The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, the Lebanon kidnappers of American hostage Joseph Cicippio said they had suspended his execution. This followed the earlier release of a videotape showing Cicippio alive, and in Washington, the House defied Pres. Bush by passing an S&L bailout bill he has threatened to veto. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: After the News Summary, we look at the options facing Pres. Bush in the hostage crisis with Robert McFarlane, Former National Security Adviser to Pres. Reagan, Former Defense Sec. James Schlesinger, Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic Studies and Retired Col. Charlie Beckwith, former Commander of the Army's Delta Strike Force. Next, Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett reports on grassroots politics surrounding abortion legislation in Illinois. We close with an essay by Clarence Page on Pete Rose and America's gambling fever. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Terrorists holding American hostage Joseph Cicippio today suspended their immediate threat to execute him in a renewed attempt to free a Shiite cleric held by Israel. The revolutionary Justice Organization had threatened to kill Cicippio by 11 AM Eastern Time today if Israel did not release Sheik Abdul Kareem Obeid. That deadline was extended four hours with release of a videotape with a moving appeal by Cicippio.

JOSEF CICIPPIO: I appeal to each person having honor who can move to release Sheik Abdul Karim Obeid, don't be late, because they are very serious to hang us and the period becomes very soon and the hours very little. My dear wife and people and all the human society and especially the Red Cross, don't leave me.

MR. MacNeil: Before the second deadline expired, the terrorists said they had suspended or frozen the execution "out of respect for the intervention by the parties and states with whom America has pleaded to stop the execution." They also announced what they called a new initiative. They demanded the release of Obeid and a number of people arrested by Israel in the Palestinian uprising. If Israel did not agree "within days", the terrorists said, the initiative would be cancelled. Cicippio, who is 58, was acting comptroller at American University in Beirut when he was kidnapped in 1986. In Norristown, Pennsylvania, family members had this to stay.

THOMAS CICIPPIO, Brother of Hostage: It was a very devastating three days to go through. I just don't ever want to go through this again.

DAVID CICIPPIO, Son of Hostage: But I do feel that it is the time for our government to start taking some sort of a positive action for their release, you know, while they can now and not wait for the next crisis to come about.

MR. MacNeil: The White House welcomed the latest reprieve after warning that the killing of Cicippio would create a very grave situation. As U.S. warships steamed towards Lebanon, Reuters News Agency said the United States had warned Iran that Washington would hold it responsible for the safety of the American hostages in Lebanon. The White House expressed guarded optimism that the inauguration of a new Iranian president would bring improved relations. Hashemi Rafsanjani, elected by an overwhelming vote to a presidency with greater powers, was sworn in today. He promised to follow in the footsteps of the Ayatollah Khomeini who died in June. He did not mention the hostage crisis. The options now facing Pres. Bush will be our main topic after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The House today passed a savings & loan bailout package Pres. Bush does not want. The bill then went to the Senate which took it up late this afternoon. Mr. Bush sent a letter to the Congressional leadership threatening to veto the bill because it would put much of the bailout cost in the federal budget, thus raising the federal deficit. He favors a system that would keep the S&L costs off budget and be financed through the sale of bonds. The final House vote was 221 to 199 and was preceded by some vigorous debate.

REP. CHARLES SCHUMER, [D] New York: Ladies and gentlemen, we must stick with the on budget procedure. For the President of the United States to ask the American people to pay billions more so that he can hide his budget deficit is nothing short of obscene.

REP. BILL FRENZEL, [R] Minnesota: Gramm-Rudman is not a wonderful piece of legislation, but it's the only spending restraint we have in this Congress. Punching a hole in it through the House Financing System would be worrisome precedent and a risk that we should not take and we cannot take.

REP. BARNEY FRANK, [D] Massachusetts: There were not major differences here. The President of the United States has the right to act like a spoiled child. We are under no obligation to indulge him.

REP. BOB MICHEL, [R] Illinois: I'm not asking you to give the President everything he wants, but I'm asking that you not insist on everything you want or we want on this issue of on or off budget.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Bush also threatened another veto in another letter today. The bill is one the House passed yesterday that approved the District of Columbia Government's use of federal money to fund abortions. It now goes to the Senate.

MR. MacNeil: Finally in economic news, the government said its chief forecasting tool, the Index of Leading Economic Indicators, fell in June for the fourth time in five months. The fall was small, .1 percent, and had been expected as further evidence that the economy is slowing down. Economists differed today in reading the evidence to mean that the nation has already entered a recession or just a period of sluggish growth. That's our Summary of the News. Now it's on to the options the President faces in Lebanon, abortion politics in Illinois and a Clarence Page essay. FOCUS - HOSTAGE CRISIS

MR. LEHRER: Forty five minutes before they said they would kill Joseph Ciccippio his moslem kidnappers backed off announcing the suspension of his execution. It is the latest development in this latest American hostage crisis which is our lead again tonight, The crisis began in Lebanon began last Friday when Israeli commandos abducted a Moslem Leader in an attempt to force the release of three Israeli soldiers being held captive. His followers demanded the leaders freedom and then released the video tape of a body said to be that of American Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins. Threats to Ciccippio and others followed that as has much diplomatic activity by the United States and others to resolve the situation. Today the drama centered in Ciccippio. The deadline for his execution was set for 11 a.m Eastern Time. The Kidnappers delayed it four hours and sent this video tape of Ciccippio to a Western News Organization in Beirut. [CICCIPPIO TAPE]

MR. LEHRER: Back in Washington the Democratic Leader of the U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell spoke out on the Senate Floor about this situation.

