serbia. On the diplomatic front, Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder proposed a new peace initiative today that would provide for a 24-hour suspension of allied air strikes if Milosevic began withdrawing his forces from Kosovo. NATO welcomed the German-drafted peace plan as "food for thought," but said it would not immediately endorse it because it opens the way to a suspension of air strikes.

FOCUS - DENVER VIEWS

JIM LEHRER: Now, some American public reaction to the situation in Kosovo. It comes from a group of citizens in Denver that we have gone to from time to time in the past. Elizabeth Farnsworth spoke to them again last night.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: It's good to see you all again. Thanks for being with us.

Susana Cordova, is this air campaign a legitimate function of US power?

SUSANA CORDOVA, Democrat: It certainly seems to me like if we don't do something, if the world doesn't do something to stop Slobodan Milosevic, I don't know when he would stop. I mean, I don't see that there would be an end in sight if we don't, as a world, take a stand that this is not acceptable, that genocide is not acceptable.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Warren Tellgren, as a vet, do you think this is what US forces should be doing?

WARREN TELLGREN, Republican: I don't believe that the military forces should be the peace keepers of the world. I believe that we're more -- we didn't belong in there in the first place, but now that we are in there, that we should support our troops 100%.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Why didn't we belong in there in the first place? Tell me what your worry is.

WARREN TELLGREN: My worry was, and is, that we're in there; how are we going to get out? And the only thing that I see now that can happen is to put ground troops in there, and that means we're going to have a lot of casualties, and the next thing you'll know we'll have POW's and MIA's, and we'll have another Vietnam.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bob Journayvaz, do you think that this is what US forces should be doing? Is it a legitimate function of US forces?

BOB JOURNAYVAZ, Republican: That's a really tough question, because once we go down this path of trying to solve horrendous world leaders like Milosevic, how do we answer to the other terrible leaders throughout the world? Are we going to do this in every case? And -- and I agree with you: The world needs to do something. And so we're really in a tough position here.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mm-hmm. Dee Cisneros?

DEE CISNEROS, Democrat: I would have preferred a more diplomatic way of solving this, and once we're in and the decision's already made, and we have to have faith in our leaders and go along with whatever they say, once they decided, made that decision, I don't think we should -- we should be sitting back here being generals and trying to tell them how to handle it.

ERIC DURAN, Democrat: I think everybody agrees that when it's in America's best interest and when we have a compelling interest, we need to be involved abroad in foreign affairs, and then the second thing is when there's some type of humanitarian issue or ethical issue. In this case there is -- the slaughter of innocent people. Now, can we be involved and be the patrol of the world? Absolutely not. But in certain cases, I think we need to step forward as a country, as a world leader, and say this is unacceptable. And I think that's the ethical. -- the ethical thing or the ethical way of looking at it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Hmm. Dennis Coughlin, the ethical way? Infact, it reminds me of something the President said. He said yesterday, speaking at an Air Force base, "This is America at its best." Is it?

DENNIS COUGHLIN, Republican: Well, I don't know if war is ever when America is at its best. War is the most difficult, important decision a President is going to make, and he'd better be right. I, like the rest of the group here, support what he is doing. I think ethnic cleansing is absolutely morally repugnant, and we have to take a stand, but he has to pick his shot -- his spot where he's going to have a true effect. If he makes a mistake here, I think it's one of the most severe mistakes any President can make. The converse of that is true. If he does set a moral tone, if he does stop this kind of behavior, if he does set a standard for the rest of the world to understand that they can't conduct themselves in this manner or the United States will step in, then more power to him, then he's done a tremendous thing. If he's wrong, I'd take an awful severe look at his administration and everybody that was involved in this. [All speaking at once] He'd better be right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Brent? [All speaking at once]

DEE CISNEROS: But it's not just his administration; it's the NATO, and we're a part of that group.

BRENT NEISER, Republican I think that's where the problem lies. We have the potential of a Vietnam to the power of 19, and what I mean by that is, remember the pictures of LBJ sitting around picking out bomb sites and really taking the military tactics into his own hands? General Clark has to consult with 19 nations. We're one of them, and we're telegraphing to Milosevic what our strategy is-- the breadth, the depth of it, the timing. You have Madeleine Albright giving a press conference, and she sounds like she's the secretary of defense, or the supreme allied commander, but she's not.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Although a lot of material's being withheld from reporters.

BRENT NEISER: Well, I think a lot more should be withheld. We should be throwing Milosevic off balance. We're violating some very sound doctrinal principles of executing warfare: Surprise, security, maneuverability.

