The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I'm Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the news, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice from the NATO summit, the head of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, did the Fox News chief cross the line with advice for the President, a promising new weapon to prevent cervical cancer, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay about the many faces of women. NEWS SUMMARY RAY SUAREZ: A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up today on a crowded bus in Jerusalem, killing 11 Israelis and wounding nearly 50. We have a report from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News. LINDSEY HILSUM: It was the worst attack in months. Four of the dead were children on their way to school and at least another 20 children were wounded. This woman's son was amongst the dead. ( Woman screaming ) Eyewitnesses heard children on the bus calling for their mothers.MAN; One person was over the window. I guess he was dead, and thenI heard a lot of people screaming, "Hima, hima, hima." LINDSEY HILSUM: The bomber's parents grieved at home in Bethlehem. Israeli troops had withdrawn from the town, but may now return. He was a member of the militant group Hamas, but the Israeli government blames the Palestinian Authority. AVI PAZNER: It is clear today that the Palestinian Authority not only isn't doing anything to stop terrorist activity, but actually is encouraging it. YASSER ABED RABBO, Palestinian Information Minister: We denounce this suicidal attack today in Jerusalem. At the same time, we hold Sharon and his government the responsibility for the continuation of this cycle of violence. LINDSEY HILSUM: Israelis mourned. Palestinians said that eight of their number have also been killed this week. RAY SUAREZ: Late today, the Israeli army began moving into the outskirts of Bethlehem. A spokesman for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the military would carry out a "pinpoint operation" to retaliate for the bombing. Al-Qaida's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf is now in U.S. custody. Wire service reports said today Abd Al-Ahim Al-Nashiri was captured earlier this month in an undisclosed country. He's believed to have planned the bombing of the U.S.S. "Cole" in Yemen two years ago. He's also suspected in the embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, among other attacks. Police in Indonesia announced today they've captured the man who allegedly planned the deadly nightclub bombing in Bali. Imam Samudra is allegedly a leading member of a radical Islamic group linked to al-Qaida. He's believed to have learned bomb-making in Afghanistan. The attack last month in Bali killed more than 180 people, most of them foreign tourists. Earlier this month, police arrested another suspect. They're still hunting eight others. Two U.S. Army soldiers were shot and seriously wounded in Kuwait today. The Kuwaiti government said a policeman ambushed the men on a desert highway as they drove from their base to a town south of Kuwait city. The shooter allegedly fled to neighboring Saudi Arabia. There was no word on his motive, but it was the latest in a series of attacks on American troops in Kuwait. In Lebanon today, an unknown gunman killed an American missionary. Bonnie Weatherall was shot at a clinic where she worked as a nurse. There was no claim of responsibility. The NATO allies opened their summit today, demanding that Iraq disarm, and agreeing to expand again into Eastern Europe. Kwame Holman reports. KWAME HOLMAN: The 19 NATO leaders issued a joint statement supporting the U.N. Security council's demand that Iraq disarm or face serious consequences. The statement did not promise NATO participation in any military action against Iraq, but NATO leaders said the alliance stood ready to provide other assistance to ensure Iraq's compliance. Some NATO members have expressed doubts about a military strike, but Britain's Tony Blair said he was encouraged by the joint statement. TONY BLAIR: I think what you will find here at this NATO summit is a totally united determination on behalf of the international community, reflected in the unanimous United Nations resolution that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of all weapons of mass destruction; and how that happens is a choice for him. (Applause) KWAME HOLMAN: NATO also agreed today to further expansion into Eastern Europe. It invited seven formerly communist countries to join the alliance formed 53 years ago to fight Communism. The seven new countries-- Estonia Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Bulgaria -- now are expected to become full members in 2004. For Romania and its citizens, it is an invitation to open a new page of history. NATO leaders also announced the creation of a 20,000-troop rapid reaction force that could be deployed quickly against terrorists or hostile nations. NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson said he was confident member countries would fund that and other defense priorities. LORD GEORGE ROBERTSON: Taking the tough political decisions to reshape budgets I think, is now well under way and that in the short term will produce, I think, capability improvements that will certainly help the alliance. And all the time, the lesson has to be there. In a very dangerous world, if you want your people to be safe, you've got to spend the money to make sure they are safe. KWAME HOLMAN: The two-day NATO summit ends tomorrow. RAY SUAREZ: And we'll talk to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice about the NATO summit in just a moment. Pakistan's parliament elected a moderate prime minister today. Zafarullah Khan Jamali pledged his coalition government would continue support for the war on terror. He easily defeated the leader of an Islamic alliance that made a strong showing in last month's elections. Those were the first elections in Pakistan since General Pervez Musharraf seized power three years ago. As President, Musharraf still has the final say on most policy matters. More than 50 people were killed and 200 hurt