SENATOR GEORGE MITCHELL, [D] Maine: We seek to make clear our support for appropriate retaliatory action should the President determine that to be necessary. We simply must in this country and across the civilized World unit to reject,condemn and respond to the acts of terrorists lest they emboldened to engage in further brutal actions. The murder of Joseph Ciccippio would be a savage and barbarous act and those who contemplate and threaten such action must be prepared to accept the consequences if they act.

MR. LEHRER: Now get four special perspectives on this crisis and on what if anything the United States really can do about it. perspective number one is that of Robert McFarlane who was the national security advisor in the Reagan Administration. he was a central figure in the Iran Contra Operation that was aimed at gaining the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. Mr. Mc Farlane first how do interpret this latest development the suspension of the execution of Joseph Ciccippio.

ROBERT MC FARLANE, Former National Security Advisor: Well Jim there is a great deal of activity going on behind the scenes. On the one hand probably a lot of threats coming from Israel privately and the Religious Leadership in Lebanon Sheik Fadlalla probably.

MR. LEHRER: Who is he?

MR. MC FARLANE: He is the nominal religious figure within the country who has the greatest influence on the Hezbolla elements in Lebanon. Probably there are some threats that are going his way from Israel.

MR. LEHRER: Saying what like?

MR. MC FARLANE: Probably that they could effect his welfare through violence. Or through subordinates that Israel because it has excellent intelligence knows about. These are not things that Israel will acknowledge but properly they are making clear to Hezbolla elements that they are prepared to take action if there is further murder of hostages now being held. I think separately there is probably some pressure coming from Iran. The current Leadership to as Rafsanjani becoming President understands that the policy of the past ten years really have not worked in spreading Islam indeed they have isolated Iran and his interest is served not by taking hostages but by reaching out.

MR. LEHRER: How do you know that? How do you know that Rafsanjani feels that way?

MR. MC FARLANE: Well we don't know it from confidence. We know it just from logic, I think. The decline of the economy the isolation of the country, the real pressure they are feeling from their own people who after loss of foreign exchange and suffering in the rural areas began to come to urban areas and pressure the Government for change. And it needs to produce to restore that economy and it needs help to do it. In Beirut there are things that we can do apart from hoping that this outside pressure has some effect and it seems to me that one of the things that we might try is to recognized that these terrorists live in Lebanon and there are other Lebanese who if we began to create a lot of turmoil in their lives such as by closing the port of Beirut, cutting of the gasoline, food things like that.

MR. LEHRER: We could do that?

MR. MC FARLANE: Yes we could.

MR. LEHRER: What would be involved in doing that?

MR. MC FARLANE: A blockade and it would take Naval Resources, ships but it could be done and even though Syria could relieve some of that disruption over tine it would really put a lot of turmoil into the lives of the War Lords who head the Drews, Christian and Shiite Factions. And if their lives become complicated and if they can't buy gas and things like that they will begin to pressure the Hezbolla who after all the source of the problem. So certainly it is worth a try I think.

MR. LEHRER: Could that be done quickly. Wouldn't it take a while to put that kind of blockade into effect and have that kind of effect on the economy.

MR. MC FARLANE: I think the real effect would take a matter of weeks. perhaps months and yet historically take 85 when they kidnapped TWA 847 and were holding the hostages. And direct communications with the leaders of one of the factions there made it clear that President Reagan was prepared to do that very thing.

MR. LEHRER: This is Nabi Berry?

MR. MC FARLANE: That is right.

MR. LEHRER: What did you tell him?

MR. MC FARLANE: I told him number one that we were not going to lean on Israel to release anybody therefore his potential gain from securing the release of prisoners in Israel was not going to happen and worse we were prepared to close the Port of Beirut and that he might be the person who would suffer by having the spotlight on him as responsible for having for having brought on all this trouble. I think he got the point.

MR. LEHRER: Was a real threat, I mean, was the United States in 1985 really prepared to close the Port?

MR. MC FARLANE: President Reagan was always prepared to do more that people than people would recommend and he was generally pleased to do something just as long as it wasn't trivial.

MR. LEHRER: Back to the Iran part of this equation. As Robin reported in the news summary the Rueters News Service has a story that says the United States through Swiss intermediaries has delivered the word to Rafsanjani and the Government of Iran that the United States holds and will hold Iran responsible if something else happens to these hostages. Is that a good thing to do and it is legit, and what does that mean?

