The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of this Friday. Then, did U.S. policy on detainee treatment shift during Secretary Rice's Europe trip? We talk to a reporter who traveled with her and a former prosecutor and a human rights advocate; a report from Iran about the new president and his views on religion and politics; and weekly political analysis from Mark Shields and David Brooks.

NEWS SUMMARY

RAY SUAREZ: Leading Sunni clerics in Iraq pleaded for kidnappers to release four western hostages today. A deadline loomed tomorrow for the captives to be killed. The American, two Canadians and a Briton were abducted two weeks ago. The kidnappers demanded U.S. and Iraqi forces release all their prisoners.

Today, Sunni religious leaders appealed for their freedom at Friday prayers. They said the four Christian peace activists had been among the first to condemn the Iraq war. The Canadian Islamic Congress also sent an envoy to Iraq to help win the captives' release. The envoy made his own appeal today:

EHAB LOTAYEF: Let them be free. Let them spend their holidays with their families. And let them convey what the reality is here about the occupation, about the suffering of the people, about the difficulties that are facing the people. And don't harm the cause.

RAY SUAREZ: There was still no solid word today on the fate of a second American hostage, Ronald Schulz of Alaska. Another group of kidnappers claimed yesterday he'd been killed.

The International Red Cross demanded again today the U.S. grant access to all terror detainees. On Thursday, a senior State Department legal adviser acknowledged some prisoners are not made available. Today, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said the U.S. does not believe it has to grant access to every suspect.

ADAM ERELI: I would say that number one, there's no legal requirement to do so. Number two, as a matter of policy, most, the vast majority are treated under -- treated consistent with the Geneva Conventions. There is a very small, limited number that are not because of the extraordinary threat that they pose.

RAY SUAREZ: Ereli also defended Secretary of State Rice's statements in Europe this week. Secretary Rice said U.S. interrogators do not use degrading treatment anywhere in the world. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has told Congress there is no bar when foreign suspects are questioned overseas. But Ereli said today "There is no daylight" between Rice and Gonzales on the issue. We'll have more on all this right after the News Summary.

Israeli police arrested 19 Palestinian militants in the West Bank today. It was part of a crackdown since a suicide bomber killed five Israelis on Monday. Also today, thousands of Palestinians demanded revenge in Gaza. They marched in a funeral for militants killed by Israeli air strikes.

The president of Iran was condemned anew today for his latest statements about Israel. On Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced doubt the Jewish Holocaust of World War II ever took place, and he went on to say: "If the Europeans are honest, they should give some of their provinces to the Zionists." The U.N. Security Council, European leaders and the U.S. sharply criticized that statement. In October, Ahmadinejad said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map."

Former President Clinton sharply criticized the Bush administration today at a U.N. climate conference in Montreal. He said President Bush was "flat wrong" to argue that curbing greenhouse gas emissions would hurt the U.S. economy.

BILL CLINTON: We know from every passing year we get more and more objective data that if we had a serious, disciplined effort to apply on a large-scale existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies, we could meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would strengthen not weaken our economy.

The Clinton administration negotiated the Kyoto agreement but did not submit it to the Senate in the face of strong resistance. President Bush pulled the U.S. out of the accord in 2001. He calls, instead, for voluntary efforts instead of mandatory targets. The Montreal talks aim to set up negotiations on cuts after 2012 when Kyoto expires.

A winter storm figured as a possible factor today in a fatal airport accident in Chicago. A Southwest Airlines jet tried to land and skidded off a runway at Midway International Airport. It broke through a fence and onto a city street, smashing into two cars, killing a six-year-old boy. Today, the plane was still there. The National Transportation Safety Board said the investigation will focus on weather and everything else.

ELLEN ENGLEMAN CONNERS, NTSB: We'll look at every aspect. And the one thing, we're not going to jump to conclusions. We're going to rule things in, and we're going to rule things out. So right now it is a blank slate or it's a full cup depending how you look at it. We're going to look at absolutely everything. And I will tell you something about accidents; it's never what you think it first is.

RAY SUAREZ: Airport officials said the amount of snow at the time of the crash was "acceptable" for landing. Today, that same storm plowed east. Parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland got at least six inches of snow. The storm closed schools, tied up traffic and delayed dozens of flights.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 23 points to close at 10,778. The NASDAQ rose ten points to close at 2,256. For the week, both the Dow and NASDAQ lost a little under 1 percent. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now, it's on to: The prisoner treatment debate; the religious messages in Iran; and Shields and Brooks.