in Nigeria today in rioting over the Miss World Pageant. Muslims attacked Christians as a newspaper suggested the prophet Muhammad would have been tempted to marry contestants in the pageant. The event takes place next month in the Nigeria capital Mabuga. Muslims charge the pageant promotes indecency. Another wave of black sludge headed toward the coast of northwestern Spain today. It's part of an oil spill from a tanker that broke apart and sank Tuesday. Today, fishermen braved storm conditions to harvest shellfish before the oil fouls sensitive estuaries. Miles of beaches have already been polluted by the heavy fuel oil. Most of the cargo of more than 20 million gallons is still on the wreck two miles below the surface. It was a good day on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 222 points, more than 2.5%, to close at 8845. The NASDAQ was up 48 points, more than 3%, closing above 1467. The gains came on encouraging reports about the economy. The Conference Board, a private research group, said its index of leading economic indicators was unchanged in October after dropping four months in a row. And the Labor Department reported weekly claims for jobless benefits were the lowest in four months. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to National Security adviser rice, peacekeeping in Afghanistan, communicating with the White House, a cervical cancer vaccine, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. NEWSMAKER RAY SUAREZ: From the NATO summit in Prague a Newsmaker interview with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Margaret Warner talked with her earlier today. MARGARET WARNER: Condoleezza Rice, welcome. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Nice to be with you, Margaret. MARGARET WARNER: NATO's statement on Iraq, how should we read that statement in terms of what NATO members are committing themselves to support and to do? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The statement was a very strong affirmation of the importance of the UN Security Council Resolution and a very strong message to Iraq and to the Iraqi regime that it must comply. The allies said with one voice that the Iraqi regime really now needs to take this one final opportunity that has been given to it to cooperate fully and to do so with dispatch and unconditionally. And that's really what this statement was about. MARGARET WARNER: The statement, however, does say that the members "stand united in their commitment to take effective action to assist and support the efforts of the UN." It doesn't say -- there's no commitment there at least as I read it to support military action unless the UN calls for it. Do you read it that way? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It's premature, Margaret, to talk about what might happen with military action. As the President has said, his goal now is to have the world united and to get Saddam Hussein to comply. We are skeptical that he will but he has an opportunity, and he should take that opportunity. The military part of this at this point the President has made very clear that if Saddam Hussein will not disarm voluntarily, then we will have to disarm him, but it is premature to talk about what kind of military action or what kind of support might be needed. MARGARET WARNER: Yet, as I understand it, both at this meeting and at the same time in other capitals, the U.S. your administration is asking different nations whether they would take part and what they could contribute if military action were called for. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, we're certainly consulting and we're certainly taking an audit of what might be available, if necessary. But, again, we are in a process here begun by the President on September 12th, which has resulted in a fifteen to zero resolution by the UN Security Council and now by a unanimous statement of NATO that it is time for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And it's a very clear message. The allies were very clear that they did not want to send mixed signals to him, that the best chance for peace here is that if he gets the message and that's what they did say they sent a very strong message. MARGARET WARNER: Now, there was a French senior French official briefing reporters, and he took issue with something that the President suggested yesterday, which was -- President Bush did which was if Saddam Hussein declares in that declaration on December 8th that he has no weapons of mass destruction, that's essentially de facto evidence that he's lying. The French officials said we don't see it that way; we think the inspectors would still have to confirm that. Did President Chirac and the President discuss this in terms of what would constitute a material breach? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: They did not have a discussion, because the UN resolution is actually very clear, and that is that the next time that he violates the compliance that is required of him, the next time that he tries to impede the inspectors or anything of that kind, he is in material breach. It doesn't say he may be in material breach; it says he "will" be in material breach. Now, as to precisely what happens if he launches lodges a false declaration and clearly, after all that we know about Iraq's activities, after all that UNSCOM and UNMOVIC know about his activities, and knew about his activities prior to 1998, a declaration that says, well, I have nothing, I think everybody is going to view that with a lot of skepticism, if not with outright scorn. And so we will see what he does, and we will see whether or not this declaration is a signal that he intends to cooperate and comply, or whether it is a signal that yet again he intends to try to lead the world down the primrose path that he's been leading it along for the last 11 years. That's what the declaration is going to tell us: Is he prepared now to cooperate? MARGARET WARNER: Just to clear this up, so as far as the United States is concerned, though, a declaration that he had nothing would be evidence that he's in breach? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It would certainly be evidence that he does not intend to be serious about this effort. We will see what he says in the declaration, and I think it's probably best not to try to pre-judge how we're going to look at that declaration until we see it, but clearly this is an opportunity for Saddam Hussein to demonstrate that he is ready to comply, that he's ready to cooperate, and a declaration that is not full and complete is going to be a signal that he's not ready to cooperate. MARGARET WARNER: Let's go to the other big announcement today from NATO, which was the commitment to establish this rapid response force. How firm a commitment is that? I mean, the President said yesterday it is hard to get a huge alliance or even a country to change its military strategy and its military mission. Most of these countries in Europe have dramatically cut their defense budget since the end of the Cold War, have resisted entreaties from the U.S. to increase them again. Is this do you have practical hopes that this will really happen? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: We do believe that this will happen. This is a very firm commitment, and it was a firm commitment because the allies recognize that if NATO is to remain current and capable of dealing with the threats of the 21st century, then it's going to have to make a transformation of its capabilities. NATO was an alliance that was founded first and foremost to unite democracies, and it continues to do that with the expansion to new democracies in seven states today. But it was also an alliance that was meant to contain the Soviet Union, to face off against the Warsaw Pact, to face off against Soviet tanks coming across the German plains. Well, that clearly is not the scenario for conflict any longer, and those capabilities are going to have to be transformed. I think after September 11, there was even a degree of frustration within the alliance that there were not the kinds of capabilities that could be deployed rapidly to help with the war in Afghanistan and with the fight against terrorism; that states did contribute but they did so really as individual states. The alliance wasn't able to act as it wanted to, and that has been a spur to the alliance to think about this rapid reaction force. And as to whether the alliance can act quickly, it's quite remarkable that this only came onto the agenda, this rapid reaction force, in September, when Secretary Rumsfeld came to Warsaw, presented the concept, and here some two months later, the alliance has adopted the concept, so it can act quickly, and I think it will continue to. MARGARET WARNER: But it's fair to say that this could never be operational in time for any kind of action in Iraq. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The concept is there it is expected to be operational in a number of years, but the war on terrorism is going to be a long war. And we expect that NATO will be an effective instrument for operating in this new environment. MARGARET WARNER: When I listened to the President's speech yesterday, it struck me that in a way he was challenging NATO as he challenged the UN in September to be relevant in this new age. Is that the right way to read it, that he was essentially saying, if you don't transform yourselves, you will become irrelevant? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, he was challenging the alliance to get capabilities that are relevant to the new age, but so has Lord Robertson challenged the alliance, so have members of the alliance challenged each other to do this, because this is the NATO alliance has been a tremendous success. When you think about its beginnings and at the end of in 1949 when you think about where it is now, all of the people who said that it would have no relevance after the end of the Cold War, and yet it admitted seven new members today and it still has a waiting list. This is an alliance that has been successful and is going to be successful in the future, but American leadership has always been important to the alliance. It has always been important to meeting new challenges for the alliance, and that's what the President was doing yesterday. He was exercising that leadership. MARGARET WARNER: But, as you know, many critics point to the growing size of NATO to say that in a way it could make it less relevant, more cumbersome, less able to act quickly. For example, in this rapid reaction force, if just one of the twenty-six countries vetoed the use of it, it couldn't go anywhere, could it? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: NATO has operated by consensus and that is the rule. It is an alliance though that has been able to act, and we expect it to be able to act in the future. But if it were not to expand to the new democracies, it would not be being true to one of its most important principles. We have to remember that NATO was founded to confront the Soviet Union and later the Warsaw Pact, but it was also founded to bring reconciliation among Europe's democracies, and today, with the addition of the seven new allies, as well as with the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland earlier, it is fulfilling that important principle of consolidating democracy in Europe. It had to expand. It could not have done so and stayed true to what it is. As it expands, it is important that it have a focus about what the smaller states in particular can do to add to military capability. One of the concepts that's been very important and very popular with the new states, as well as with many smaller states that have long been part of the alliance, is specialization. They are talking about the ability to perhaps pool resources to get greater airlift capability for NATO, or some of the states that are coming in from the Warsaw Pact have excellent capability to detect and to protect against weapons of mass destruction. There's a lot that these states can do to act on the military capability of NATO, and by paying attention to the transformation of the military capabilities, NATO is ensuring that the enlargement will not degrade the military capabilities of NATO but