MR. MC FARLANE: Well it seems to me that the we put it to Iran that we do expect them to act constructively. Rafsanjani has publically criticized and condemned this operations.

MR. LEHRER: The Israeli operation you mean?

MR. MC FARLANE: No the killing of Col. Higgins as he should have. Whether or not we can really say that Iran is controlling these people in Lebanon today I really doubt it was Khomeini who had the influence and Khomeini is dead. There is no other religious figure today, I think, in Iran with quite that degree of influence and so to say that we hold them responsible may be a little bit rhetorical. I don't know for sure that is really the case,

MR. LEHRER: Could a problem develop that we tell Iran that and Joseph Ciccippio or someone else dies are we then obligated to take military action against Iran or some kind of action against Iran.

MR. MC FARLANE: I am not sure what it implies and I think that might be misguided to tell you that truth.

MR. LEHRER: Well thank you. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Next the views of James Schlesinger who was Director of Central Intelligence in the Nixon Administration, Secretary of Defense under Presidents Nixon and Ford and also President Carter's Energy Secretary. he is now a counsellor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. mr. Schlesinger does President Bush have influence in Iran or with Iran now do you think?

JAMES SCHLESINGER, Former Director of the CIA: I think that our influence may grow but it is quite limited.

MR. MacNeil: Could rafsanjani so soon after coming to power to cooperate or be seen to cooperate with Washington when there is still apparently many hard line Mullahs following the Ayatollah's line there would you think?

MR. SCHLESINGER: I think that he probably can not afford to cooperate with the United States on this or been seen to be cooperating and he may not be able to do so. His influence at the moment is quite limited. He was sworn in today, he faces major opposition from his Interior Minister with regard to the course of Iranian policy.

MR. MacNeil: So if the report that we quoted is true that the United States has sent that warning that it holds Iran responsible for the safety of the hostages what would reaction be to such a tactic?

MR. SCHLESINGER: Well I think that Mr. Mc Farlane covered that point during his comments; While Khomeini was alive I think that these warnings clearly were productive in that we could hold Iran responsible and if something happened we could bash Iran. Under these set of circumstances in which we do not want Iran to drift further towards the Soviet Union and we want Rafsanjani to establish himself to see what eventuates. He may or may not be the moderate that we believe him to be but in Iran moderation is a relative matter and he seems to be relatively moderate.

MR. MacNeil: What options does President Bush have to save the hostages now?

MR. SCHLESINGER: Well our ability to save the hostages is quite limited. It is plain that those who hold the hostages must judge it to be more costly to them each day to dispose of the hostages then it is to keep them alive. At the moment they are regarded as assets they have been using Mr. Ciccippio as we have seen as a way of bringing pressure to bear on the United States and indeed successfully to bring pressure to bear on the United States. And as long as that is the case they will be inclined to keep him alive. We should make it clear that the costs would be substantial if Mr. Ciccippio is indeed disposed of.

MR. MacNeil: The White House said Mr. Bush himself said the White House said again today Fitzwater said the U.S. doesn't know exactly who is holding these people, it doesn't adequate intelligence, the President said he isn't dealing with a full deck in this case. As a former CIA Head do you believe that U.S. intelligence is that inadequate there?

MR. SCHLESINGER: Well we have suffered a number of blows in terms of our intelligence capabilities. In the first place we lost a large number of assets in the Middle East during the bombing of the Embassy and on other occasions and the present set of circumstances makes it difficult for us to penetrate such organizations because of the over view process on Capitol Hill. If we were to penetrate these organizations the organizations would demand that the individual who is attempting to penetrate demonstrate his bonifides by knocking of a bank or some such thing and that would not make good reading on Capitol Hill or in the Washington Post so we have been damaged. Nonetheless your question is well taken. We ought to know more by now given the steady fusillade of events on terrorism over the course of the last 5 years.

MR. MacNeil: Why is this just a bit of disinformation. You are an old hand at this game. I don't mean at disinformation, I mean in the intelligence World but it would just be very cleaver tactics to keep on saying we don't know enough we don't know enough because they do actually know quite a lot?

MR. SCHLESINGER: Well I would hope that is indeed the case and certainly we know more than we have revealed. On the other it is plain that if we were to make an operation that failed the political consequences for the President would be very severe and therefore he is not going to authorize an operation that is has any high likelihood of failure.

MR. MacNeil: Is there a practical military options in this situation that you see?

MR. SCHLESINGER: There is a practical military operation option which is to bomb the bejeasus out of known Iranian Camps in the Beka Valley but if we do so we should recognize the possible consequences. The last time we went over Lebanon we lost two aircraft. If we go in I think that we should go in such a way thwart those camps are leveled that they will be little left that even an Israeli targeteer will be unable to find additional target.

MR. MacNeil: Well thank you. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Next the view of Edward Luttwak a writer and consultant on defense and strategic issues, a Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington. Do you believe that the United States has a real military option in this affair.