UPDATE - PRISONER POLICY

RAY SUAREZ: Now, Margaret Warner has our update on the story of U.S. treatment of terrorist suspects.

MARGARET WARNER: As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice left for Europe on Monday, a month's-long debate between Congress and the administration over how to treat terror detainees was coming to a head.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.

MARGARET WARNER: The Senate voted overwhelmingly last month to defy the White House and adopt a measure by Sen. John McCain banning torture, or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. But during Senate-House negotiations over the issue, Vice President Cheney has been lobbying Congress to exempt CIA personnel from McCain's restrictions. Before leaving, Secretary Rice tried to allay European concerns over the same issue.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances. The United States does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured. The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured.

Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.

MARGARET WARNER: Yet throughout her five-day trip in Europe, Rice faced skeptical questions from reporters and allies about U.S. interrogation practices. By Wednesday, during a stop in Ukraine, Rice offered firmer assurances that the U.S. would abide fully by the 1994 U.N. Convention Against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," or CAT.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT, which prohibits, of course, cruel and inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States.

MARGARET WARNER: After her final stop in Brussels, some NATO officials said they had been somewhat reassured by her comments. Secretary Rice returned to Washington today.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on the secretary's statements we go first to one of the reporters traveling with her, Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post.

Glenn, welcome. Thanks for coming right off the plane to us.

GLENN KESSLER: Glad to be with you.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's start with her statement, Monday, because it is kind of an unusual way to begin a statement, this we don't torture statement, we don't send anyone to countries where they torture, what was behind that?

GLENN KESSLER: Well, she had received a letter the week before from Jack Straw, the British foreign secretary, on behalf of the European Union asking for clarification on U.S. policy. And so she felt that before going off to Europe, she had to allay the fears of the allies.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, so you all arrived in Berlin. What was the atmosphere like? Did she appear to have allayed any concerns?

GLENN KESSLER: Well, every question she received at the press conference with the new German chancellor dealt with U.S. policy on detainees, secret prisons, the case of a German citizen who had been abducted by the CIA and sent to a brutal prison in Afghanistan. So it -- and that pattern continued throughout her trip.

MARGARET WARNER: And did she or her staff seem to feel the pressure of that?

GLENN KESSLER: Well, it was -- they knew that this was going to be a very difficult week. And they had hoped -- and they knew they would have to answer questions. It became clear to them that they weren't necessarily getting the right message out there, or giving enough of a definition of what U.S. policy was. And they felt they had to make a change.

MARGARET WARNER: So 48 hours later you arrive in Kiev, Ukraine. And we just played that clip and where she basically went beyond torture and she talked about the '94 Convention and that the U.S. wouldn't engage in -- inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. What was behind that? How did that come about?

GLENN KESSLER: Well, we had been asking questions from the very first day trying to seek some clarification on that. And actually -

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning the difference -- because her first statement only dealt with torture, and you were trying to say would it --

GLENN KESSLER: Go further. Because, and in particular, did it apply overseas rather than just inside the United States because the administration has said in the past that this -- these prohibitions do not apply to U.S. personnel overseas.

And when we got to the press conference, her aides indicated that she would be interested in addressing this question again, which was interesting because we had figured maybe one day without CIA prisons, we could write about the Ukraine. It didn't happen.

MARGARET WARNER: So, and did they characterize -- did they say why they wanted you to ask, someone to ask this question? Was it a shift in position in their view?

GLENN KESSLER: They called it a clarification. And they -- part of the problem that the administration has faced is if they say oh, we changed our policy, that means they are admitting or confirming that their previous policy allowed for incredibly harsh interrogations that some people would say violate international law.

So they don't want to come out and ever say hey, we changed our policy. That really puts them in a very difficult Catch-22.

MARGARET WARNER: And so by the time you got to Brussels, what was your reading? Because we got a lot of conflicting reports, about how the Europeans felt. Did they feel reassured or mollified?

GLENN KESSLER: Well, in Brussels she had a private dinner with 31 European foreign ministers where she spent an hour going over her views, they could ask her questions. Some of those foreign ministers went in and said they were going to have a very vigorous debate.

