The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Tuesday; then, exit strategies: How, when, and why the U.S. Should leave Iraq-- views from a controversial Iraqi leader and two U.S. Senators; the proposal to bar gays from the priesthood; and a former Corporation for Public Broadcasting executive comes under fire.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: The Senate called today for the president to give a clear strategy on completing the mission in Iraq. The non-binding resolution, which passed 79-19, set 2006 as the transition year for Iraqis to take over their own security. It said the Bush administration should report on operations in Iraq every three months. But the Senate defeated a Democratic proposal to set a timetable for leaving Iraq, 58- 40. At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said a timetable would be counterproductive.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Good afternoon, folks. While the American people understandably want to know when our forces can leave Iraq, I believe they do not want them to leave until our mission is accomplished and the Iraqis are able to sustain their fledgling democracy. As the president has said, one cannot set arbitrary deadlines. Timing of the hand-over of responsibility to Iraqis depends on conditions on the ground.

GWEN IFILL: Rumsfeld echoed the president's sharp criticism of Democrats who say he misled the nation. The secretary said top Clinton administration officials also warned against leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We'll have more on the Iraq policy story right after the News Summary.

In Iraq today, Iraqi and U.S. officials confirmed finding more than 170 malnourished prisoners in Baghdad. They said some may have been tortured. The inmates were at a detention center run by the Iraqi interior ministry. Prime Minister al-Jaafari promised an investigation. Back in Washington today, the Senate adopted a compromise today on the legal rights of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It said they can appeal "enemy combatant" status and the rulings of any military tribunal, but they'd be limited to a single federal appeals court in Washington. Senators disagreed over what role the U.S. Supreme Court would have.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: This amendment in its present form is blatant court stripping in the most confusing way possible. The language of the amended Graham amendment says that there will be exclusive jurisdiction in the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Now, if it means what it says, the Supreme Court of the United States would not have jurisdiction.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: We do not eliminate jurisdiction of courts, either the Supreme Court or any other court in pending cases. What we do, however -- in other words, we don't strip the courts of their jurisdiction in the pending cases. And we preserve it because we don't think that the Congress should be stripping the court of cases that they have in front of them.

GWEN IFILL: The language was attached to a defense bill. The House version of that measure does not include the same provision. In Afghanistan today, a bomb killed an American soldier in the East. It happened one day after suicide car bombers attacked NATO peacekeepers in Kabul. The death toll in those attacks rose to nine today. Afghan police blamed al-Qaida.

Eleven top Jordanian officials resigned today in the wake of last week's hotel bombings. The kingdom's national security adviser was among them. Also today, the U.S. embassy in Amman announced a fourth American has died of wounds from those attacks.

Israelis and Palestinians reached a deal today on border crossings into and out of Gaza. Secretary of State Rice helped cement the agreement in Jerusalem, after an all-night bargaining session. Later, Rice praised the outcome as a vital step toward final peace.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: This agreement is intended to give the Palestinian people freedom to move, to trade, to live ordinary lives.

For the first time since 1967 Palestinians will gain control over entry and exit from their territory. This will be through an international crossing at Rafah, whose target opening date is Nov. 25.

GWEN IFILL: Rafah is on Gaza's border with Egypt. The European Union will monitor the crossing. The deal also calls for a Gaza seaport, and for bus travel between Gaza and the West Bank, beginning on Dec. 15.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito appeared to back away today from a 1985 statement on abortion. At the time, he wrote, "The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Today he met with Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. She said Alito told her afterward, "It's very different" now, and as a judge, he's guided by the law, not his personal views.

Baseball players and owners agreed today on tougher penalties for steroid use. The penalties range from a 50- game suspension for the first offense to a lifetime ban for the third. Congress had criticized baseball's existing policy. The ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, Henry Waxman, called today's agreement a good step.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: When anybody looks at it, you'll find that this is a major step forward to make sure that there's a testing program, serious penalties, an underscoring of the fact that there's going to be zero tolerance for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs.

GWEN IFILL: Under current rules, a player does not face a lifetime ban until the fifth time he tests positive for steroids.

This was opening day for the nation's seniors to sign up for the new Medicare drug benefit. Forty-two million Americans are eligible for the plan. Most states are offering dozens of plans, ranging from drug coverage to doctor's office visits. The benefit begins on Jan. 1, but enrollment continues through next May.

The nominee to chair the Federal Reserve promised today to be independent. Ben Bernanke is currently the president's chief economist. But he said that will not shape his decisions if he succeeds Alan Greenspan at the Fed.

BEN BERNANKE: In this prospective new role I would bear the critical responsibility of preserving the independent and nonpartisan status of the Federal Reserve, a status that in my view is essential to that institution's ability to function effectively and achieve its mandated objectives.

I assure this committee that if I am confirmed, I will be strictly independent of all political influences.