EDWARD LUTTWAK, Sr. Fellow International Center for Strategic and International Studies: Well options don't grow on tree. Options are developed over a period of months. perhaps years if you have a military establishment that wants to act then plans are thought up. These plans require specific intelligence. Special training maybe required. Sometimes equipment may have to be modified but all has to begin with a Pentagon that is eager to act. And I think the reason that the President has no options other than General purpose bombing these are banal targets is because we even though we have a new Administration and new Secretary of Defense the Wienberger rules remain in effect and the rules are don't suggest any military action, when ask if come with skills for military action write memos explaining why nothing is possible and this is the stable phase. It is really inconsistent with the fact we are spending lots of money on special operations forces. They are lavishly equipped, the are very costly and at the same time it is very clear to their people that instead of being pushed forward essentially we are told that you have to be realistic. That is why there are no options.

MR. LEHRER: Well let me be really specific. Last night on this program Stansfield Turner Former Head of the CIA said if Joseph Ciccippio is killed today the one option that the United States has it should be prepared to do is send in special forces units to go in there and get out as may of the remaining 7 U.S. hostages that who are there. Could we do that?

MR. LUTTWAK: No why say extract hostages when they don't know where they are.

MR. LEHRER: Well he is assuming that we knew where they were.

MR. LUTTWAK: We can't get the hostages. What you can do is that you can lift the know Hezbolla Leaders and you remove them for adjudication or some such procedure and of course you can attack camps. You can attack camps by bombardment.

MR. LEHRER: As Secretary Schlesinger just said.

MR. LUTTWAK: Indeed and that option involves the possibility of losing aircraft. The fact is this we are spending a lot of money. We are spending perhaps 20 times what the British, French and Israelis are spending on these commando forces. They are wonderfully equipped and we never use them.

MR. LEHRER: Now why don't we use them?

MR. LUTTWAK: We don't use them because the senior military find the Wienberger Doctrine very convenient. It says to them that their business is to take money and retain forces for deterrence and they are not called upon to carry out major operations.

MR. LEHRER: So as a practical matter what you are saying is that President Bush is sitting over at the White House now looking at options and this is not even one of them. The Pentagon or the defense establishment could not effectively mount a commando operation that would do any good in this situation.

MR. LUTTWAK: Right. They can't do it because as I say the option has to be cultivated evolved over a period of months and years.

MR. LEHRER: You can't suddenly bring it up now?

MR. LUTTWAK: No you can't just ask them to do something. You have to have a constancy there. The way it ought to be is that we ought to have a Pentagon that always comes out and offers ten different possible commando operations. Then let these options be shot down for the political reasons by the State Department and the President's advisors on the grounds of risk but instead of coming up with options they come up with memos explaining nothing can be done.

MR. LEHRER: An Iranian just listening to what you have just said Dr. Luttwak would say these hostages have been there one of them for five years and there is no contingency plan in effect for this kind of operation?

MR. LUTTWAK: Not realistically because although we have very capable and very good people their superiors essentially don't want to use them. They don't want to act and if you look at the British for example they will use their commando forces at every opportunity because they want to maintain the capability and they want to have some deterrents.

MR. LEHRER: So if you don't use them ever they don't scare anybody?

MR. LUTTWAK: That is right. The French would use them at every opportunity and the Israelis long before this highly publicized operation of lifting this Sheik they use it all the time. Now we have far broader capabilities than the French, British and Israelis and we also have a Wienberger Doctrine in place that rationalizes a bureaucratic self serving attitude on the part of the military. If they are not encouraged to go forward you don't generate the intelligence requirements and then the intelligence community is not asked to do specific things it might be able to do but it generally has to know everything about the World.

MR. LEHRER: Thank you. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: And finally the special perspective of Col. Charlie Beckwith, retired Green Beret who organized and commanded the Delta Force, the Pentagon's secret counter-terrorism unit which launched the unsuccessful hostage rescue operation in Iran in 1980. He joins us from Austin, Texas. Colonel, do you agree with Edward Luttwak that the special forces are not ready for this kind of operation for the reasons he gave, that there's a mind set against using them in the Pentagon?

COL. CHARLIE BECKWITH [RET.], Former Special Operations Commander: Yes. I'd like to meet this individual. He and I would have a lot in common and could share a lot. I don't know about the Weinberger document, what their document was in regards to not using special operations forces.

MR. MacNeil: I think the word he was using was "doctrine", Colonel.

COL. BECKWITH: Before we get into it, let's define what it is we're talking about. Special operations, military special operations, it's those operations that are beyond the scope of the tactical battlefield. They are the unique things that are done by extraordinary soldiers requiring extraordinary training using very fine equipment, a fine tuned machine to do a very sensitive political job, and that's where we are today, and that's the reason I agree with what's been said here, and we're sitting around idle. At the same time, I certainly don't think we just should pick up and throw these forces in to accommodate everyone that thinks we should do this. It's something that requires a great deal of --

MR. MacNeil: From your knowledge, what is their state of readiness today?