DENNIS COUGHLIN: This is not just the war as it was in years gone by. Certainly we are not going to put information out that is going to put our troops in danger-- I agree with that-- but I think that we are continuing trying to put the pressure on this guy and saying, "If you don't come to the bargaining table, if you don't negotiate, if you don't stop this, this is what's going to happen." And I think to just walk in there without any consultation with him, without telling him these are the next steps, you are making the diplomatic effort much, much more difficult. So I don't disagree with the way Clinton is-- and I'm not a Clinton fan.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What about that, Chris? What about -

CHRIS GOODWIN, Independent: No, I think this has been a mistake from the beginning, and I think we've really forgotten a lot of the lessons from Vietnam. It's amazing how quickly we've forgotten that. First of all, we're intervening in somebody else's civil war. I think that's always going to be a disaster. And of course, there's been atrocities committed by the Serbs, but in the past, there's been atrocities committed by the Croats against the Serbs. The KLA has assassinated civilians when they decided that was a tactic. This is not something -- this is not a proper role for NATO. In fact, I wonder if NATO should even exist anymore. I think we should give some serious thought to the United States getting out of NATO. There's no military solution to the Balkans; there never has been.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Linda Houston, you have a son at the Air Force Academy.

LINDA HOUSTON, Republican: Right.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're looking at a situation where you could have a child going to war in the Balkans. How do you -- how does that strike you?

LINDA HOUSTON: Well, I think, regardless of who's in the military, I think we always have to be concerned about them, but I don't believe his life or anyone who's there's life is any more important than any of the Albanians, but I also agree with Dennis that I think a President has to go into something like this with his eyes wide open, and I don't believe he did that. And I think it's absolutely presumptuous of him to think that he's going to do these little air strikes in these limited places and get him, Milosevic, to change his mind. I mean, how silly. I mean, this is a man who has been doing this for years. If he's not coming to the table and making adjustments to what he's going to do, then why did we ever think that just, you know, bombing a few places would make a difference?

ERIC DURAN: I have a few points I want to make about this about this.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes.

ERIC DURAN: I'm hearing all of these historical comparisons to Vietnam, to Nazis, to World War II. I haven't heard anyone make a comparison to the most recent war, which was the conflict that we had in Iraq, which was somewhat similar to this, where we had an out-of-control leader moving into a region and claiming it for his own. So I think the one thing that we can be certain of is that all of these historical analogies may not apply to this situation at all. If you use Iraq as an example, I think we bombed for three or four weeks before we even sent in ground troops.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, and the President did say today, Jim Sulton, that ground troops weren't off the table -- or were on the table, that it was something that was being considered. What do you think about ground troops?

JAMES SULTON, Democrat: I think it's easy to Monday- morning quarterback this thing, and we'd probably be about as predictive as we are with football. We're looking at people making a lot of mistakes, diplomatically, strategically, and it may help to modify the questions and our thinking a little bit right here; rather than ask whether it's a legitimate use of force, I'm thinking whether or not the world community can come together and apprehend and punish war criminals, because in the process of saying yes to that, you do take some risks. I'm very impressed with your courage with regard to your son. I have a son a similar age, and I hope I can be as courageous. It's very difficult to ponder that notion. At the same time, I have to believe the world community is strong enough to come together as a community. We've failed so many times. Iraq is not the analogy; Rwanda is. Didn't do a darn thing. Sat there and watched a bona fide genocide. We going to do that again? Watched a genocide.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you believe that Americans are aware of what's at stake here and paying close attention? Are they -- one congressman said, "Wake up, America. Europe's at war, and the US is, too.

SARA SMITH, Democrat: I don't think people see it as war yet. I think they see it as a conflict, whatever that means. And that's really -- but that's really how we do war now. That's the way war is fought in this era. And we -- Brent was talking earlier about having a -- you know, where is the international forces? How can you organize a war with 19 countries in it, with 19 different leaders? You have to. You have to, because that's the only way you can even legitimize going to war anymore, is if you have the international support.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: How crucial have the pictures been, the pictures of refugees that we've all seen on television and in the newspapers?

LINDA HOUSTON: I think they've been -- I think they've been very effective, and I think at least most of my friends are very involved in reading the paper and wanting to know what's happening. But I think they're also very confused.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sam, how about -- how important have the pictures been in your case?

SAM ARNOLD, Republican: Very important, and I think a lot of my friends have said that they would like to provide home, shelter for the refugees; that if there is some way in which we could take in a family or two families or ten families, we'd do it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I'm interested -- often, not that I can ever predict what you all are going to say, but sometimes it breaks down fairly much along party lines. You're all mixed up here. I can't predict by whether you're a Republican or a Democrat how you're going to come down on this.