GWEN IFILL: Bernanke also said he'll continue the monetary policies of Greenspan with a heavy focus on controlling inflation. Inflation at the wholesale level picked up in October. The Labor Department reported today wholesale prices rose 0.7 percent, due mostly to the spike in oil prices. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 10 points to close at 10,686. The NASDAQ fell 14 points to close at 2186.

Kenneth Tomlinson was accused today of political meddling at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He chaired the agency until September, and resigned from the board earlier this month. The report released today said he broke the law by threatening to withhold financing from the Public Broadcasting System if it did not air certain conservative programming. We'll have more on this story later in the program.

The Interior Department recommended today grizzly bears around Yellowstone National Park be taken off the endangered species list. They've been protected for 30 years, but their numbers have grown. An estimated 600 grizzlies now inhabit the area. If removed from the list, the bears could be subject to limited hunting. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to searching for an exit out of Iraq; screening seminarians; and a new report on public broadcasting.

FOCUS - EXIT STRATEGIES

GWEN IFILL: Now, searching for a way out of Iraq, the policy, and the politics. We begin with today's Senate debate. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: With more than 2,000 U.S. service members killed and the war's cost at $200 billion and rising, public opinion polls continue to show declining support for the war in Iraq. And in Washington, Democrats have fed off that sentiment in reigniting the debate on whether the administration used faulty intelligence to justify ousting Saddam Hussein.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: The bottom line is that the president and his administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history.

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush rebutted that charge in his last two major speeches, most recently yesterday.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They're playing politics with this issue, and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, Democrats in the Senate sought to press the president on Iraq by requiring him to give Congress monthly updates on the war and provide estimated dates for troop withdrawal.

SEN. JACK REED: I think we have to have from the administration a notion of when our forces will come out of Iraq or redeployed within Iraq. It's important not only for Iraq. It's important for our security across the globe. How can we defend ourselves in the future if we don't know if our forces will be freed up to respond to other crises? How can we pay for these troops if we don't know when they'll be coming out of Iraq.

KWAME HOLMAN: But Majority Leader Bill Frist and his colleagues rejected the Democratic plan arguing any timelines for troop withdrawal would have negative consequences.

SEN. BILL FRIST: Some have referred to this as the cut-and-run provision -- that is, pick an arbitrary timeline and get out of Iraq, regardless of what is happening on the ground, regardless of the security situation, regardless of the political developments occurring in Iraq. We feel that is dangerous. We feel that is irresponsible. It's irresponsible to tell the terrorists who we know are waiting to take us out what that timeline is because the timeline, once exposed, simply says all we have to do is wait, and then we attack.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans instead backed a plan authored by Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, which, like the Democratic plan, called for progress reports on war, and a transition strategy, but did not mention dates for troop withdrawal.

SPOKESMAN: The yeas are 79, the neighs are 19. The amendment is agreed to.

KWAME HOLMAN: Democrats still claim victory. Minority Leader Harry Reid said the entire Senate had rejected President Bush's Iraq policy.

SEN. HARRY REID: Democrats and Republicans acknowledge that staying the course is not the way to go, and therefore, this is a vote of no confidence in the Bush's administration policy in Iraq.

KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans --

GWEN IFILL: We are waiting on some of our guests to arrive. We'll be back and have more on this later in the program.

FOCUS - GAYS IN THE PRIESTHOOD

GWEN IFILL: Now, gays and the church. As Catholic bishops meet in Washington this week, they're likely to discuss the Vatican's plan to screen U.S. seminaries for applicants who might be gay. Special Correspondent Judy Valente visited one of those seminaries. Her report first aired on the public television program, Religion and Ethics Newsweekly.

JUDY VALENTE: These candidates for the priesthood have just arrived at Mount St. Mary's Seminary in Maryland. The seminary is nearly 200 years old and one of the largest in the country. Like other seminaries and schools of theology, it will soon be visited for several days by one of the teams of American bishops and priests selected by the Vatican.

MONSIGNOR STEVEN ROHLFS: They have been asked to interview all of the seminarians, every single one. They've been asked to interview all of our faculty, all of the administration. We had to provide all of the coursework that we teach, all the outlines, all the bibliographies; they'll interview all of the professors.

JUDY VALENTE: The teams will also look for -- quote -- evidence of homosexuality. Archbishop Edwin O'Brien is coordinator of the seminary review.

ARCHBISHOP EDWIN O'BRIEN: We don't want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there's really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.

JUDY VALENTE: Father Robert Silva is president of a national organization of priests.

JUDY VALENTE: How can anyone determine with certainty that a man is a homosexual?

REV. ROBERT SILVA: You can't, going in and saying, "This man is a homosexual," I just think that that's impossible to do.

JUDY VALENTE: Given the current state of research.

REV. ROBERT SILVA: Exactly.

