The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a look at the U.S. words war against Iran; excerpts from matching road shows about reforming Social Security; the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks; a media unit spotlight on humanitarian stories not in the news spotlight; and a performance tribute to actor Ossie Davis, who died today.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of State Rice took aim at Iran today in her first trip overseas since taking office. In London, Rice called Iran's human rights record "abysmal." She predicted the elections in Afghanistan and Iraq would put new pressure on Islamic clerics controlling Iran.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: This is a regime that has an unelected few who have frustrated the aspirations of a people who have demonstrated time and time again that they want a more democratic future. And that is something that those of us who happen to be on the right side of freedom's divide have got to speak about if we are to say to the Iranian people that you have not been forgotten.

JIM LEHRER: Rice warned again Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But she said the use of military force to prevent it is "not on the agenda." The Associated Press reported today Iran has agreed to let U.N. inspectors look again at a key military site. The U.S. says that site may be involved in secret nuclear weapons research. The Iranians deny they have any such program. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. An Iraqi Shiite coalition with close ties to Iran built on its lead today in the latest election returns. Election officials said they've counted 3.3 million votes so far. They said the united Iraqi alliance won about two-thirds of that total. Its political leaders spent years of exile in Iran. The Iraqi national accord was a distant second. It's led by Prime Minister Allawi. The results are from ten of Iraq's 18 provinces. But no totals have been released yet from Sunni Muslim areas. In northern Iraq today, two U.S. Soldiers died in a roadside bombing. Eight others were wounded. So far in February, seven Americans have been killed in Iraq. Last month, more than 100 died, including 31 in a helicopter crash. Overall, the U.S. Military has reported more than 1,440 U.S. deaths since the war began. In Baghdad today, the U.S. General in charge of training Iraqi forces acknowledged intimidation has been a problem. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus said insurgent attacks had hampered his efforts in Sunni areas. But he said there's been progress.

LT. GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: This is an area where the insurgents were actually cutting the heads off soldiers as they were trying to come back from leave and so forth. A major challenge -- retention in those units was a real challenge during that time, but we've turned the corner with that, and as I mentioned, a substantial number of soldiers headed in the direction of those units.

JIM LEHRER: The general said it's too early to tell how soon American troops can start coming home from Iraq. On a separate issue, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said last night he offered to resign during the Iraq prison abuse scandal last spring. He told CNN he submitted his resignation twice, but the president asked him to stay. Iraq today demanded a refund from the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. The Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations said: "Huge sums of money which should have served the needs of the Iraqi people were squandered and misspent." Yesterday, a U.N.-commissioned report sharply criticized the program's management and its director. Today, U.N. Secretary-General Annan vowed to get to the bottom of the matter. NATO and Afghan forces searched today for an Afghan airliner that disappeared near Kabul yesterday. One hundred and four people were on board, including three Americans. The jet was bound for Pakistan when it vanished from radar in a snowstorm. A NATO spokesman said there's little hope anyone survived. In U.S. economic news today, the Labor Department reported employers added 146,000 jobs in January. That was fewer than expected, but it made a net gain of 119,000 jobs during President Bush's first term. The overall unemployment rate in January fell 0.2 percent to 5.2 percent. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 123points to close at 10,716. The NASDAQ rose 29 points to close above 2,086. For the week, the Dow gained nearly 3 percent. The NASDAQ rose 2.5 percent. Former heavyweight boxing champion Max Schmeling has died. He passed away on Wednesday at his home in Germany. In 1936, Schmeling knocked out American Joe Louis, and the Nazis made him a symbol of their racial ideology. Two years later, Louis knocked him out in the first round of a title fight. The two men later became friends, and Schmeling paid for Louis' funeral in 1981. Max Schmeling was 99 years old. Actor Ossie Davis was found dead today in his hotel room in Miami Beach, Florida. There was no immediate word on the cause of death. Davis championed civil rights on and off the screen, oftentimes with his wife, Ruby Dee. They starred together in the TV series "Roots: The Next Generation" and Spike Lee's film "Do the Right Thing," among others. Ossie Davis was 87 years old. We'll have more on his work at the end of the program. Between now and then: The Iran challenge; Social Security road shows; Shields and Brooks; and stories uncovered.

FOCUS - NUCLEAR CHALLENGE

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner has our Iran story.

MARGARET WARNER: Stopping in London today on her first trip as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice was asked bluntly about the administration's intentions toward Iran and its nuclear program.

SPOKESPERSON: Can you envisage circumstances during President Bush's second administration in which the United States would attack Iran?

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The question is simply not on the agenda at this point in time. While no one ever asked the American president to take any option off the table, there are plenty of diplomatic means at our disposal to get Iranians to finally live up to their international obligations.