COL. BECKWITH: The operational people are ready to go. They're biting at the bit. God, I can feel it now. I can feel the vibes, and I haven't even talked to anyone. Three years ago, the Congress passed a law and the Defense Department was against this, and the Congress passed a law that we would have a special operations command with a four star billet, and the Congress said we didn't need this. I mean, the Defense Department said they promised to do it. Those Senators up there, Goldwater being one of them, said we've got to push this thing through. There were a number of senior officers, general officers, who were diametrically opposed to a special operations command, many of them were, and that stigma still hangs in there today.

MR. MacNeil: Could these special forces, if given the signal, mount an effective operation in Lebanon now, and how long would it take them to get ready?

COL. BECKWITH: I believe that if the special operations forces were given a warning order, I think the first thing they would want would be the hinge pins and that's the intelligence. That's where I was nine years and three months ago. I needed the hinge pins, I needed the intelligence and I didn't have it. And they don't have it today. But I think over a period of time if intelligence can be provided, and I'm very frustrated over this intelligence problem, and some heads ought to roll over in the CIA as far as I'm concerned, people have been idle. We need a human capability. If we don't get it, somebody ought to go, but anyhow the operators are ready to do their jobs. They've got the equipment and I'm sure there are a lot of people very frustrated on the operations side of the House.

MR. MacNeil: But you took for the operation that was very carefully planned and really only failed because the helicopters failed --

COL. BECKWITH: That's right. I never got a chance to perform.

MR. MacNeil: Right. But you were months in preparation and training for that, were you not?

COL. BECKWITH: Longer than that, sir.

MR. MacNeil: In secret.

COL. BECKWITH: Longer than that. I started leaning forward and refitting the force, making it a heavier force in October, and in December, I was pretty well ready to go, but the administration wasn't ready at that time and as you know, time went on, and as they did, we continued to perfect the force and perfect it with tactics and equipment.

MR. MacNeil: My question is now, if they got a political signal to go, to mount an effective surgical operation would take how many weeks or months to prepare for?

COL. BECKWITH: Well, it would take some time, and I wouldn't want to get into exactly the time frame, but it would take some time. But it could be done is the point.

MR. MacNeil: But you don't think that they possess the intelligence to do it effectively?

COL. BECKWITH: Not today, sir; they don't have the hinge pin; they don't have that basic foundation in order to frame an emergency assault plan and that's what's required.

MR. MacNeil: So, Colonel, what would your advice, if Pres. Bush asked you for it, what would you advise him to do in a situation like this?

COL. BECKWITH: I'd advise him to go down and talk to General Lindsay at the special operations command at MacNeil Air Force Base, that's what I'd advise him to do, and I'd also advise him to carry the DCI with him.

MR. MacNeil: The Director of Central Intelligence.

COL. BECKWITH: Yes, sir.

MR. MacNeil: Thank you, Colonel. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: And what would be your advice, Mr. McFarlane, about that advice?

ROBERT MC FARLANE, Former National Security Adviser: Well getting better intelligence really is at the heart of it. Charlie is dead on on that. We don't have any human collection capability in the Middle East worthy of the name. For Stansfeld Turner to say that we ought to mount an operation when he was the man who presided over the disassembly of every human collector we had in the Middle East is a bit outrageous. And we need to put that back in place, and to do that, it takes time. But until we've got it, Charlie's right, we can't send people into a kind of blind operation, as good as they are, and they are very good, but it's intelligence.

MR. LEHRER: But Sec. Schlesinger, what about Ed Luttwak's point that you get intelligence when you fine tune the mission and you prepare for the mission? That's what causes intelligence to be gathered.

JAMES SCHLESINGER, Former Defense Secretary: Well, I think that Mr. Luttwak was correct on that particular point. It should come as no surprise to anybody in the administration or in the intelligence community that we have a potential problem with hostages in Lebanon, and there should have been options prepared, and if our intelligence has been inadequate, and I believe it to have been inadequate, though I don't necessarily join with Col. Beckwith in saying heads should roll, mind you, but it has been deficient and we need to build up our base, if necessary, taking it from friendly powers in the Middle East that know what is going on in Beirut.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to the more specific and general point that Ed Luttwak raised, Mr. McFarlane, which is that there is a mind set, he called it the Weinberger rules or the Weinberger syndrome or the Weinberger doctrine, there's a mind set against using the Col. Beckwiths of this world, is he right?

MR. MC FARLANE: Well, he was certainly right during the past eight years; there were two occasions right after the Marines were bombed in 1983, when we had very good intelligence on concentrations of people in the Bekkah Valley, Hezbollah elements training in a barracks there, without any question or very much risk of killing innocent civilians so isolated were these barracks. Air operations were planned on two occasions, once by ourselves, once with the French. Both failed once because of the intervention of the military command structure that Ed is talking about, the second time at the intervention of the Secretary of Defense personally. At great cost, in my judgment, the damage done to our ability to operate with the French was so damaged by that that that's why the French wouldn't let us overfly France later when we struck Libya. These kinds of things have prevented us from successful military operations time and time again, but Charlie's right. It's not a matter of the people at the working level not being good enough; they are good enough. It is intelligence, it is also what Ed said about a disinclination to take risks.