They all walked out and said we believe Condoleezza Rice. We accept her explanations. It's unclear if that's going to extend to the rest of the European public. But she was able to make a very personal case. And they made it clear they would like to move on.

MARGARET WARNER: Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, thank you.

GLENN KESSLER: You're welcome.

MARGARET WARNER: So what is the significance of Secretary Rice's statements on detainee treatment during her trip. And do they represent a change in U.S. policy? To explore that we're joined by Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted terror suspects in the first World Trade Center and East Africa bombings. He is now a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, a Washington think tank. And Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch. He served in the State Department and on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration. Welcome to you both.

Tom Malinowski, let's begin with what Secretary Rice had to say at the start of her trip when she said, essentially, the U.S. doesn't permit torture and does not transport detainees to any country that will torture them. Was that an accurate reflection of U.S. policy and practice?

TOM MALINOWSKI: Well, I think Secretary Rice is making a sincere effort here to try to bring America back on the straight and narrow path with respect to torture. The problem is that the administration as a whole has a very fungible definition of torture and cruel treatment.

CIA Director Goss just a few days ago, for example, said that torture is in the eyes of the beholder. And we understand that the CIA has used interrogation techniques, may still be using techniques like water boarding, which is something that we learned from the glorious days of the Spanish Inquisition.

MARGARET WARNER: And that being that someone strapped to a board and lowered into the water till he feels he is drowning.

TOM MALINOWSKI: It is simulated drowning. They cover your face with cellophane so that you sense suffocation and they pour water over your face. Again, this is one of the most notorious torture techniques.

MARGARET WARNER: So are you saying that technically what she said was accurate but the problem in your view is that the administration defines torture so narrowly?

TOM MALINOWSKI: That's been the problem in the past. And it remains to be seen whether her statement will actually lead to a change in policy.

MARGARET WARNER: Andy McCarthy, let me get your view, first of all, on what she had to say when she left, both about torture and the corollary which was, and we don't transport detainees to countries that we think will torture them.

ANDREW McCARTHY: Well, torture has a specific statutory definition. So, you know, it really is not all that relevant what this person or that person says may be in the eye of the beholder. We actually have a statutory definition. It involves the infliction of severe pain or suffering, mental or physical. That's a -- I think a fairly straightforward definition.

And a lot of what I think has been confusion in this argument has been trying to extend torture to conduct, coercive interrogation measures which don't quite meet that standard.

And obviously people at Human Rights Watch and elsewhere object to that. They would like to see the standard extended so that all coercive interrogation was impermissible. But it's simply not a fact that all coercive interrogation is torture.

And it's also not a fact that all coercive interrogation is in violation of the CAT, the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, let me ask you about that, about her statement in Kiev then on Wednesday when she say the U.S. under that 1994 U.N. Convention was prohibited from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and that it covered all U.S. personnel here or abroad. Was that an expansion in your view?

ANDREW McCARTHY: Well, there's a difference between what's proper and what's policy. What she said, as I understood it, was that U.S. policy was that the cruel, inhumane and degrading provisions of the 1994 Treaty applied both in the domestic United States and to all personnel abroad.

Now that is a broader statement of obligation than what legally is required because when that treaty was ratified back in 1994 that was done with a specific reservation that limited the cruel, inhuman and degrading provisions to what was already the law under the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has held repeatedly the Bill of Rights provisions do not apply overseas. And specifically, with respect to the provisions that Congress cited in its reservation, those provisions do not apply overseas.

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Malinowski, do you think she was going beyond, not only what the administration policy has been, but, in fact, what the U.S. is obligated to do?

TOM MALINOWSKI: Well, the U.S. is obligated under that treaty not to engage in cruel treatment overseas. Judge Sofaer, for example, the Reagan administration official who negotiated the CAT wrote a letter to the Senate recently disagreeing with the Bush administration's very, very narrow and isolated belief that this treaty does not apply overseas.

Now I'm not sure whether -- which position she embraced because her statement was so ambiguous; and I think ultimately it's going to depend on what the administration does. Are they going to continue to use techniques like water boarding, which not just, I think, are torture but the State Department constantly condemns this torture when they take place overseas?

MARGARET WARNER: But you all have a difference of opinion here about this question of -- of what the restrictions are on U.S. personnel overseas, is that right, Mr. McCarthy?

ANDREW McCARTHY: Yes it is right. I think when Judge Sofaer was a judge, you know, he had a little bit more authority to say what the law was than he does now.