BOB JOURNAYVAZ: Well, hopefully we don't come down on partisan issues. From a policy standpoint, we've got to begin to establish criteria for which nations we are going to help and which we aren't. And the policy makers on both sides of the aisle need to let us know which countries we're going to go support. Let's not forget that in the 1996 election, nobody wanted to talk about foreign policy. The images of the atrocities have been in the news if you go to the 25th page for the last ten years. But who's been paying attention? And so I guess, you know, the administration and the policy makers on both sides of the aisle, you know, need to focus around the world.

JAMES SULTON: Well, I think the public needs to focus on them, because those leaders that you quite rightfully assign responsibility are not going to respond until people do consider the fact that they're not only citizens of this country, but members of the world community. And George Bush was maligned for talking about a new world order from both sides of the aisle, but the fact of the matter is, we cannot dictate what happens. We can, as you say, react to it. And I think that we are members of the world community. I think the world community has to respond to that, and we as a part of that community have a role to play. It may be that we're the only superpower, and therefore we end up stepping up more than other nations that don't have the capability. [All speaking at once]

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: That's all the time we have. Thank you all. I hate to stop it. Thank you very much.

FOCUS - PICTURE POWER

JIM LEHRER: Now the power of the picture as it relates to Kosovo and other wars, and to Media Correspondent Terence Smith.

TERENCE SMITH: Pictures from the front have long had the power to affect public opinion. Some images, decades old, are seared in America's collective memory.

SPOKESMAN: 500 Landing craft, in ten waves, advanced on 3,000 yards of beach.

TERENCE SMITH: In World War II, the images were almost always heroic, and indirectly, they helped reinforce popular support for the war and the ultimate victory. In Vietnam a quarter century later, battle lines were harder to define, but the images no less harrowing. This famous shot by photographer Eddie Adams of the Saigon police chief executing a Vietcong suspect during the Tet offensive helped convey the savagery of the war -- then there was the young girl fleeing napalm on Highway 1, and CBS Correspondent Morley Safer's memorable footage of GI's destroying a village to save it.

MORLEY SAFER: This is what the war in Vietnam is all about.

TERENCE SMITH: As the antiwar protests escalated at home, Vice President Spiro Agnew was among many officials who blamed the media.

SPIRO AGNEW: Perhaps the place to start looking for a credibility gap is not in the offices of the government in Washington, but in the studios of the networks in New York.

TERENCE SMITH: In Lebanon, pictures of the wreckage of the Marine barracks in Beirut preceded the eventual US pullout, and the sight of American diplomats held hostage in Teheran posed a public relations dilemma for the Jimmy Carter administration. Desert Storm was a war perfectly packaged for television. The cameras were not only in downtown Baghdad, they were even transmitting from the bombs as they descended. In Somalia, a mission that was launched for humanitarian reasons ultimately foundered after Americans watched one of their own dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Today there are again American soldiers in jeopardy, poignantly represented by Andrew Ramirez, Christopher Stone, and Steven Gonzalez in captivity. And pictures of desperate refugees implicitly help policy makers frame the debate.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: How do we avoid indifference to human suffering? It is obvious to me that the support in the United States and Europe for our actions in Kosovo have increased because of what people see going on.

TERENCE SMITH: With me now to discuss whether and how pictures affect policy are Johanna Neuman of the "Los Angeles Times." She is author of "Lights, Camera, War: Is Media Technology Driving International Politics?" And NewsHour regular and Presidential Historian Michael Beschloss. Welcome to you both.

Johanna, as you heard in the discussion out of Denver, some of these images affect people. And they find them very powerful. But the question is do they affect public opinion and then drive policy?

JOHANNA NEUMAN, Los Angeles Times: Well, I think one of the most interesting things about the pictures from Kosovo, Terry, is that they put to lie certain assumptions that we all have been making about satellite television since it first flared on the scene in the early 90's.

TERENCE SMITH: Namely?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Well, one of them is-- and this assumption was made not only by the White House by Milosevic in Belgrade, that if you captured Americans and put them on television, it would so galvanize public opinion against the war that it would undercut western efforts against him. That hasn't proven the case. And I think it's an example of how sometimes, you know, there's this old saying that generals are always fighting the last war. I think in this case maybe that's true for political leaders, too.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael, what's your observation on this? Do pictures like this that we're seeing, drive policy? Do they affect and even force policy makers' hands?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: They sometimes do, Terry. And the thing about all this is that it's really unpredictable. Johanna is absolutely right. These three POW's don't seem to have affected the way that Americans feel about what we're doing in Kosovo but dial back to 1979 and 1980, the 50 American hostages that had been taken by Iranians, the government of Khomeini, Americans were absolutely focused on that for 444 days. It drove a lot of Americans to think that we should go to war with Iran to get those hostages out. Had the hostages not been there, had we not been so focused on that, I think we probably wouldn't have thought that way about American-Iran relations. I think the one rule that really does go through history is if Americans are ambivalent about a foreign policy or if they don't know very much, the pictures can help to fill the vacuum, can help to affect the way they think about the world. That's one reason why we always need a president explaining to Americans what he's trying to do and how we should think about something like Kosovo. I think one of the reasons why pictures have had a big influence the last few weeks has been that Bill Clinton has been so silent on this subject for many years.