rather make them stronger. MARGARET WARNER: When the President said yesterday that the world needs Europe and again I'll read it to be active in the defense of freedom, not inward-looking or isolated by indifference and he said, "Ignoring dangers or excusing aggression may temporarily avert conflict, but they don't bring true peace." Now that was widely interpreted that he was speaking about some of the older members of NATO, particularly the Germans, perhaps even the French, is that right? CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The President was speaking to a broad audience here. It's no secret that from time to time, because we are an old alliance of democracy that is now refreshing itself with new blood, we sometimes forgot or sometimes dwell on small differences between us to the detriment of thinking about the large values and the large missions that unite us. And all that the President was doing there was to say let's keep focused on the fact that this great alliance has had a tremendous victory in the end of Communism in Europe, a tremendous victory in the birth of a democratic Russia, a tremendous victory in the creation of a Europe that is whole and free and at peace. But in doing that, we can recognize that we have new challenges ahead of us. There are hostile states acquiring weapons of mass destruction that will certainly threaten all freedom-loving people. There are terrorists and extremists, who have not just the United States in their sights but all freedom-loving countries. So the President was calling again NATO to arms to be as effective in the 21st century as it was in the 20th century; MARGARET WARNER: Dr. Condoleezza Rice, thanks so much. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Thank you. RAY SUAREZ: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Afghanistan one year after the Taliban, a White House communications flap, a cervical cancer vaccine, and an Anne Taylor Fleming essay. FOCUS - KEEPING THE PEACE RAY SUAREZ: Now, keeping the peace in Afghanistan. ( Explosion ) RAY SUAREZ: it's been just over a year since the U.S. and its allies teamed up with the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and put its al-Qaida backers on the run. (Crowd cheering) Soon after U.S.-backed forces liberated the Afghan capital, Kabul, a multinational peacekeeping force known as ISAF was charged with maintaining calm in and around the capital, while the coalition forces concentrated on hunting down al-Qaida. The United Kingdom led the United Nations-mandated force, now totaling 4,800 troops from more than 20 countries, for the first six-month stint. In June, Turkey took charge. Besides security patrols, ISAF's duties include: Assisting in rebuilding the country's war-shattered infrastructure, including hospitals, roads and airports; removing landmines littering the landscape; and training an Afghan security force. But despite the ISAF presence in Kabul and some 7,000 U.S. troops in the country, Afghanistan is still a dangerous place. The fledgling government of interim President Hamid Karzai is under attack from Taliban remnants and trying to keep together Afghanistan's ethnic factions often at odds. And last week, repeated power failures and food shortages sparked student protests at Kabul University. Police opened fire on a crowd after about 1,000 students took to the streets. At least two students were killed, several others wounded. Outside of Kabul, sporadic fighting continues in the South near the Pakistani border. After an attempt on his own life, and the killings of a Vice President and a tourism minister earlier this year, Karzai asked the U.S. For a team of American soldiers to protect him. Even amid the occasional violence, and even though key al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are still on the loose, the U.S. And its allies have said recently they're shifting the focus away from combat missions to reconstruction, and they're considering expanding ISAF beyond Kabul's borders. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that Afghanistan will become more secure if its government gets stronger. DONALD RUMSFELD: The reality is that you could stick a half a million troops from 20 countries into Afghanistan, and you wouldn't necessarily improve the security circumstance, as long as you've got Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan and Iran and porous borders. What has to be done is not to dramatically increase the number of security people, in my view, but the government has to find its sea legs. And it has to develop the confidence... people have to develop confidence in that government that that government is delivering for them and making their lives better. And that means you've got to focus on the humanitarian side. You simply have to focus on the civil works side. And people have to develop a stake in that country and in that government. RAY SUAREZ: Germany and the Netherlands are expected to take over leadership of the international peacekeeping force from Turkey early next year. RAY SUAREZ: For more on the situation on the ground in and around Kabul, we're joined by the Turkish commander of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, Major General Hilmi Akin Zorlu. Welcome, General. GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: Thank you very much. RAY SUAREZ: When you took over from the British in June, you said, "We'll do our best to enhance the peace and welfare of the people of Kabul." It's been five months. How's it going so far? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: Actually, what we have promised during the hand-over time, we have been conducting and achieving our goals. First of all, the security situation in and around Kabul has been improving each passing day. I should give a concrete example of that. As you know, there have been curfew hours for 23 years in Kabul and all over the provinces of Afghanistan. After improving the situation, we have discussed this issue with the minister of intel of Afghanistan, Mr. Valdak, and decided to lift the curfew hours, which were three hours after midnight, within Kabul, and it was lifted on third of this month. And now, there is no increase in the... the criminal activities. We have been observing that, and it's a good thing. It's a good feeling given to the Afghan people. It's a psychologically security improvement, and also, it's a good sign given to the international community to come to Kabul and Afghanistan, to start investments for those poor people who have been suffering from the wars over 23 years. RAY SUAREZ: There have recently been rumors of attempted rocket attacks, vandalism and sabotage against parts of the public utility system. Are there still elements in Kabul that make it dangerous for the citizens living there? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: Actually, there was a car bomb attack on the 5th of September, which caused 26 deaths and over 100 wounded people. It was the last terrorist attack and the most significant terrorist attack. After that, we have, as ISAF, and the other local security forces, we have found out in different parts of Kabul hundreds of rockets, missiles, explosive materials, increasing the intelligence gathering and sharing with the local forces. We are really successful to do that. So far, our explosive ordinance people have been exploding and then destroying over 100,000 ammunition -- largely missiles, unexploded ordinance, rockets. We have been destroying day and night. So we have prevented a lot of terrorist attempts and make them difficult working conditions in Kabul. And today, I could say that Kabul is much a more safer city than many western cities with three million people. RAY SUAREZ: If you can keep the services going, if you can keep the electricity on, clean water running, more buildings that are meant to be homes filled with people, does it make the place easier to police, easier to protect? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: That's true. That's 100% true. That's why we have been pursuing these issues for the people. First of all, as I said, we have been continuing to implement the civil military cooperation projects, dealing with, as you told, the schools, the medical facilities, the electricity problem, water problem, road problems, and all kinds of issues we have been dealing with. The aim of them, two aims: First to help the people as much as possible we could. Secondly, to get force protection, and it means that present ourselves to the people why we are in Kabul, why... what we have been doing in Kabul. People... actually, the poor people, unlike the people because of the wars after 23 years, people understand ISAF and ISAF function. Actually, 7% of the people can watch television, and approximately 40% of the Kabul citizens can listen to any radio because of the shortages of radio and television. But 100% of them knows what is ISAF and what ISAF has been doing. There is no doubt about ISAF among the people. It's very good. RAY SUAREZ: As you've been turning your attention away from police and military to humanitarian work, or the emphasis, can you do that work with so much promised aid not coming in yet? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: For... for our aid projects, we have been provided mainly by the League nation, Turkey. It was by the UK, during the UK leadership, and the... also we have been using some European Union funding, and also U.S. aid funding. We have been provided. But unfortunately, limited funding we have. But what we have promised to the people, we have 100% implemented what we have been expected. RAY SUAREZ: Let's talk a little bit about the rest of the country, since your force protects only Kabul, is there still widespread fighting with the remnants of Taliban and al-Qaida forces in other parts of the country? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: As to the other parts of the country, the coalition forces led by United States have been continuing hunting the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaida. Actually, it's difficult to... I mean, it's not true to say that a large number of troops of Taliban and al-Qaida still stay in Afghanistan. They have spread out some parts of country, especially the east part of the country and the south part of the country with the small groups. They have been organized, or we can say, reorganized as troops to conduct terrorist activities because for the terrorist activities, they cannot use a mass group of the troops. So small size of troops for the weapons and the ammunition in Afghanistan, there is no shortages of ammunition and weapons. Everywhere is full of weapons, ammunition, mines. So they have. But people actually ask get rid of wars. So the Afghani people know the value of peace and freedom. And they... I believe that they have deserved to have this, and they are happy. So they could not have too much public support by the people. There are... in some regions, there are very low-level countries between the local leaders. But the government tries to convince them to get together, and reestablish, reorganize the country's future. So if the international community continues to support the Afghan government and Afghanistan politically, economically and technically, all the leaders around the country, I think, will get together and establish the future of the country. RAY SUAREZ: So you can see a day when your forces will be able to hand over security duties to an Afghan force, when police responsibilities in Kabul can be done by Afghans? GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: Actually, it's early to say for that. I think there's a need for three years until the national army would be established and be assigned to other provinces to control the territory on the behalf of the government. Since that the ISAF will leave the country, hand over the security issues to the local police, and then government can work much more secure conditions... under secure conditions, I think. It needs to have two or three years. RAY SUAREZ: Two or three years. General Zorlu, thanks a lot for coming by. GENERAL HILMI AKIN ZORLU: You're welcome. Thank you very much. FOCUS CROSSING THE LINE? RAY SUAREZ: Now, a controversy over a letter, and to media correspondent Terence