But in point of fact, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that constitutional provisions do not apply, Bill of Rights provisions do not apply overseas.

Now when Congress ratified this treaty, it said that the extent of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was controlled by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, like it or not those provisions don't apply overseas.

Now I don't mean to suggest that it not a worthwhile endeavor to have a real serious conversation about what interrogation methods we would abide or should abide and which ones we shouldn't.

But I don't think that that discussion, which I think is very worth having, is helpfully controlled by very vague terms like "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment." I mean who really is to say what is degrading treatment?

MARGARET WARNER: So Mr. Malinowski, if what Condoleezza Rice said in Kiev ultimately prevails inside the administration, and we obviously don't know that, what -- would that, should that mean for the future of the McCain amendment?

TOM MALINOWSKI: Well, there are a couple of simple things that the administration can do to show that Condi's statement was sincere.

First of all they should embrace the McCain amendment, which makes law consistent with what Condoleezza Rice said in Kiev. It would be a very simple thing for them to do.

Second of all, they could recognize that they really no longer have a need for these secret prisons around the world because the only reason to maintain secret prisons, to hide prisoners from the International Committee for the Red Cross is to engage in techniques that we're ashamed of.

And finally, they could be absolutely clear, which they have not been, that they are ruling out techniques that have been known as torture since really the days of the Spanish Inquisition.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. McCarthy, what is your view on that? Let's take the first two - well, let's take the first one that, in fact the administration should now just embrace the McCain amendment, and he did say Sunday, by the way -- Sen. McCain did -- that he wasn't planning to compromise on the language.

ANDREW McCARTHY: I think even Sen. McCain is not faithful to the McCain amendment, ultimately. And I say that with great respect for Sen. McCain.

But even he has said in the so-called ticking bomb scenario, that he would expect that somebody would, in fact, not follow the law and would engage in coercive interrogation. And I think it makes no sense, frankly, to make a law that we actually expect to be broken when the -- when the key time comes.

So no, I think that what we really should be doing is engaging a conversation about coercive interrogation, but we should do it mindful of the fact that we are at war. Threethousand have been killed. Another WMD attack could, frankly, end up in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.

And to take off the board techniques of interrogation that are not torture and that may very well be giving us precious intelligence that are saving American lives, is foolish to do unless we have had a complete study of what it is we've learned, what kind of intelligence we've gotten, what methods have produced it.

MARGARET WARNER: You have the last word on this.

TOM MALINOWSKI: Just yesterday 30 senior, respected retired intelligence officials, former CIA directors, former CIA interrogators wrote a letter endorsing the McCain amendment and saying that torture, cruel treatment gives us unreliable intelligence and undermines our moral authority to end the war on terror.

I think there is a consensus that we need to move forward and place the focus on the crimes of these terrorists rather than on what America has been doing wrong.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Tom Malinowski and Andy McCarthy, thank you both.

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The religious and political devotions of Iran's new president; and weekly political analysis from Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - PRAYERS AND POLITICS

RAY SUAREZ: Now, an Iran update. Once again, the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has denounced Israel, this time saying the Holocaust never took place and Israel should be moved to Europe. Before those comments, Lindsay Hilsum of Independent Television News filed this report from Iran on how religion is changing politics there.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Jamkaran, the shrine to the 12th imam, the Mahdi. The faithful write their prayers. He is their most revered saint, their only hope. One day, they believe, he'll return to Earth through the well which lies under the postbox.

In the meantime, they mail him their wishes. One woman prays the Mahdi will cure her son's opium addiction. In the men's section, more prayers-- a terminally ill child, a daughter still unmarried, unemployment, all the problems of poverty.

Many mullahs say the well and postbox are mere superstition, but thousands of Iranians come to the Jamkaran shrine every Tuesday evening. They're looking for a sign that the Mahdi will return soon.

Now, it seems, the Mahdi has become political. Iran's new president says he's a devotee of the 12th imam and of Jamkaran.

One of the first things Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did on becoming president was to allocate $17 million to this shrine to the 12th imam, the Mahdi. All Shias believe that one day the Mahdi will return, but some Iranians are getting worried that their new president is reorienting the country's politics towards that day.

Darkness falls and still the pilgrims come. They're warding off the evil eye. For eight years, Iran was run by reformists who talked of democracy and disparaged such religiosity, but the new president talks the language of the people.