JUDY VALENTE: In the past, many seminaries focused on the intellectual and theological training of priests, rather than their personal development. Experts say as a result some priests left the seminary ill equipped to live out the celibate ministry required of them. That led to problems, including the sex abuse scandal. The Church has not linked child sex abusers with homosexuality, but the scandal did raise questions about the number of homosexuals in the priesthood and seminaries.

PATRICIA KELLY: The Church, fortunately, has had this huge wake-up call that has put it in a place where it says, "Whoa, we have got to ask the right questions, and we can't be afraid of the answers." And that's very much happening.

JUDY VALENTE: Patricia Kelly, in consultation with dioceses, does psychological assessments of young men who are candidates for admission to seminary. She says there is now more discussion of sexuality in the context of living a celibate life.

PATRICIA KELLY: We're looking at the whole person, and sexuality is a big part of it. We are really looking at how this person, not only has respect for himself but has respect for other people, and understands his sexuality.

JUDY VALENTE: The assessments include F.B.I. background checks as well as questions about spending habits and past relationships. And yet --

MONSIGNOR STEVEN ROHLFS: Psychology is a very inexact science. They can raise flags, but they can't tell you for certain that someone is like this. They can just alert you to the possibility that there's a problem here.

JUDY VALENTE: The Church calls homosexuality intrinsically disordered and actually, since the 1960s, it's had a policy that homosexual men not be ordained. But in the 1970s, says Archbishop O'Brien, shifting moral standards and the rush of men leaving the priesthood led some seminaries to ignore that policy. And a few years ago, a leading seminary rector wrote of the -- quote -- growing perception that the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession.

ARCHBISHOP EDWIN O'BRIEN: There was doubt in the Church as to whether there would be permanent celibacy, about what celibacy entailed, and we were get something ordained priests who were confused and ambiguous in what their commitment was. The bar was there, but the institutions thought, well, we can lower it a little bit just for a while.

We want to be sure that that's not the case today, especially after the scandals that we've been through.

JUDY VALENTE: At Mount St. Mary's the message is clear: The bar is high.

REV. BRETT BRANNEN: We cannot release you to care for the souls of God's people until we're convinced that you have been formed into the image of Jesus. And that's why we have to turn up the heat. We have to turn up the heat to prepare you for this life.

PRIEST: It is also about a lot of "let it go" a lot of letting go. Bad habits must die. Attitudes that are not helpful must die. Anything that hinders your union with Christ is to be gotten rid of.

REV. DON SENIOR: What are we doing to prepare people with human and sexual development that they're healthy people really I think is what the concern is.

JUDY VALENTE: Father Don Senior is president of Catholic Theological Union, the school of theology in Chicago.

REV. DON SENIOR: Are the people responsible for their training sufficiently in touch with what's happening in the lives of these young men to realize, yes, we can send them out into the Church and not fear that harm is going to be done.

JUDY VALENTE: Keeping potential pedophiles out of priesthood is one thing. The new policy on homosexuals promises to be more difficult.

REV. ROBERT SILVA: Men of homosexual orientation are going to go to the seminary. There's no question about it. They're simply not going to say that that's their orientation.

JUDY VALENTE: You would say that it might force homosexuals underground in the seminary.

REV. ROBERT SILVA: Oh, it's not might; it will.

JUDY VALENTE: How do you think such a policy, if it comes to pass, would impact homosexual men who are already priests?

REV. ROBERT SILVA: It seems to be challenging not their behavior, but it seems to be saying that their person, that their very identity is called into question. At this point in their 40s, 50s, 60s, they're saying what is the Church telling me as a human being when it questions my very identity? I've lived a celibate life for this many years.

JUDY VALENTE: Father Silva warns that the new Church policy could have a profound impact on the already-existing shortage of priests, not only by excluding certain men from the seminary but by forcing ordained men out.

REV. ROBERT SILVA: That person has to make a choice: He either goes underground and says, "I'm not gay," or he leaves. If he leaves, we lose because many, many of these priests are very good priests.

Human persons have dignity, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. And we have to have a tremendous respect for the dignity of the individuals that we're talking about.

PRIEST: Let us pray.

JUDY VALENTE: Amid all the controversy over homosexuality, Father Rohlfs at Mount St. Mary's emphasizes that the most important function of seminaries is simply to form holy priests.

MONSIGNOR STEVE ROHLFS: That's probably the single most important thing that a parish expects of a priest: They want him to be a man of God who can teach them how to pray well. They also want him to know the faith. They want him to be able to communicate it to them in a way that can inspire them.

JUDY VALENTE: The Vatican's review of American seminaries is expected to take as long as two years.

GWEN IFILL: A post-script to that story: The Vatican did send a team of priests and bishops to visit Mount St. Mary's recently. Its evaluation of American seminaries, including Mount St. Mary's, will be released in a larger report next year.

UPDATE - DRAWING FIRE

GWEN IFILL: Now an update on a public broadcasting controversy. Jeffrey Brown of our media unit has our report.