TERENCE SMITH: Johanna, do you think this administration, in fact, needs pictures to make its point and build support for its argument?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Well, you know, the flip side of that would be if this policy falters, will the pictures be to blame? And I think the answer is no. I think to underscore what Michael said, I believe that political power trumps media power, that political leaders can dictate, can help define the pictures, can give us the captions, if you will. There's a famous example from Tiananmen Square. You may recall the picture of that lone demonstrator standing with his white shirt billowing, standing up to tank. In the West, that picture was viewed as an example of one man willing to risk his life for liberty. In China, the same photo was put on exhibit with a caption that said "Chinese troops show great restraint in not mowing down their own." Now, that's an extreme example, but I do think our political leaders influence how the pictures are received.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael, we referred briefly in the setup to Somalia. But there was an example, I mean the old saying is pictures got us in, pictures got us out.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think that's right. And I think the same thing was also the case. The Somalia operation was in late 1992. That was at the end of George Bush's last year in power. Bush for the first three years talked a lot about foreign affairs, told us, for instance, how we should wind down the Cold War. One of his great acts of leadership was to make the case for getting involved against Saddam Hussein. But, you know, Terry, it was that fourth year of Bush's presidency that Bush was very quiet about the world because his political advisors were saying you have to run for President, people aren't interested. So in this vacuum, those pictures of what was happening in Somalia, the famine, drove Americans to say, why aren't we Americans doing something? They helped encourage Bush to get in. And then, of course, ten months later you saw that corpse being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu that we just saw a few minutes ago because President Clinton had not made the case to Americans why we're involved in Somalia and Americans turned quickly against that operation.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you buy that?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Well, I think one should add that the mission had changed and the picture of that lone soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu was news to most viewers, who thought we went on a humanitarian mission. It had changed under Clinton into a manhunt for one leader; it had turned ugly and you could argue, I think, that the picture was just another way of convoying news to most people that the mission changed.

TERENCE SMITH: Then it was the policy, not the picture?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: The policy, not the picture.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: It was the policy, not the picture but also policy that wasn't very well explained. Let's say a couple weeks earlier Bill Clinton had given a speech on national television saying this is what we're trying to do in Somalia, I ask for your support. And if he had made the case, then American opinion would not have been so affected by that image.

TERENCE SMITH: Johanna, another example was -- and the picture were truly horrific, Rwanda, with the genocide there. And yet this country and most of the West chose not to get involved. What does that say?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Well, I think that Rwanda haunts Kosovo, to tell you the truth. I think the Specter that we didn't go in to intercede in genocide in Africa but we have gone in in Europe will haunt policy.

TERENCE SMITH: Haunts it and drives it?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: No. No, I don't think it drives it but I do think it's a cloud.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Sudan, we were also not involved when we saw images of that famine, yet at the end of the Persian Gulf War we saw those starving Kurds, we felt responsible because to some extent that was the result of the six-week war that we had fought. There were a lot of demands on George Bush to do something about it. And that led to humanitarian aid.

JOHANNA NEUMAN: If I could just add one more point, I think that if you study the history of technology, if you go back and look at how society absorbed other media inventions like the telegraph and the television, you will find that there is a period of excitement about any new invention and then an absorption. I think we have passed through the shock of satellite television. People now sometimes talk about compassion fatigue, that pictures don't have the capacity to shock us as they once did because satellite television is no longer the new kid on the block, the Internet is. And we are accustomed now to getting our information in real time on television.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael, I think you have written in the past of examples where administrations withheld pictures or before television -- you've written about the Cuban Missile Crisis where television wasn't that same pressure.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, that's for sure. You know, take a look at the missile crisis, 1962, Kruschev put missiles into Cuba but the pictures did not exist publicly. Kennedy kept them secret for a week, so that the first thing that Americans discovered about missiles in Cuba was Kennedy telling them in an Oval Office speech and at that moment saying this is what I'm going to do about them. Think, Terry, if that happened in the atmosphere of 1999, that the first thing that Americans learned about missiles in Cuba were the scary pictures of the missiles there, they would have descended on Kennedy saying this is a terrible thing, you've let this happen, perhaps we should invade and bomb. We now know that could have led to World War III.