MR. LEHRER: As a practical matter, Ed Luttwak, with all your thesis, considering your thesis, what then does Pres. Bush do, what would you advise him to do?

EDWARD LUTTWAK, Center for Strategic Studies: I would first of all formally repudiate the Weinberger doctrine which lays out these extraordinary conditions so restrictive, a military action to go way beyond international law, I would formally repudiate it and I would pass the message to the Pentagon that we have a State Department to write memos explaining why we shouldn't use force. I have White House advisers who will tell me of the risks of using force. You, gentlemen in the Pentagon, kindly come up with specific options.

MR. LEHRER: Okay.

MR. LUTTWAK: You cannot rescue hostages, but you can hit targets, you can remove people, you can destroy facilities, and we can start building some deterrence so that the American citizen, even as Cicippio, a convert to Islam, will not be the favorite targets for anybody who wants a hostage.

MR. LEHRER: Dr. Schlesinger, what do you think about Bud McFarlane's suggestion about closing the port in Beirut as something to do?

MR. SCHLESINGER: Well, I would be reluctant to follow that advice right off. I think that it is well worth looking at and if the situation further deteriorates, it is certainly something to be considered, but the problem with it is that the consequences fall on both the just and the unjust. We have many friendly bodies in Lebanon, and they would suffer as much. If we can direct it towards those parts of the community that have been supporting the terrorists, then we should be prepared to do so. As yet, I don't see that mechanism.

MR. LEHRER: Then in the meantime -- do you think it's possible this thing could be resolved, there could be a swap, a deal could be made?

MR. SCHLESINGER: I think that it's possible. I'm not sure that that's --

MR. LEHRER: Do signs look that way to you?

MR. SCHLESINGER: I think it's very unlikely. Why would the terrorists give up those hostages which are their principal assets? They have been able to disrupt American policy. They have persuaded the American President to give up a trip, to come back to Washington. They have focused world attention on themselves once again. They have Mr. Cicippio making a plea that has much propaganda included in it. Why should they give up those assets?

MR. LEHRER: What does your gut tell you on a scale of one to ten, Mr. McFarlane, about whether or not a deal could be made?

MR. MC FARLANE: Well, I think it's about a seven on the scale that it will be made, Jim, and the reason I say that is because there has been a threshold in time past and time becomes more on the side of release at this point, I believe. What is going to make or break that situation though is whether or not the two things happen, the Hezbollah and their nominal leader in country, Mr. Fedlala, must feel threatened enough to make a deal, and there has to be a very very subtle and non-public agreement on sequencing in which hostages are released. And the United States has no role to play in this, but if you recall, in times past, Israel has found a way, and only they can. We should not pressure them to do that. Nor should they make a pre-emptive release of anybody, but once the American hostages and other foreign hostages are released, probably it would be followed ultimately by Israeli release of people they hold.

MR. LEHRER: Does that add up to you, Ed Luttwak?

MR. LUTTWAK: Well, I want to put in a plea to widen the picture a bit, and remember that we keep having these problems out of Lebanon, and that perhaps this is as good an opportunity for us to reflect on the consequences of us having as a great power abandoned Lebanon to its devices. Lebanon is full of people who are not terrorists and many whom are even friends of the West, and perhaps this is the time for Pres. Bush along with reorganizing the Pentagon also to think -- I know it is an enormity, it is an enormity -- to think about a really big multinational police action maybe with the Soviet Union, certainly with lots of others, not a political operation, not symbolic battalion of troops which will only be sniped at, but, rather, flooding the country and restoring order.

MR. LEHRER: Col. Beckwith from Austin, do you have a suggestion beyond the fact that the President should come and talk to the general you mentioned and bring the DCI with him?

COL. BECKWITH: Well, I'd want him to take the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff along also, sir. But, yes, I do. You know, we're all talking about the problems in and around Beirut, and as long as we leave Beirut as a safe haven to terrorists, we're going to continue to have the problem. And when we talk about Beirut, I don't think we can shoulder that responsibility alone. I don't think we should, but I think the free world, the leaders of the free world, we need to sit down in Beirut with the leadership of Beirut, and determine what we can do to put some hinge pins back into that country, to make it free of terrorist pockets, and I know this is a big order, and I don't know the answers to it, but there are some smart people that do, the last thing I'd like to leave with you is that when a diplomat or someone from the Soviet Union is taken hostage, as has happened, and the Soviet Union reads the riot act to these people that we want them back, they get them back. And that's not the case with Americans. I can remember when an American could go anywhere around the world with a blue or red passport and he had respect. We don't have that. And I think we need to go over to the Iranians and give them an ultimatum, either get rid of this terrorist business and get back in line or we're going to hit you where it hurts. And we need to stand up and be counted and if we are not going to use our special forces operational people, if we're not going to use Gen. Lindsay, hell, we ought to disband it. We're spending a tremendous amount of money.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We hear you, Colonel. Gentlemen, all four, we thank you very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still ahead on the Newshour, abortion politics in Illinois, and a Clarence Page essay on Pete Rose and gambling. FOCUS - ABORTION POLITICS

MR. MacNeil: We turn next to the growing battle over abortion. As we reported earlier, the House passed legislation that included an amendment liberalizing abortion restrictions in Washington, D.C. Pres. Bush immediately threatened a veto Today's vote marks the first time either the House or the Senate has gone on record over the abortion issue since last month's Supreme Court decision allowing states to change present abortion laws. That decision set off a flurry of abortion related political activity on the state and local level. Correspondent Elizabeth Brackett reports from Illinois.