SPOKESPERSON: I want to thank especially the inspector general.

JEFFREY BROWN: The release today of a report by the agency's inspector general comes amid a tumultuous year at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a nonprofit private organization established by Congress in 1967. It helps fund PBS and National Public Radio as well as individual programs, including the NewsHour.

SPOKESMAN: Let's call the session of CPB board of directors to order.

JEFFREY BROWN: Today's report examined actions by Kenneth Tomlinson, who served as CPB chairman until September. Tomlinson had remained on the CPB board but resigned earlier this month after objecting to the preliminary findings of the inspector general's report.

As chairman, he'd been vocal in alleging liberal bias in public broadcasting and helped bring a new conservative-oriented program, the Journal Editorial Report, to PBS. Today's report criticized part of his involvement in that process.

Last year, Tomlinson commissioned a study examining PBS and NPR programming for bias.

SPOKESMAN: - NOW with Bill Moyers --

JEFFREY BROWN: The study focused largely on the program NOW, then hosted by PBS veteran Bill Moyers. Today's report said Tomlinson acted improperly in procuring the contract for the study but not in acting to evaluate balance in PBS programming.

In June of this year, Tomlinson selected Patricia Harrison, a former co-chair of the Republican National Committee, for the presidency of CPB. Her selection was criticized in today's report as having been subjected to a -- quote -- political test by Tomlinson.

JEFFREY BROWN: And joining me now to look at today's report is Paul Farhi, who has covered the CPB story for the Washington Post.

Welcome, Paul.

PAUL FARHI: Thank you.

JEFFREY BROWN: Ken Tomlinson stirred up a lot of controversy with his call for political balance, but is it correct to say that today's report really focused on process, how he went about doing things?

PAUL FARHI: More so about process, but there were strong suggestions about political orientation going on at the CPB. For instance, the hiring of Patricia Harrison as president; there were a series of e-mails going back and forth between Tomlinson and the White House. The inspector general found that those e-mails might have influenced his decision and that he was seeking a political choice rather than the best qualified candidate.

There were suggestions that there was a political overtone in some of what he was doing, yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Regarding the creation of the Journal Editorial Report, which features members of the Wall Street Journal, what does the report say that he did wrong?

PAUL FARHI: He did many things wrong, according to the report. He was involved in the creation of the program in the advising of Paul Gigot, the host of the program, also in seeking and securing the funding for that program.

Now, according to the CPB's own guidelines, directors of the board are not supposed to be involved in programming decisions in this way. The inspector general found this may have violated his fiduciary responsibility because he was also seeking funding for it.

There was no suggestion, however, that he strong-armed PBS to get that program on the air; however, it left a strong suggestion that he had used his influence to get that program on the schedule.

JEFFREY BROWN: There was a line in which he told CPB staff to threaten to withhold some funds from PBS if they don't balance programming. Those funds were never withheld according to this report.

PAUL FARHI: That's right. That was just an e-mail that went internally. It's not clear that that threat was communicated directly to PBS but I would say in general, if you were at PBS, it wasn't very hard to read the way the chairman of the CPB -- the funding organization -- wanted things to go.

So if you were Pat Mitchell, the president of PBS, you probably had a very strong indication that the chairman wanted certain things on the air.

JEFFREY BROWN: Another issue we referred to in our setup was the hiring of a consultant to look into bias on programs. Now, what did the report say about that?

PAUL FARHI: Well, that this consultant had interviewed, or at least scrutinized talk shows that were on both PBS and NPR, looking for the political orientation of these guests.

The inspector general made no determination as to whether there was some political shenanigans involved. What he did say was this contract, this letting of this contract to this consultant was improper because Kenneth Tomlinson, the CPB board's chairman, had not adequately informed the board.

So he made no determination about the political nature of that contract, simply that there was a process that was violated.

JEFFREY BROWN: He didn't go through the right process.

PAUL FARHI: Exactly.

JEFFREY BROWN: In fact, the inspector general didn't dispute that Mr. Tomlinson and the board of CPB has a right to look into this question of objectivity and balance.

PAUL FARHI: That's right, except that there was no real definition of "objectivity" and "balance." It was sort of left to some subjective determination as to how one would find balance or objectivity on that programming -- eye of the beholder.

And in fact one of the reforms suggested by the inspector general was to better define how you would go about measuring this subjective question of objectivity.

JEFFREY BROWN: And they do, the report does refer to this CPB complex role -- it says, "complex and sometimes contradictory role," that sort of underlies this whole thing, which is to act as a so-called heat shield to protect against government influence, but at the same time, it is allowed to look at objectivity.

PAUL FARHI: That's exactly right. For 40 years, since the creation of CPB, they have had this dual role which does seem to be a bit contradictory. On the one hand, we want you to prevent political pressure. On the other hand, we want you to ensure balance.