Some are keen to praise him, provided they don't have to look a woman journalist in the eye.

MAN (Translated): Mr. Ahmadinejad is the only president in 28 years who came with a slogan of bringing justice, saying that he is one of us, cut from the same cloth. He proudly invokes the name of God the merciful, and after that he always prays for the coming of the Mahdi.

LINDSEY HILSUM: He repeated that prayer when he addressed the U.N. General assembly last September, calling on God to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.

A DVD circulating secretly in Tehran and on the Internet shows the president a few days later entering a house with a senior conservative ayatollah. They sit and drink tea in the traditional manner. What he says about his experiences in New York gives a rare insight into how Mr. Ahmadinejad really thinks.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (Translated): On the last day when I was speaking before the assembly, one of our group told me that when I started to say "In the name of God the almighty and merciful," he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself.

I felt the atmosphere suddenly change, and for those twenty-seven or twenty-eight minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't bat an eyelid, I am not exaggerating because I was looking at them, and they were rapt.

It seemed as if a hand was holding them there and had opened their eyes to receive the message from the Islamic republic.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The reformists are horrified that this is the image of Iran being seen around the world.

REZA KHATAMI, Opposition Leader: In the last eight years, the reformists tried to give a very clear sign to the world that Islam in Iran is not so fanatic. And I think the new government, they want to go back three decades-- and not only them; they want to pull back the country three decades, so everybody is now worried about the future.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Happy landings. It's the annual day of the Basiij, a paramilitary organization meant to protect the country. Three decades ago, they were the vanguard of the Islamic revolution. Today, they're showing off their skills --

GROUP: Allah akbar!

LINDSEY HILSUM: -- and their air force. This is Mr. Ahmadinejad's power base, his enforcers amongst the population, although it looks as if not everyone's in step.

We caught up with the president and asked what he meant when he said Iranians should prepare for the return of the Mahdi. The reply: "They must be pure and devout."

Mr. Ahmadinejad shocked western governments when he said Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth. He used Basiij Day to send another hard-line message to Europe and America, the countries trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (Translated): You whose arsenals are full of nuclear weapons, you who have used nuclear weapons this century against defenseless people and nations, you who used depleted uranium in the Iraq war, you whose arsenals are full of chemical and biological weapons, who are you to come out and say that you're suspicious of Iran's nuclear program?

LINDSEY HILSUM: A human chain symbolically protecting the country. The reformists fear the president's harsh words will lead to Iran being called up in front of the U.N. Security Council on suspicion of making a nuclear weapon.

MOHAMED ALI ABTAHI (Translated): We want nuclear technology to enhance Iran's standing in the world, but if that means we will have to sacrifice the power we already have because of sanctions or even more extreme measures against us, then in reality we will have gained the technology, but we won't have increased our power and influence at all.

LINDSEY HILSUM: The Bright Future Institute devoted to the study of the Mahdi and other Messianic cults, they catalogue the literature and answer questions from the public sent in by e-mail, phone or letter.

The most common query is: How will we know that the Mahdi is about to return?

The children's books they design show what a wonderful world it will be afterwards. But just like fundamentalist Christians, Shias believe the messiah's second coming about be heralded by an apocalypse, war and chaos; they don't say it publicly but some Iranians worry that their new president has no fear of international turmoil, may think it is just a sign from God.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

FOCUS RAY SUAREZ: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

RAY SUAREZ: And, David, the president came out counterpunching this week both on Iraq and the economy. The numbers seem to say that things are looking better for the Bush administration. Crisis averted?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, it's all over. (Laughter) I think he rose from thirty-five to forty, so he's clear sailing on to victory. No, look, they made progress. I think they made progress on two fronts. First, the economy really is fundamentally strong, the growth rate is strong. The productivity rate which is more important is strong.

So you know, and you are beginning to see job creation, and even a little hint, which is the problem we've had of some sign that wages may come up. That's still a problem. But some sign of it.

But then on Iraq, finally, we have had this test, and this has really been the test of the Bush administration since his first day, how much are you going to level with the American people about what you are really thinking.

And the Bush administration has always adopted a strategy, we talked about it hundreds of times, of giving the positive message, you know, just, you know, not being sophisticated but just a simple straightforward show of resolve: The theology of confidence, one writer described it.