TERENCE SMITH: If presidents go to the effort of withholding pictures, they clearly think they have a power.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. And I think the best lesson for presidents is if you don't want to get hemmed in by the power of pictures in foreign policy, make sure that you're talking to the American people all the time making the case for your foreign policy, then you won't be so vulnerable.

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Well, I think that's true. But I also think it also should be pointed out about the Cuban Missile Crisis, it's often discussed this terms of what a luxury President Kennedy had of time, that he had the time for due deliberation, he had many days from the time the CIA brought him those pictures to the time he first disclosed them to the public. And I think the fallacy is that we are all living at the turn of the century. None of us have the luxury of due deliberation, doctors have to think quickly on their feet, teachers do and journalists do and leaders do, too. And so the age requires people who can take in the pictures, absorb their meaning, think creatively about steps ahead and options to come and give best advice under those circumstances.

TERENCE SMITH: Michael, looking at the current situation coming back to Kosovo, do you see any evidence that the pictures are driving the polls that we are all reading?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: I think they probably were at the beginning because a few weeks ago most Americans knew virtually nothing about Kosovo and what they knew came largely through their eyes from television. Now we're beginning to learn about events through all sorts of sources, one of which is television and pictures but others are what our political leaders are telling us. So it's a little bit more of a balanced input. As that goes on, I think the pictures will have less influence.

TERENCE SMITH: Do you agree with that?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: I do agree with that. I think it's striking that this is one where the public has likely been ahead of public opinion. They've been the leader of it, rather than the follower.

TERENCE SMITH: Of the administration's position?

JOHANNA NEUMAN: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Thank you both very much.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: In the non-Kosovo news of the day, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji ended his tour of the United States with a speech at MIT in Boston. He mentioned issues such as human rights and Tibet, but said he preferred to talk trade. He said Americans should not be afraid of economic competition with China. Pakistan said it successfully test-fired a new ballistic missile today, and another test was also planned. Prime Minister Sharif said the missile's range was 1,250 miles, putting all major cities of India within reach. The test followed India's trial Sunday of a nuclear-capable missile that could strike Pakistan. The rival nations gave each other advance warning of their tests, as their prime ministers agreed to do in February. Tornadoes and hail pounded west Texas today. Wind gusts up to 70 miles an hour uprooted trees and knocked down power lines. At least 20 homes were destroyed and several others were damaged, leaving dozens of families homeless. In Florida, dry weather and the threat of wildfires prompted governor Jeb Bush to declare a state of emergency. Former Vice President Dan Quayle formally announced for president. He did so at his Indiana hometown high school. It's his first run for office since he and President Bush lost their reelection bid in 1992. Quayle said he is the most experienced in the field of ten candidates for the 2000 Republican nomination. He also said this:

DAN QUAYEL: We're coming to the end of a dishonest decade of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. [Cheers and applause] My friends, my friends, it is time that we work to reclaim the values that made America great in the first place.

JIM LEHRER: President Clinton gave details of his retirement savings plan. It would provide a $300-a-year tax credit for workers to invest in personal savings accounts, and some government matching funds for low-income families. The system is similar to 401[k] plans at many businesses. Mr. Clinton introduced the concept of USA, or Universal Savings Accounts, in his State of the Union Address.

JIM LEHRER: Kenneth Starr asked Congress to abolish the Independent Counsel Statute, the law that empowered him to investigate President Clinton. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The Independent Counsel Statute is set to expire on June 30th. Testifying before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee today, Kenneth Starr said the law that authorized his six-year, ongoing investigation of President Clinton doesn't work, and shouldn't be renewed.

KENNETH STARR, Whitewater Independent Counsel: The reason is not that criminality in government no longer exists. As Mr. Hamilton said in "The Federalist," if men and women were angels, government would not be necessary. Nor is the reason that the public has grown indifferent to our tradition of holding government officials to a high standard. Rather, the reason is this: By its very existence, the Act promises us that corruption in high places will be reliably monitored, investigated, exposed, and prosecuted, through a process fully insulated from political winds. But that is more than the act delivers, and more than it can deliver under our constitutional system. The statute in sum tries to cram a fourth branch of government into our three-branch system. But invariably, this new entity lacks, in Mr. Madison's phrase, "the constitutional means to resist encroachments." The result is structurally unsound, constitutionally dubious, and, in overstating the degree of institutional independence, disingenuous. In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the Act has been a worthwhile experiment. It has yielded significant results. The results, I believe, support this conclusion: Jurisdiction and authority over these sensitive matters ought to be returned to the Justice Department. And who will oversee them? The Congress, the press, the public.