Well, sometimes protecting balance and objectivity looks like political pressure as a lot of peoplewithin the Public Broadcasting System and the public broadcasting community complained when Tomlinson came in looking for this balance.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now Mr. Tomlinson attached a response denying any wrongdoing, and saying that a lot of what he did he thought he had the backing and the okay.

PAUL FARHI: Yes, and that it wasn't entirely his responsibility to inform the board directly that there was staff and there were controls in place, or should have been controls in place that would have adequately informed them, and that he, in a sense, pointed the finger at the staff and said the staff should have been more attentive to seeing to it that the board was fully apprised of these contracts and these initiatives that he was carrying out.

JEFFREY BROWN: In the "what next" category, you referred to the report, called for some overhaul in the governance of CPB.

PAUL FARHI: Yes, they've started a committee within the board to take a look at governance issues. They've also started a committee within the board to look at compensation issues so the contracting problems won't arise again. It's a really long list of reforms that they've undertaken that were recommend by the inspector general that the board has adopted.

JEFFREY BROWN: And the report, of course, was asked for by several Democratic congressmen months ago.

PAUL FARHI: That's right.

JEFFREY BROWN: Did they -- any hint from them today about any further action?

PAUL FARHI: Well, they are reviewing the study, reviewing the investigation, and what's interesting is that some of the groups that have been on protesting about this whole issue have been calling for the resignation of the president of CPB saying that she was, in a sense, a political appointee, that the criteria was corrupted by Ken Tomlinson, and that she should resign. She has refused to do so.

JEFFREY BROWN: No sign of that.

PAUL FARHI: No sign at all.

JEFFREY BROWN: Okay. Paul Farhi of the Washington Post, thanks a lot.

PAUL FARHI: Thank you.

FOCUS - EXIT STRATEGIES

GWEN IFILL: Now, as promised, more on the debate over Iraq exit strategy.

First Ray Suarez talks to one of the war's Iraqi architects, now the country's deputy prime minister, Ahmad Chalabi.

RAY SUAREZ: By coincidence, Ahmad Chalabi's trip to the United States has come amidst renewed congressional battles over the intelligence behind the Iraq war. Chalabi and his exile group were among the key providers of intelligence to the administration before the war. Chalabi fell out of favor briefly with the administration last year, but on this trip has had private visits with Secretary of State Rice, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney, among others. Some of his appearances, such as one last week at a conservative think tank, the AEI, were greeted by anti-war protesters. Chalabi recently created a new political party that will be competing in the December parliamentary election.

Mr. Deputy prime minister, welcome.

AHMAD CHALABI: Thank you,.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, right now, as I'm sure you're aware, there's a lot of debate in the United States Senate about how things should proceed after much conflict. They came up with language in a resolution that says, "2006 should be a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi forces taking the lead in providing security."

Now, 2006 starts in less than two months. Is your government going to be ready to start taking over that responsibility?

AHMAD CHALABI: Indeed, we will be ready to participate more and take on more responsibilities in the security field. We have stood up a significant number of troops, the training goes. We will further enhance the training, and we will also improve our intelligence collection capability, and we can gradually assume more responsibilities.

RAY SUAREZ: There was also a number of senators who wanted to put specific languages, dates, target times for withdrawing troops. Does this kind of thing leave you a little less secure about Americans wanting to stay for a long time to make sure the task of stabilizing Iraq is complete?

AHMAD CHALABI: And then the resolution contained language which is acceptable and encouraging about dates of departure and about when the United States would go. I think I would very much be in favor of this statement that 2006 will be a year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, and also a transition to the withdrawal of some American troops from Iraq as Iraqi security forces are more able to take on some of the jobs.

RAY SUAREZ: But the change in popular opinion in the United States and the way that's reflected on Capitol Hill doesn't leave you worried that Americans might try to leave too soon?

AHMAD CHALABI: What America did in Iraq is something, a bright period in American history; the introduction of democracy and liberty to the Iraqi people is something of great significance. I think this will -- as we begin to win, as we begin to defeat the enemy, the terrorists, I think the American people will see that what has been done in Iraq by their forces is something very credible and I think the mood will change.

RAY SUAREZ: Also, I'm sure you're aware, there's a lot of debate going on in American leadership circles and among everyday Americans about how the United States came to believe that Saddam Hussein regime had weapons of mass destruction, and your name comes up quite frequently in those conversations and debates.

What did you tell the United States in 2001-2002 about Saddam Hussein's capabilities?

AHMAD CHALABI: What we did was introduce three people to the United States administration who said they knew about weapons of mass destruction storage and facilities. They took one of them seriously. They took him into the witness protection program. He stayed with them for a year and three, four months before the start of the war. And that's all we did.

We did not go and say that we have specific information about operational weapons of mass destruction. We did not vouch for any information. Our job is not to go and examine the veracity of the information.