Well, finally in the last two speeches they are projecting outward what they talk about inward, which is we've got problems. And we're trying to deal with them.

And that is just a realistic way of talking it to the American people and I think that is why they are seeing rise because they are leveling with people, people basically think the strategy is plausible. And so they are seeing an up tick.

MARK SHIELDS: I think this speech that he made this week was far different from the one at Annapolis. The Annapolis one, the mantra, victory, victory, victory, I was talking to one Iraq expert who said that is a terrible word to use in Iraq.

The history of Iraq is solely about resisting foreign domination and that just sets off all sorts of unfortunate reactions.

But I thought the speech that he gave to the Council on Foreign Relations, that the fevered minds of the terrified right always thought of the global conspiracy to dominate, good Republicans and bad Democrats; I thought that was an important one because it wasn't before a pre-selected audience as his other ones had been, of uncritical party supporters or of uniformed military service families who are welcoming and cheering and respecting their commander in chief.

This is a group of people who have probably been critical of him more than they've been supportive. And he did admit mistakes. And I think -- I think that's an important first step.

One thing that the president did do, and has done, is that they've moved away from sort of these mammoth projects of Bechtel and Halliburton, run by Iraqi companies.

Now, if there had been any study of history, they love to talk about Japan. We rebuilt Japan. When Japan was rebuilt there was no Marshall plan. Japan was rebuilt without an American gold rush; there were no American companies; no American consultants; no American corporations in that gold rush to make a part of it.

They move away from that. I think it is an important step in rebuilding of Iraq and as a society as well as an economy.

RAY SUAREZ: Does this retooling of the message from the Bush administration on Iraq, Mark, throw the ball back in the Democrats court? Do they have to have some sort of coherent answer that they don't have as yet?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, that is the argument, the debate that's going on among Democrats right now. Do they have to?

I mean, Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968 with a secret plan, never divulged, never revealed. I think it is still secret this moment, to resolve the war in Vietnam then. There is no question; there is great division in the Democratic ranks.

I do want to say that the poll, I went back and checked historically presidents and their second terms. And the president did jump from 35 to 40 in David's - the New York Times poll.

You take the six re-elected presidents of the past 50 years, the average job approval rating at this point in their presidency is 60 percent, so the president is 20 percent lower.

I mean, I don't think this is the time to break out the champagne, that he has gone from thirty-five to forty. I think it is a small baby step, probably in the right direction.

RAY SUAREZ: Could the Democrats easily over read that 20-point gap that Mark just described?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, they can make mistakes and I think they acknowledged they made a mistake this week. Howard Dean said on a radio program that they couldn't win; that we're not going to win in Iraq.

And that is sort of the implication of the Murtha policy, if we have to get out, it means we can't win. And then Howard Dean went back and said no, no, what I really meant to say was we can win. I think it is important for Democrats to present that.

I don't know electorally whether it is important, as Mark says, if the Republicans screw up bad enough Democrats will win. But just as a matter of policy and as a matter of seriousness, I do think it is important for Democrats. And they don't have to do it as a group but individual Democrats to have a suggestion for a series of policies. And some have; you know, Joe Biden has really been over there again and again and again and he has made concrete suggestions.

A lot of people have been over there and studied the situation in Iraq. I think that one of the things that frustrates a lot of people is people who are fixating on the opposition of Bush, and the things Bush has done wrong, but are uninterested and unknowledgeable in what is happening to Iraq.

And once you get knowledgeable in what is happening in Iraq and you get really knowledgeable about the details of the Syrian border and the Iranian border, then you begin to come up with constructive proposals and you get a serious debate, a serious debate about the future and not what happened three years ago.

RAY SUAREZ: Everywhere Condoleezza Rice traveled this week, David, she was asked about how the United States treats people it has in detention from the war on terror.

And there is one version that has come out of the Senate for a defense appropriations bill that has strict anti-torture language in it. The House bill doesn't have that yet. Are they working toward a compromise?

DAVID BROOKS: I think they are. One of the things you see is internally the administration is shifting. And that also came out of Margaret's discussion earlier.

It seems from the outside that Condoleezza Rice does not, as I'm told she said in her private meeting, want this to be a torture presidency. She seems to be lobbying to get toward McCain. Now, other parts of the administration apparently, have different views: The CIA and apparently Vice President Cheney.But one gets the sense from the whole gestalt of the administration that they are moving more toward McCain that is political. And that's political. They just can't veto a bill, their first veto be a torture bill. It is partly the needs to be friends with their allies in Europe which they have really improved in the past ten months.