KWAME HOLMAN: Committee members asked Starr how his position squares with his continuing his own investigation.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Let me ask you about your status to continue as independent counsel, in light of your condemnatory language of the statute you operate under.

KENNETH STARR: Well, Congress frequently passes laws, the wisdom of which individuals may question, but their duty as law officers is to live up to their legal obligations. One cannot quote Mr. Bumble in a Dickensesque fashion, and then say "I refuse to enforce or carry out those laws."

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: If it's as bad as you say it is, maybe we ought to abrogate it now.

KENNETH STARR: Well, I'm suggesting that it not be reauthorized.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: That's different from abrogating it now.

KENNETH STARR: Oh, I think that's unwise, unless -- well, you could provide -- you could provide, and I know that there was a -

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: If we listen to your characterization, it's abhorrent.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN, [D] Illinois: During the impeachment trial, someone on your staff said, "You know, I think in maybe two more years we can probably get this all wrapped up." And we know statements being made about this dogged pursuit of Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell, until you finally get them back in jail. But I have to ask you point-blank: How can we justify continuing your authority or the authority of any independent counsel under this constitutional monstrosity of a statute, as you have described it?

KENNETH STARR: Frankly I am very proud, you may disagree, I'm sure you do, of the record that career prosecutors and cadres have amassed against very difficult odds: The conviction of a sitting governor of a sitting governor of the state, the conviction of the then-recently resigned associate attorney general of the United States, and 14 others. We found, Senator, serious criminality, and the two individuals whose names you've mentioned stand as convicted felons. And one of them chose to appeal her conviction, and her conviction was unanimously affirmed a United States Court of Appeals. So there were serious crimes, serious wrongdoing. So what do we do in terms of a going-forward basis? Once the statute lapses, the independent counsel is called upon to make a professional judgment as to whether it is required that he continue certain matters. And that's a judgment that I haven't had to face yet. But presumably, I may or will have to face that on June 30th.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: And it is possible that Congress may intervene and decide that in its judgment, it's time for you to head off to some university, or whatever your future plans may entail.

KENNETH STARR:I tried to do that once, Senator. [Laughter]

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I know you did.

KENNETH STARR: It didn't work out. But maybe you can do it for me, Senator.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Be careful what you wish for.

KWAME HOLMAN: Starr's report to the House of Representatives last year was criticized by Democrats for seeming to advocate impeachment of President Clinton for offenses stemming from the Paula Jones case.

SEN. DANIEL AKAKA, [D] Hawaii: What did you feel the results would have been if your office had provided the House only raw evidence regarding the "Jones Versus Clinton" matter?

KENNETH STARR: I think, Senator-- and it's a very thoughtful question-- that it would have put an undue burden of organization on the House of Representatives, the Judiciary Committee, and the professional staff of the Judiciary Committee.

KWAME HOLMAN: Starr acknowledged his own ethics advisor, Samuel Dash, resigned in protest when Starr chose to testify in support of his referral.

KENNETH STARR: And at that point, reasonable minds are going to differ. Sam Dash then said, "The referral is fine, but your testimony, you became an advocate." And I said, "Gosh, I don't think so." I kept saying, "This is up to you all." As we say in my native Texas, it's "ya'll." You know, I've given you the information, and I've given it to you coherently and in an organized fashion. But ya'll decide what to do with it, including throwing it in the trash can.

KWAME HOLMAN: Following Starr to the witness table this afternoon was the panel of three federal judges charged with appointing independent counsels, a responsibility taken away from the attorney general when the Independent Counsel Act was reauthorized in 1994.

JUDGE DAVID SENTELLE, US Court of Appeals: During my tenure, the court has maintained a talent book that includes the names and brief biographies of attorneys of relevant skill, particularly in federal and white-collar crime.

KWAME HOLMAN: David Sentelle is the only member who remains from the panel that appointed Kenneth Starr as an independent counsel, who, at the time, was considered to be a partisan choice. Connecticut Democrat Joseph Lieberman asked Judge Sentelle whether his selection of Starr was at all influenced by a lunch he had with Republican Senators Lauch Faircloth and Jesse Helms, two staunch opponents of the President's, just days before the Starr appointment was announced.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, [D] Connecticut: Obviously there were questions, as you know, raised about whether Senator Faircloth had spoken with you about this decision.