Our job ends with verifying the person who comes is the person who he says he is, and it is the job of the intelligence agencies of the United States -- which are very large, very extensive -- to examine the veracity of this information, and I believe that the United States made its own determination from other, many, many other sources that this was a fact, and that they went to war on the basis of that.

RAY SUAREZ: But during the 18 months before the invasion of Iraq, you didn't merely say, "I'm supplying people who are supplying information;" you yourself went on television programs, spoke to congressional committees, spoke to members of the Bush administration about Saddam's capabilities.

Here in 2002 you told Fox, "Saddam has advanced chemical weapons. He has advanced biological weapons, and he's producing engineered biological weapons which contain viruses such as smallpox and Ebola." No equivocation there, no speculation; you said he has it; he's developing it.

AHMAD CHALABI: I believed that. I believed that. I said it because I believed it. I said it on television. It's not a secret. It's not something surreptitious; I said it because I believed it.

RAY SUAREZ: On the basis of what these defectors were telling you?

AHMAD CHALABI: No. On the basis of various things: On Saddam's activities, his spending methods, whom he was bringing near him, what people were in positions of responsibility in various departments.

But those things were analyses that we came up with; we did not go to the United States administration and say, "Accept our word for this." No, we said what we believed.

RAY SUAREZ: Right after the invasion you were back in Iraq with members of the Iraqi National Congress. Just a few months later, Donald Rumsfeld at a news conference acted like he didn't even recognize your name, and just a few months after that, your offices were being ransacked as part of an investigation into transfer of intelligence to Iran.

This was a lot to go on in just the space of a few short months from someone very close to this administration to someone they were pretending they didn't know. What happened?

AHMAD CHALABI: Well, you better ask them. I don't know what happened. They turned on these issues but I think the most important thing to note here is that we in Iraq now are looking to the future.

I - when I went -- when I arrived in Iraq, it was clear that my -- to everyone that I was working for the interests of the Iraqi people. My loyalty was first and foremost to Iraq, and whatever policies that were being followed by anybody, which I thought were not in the interests of Iraq, I said so.

And this behavior made some people angry, and I think now after two years and nine months after the military action against Saddam Hussein, we are back when we have to look at the possibility for the Iraqi government to develop its resources, to act in a way that can move forward the Iraqi people to the aim of establishing peace in Iraq and winning the war against the insurgency and moving forward.

RAY SUAREZ: According to at least one United States senator, you're still a person of interest to the U.S. F.B.I. concerning intelligence transfers to Iran. What kind of relationship do you have with Iran? Have you been contacted by any American investigative agencies to tell them about your relationship with Iran?

AHMAD CHALABI: No, I have not met any U.S. Government agencies. Although, I said I would meet with them to answer their questions. My relationship with Iran is very simple: Iran is a neighbor of Iraq. We share with them 1400 kilometers of borders. We share with them a common faith for a lot of Iraqi people, and we want to have a good, transparent relationship with Iran.

And we don't want Iran to intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq, and we don't want Iraq to be a battleground between the United States and Iran to settle their scores. And we told the Iranians also that we have a bond with the United States. They helped us liberate ourselves from Saddam, and we're going to have a very strong relationship with the United States and the American people.

RAY SUAREZ: Can Iraq pull off both those relationships? During the run-up to war, one of the reasons that this was suggested was that it would help take some of the security pressure off of Israel to have a secular republic in Iraq -- now - well, a secular republic in Iraq, yes.

And now the new president of Iran is talking about wiping Israel off the map. Can Iraq keep relationships with United States and an Iran that wants to eliminate Israel?

AHMAD CHALABI: The republic in Iraq now according to the constitution is not an Islamic republic. Of course, Iran has influence in Iraq. I believe that the Iranians retracted what their president has said, and I believe that Iraq certainly does not subscribe to what the president of Iran says. We have our own foreign policy.

But nevertheless, we have to live with reality, and it is a measure of how able the Iraqi government will be if it can manage to maintain good relations both with the United States and Iran to avoid Iraq becoming a battleground between the two sides, who have their own quarrels, but we must try to isolate ourselves from them as much as possible.

RAY SUAREZ: I asked you briefly about the F.B.I. I'm wondering during the whole time that you've been in Washington whether any agency of the United States has asked to talk to you about the two years running up to the invasion of Baghdad about what you knew, what you told the American government, because there's been so much talk in Washington about investigations of this.

AHMAD CHALABI: No.

RAY SUAREZ: You'd be happy to talk to them?

AHMAD CHALABI: Of course. I offered, on May 23, 2004, after the raid on my house, I went on national television, on four, I think, major networks, and I offered to go before the Senate to talk about all this, about the relationship with the United States, about the charges of misleading the United States, and about the weapons of mass destruction issue, and my offer stands.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, very briefly before we go, are you still convinced that things went the right way and this was the right way to proceed with the armed overthrow of the government of Iraq in 2003?