MS. BRACKETT: It is a simple 10 minute medical procedure, yet it has ripped the country apart, abortion, still legal in all states, but clearly under attack. The Supreme Court will tackle three more abortion cases in the fall. The case that could have the most far reaching impact comes from Illinois. The case was brought by the Ragsdale Clinic in Rockford, Illinois, the only provider of abortions in Northwestern Illinois, and the target of anti-abortion protests since abortion became legal in 1973. Four years ago, the clinic filed suit in order to fight state health regulations that mandated the kind of equipment and space required for abortion clinics. Illinois clinics say they would have to become mini hospitals to comply with the regulations, something few clinics could afford to do. American Civil Liberties Union Lawyer Colleen Connell says the real intent of the regulations is to drive the clinics out of business. She sees the Ragsdale case as a greater threat to first trimester abortions than the Webster case.

COLLEEN CONNELL, ACLU: If the statutory scheme were to be upheld, it could byand large drive up the cost of first trimester abortions beyond the economic reach of many women and it would make abortions more difficult to obtain because there would be fewer physicians who would be able to provide abortion services.

MS. BRACKETT: The lower courts agree that the state regulations would put an undue burden on women and were unconstitutional according to Roe versus Wade. Now legal experts say the Supreme Court could use the Illinois case to undermine or overturn the Roe decision. But Illinois politics have added a twist to the case. The state attorney general, Neil Hartigan, insists that he will not ask the court to overrule Roe when he defends the state health regulations before the Supreme Court.

NEIL HARTIGAN, [D] Illinois Attorney General: What the Ragsdale case is about is protecting the safety and health of a woman who exercises her freedom of choice. It is not, as some are saying, a case intended to undermine Roe either directly or through subterfuge.

MS. BRACKETT: Hartigan, a Democrat, is a Catholic politician who wants to be the next Governor of Illinois. In a recent news conference, Hartigan announced that though he remained personally opposed to abortion, he did support a woman's right to choose and he insisted his public pro choice position did not conflict with his decision to ask the Supreme Court to uphold the state health regulations in the Ragsdale case.

MR. HARTIGAN: If a woman is going to have the right of privacy and have the right to choose, she should be able to choose in a healthy and safe environment. Those kind of minimal standards are rational standards.

MS. CONNELL: But that's unequivocally false because there was no evidence whatsoever introduced at trial that showed that these regulations increased the safety of the procedure.

MS. BRACKETT: The abortion battle in Illinois will go well beyond the Ragsdale case in the Supreme Court. Illinois is also considered a critical battleground state in the state legislature. Pro-life legislators already have legislation sitting in conference committees waiting to be brought up in the fall legislative session. In fact, Illinois is one of the twenty-four states where the legislature is expected to ban abortion if Roe versus Wade is overturned. Knowing that abortion legislation may be voted on has energized the pro-choice advocates. Putting pressure on the state's top politicians is critical to the legislative strategy of the pro choice effort.

ANN KUTA, Illinois Pro Choice Alliance: We are here today asking you all to sign a letter to Gov. James Thompson. "We the undersigned urge you to keep abortion legal in Illinois, and to oppose all efforts to infringe on this right."

MS. BRACKETT: Planned Parenthood has already met to lay out strategy for the fall lobbying effort in the 1990 elections.

GIDDY DYER, Planned Parenthood Alliance: Call on these legislators in person, show them the signatures of our Republicans for choice group in that area and say now look, if you have a chance, if you want to join our team, wonderful, if you don't, we really will recruit a candidate, you will have a primary contest.

MS. BRACKETT: The pro choice movement acknowledges it has let its lobbying efforts slide in past legislative sessions, secure in the knowledge that abortion rights were protected by the courts. In contrast, anti-abortion groups have been lobbying the legislature for years. As a result, the Illinois legislature has consistently passed anti-abortion legislation. Pro life lobbyist Ralph Rivera.

RALPH RIVERA, Illinois Pro Life Coalition: We have pro life legislators. Our posture is to protect these legislators and keep them in office and give them the support they need to do the job in voting for pro life legislation.

MS. BRACKETT: Pro life legislator, Penny Pullen, says if Roe versus Wade is overturned, Illinois is ready for the next step.