JUDGE DAVID SENTELLE: There may have been some discussion in one sentence of have we done it. I recall if there was or not. There was nothing unusual about that lunch, nothing improper about that lunch. And I've never done anything in my life as innocent and had as much made of it. There is no vast right-wing conspiracy out to get anybody. And if there one, we wouldn't meet in the Senate dining room. We'd do it by telephone or in secret somewhere. If we were that nefarious, we're not that dumb.

KWAME HOLMAN: With the conclusion of this final hearing, Committee Chairman Fred Thompson says he'll now sit down with members of the committee to determine whether to recommend the independent counsel statute be rewritten, or simply left to expire.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And to recap the major story of this day, the war over Kosovo, NATO and Yugoslavia disputed the cause of civilian casualties. NATO said food and water for displaced ethnic Albanians was scarce, and Germany offered a plan for a 24-hour suspension of the bombing, if Yugoslav President Milosevic withdrew his forces from Kosovo.

CONVERSATION - PRIZE WINNER

JIM LEHRER: And before we go tonight, the second in our conversations with this year's winners of the Pulitzer Prize. It's with Margaret Edson, who won the drama award for her play "Wit," which is about a poetry professor's fight against cancer. This is her first play. And in the interest of full disclosure, I have known Margaret for many years, since she was a junior high school classmate of one of my daughters. She joins us tonight from Atlanta, where she works as an elementary school teacher. Margaret, congratulations.

MARGARET EDSON, Pulitzer Prize, Drama: Thank you, Mr. Lehrer. It's nice to see you again.

JIM LEHRER: It's good to see you. Tell us, how would you describe your play?

MARGARET EDSON: It's a play about love and knowledge. And it's about a person who has built up a lot of skills during her life who finds herself in a new situation where those skills and those great capacities don't serve her very well. So she has to disarm, and then she has to become a student. She has to become someone who learns new things.

JIM LEHRER: And she was a very strong teacher of 17th century poetry, correct, a professor?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: And why that? Why did you choose your main character to be a poetry professor?

MARGARET EDSON: I wanted her to be someone very powerful and I thought she could be a senator or a judge or a doctor even. But then I wanted her to be someone who was skilled in the use of words and skilled in the acquisition of knowledge but very inept and very clumsy in her relations with people on a more simple level. So the play is about simplicity and complications.

JIM LEHRER: And of course wit comes from of course she's an expert on the poetry of John Dunn. Now, where did you get that? Where did that come from? Is that an interest you've had that you brought to the play, or something that you adapted for this play?

MARGARET EDSON: No, it's something I learned about as I was writing the play. I remembered my college classmates saying that they thought John Dunn was the most difficult poet that they had to study so I made a point of not taking any classes that involved John Dunn in any way.

JIM LEHRER: I see.

MARGARET EDSON: I slithered to the History Department at that point.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

MARGARET EDSON: And I studied about John Dunn for this play.

JIM LEHRER: And you did that because you wanted to make your point that this professor had taken on something very tough and she was very strong so when she got -- she gets into this situation, obviously, where she has ovarian cancer. Now, where did that come from -- based on an experience of yours, correct?

MARGARET EDSON: Mr. Lehrer, we haven't spoken in about 20 years -

JIM LEHRER: Right. Exactly.

MARGARET EDSON: So I want to fill you in.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Tell me about your life and how it relates to this play.

MARGARET EDSON: I'm keeping up with you better than you're keeping up with me.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. All right.

MARGARET EDSON: I worked on the cancer and AIDS inpatient unit of a research hospital. And so that's where the medical part comes from.

JIM LEHRER: And what did do you there?

MARGARET EDSON: I was the unit clerk, which is a very low-level job in a hospital. But for anyone who spent time in the hospital, you know that that's the center of the action. My job was like a stage manager. It was the most like Radar on "Mash" -

JIM LEHRER: I see.

MARGARET EDSON: -- to keep everything going and to keep things moving smoothly on the unit. But since it was such a low level job, I was able to really see a lot of things first hand. I was sort of unnoticed because I was so insignificant. And so I was able to witness a lot, both the actions of the care givers and reactions of the patients.

JIM LEHRER: Now, when did you start working on this play, Margaret?

MARGARET EDSON: In the summer of 1991.

JIM LEHRER: Why? How did it happen?

MARGARET EDSON: I really wanted to write this play. It sounds strange, I know, but I just felt like doing it.

JIM LEHRER: I remember from high school that you were always interested in drama. Did you study it in college?

MARGARET EDSON: No. I didn't, and the director of the play, who's also a classmate of ours, Derek Jones -

JIM LEHRER: Right. Derek Jones.

MARGARET EDSON: -- continued in drama. But I didn't.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Okay. You first wrote it in '91. Now, when did you first hear people actually speak your words? When was that and how did that happen?