AHMAD CHALABI: Yes. The moral position that has been achieved in Iraq with the overthrow of Saddam is something that the Iraqi people will never forget. It has been a great moment for Iraq. We have a chance to establish democracy. We want democracy. We want liberty like everybody else, and we want a better life for ourselves.

Saddam gave us mass graves, destroyed our economy, enslaved our people for three - thirty-five years - three and a half decades, and the United States, under the leadership of President Bush helped us liberate ourselves from Iraq. This is great.

RAY SUAREZ: Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi, thanks for joining us.

AHMAD CHALABI: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: And now for more of that Senate debate on where we stand in Iraq we turn to two lawmakers with opposing points of view. Republican John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader.

For the past several weeks, it seems like the president and the Senate have both, gentlemen, been engaged in discussions about what led us to the war in Iraq and also what happens next in the deputy prime minister's discussion with Ray Suarez kind of captured some of that.

Sen. Durbin, what is your response to the very last thing that Ahmad Chalabi said, which was it was justified all along?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, I'm totally baffled by Mr. Chalabi's presence in Washington, D.C.. The victory tour that he's been on over the past week -- I mean, consider the facts: This man is a convicted bank embezzler, convicted of embezzling over $230 million in Jordan. He ran and fled to London so that they wouldn't punish him.

We know that he gave us discredited and false information about the situation in Iraq before the invasion, two specifics -- the mobile biological weapons labs that came out of his sources turned out to be a total fraud, an embarrassment to the administration and Secretary Powell, and this so-called curve ball who turned out to be a brother of one of Chalabi's aides has been totally discredited in terms of what he said about weapons of mass destruction.

Last year, with the direction our government, we raided Mr. Chalabi's homes because we believed that he was passing secret information from the United States to the Iranians about a code we had broken to monitor their development of nuclear weapons.

Last week, the F.B.I. said Mr. Chalabi was under active investigation for that activity, and yet he still managed to make this victory tour to the vice president's office, the secretary of state. I don't understand it. I'm baffled by this man.

GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Sen. Warner what he thinks about it. Obviously, Sen. Durbin feels strongly. Do you think that Ahmad Chalabi should not have been welcomed with open arms in Washington this week?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: You know, we're trying to foster democracy, and we're succeeding, in Iraq. They have a legislature. The legislature's designated him as deputy prime minister. And it seems to me, quite right that our country should listen to the deputy prime minister, particularly at this critical time in history, when we're supporting the referendum, which just took place and the new elections.

And I say to my good friend, he met with the secretaries of defense and state, and I might add, Sen. Levin yesterday, and based on that, I felt that I would see him tomorrow.

So if Sen. Levin felt it was necessary to see him, I accepted that opportunity when he asked to see me.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Warner, obviously today the Senate began responding to what some of the public opinion polls have been showing, which is that Americans are getting a little weary of the war, are at least a little antsy about when a withdrawal will be occurring.

The nonbinding resolution you agreed to today would set not a timetable but a general target for 2006 as the beginning of a transition. Why not a timetable for withdrawal?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, first a bit of history here: There's a lot of dissension here in Washington. And I personally believe when we can find common ground between the Democrats and Republicans we should do so, and that way to try to reassure and regain confidence in the people that we're doing their business.

When the Democrats decide to put forward a resolution on Iraq, they gave it to me, I studied it. I also had prepared, at the direction of our leader Frist and others, a detailed resolution stating a different approach.

But then it occurred to me, that this was an opportunity to try and achieve a measure of bipartisanship and we succeeded. Today 79 Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of my amendment, and the amendment simply states our mission there, what we hope to achieve, and indicates in very clear language that our nation and our coalition partners have contributed a great deal in loss of life, loss of limb, billions of dollars each week, and it's now time with the elections on December 15, for Iraq to step up and take charge of their own government in a stronger and better fashion.

I was just there six weeks ago. And the defense minister said he couldn't even find the money to pay his troops. So we cannot tolerate that. And this resolution says that in detail, but carefully, I eliminated any reference to a timetable. It's not in our interest. It would play into the hands of our adversaries, the terrorists, if we were to set a timetable.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Durbin, Sen. Frist, the majority leader, has been saying today that the Democratic version of this, whichwould have had a timetable, would be essentially cutting and running. Why no timetable?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, I tell you that I think this was a significant resolution, and I want to salute my colleague. We may disagree on a lot of things, but I think what he said is right.

There was a bipartisan statement today by the Senate. I thank him for his leadership in drawing us to that point, and that bipartisan statement said that it's time for a change of our policy in Iraq.