And I think it is finally the merits of the thing. One thing every military person I talked to, including Israelis and everybody else is that physical torture doesn't work. So what exactly are we fighting about, a policy that doesn't even work?

RAY SUAREZ: So why did it take this long if what David says is true, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it took so long because of ideology, I think, and because the vice president's insistence. I mean, he had been the advocate; he was representing certain elements within the CIA.

Two things, first of all she was playing defense all over Europe. I mean, here is her first meeting with the new leader of Germany. There is hoping to have a new start. And the entire discussion is preoccupied and understandably, about America's torture policies. What the administration was hoping was to head off with a policy decision the need for legislation.

And I talked to Republicans this week who said if it goes to a vote on the House floor, it will be at least six to one, and it could be an eight to one vote. It was a ten to one vote for McCain in the Senate. And what gave McCain cause and position, the sustenance was we find out on the front page of the New York Times on Friday that bad information, misinformation obtained under torture, under a subcontracted torture agreement with Egypt that the United States had, because we didn't have our own capacity at that point, in 2002, produced information that went into the president's speech for the case for war.

He said that al-Qaida and Iraq were moving hand-in-hand; that Saddam Hussein was training al-Qaida in terms of bombing, and poisons and gases, all of which was a fabrication, just exactly what John McCain said. If you are tortured long enough, you tell your torturers what they want to hear and that is what had happened.

DAVID BROOKS: There is one other element of this story which is the wrath of Condoleezza Rice. I mean, this European tour was a tremendous success, came very much on the defensive, left all of European foreign ministers saying okay, I buy her argument; there is clearly a desire to want to heal the relationship. She is a star abroad. And she is a star, I would say, at home.

I was with conservatives in Michigan a couple weeks ago, she was the only star, the only person they really like in the administration any more; it is a phenomenal rise.

RAY SUAREZ: Mark, this week some of the charges against Tom DeLay in Texas were thrown out, some were retained. Where does that leave the table set for January and a possible leadership election?

MARK SHIELDS: I think that Chris Shays, the moderate Republican from Connecticut, said that he has no doubt there will be a new leadership election in February. Tom DeLay, Texas is not Tom DeLay's principal problem. The Abramov scandal is metastasizing.

Republicans are very open about this, that it is -- in order of magnitude it is going to go beyond the bank scandal and the number of people involved. And there is already stories that his co-conspirator, defendant arranged a plea bargain next week on the 15th of December, that Abramov himself might - that's in the Florida part of this case.

Tom DeLay, the consensus of my own reporting is he will not be -- ever return as aparty leader, and that his situation right now is terminal, politically as far as leadership and the Republican Party is concerned.

The USA Today poll showed in his own district, a poll in his own district, showed him losing badly to an unnamed Democrat. Of course you have to name a Democrat and Nick Lampson, who was redistricted out of office by DeLay, has already volunteered and raised a lot of money.

RAY SUAREZ: Can you be as categorical, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I thought this for a long time and what I heard from Republicans I completely agree. I think he will never be in leadership. I agree that the Abramov scandal is a bigger scandal. The problem so far is nobody stepped up to run against him. And that takes a little guts because there is still Tom DeLay sitting out there.

RAY SUAREZ: Still trying to hang on.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. Oh, he is campaigning, absolutely. He thinks and he is trying to use the immigration issue and a couple other issues to come back and be the party leader. He hasn't accepted defeat. But no Republican I have spoken to is eager to run in this election with him as a leader.

MARK SHIELDS: And the argument is that here we are in session all the way to Christmas Eve and the DeLay people will say if Tom DeLay were in charge you would have been out of here before that.

That is the only case they can make for him, is that the trains at least did run if not always on time.

RAY SUAREZ: Mark, David, thanks a lot.

RECAP

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major developments of this day: Leading Sunni clerics in Iraq pleaded for the lives of four western hostages. Kidnappers have threatened to kill them tomorrow. The International Red Cross again demanded access to all U.S. terror suspects. And investigators began a probe of a fatal accident at Midway Airport in Chicago. Last night, a plane ran off a runway and into the street, killing a six-year-old boy.

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

RAY SUAREZ: A reminder that Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a good weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks for watching; good night.