MARGARET EDSON: The first time I heard people speak my words was around my mother's dining room table. I organized a reading of the play.

JIM LEHRER: It was in Washington?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes. So Derek was Vivian Bearing; he played Vivian Bearing for the first time - at that very first reading.

JIM LEHRER: And Dr. Bearing is the lead character?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

MARGARET EDSON: And my mom played the older professor and my brother played the young doctor and his wife played the young nurse. And another friend of ours from high school, Calvin, you remember him.

JIM LEHRER: I remember Calvin.

MARGARET EDSON: Played the role of the doctor.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

MARGARET EDSON: That was the first time I heard it. Then I sent it to every theater in the country and they all rejected it, except one theater, and that was South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa, California. And they did the world premiere in '95 and then it was performed at Longworth Theater in '97, and now -

JIM LEHRER: That's up in Connecticut, right?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Now it's off Broadway in New York.

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: All right. For those who don't understand about play writing, the play that you first read around your mother's table, how similar is that to the one that people can go see now off Broadway in New York? What changed?

MARGARET EDSON: That play cost 50 cents more to mail than the final play. I had to cut it a lot. And that was the most difficult part but that was mainly my work over the next couple of years was just to agree to cut syllable by syllable until it got down to about 90 minutes. At the very first reading it was two and a half hours.

JIM LEHRER: Wow! Now, it's 90 minutes?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: And it's produced without an intermission, correct?

MARGARET EDSON: That's right, because we feel if there were an intermission, people would leave and we want them to stay till the end.

JIM LEHRER: Why did you think they would leave?

MARGARET EDSON: Well, in the middle it's very hard to take. It's -- it has a lot of talk about language and punctuation and complicated words, and then the medical parts are very graphic also, very realistically presented.

JIM LEHRER: I have not seen it but I read it today. I would agree with you. Margaret, you're teaching school there in Atlanta. What grade do you teach and where do you teach?

MARGARET EDSON: I'm teaching kindergarten this year at Centennial Place Elementary School.

JIM LEHRER: Why are you teaching?

MARGARET EDSON: I love teaching. I love teaching. This is my seventh year at teaching. I taught first grade last year and then English as a second language for five years before that. And I like everything about teaching. So, if my student are watching, turn off the TV and go read a book.

JIM LEHRER: Did you tell them you're going to be on TV tonight?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes. I said, I'm going to be on the news part of the same channel that has "Sesame Street".

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Now, what are you going to do now? You've won the Pulitzer Prize. Are you working on another play? Are you going to write another play?

MARGARET EDSON: No. No. I wanted to write this play. And this is the play that I wanted to write and I'm committed to teaching now. This is what I'm doing. And if there's something else I want to say in ten years, then I'll think about it, but I'm not interested in leaving teaching for anything.

JIM LEHRER: And has this -- you know how few people win the Pulitzer Prize, it's a really big deal Margaret, if you didn't know that, let me tell.

MARGARET EDSON: I appreciate that insight. I count on you for this.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. This is not going to change your life at all?

MARGARET EDSON: Once the day starts in the classroom, the affairs of the outside world really do not come into it at all. The day in the class has its own momentum. And New Yorkers find this very hard to believe, but the intricacies of New York theater are not part of what we're doing down in kindergarten.

JIM LEHRER: Describe a day. Tell me about a day. What did you do today, for instance, in your kindergarten class?

MARGARET EDSON: Well, today we had a great time counting by twos to the tune of "I Feel Good," a James Brown song. Then I've been receiving several bouquets of flowers, and we're studying about insects; we're doing a big project on insects called Six Legs over Georgia.

JIM LEHRER: Six Legs over Georgia.

MARGARET EDSON: There are bouquets of flowers all around the room. So, I took that opportunity to teach about the bee dance and how bees communicate with each other about the source of different types of nectar by flying around and then doing the dance to communicate to the other bees about where the good nectar is. So we had a very experiential lesson thanks to all the flowers that people have been sending.

JIM LEHRER: Do your student know you won the Pulitzer Prize?

MARGARET EDSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Do they care?

MARGARET EDSON: Well, we talk a lot about manners and feelings and courtesy and thoughtful gestures. So, they all came up to me and said congratulations. And I said thank you. They said you're welcome.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, Margaret, let me say congratulations to you again. And as somebody who has known you for a long time, I think I speak for everybody who has known you for a long time, nobody is surprised you'd do something like this. We might not have predicted this prize for this particular play, but nobody is surprised. And, congratulations to you, my friend.

MARGARET EDSON: Well, thank you very much and give my regards to your daughter.

JIM LEHRER: I'll do it.

JIM LEHRER: We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.