We have got to make it clear in this administration, 2006 is a year of significant transition, not just another weary year in this war in Iraq; secondly, that the Iraqis have a responsibility here, a responsibility to protect themselves and to build a political coalition that can defeat insurgency and the resolution is explicit: The president is going to be held accountable, report to Congress every 90 days, about the progress we made.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Durbin, I want to ask you about that reporting to Congress every 90 days. It might surprise people to know that Congress hasn't been receiving ongoing reports like this on the war. Why not? And what difference will this make?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Well, unfortunately -- and I won't speak to the senator's - Sen. Warner's committee -- but unfortunately too many committees in Congress are not accepting their responsibility of oversight, not holding the president accountable, the secretary of defense accountable.

It's a rare occurrence to see them up here, and I think we need to see them more, and I think the fact the American people are troubled by the progress in this war, or the lack of progress in this war, really calls on this administration to be held more accountable.

This bipartisan resolution or amendment, I should say, that we passed today, really breaks new ground, and it says we're going to have a new policy. The status quo, staying the course, is not acceptable.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Warner, as Ray Suarez mentioned to Ahmad Chalabi, 2006 is just a couple of months away. Are you convinced, from what you know, that Iraq is ready, that the troops ready, that this is actually more than a pie-in-the-sky resolution?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: This is by no means a pie in the sky. This is a stiff message from the Congress, and it really in many ways supports what the president has been saying, and indeed he has issued to our committee and the committees of the Congress many, many, many reports. But this one broadens the base of facts and the contents of those reports in future every 90 days.

Now, I'm firmly of the belief that it's necessary and we have done it in this resolution to send the strongest message, bipartisan, forward looking, and addressing the critical nature of the next six months. When this situation, unless we pull together, Iraq working with the coalition partners, and particularly the United States and Great Britain -- unless they shore up their government with a new one, replacing the old one and take charge of the affairs of their people and their military and show the determination to regain full sovereignty, then we could face indeed a civil war. And we do not want that to happen. We've generously given of life, limb, and our money and our support. We do not want to see a civil war develop.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. Durbin, you have said the decision to go to war in Iraq was a colossal error in judgment. Do you feel like you're getting the information, the accurate information you need now to make a decision as a U.S. Senator about whether the error continues or whether we've turned a corner or whether -- what went before matters any more for the future?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Some of the information Sen. Warner and I receive is classified and can't be discussed, but just a few weeks ago one piece of classified information was disclosed when Generals Casey and Abizaid told a meeting of your committee that only one battalion was prepared to stand and fight independently. That's a long way from 160,000 American troops currently risking their lives in Iraq at this moment.

We have a long way to go, with half of the people unemployed, with electricity service not even at the level of the day of our invasion, with oil production still way behind.

There's a lot of progress that needs to be made before Iraq is stable, but we need an honest plan for success in Iraq, and I think the vote today said to the president, we need to change the course.

GWEN IFILL: The president, Sen. Durbin, if I stay with you for a moment, has been saying that Democrats in particular have been rewriting history and retelling the story to suit their own cold feet, as it were right now. What's your response to that?

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: I think the president's statements are wrong and inaccurate. The fact of the matter is I was on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Statements being made by members of the administration about things like aluminum tubes and nuclear weapons went far beyond what we were hearing behind closed doors in that Senate Intelligence Committee room. And I couldn't say anything publicly.

The fact of the matter is, misleading information was coming from the administration. Whether or not it was intentional or otherwise, the Senate Intelligence Committee will decide but to say that we have the same level of intelligence data as the President of the United States is just plain wrong.

He receives a daily intelligence brief from the director of the CIA. We don't have access to that kind of information. There's much more intelligence information available to the president as it should be, as commander in chief.

GWEN IFILL: And, Sen. Warner, on that same point, is history being rewritten in your opinion by the critics of the president, especially at a time when public opinion is sliding away from him?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, we should always, in this country, debate the past when it's appropriate to do so. And I don't criticize those who have views different than mine. I supported the president. Indeed, I supported President Clinton when he likewise said it's time for a regime change in Iraq. And he was deeply concerned about it.

So we have consistently been trying to bring about a measure of democracy in Iraq. And I think there's been a considerable amount of success. But the next six months requires us to put aside this fighting and squabbling over the past. Debate it sometime, fine, but not inject it into what we must be viewed worldwide, not only in Iraq, but worldwide, as standing steadfast with the Iraqi people, and particularly this new government, in trying to bring about a measure of democracy in that country and avoiding civil war.

GWEN IFILL: Sen. John Warner, Sen. Richard Durbin, thank you both very much.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: Thank you.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Thank you.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the other major developments of the day: The Senate called for the president to give a clear strategy on completing the mission in Iraq. But it blocked Democratic demands for a timetable to withdraw. Secretary of State Rice helped broker a deal between Israelis and Palestinians on Gaza border crossings. And baseball players and owners agreed on stiff new penalties for steroid use.

GWEN IFILL: And again, to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Here, in silence, are eight more.

GWEN IFILL: An editor's note before we go: Last night, we showed the wrong pills in our story on plan b, the morning after contraceptive. This is the correct picture for that prescription. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and good night.