PENNY PULLEN, [R] Illinois State Senator: I believe that in Illinois we will be successful in getting the legislature eventually after Roe versus Wade is overturned to go ahead and ban abortions except to save the life of the mother, because what we're really talking about is not abortion. We're talking about the right to life of the unborn child, and if you believe, as I do, and as I believe medical science backs up, that life begins at conception, because there isn't really any other place to draw the line, then if that's a human life, it's wrong to take that human life, and public policy should reflect that.

MS. BRACKETT: But pro choice State Senate Dawn Clark Netsch says it may not be as easy to get pro life votes as it has been in the past.

DAWN CLARK NETSCH, [D] Illinois State Senator: There are some legislators who have been consistently voting for bills that they knew were going to be overturned knowing they were going to be overturned. That will no longer be an option if, indeed, Roe versus Wade is totally overruled, and I think that may cause some legislators to stop and think about what they really want to, how tightly they want to draw the reins. It is possible that Illinois would go all the way and just simply outlaw abortions altogether. I don't think it would go quite that far. My guess is though that the limits would be pretty severe.

MS. BRACKETT: If abortion should become illegal in Illinois, there are those who say they will do more than protest the decision. Before abortion was legalized in 1973, Jody Howard belonged to a group called Jane. Jane performed at least 10,000 illegal abortions before the Roe decision. She remembers the intensity of those times.

JODY HOWARD, Chicago Women's Liberation Union: In fact, when I think back on my years with "Jane", it isn't the fear of the police or the moral crime, it was the endless suffering of these women.

MS. BRACKETT: Howard said members of Jane could set up a clinic in a volunteer's home in 15 minutes. At first the women of Jane only counseled those wanting abortions. Then they learned to do the abortions, themselves. Howard said some of the members of the group have met over the last week to talk of the possibility of starting again.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you have to train as many people again?

MS. HOWARD: No, for sure not, and the reason is back in 1969, when we started, abortion was illegal, and had been illegal for a very long time, and even experienced gynecologist didn't know how to perform an abortion. Now every gynecologist knows how to do an abortion. Mid-wives know how. I don't think that these legislators can possibly turn back the clock.

MS. BRACKETT: So in Illinois, as in many states, the abortion battle will surely dominate the political landscape in the courts, the legislature, and on the streets. ESSAY - BETS AND BALLS

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight an essay on betting. The essayist is Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune.

CLARENCE PAGE: They call him Charlie Hustle, and these days that nickname has a new twist, grim with irony. For 25 years Pete Rose personified a hustling intensity on the field. Nowadays people are wondering how much hustling he did off the field in another form of amusement. The association of gamblingwith Pete Rose and baseball, the all American game, reflects some big changes that have happened to all our all American values. Baseball may be our national pastime, but more and more, gambling is becoming our national passion. Lotteries used to be illegal in most states; now they help pay the bills. More than half the states have their own lotteries. Oregon just voted to take it a step further with legalized betting on professional football games, and it doesn't end there. Off track betting has been a mainstay in New York City for 18 years. Now a more plush version has opened here in Chicago and it's doing big business. Other cities are considering casino gambling. In Iowa, in the next couple of years they plan to bring riverboat gambling back to the Mississippi for the first time since the days of Mark Twain. Something about the gambler's obsession with high risk meshes well with the American spirit. We always have been a nation of risk takers, people willing to take a chance, often against incredible odds, for the possibility of a big payoff. Even when America was young, a visitor from France wrote of our trading passions, our frenzied gambling obsession in pursuit of wealth and territory. We should take that as a compliment. Without risk takers, there would be no pioneers. Frontiers would remain unexplored and this great land still would be a wilderness. Today in a high stakes decade of takeovers, rollovers, junk bonds and mergers, our trading passions explode in financial trading pits. Wild, unbridled pursuit of wealth has lost its stigma, even when nothing but wealth is produced. It is okay again to pursue wealth as an end in itself. As Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street", greed is good. Yes, the rich are different from the rest of us. They get better odds, but do our gambling passions tax the other virtues that made America great, hard work, thrift, diligence, caution, productivity? Do lotteries in particular exact a regressive tax on the poor, a voluntary tax, but a tax nonetheless? Do aggressive advertising campaigns for lotteries and the like fuel the illness of gambling addicts? Have the states in their relentless pursuit of new revenue sources taken on the role of carnival barker, huxter, hustler? You bet. Every so often a controversy comes along that focuses on an individual that says a lot more about the rest of us and our changing and sometimes conflicting values. We call baseball our national pastime because its values embody the best dreams we have for ourselves, sportsmanship, team work, individual talent, like in the movie "Field of Dreams", when the wise man played by James Earl Jones says:

ACTOR: It's field, it's game. It's a part of our past. It reminds us of all that once was good.

MR. PAGE: For 25 years, Pete Rose, Charlie Hustle, also reminded us of all that was good and could be again. His conflicts mirror our own. If he has been corrupted by his gambling passions, is our dream corrupted too? You can bet on it. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, today's main story, the kidnappers of American hostage Joseph Cicippio suspended his execution hours after releasing a videotape showing him alive and a White House warning that killing him would create a very grave situation. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.