Smith. SPOKESPERSON: We should slow down our competitive spirit... TERENCE SMITH: In the days following September 11, Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News Channel, volunteered advice to White House advisor Karl Rove on how the President should respond to the attacks. The revelation comes in the new book "Bush at War"; author, Bob Woodward: BOB WOODWARD: After 9/11, Ailes was concerned and wrote out a message to Karl Rove, the chief political advisor to the President, about the necessity of doing something very strong, if need be, hearth to deal with this. Rove took it down to the President and said, "This is a communication from Roger Ailes." Its significance, first of all, is Ailes was Bush's father's media guru. TERENCE SMITH: Is that an appropriate role for a journalist-- no longer a media guru but now a journalist-- to be playing? BOB WOODWARD: I say in the book in the role as head of Fox News, he shouldn't do it. He's not supposed to do it. There's supposed to be a dividing line. TERENCE SMITH: The Fox chairman, who declined to be interviewed for this report, contends his letter did not cross that line. In a statement Ailes defended his actions: "Bob Woodward's characterization of my memo is incorrect. In the days following 9/11, our country came together in nonpartisan support of the President. During that time, I wrote a personal note to a White House staff member as a concerned American, expressing my outrage about the attacks on our country. I did not give up my American citizenship to take this job." Whatever the note's contents, Ailes has declined to release it, the revelation has again sparked debate over the objectivity of the Fox News Channel, and more broadly, the sometimes cozy dealings between journalists and the subjects they cover. MARVIN KALB, Shorenstein Center: In Washington, D.C., There's much too much coziness between the journalist and the official. TERENCE SMITH: Marvin Kalb of Harvard's Shorenstein Center says the relationship is nothing new. MARVIN KALB: Walter Lippman would write to the President of the United States and give him marching orders as to what he thought the next best thing the President should do. "Do it." Scotty Reston, James Reston of the "New York Times," did not do it in that way, but had a very close relationship with leading officials and Presidents in a number of administrations. Mr. Ailes has had a very close relation with a number of republican Presidents. I doubt this is a letter, despite what he said in the "Washington Post," I doubt this is a letter that he would have sent to Bill Clinton. TERENCE SMITH: Unlike Lippman and Reston, Roger Ailes, before taking the helm at Fox, was a political adviser and strategist. He served the first President Bush, as well as Presidents Reagan and Nixon. SPOKESMAN: Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news, and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power. TERENCE SMITH: With barely concealed glee, Fox's chief competition, CNN, made the Ailes letter a hot topic of conversation. SPOKESPERSON: Does that shed new light on, "we report, you decide, "jack? SPOKESMAN: Fair and balanced. We better leave that alone. TERENCE SMITH: The two networks are locked in a heated battle for cable ratings supremacy. Fox News Channel's opinion- heavy, sometimes brash format, has won it legions of loyal viewers who have catapulted the channel to the top of the cable news ratings race. On CNN, which Ailes once derided as the "Clinton News Network," one panelist turned the tables on the network. ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: Your former President of CNN, Rick Kaplan, was a golfing buddy of the President, spent many nights in the Lincoln bedroom, was a close confidante of the President. And if you're going to hold Roger Ailes to that standard, then you should hold your former boss to the same standard. TERENCE SMITH: Bob Woodward says Ailes was caught up in the emotion of the moment. BOB WOODWARD: In the wave of patriotism and the feeling... and Ailes has said publicly he was up eleven days straight. There's a kind of exuberance. If you can take your mind back to September of last year, I think we probably all did and said things that we might not do in another time. I mean, that was an extraordinary moment in history. TERENCE SMITH: Marvin Kalb. MARVIN KALB: Well, my question, then, to Bob Woodward would be: In that same time of high emotion, did you write a similar letter to the President? I think the answer is no. TERENCE SMITH: For his part, author Woodward says the Ailes was ill advised but not a capital crime. BOB WOODWARD: I don't think this is a journalistic felony. I think if might be a parking ticket or a misdemeanor, something ideally that should not be done in a kind of behind-the-scenes way. TERENCE SMITH: Marvin Kalb disagrees. MARVIN KALB: When you begin to even appear to be getting into bed with a politician, you are running a severe risk of losing your own integrity and your own quality as an independent journalist. TERENCE SMITH: The story of the Ailes letter takes up barely a paragraph in the Woodward book, but the controversy it has sparked illustrates the sensitive nature of the relationship between the media and any administration. FOCUS CANCER VACCINE RAY SUAREZ: A potential new weapon in the fight against cancer, and to Gwen Ifill. GWEN IFILL: The new study out in today's edition of the "New England Journal of Medicine" reports on a major advance in preventing cervical cancer, a disease that strikes 450,000 women worldwide each year, killing about half. It's a cervical cancer vaccine that was 100% effective in its first big clinical trial. Here to help us walk through the study and what it means for treatment and prevention, is Dr. Christopher Crum, director of Women's and Perinatal Pathology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. He wrote the editorial that accompanies the study in the "New England Journal." GWEN IFILL: Welcome, Dr. Crum. DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Thank you. Well, for background GWEN IFILL: What is cervical cancer?. What is it and why are we concerned about it? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, for background, virtually all cervical cancers are associated with sexually transmitted papaloma viruses. Most of the women who are looking at this program have probably be exposed to one or more of these viruses in their lifetime. However, the vast majority will regress on their own. In a percentage of these infections, a pre-cancerous disease will develop in the cervix and cause an abnormal pap smear. In many of these cases, they're successfully treated by various methods of ablation. In a small number of cases, cancer will develop GWEN IFILL: What is ablation? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Removal by some minor surgical procedure. GWEN IFILL: This is the HPV virus that you're talking about when you talk about this, right? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: That is correct. GWEN IFILL: And this is fairly common in most women? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: It's a very common virus that we see very frequently. I think you can expect a very high percentage of young women to encounter the virus during their reproductive life. However, only a certain small percentage actually develops significant pre-cancerous changes. GWEN IFILL: Is cervical cancer, does it have a high mortality rate? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, if it's not detected until it's very late in its stage, it may. If it's detected early, it's very easy to treat and prevent and prevent cancer, or prevent death due to cancer. Now, the MERCK-sponsored study took a look at one of the papaloma viruses that's very common and commonly associated with cancer, which is type 16. And what they did was they vaccinated women against this papaloma virus and then observed them to see whether they developed a virus infection or developed a pre-cancer that could be attributed to that particular virus. And as the vaccine study showed, they were 100% successful at preventing both the infection and the pre-cancer. And because... GWEN IFILL: I'm sorry. We're talking about -- the study was directed at young women, not any woman could walk in tomorrow and get this vaccine and say, "aha, I never have to worry about cervical cancer, right? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: That is correct. They actually targeted women who had never been exposed to this particular papaloma virus. GWEN IFILL: Which means they were not sexually active because this is a sexually transmitted virus. DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, they may have been sexually active, but they had not been expose today this particular virus. That was one of the criteria for entering the study. GWEN IFILL: So how long would this last, then? How long would the vaccine be effective? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, it's a good question. Certainly the immune response to that vaccine generated was very powerful and much higher than we see in natural infection. So hopefully the vaccine may generate an immune response that'll last some time. GWEN IFILL: We're talking about young women involved in this study. Would there be any reason for men to take that vaccine? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, it certainly would not a bad idea. Certainly could you argue that if you vaccinated men, you might protect women from infection. GWEN IFILL: So in the end... because men could transmit this infection, that them taking the vaccine would have some effect is what you're suggesting? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Yes, it could affect both women and women. And the study by CAT scan, the ability to detect even small amounts of virus in the genital tracts of women was significantly reduced by this vaccine indicate flag they would be very unlikely to transmit the virus either. GWEN IFILL: In your opinion, how conclusive is this study? Are we saying that we are on the verge now of wiping out cervical cancer? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, the vast majority of cervical cancers are preceded by infection and preceded by a pre-cancer. And since these are the two earliest phases in the pathogenesis of the cancer, if you were 100% effective at removing those particular phases, I would think you have a very strong chance of eradicating cancer with a vaccine of that sort. GWEN IFILL: Now, right now, the way it stands, without this vaccine, the best way to detect cervical cancer is in a pap smear. Would this vaccine, the existence ofa successful round of this vaccine for the general public, would it eliminate the need for pap smears? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, as you can imagine, it would take many years to be absolutely certain these vaccines prevented cancer because it takes nearly one or two decades before cancer even develops in its natural state. So one would expect that women would continue to be screened with pap smears just to be safe, but the expectation is that they would not develop cancer, at least the cancer associated with those viruses that were used in the vaccines. GWEN IFILL: Is this kind of treatment applicable to other cancers? Is there any evidence that vaccines have been used or could be used to prevent other kinds of cancer? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, certainly other vaccines are being tried in cancers, but not with this kind of success. The success you see in this particular study is due to the fact that this vaccine is targeting a specific virus that's associated with cervical cancer. And thus preventing the virus, by definition, should prevent the cancer. Many other cancers in the body are not associated with viruses, and the vaccine logistics are much more complicated. GWEN IFILL: If this study continues in a wider way, when could people expect to see this kind of vaccine become available? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: It's difficult to say, but certainly some of the representatives of MERCK have suggested in a few years it might come on the market. GWEN IFILL: And would it be expensive? And would the government be expected to try to cover some of this or to allow for insurance companies to cover the cost? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: That's a very difficult question to answer. In terms of the insurance companies, however, if you can prevent these infections, you certainly would prevent many of the expensive technologies that are required to manage women with abnormal pap smears, so one would hope that the cost benefit of a vaccine would be quite high. GWEN IFILL: But because we're talking about vaccinating teenagers whose parents would be making the decision about their medical health, would you have the additional hurdle to get over of trying to convince parents that they're basically... that their daughters should be vaccinated for something which assumes some sort of sexual activity? DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Well, it's a good question, but I would hope that most parents who have children would consider -- very strongly consider letting them be vaccinated for a virus that causes cancer. I would think that might override the concern about the fact that they may become sexually active too early. GWEN IFILL: There was a related study today which also showed in advances being made for cures for herpes or at least potential cure for herpes. DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: This was another study that was done. It did not get quite the press, you might say that the papaloma vaccine received, partly because herpes viruses are not associated with cancer, at least this particular virus. And the vaccine was not 100% successful at preventing infection. But not unlike the papaloma virus, it was quite successful in about 70% of women, and it was most successful in those young women who had never been exposed to herpes viruses. GWEN IFILL: Okay, well, thank you very much for helping us with this, Dr. Christopher Crum. DR. CHRISTOPHER CRUM: Thank you. ESSAY FACES OF WOMEN RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, essayist Anne Taylor Fleming looks at the newly unveiled faces of Afghan women. ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: I will always remember those first pictures ofthe women coming out of post-Taliban Afghanistan. It was as if, after all the darkness, the loss, the war, the sun was shining again in those beautiful faces-- a gender freed. Gone were the mandated burkas, those head-to-toe garments where they had peered out at a world through a grille-like screen over the eyes, even if some still chose to wear them. Who had thought of such a thing? Who could be made to wear it? Why? So much fear, so much anger. You know, as a woman, even an extraordinarily lucky and blessed American woman, that it is out there, that fear and that anger, and that in most places of this globe, women live harder, tougher, much more circumscribed and repressed lives. You are kin to them, conscious of them always, if only at the back of the brain, as you drive, work, go to the gym, laugh with men, at them, laugh to be alive, laugh at your freedoms, grateful for them and taking them for granted all in the same gulp. But those women are out there, in their burkas and in their brothels. They are being circumcised in a ritual you rage to think about. They are being raped in tribal vendettas. They are being threatened with death by stoning for having a child out of wedlock. You live in this world, this 21st century world where AIDS is making orphans of generations, and yet sex education and contraception is still taboo for women, and where, yes, even in your own country, the poverty rates are up and single mothers are struggling to raise kids. And then you read about Botox parties in LA and New York, Atlanta and Houston, and you are both amused and ashamed. How is this possible, this yin and yang: Women rich enough and vain enough to sit around sipping chardonnay while having something injected into their foreheads and frown lines to still the muscles, reverse time-- this, at a time when women on other continents have just had their faces unveiled. The disparities are astonishing. But then you hear about a dab of makeup, a flick of lipstick beneath the burka during the Taliban days, a touching assertion of femininity in a dark, male, veiled world where the religious police would beat a woman for showing an ankle in the street. In the months since, there has been a full flowering of that once-repressed vanity. In Kabul, beauty parlors have sprung up. Cosmetic products are available. Can Botox be far behind? It's a strange thought: From burkas to Botox in the blink of an eye. And it's sort of distasteful and sort of wonderful all at the same time -- because what it means is freedom of choice for women-- no more and no less. And it comes, of course, this flowering of vanity, with literacy classes and schools where girls can once again learn to read and write, and take their place in society. It is not either/or. It comes as a package, just as it does here. I forget that sometimes, when feeling churlish about all the beauty rigmarole foisted on women. It's too much, too silly, too demeaning. But then I think of the lipstick beneath those burkas, and what it kept alive somehow, and I am struck with a tenderness for my gender-- so brave, so saucy, and still so imperiled in so many places. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming. RECAP RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major developments of this day: A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on a crowded bus in Jerusalem, killing 11 Israelis and wounding nearly 50. It was widely reported that al-Qaida's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf is now in U.S. custody. And at the NATO summit, the allies demanded Iraq disarm. They also agreed to accept seven more countries from Eastern Europe. A program note before we go. A "Frontline" documentary called "In Search of al-Qaida" airs tonight on most public television stations. It looks at what happened to the terrorist network in the past year. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Brooks, among other things. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks and good night.