MARGARET WARNER: Those diplomatic means have been pursued by the Europeans. Last fall, the so-called EU Three -- Britain, France and Germany -- struck a deal in which Iran agreed to temporarily suspend its uranium-enrichment program while negotiations continued. Washington was not a party to the deal, and on the flight to Europe, Secretary Rice told reporters the U.S. would not join the negotiations now, nor offer any incentives to the Iranian regime. Iran says its nuclear program is for energy production and that as a signatory to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, it has every right to pursue uranium enrichment technology. Enriched uranium is a critical ingredient in nuclear bombs. Secretary Rice today warned Iran against trying to use a civilian nuclear program as a cover for developing weapons.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: It's the Iranians who are isolated if they wish to continue to go down this path. And I will just repeat, the European Three has given the Iranians an opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about living up to their international obligations. They ought to take it.

MARGARET WARNER: The administration has never publicly threatened military action against Iran. But on the Don Imus Show last month, Vice President Cheney, when asked about reports that the U.S. was scouting out Iranian nuclear sites for potential strikes, suggested another country might take action.

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked; that if, in fact, the Israelis became convinced the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.

MARGARET WARNER: At every stop today, Rice also made a point of calling for change in Iran's internal politics. Here, in Berlin, with German Chancellor Schroeder:

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Peoples everywhere, including in Iran, have the right to have their aspirations acknowledged, and that it will -- it should be that Iranians enjoy the freedom that they deserve. The behavior of the Iranian government both internally and externally is of concern to an international community that is increasingly unified around the view that values matter.

MARGARET WARNER: But she sidestepped questions about whether the U.S. was seeking to generate regime change in Tehran.

MARGARET WARNER: And for more on the message Secretary Rice was sending about and to Iran, we're joined by: George Perkovich, a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington -- he formerly ran the nonproliferation initiatives at the W. Alton Jones Foundation; and Paul Leventhal, founder of the Nuclear Control Institute, a nonproliferation research and advocacy group in Washington . Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Leventhal, decode what we heard today. What message was Secretary Rice, how should we read and how should the Iranians read what she was saying?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: Well, my read on what Secretary Rice was saying was that I think she's actually trying to be helpful to the Europeans, even though the Europeans may not appreciate that. They would like the United States to join in negotiation; I think the United States Government, Bush administration, wants to avoid getting entangled in a negotiation in which they'll be a distinct minority, outnumbered and probably not able to operate effectively -- standing outside the negotiation, as the proverbial bad cop. And today answering the question the way she did, all the attention was focused and is not on the agenda, but I have a hunch what the Iranians were listening to is the last part of that quote, at this point. And Vice President Cheney's statements also suggest that the military option is something that's being contemplated. I would think we have to contemplate it. So I think what Secretary Rice was doing today was trying to help the Europeans persuade the Iranians that they should cooperate in the effort to get them to back away from their uranium enrichment IE nuclear weapons program.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Perkovich, do you see it that way, that what we saw her doing was really playing the bad cop in a kind of good cop bad cop routine?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I think she was actually being more good cop than the U.S. has been in a while. And that it was wise. In other words, what makes sense is to have the European Union take the lead on this, and I don't think it's wise or even at the Iranians would find constructive the U.S. joining the negotiations now; that's too controversial. What we have to do is not be an impediment to those negotiations, and in essence that's what Dr. Rice was doing by kind of removing the sense that the administration was really determined to militarily remove the regime in Iran.

MARGARET WARNER: So you disagree with Mr. Leventhal, you think she was taking the military option off the table?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: She didn't take it off the table; she moved it to the end of the table and away from the center of the table where everybody was going to fixate on it.

MARGARET WARNER: Diplomacy always revolves around tables. Mr. Leventhal, explain succinctly for us if you can, in these negotiations that are going on, what does the EU want from the Iranians and what do the Iranians want from the EU?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: Well, the negotiation is a difficult one because I frankly feel that it represents something of a blackmail situation. Iran has agreed to the negotiations on the premise that they will suspend and the definition of suspend is itself under a debate, but they're prepared to forego for some period of time their enrichment program which could give them nuclear weapons capability if the Europeans provide sufficient incentives in the way of trade in the way of political recognition, and security guarantees. But I do believe that it is a negotiation that ultimately will not succeed, and I think there's an inevitability to this being brought before the Security Council, where I believe it should be.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that what the United States really wants to do?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: The U.S. clearly wants it to be before the Security Council and I think they want to let the European negotiation play out until it's exhausted and then get to the point where greater political pressure can be brought on Iran with the threat of sanctions.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Perkovich, is that the way you see the negotiations? And also explain to us what other incentives, if the U.S. were willing to play, which Secretary Rice made clear the administration is not, but what other incentives would Iran be looking for that the U.S. could offer?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Well, the main positive incentives Iran wants right now are from the European Union: As Paul mentioned, trade relations, the removal of objections by the U.S. in this case of Iran's participation in the WTO; and basic recognition. The main thing that the Europeans and the Iranians want from the U.S. right now is to withdraw the sense of threat of forcible regime change, the idea that the U.S. would do in Iran what it's done in Iraq. That's the main impediment now, because why do countries want nuclear weapons? Well, one reason is to deter a stronger adversary from attacking them. So if you want them to give up the capacity to build nuclear weapons, you've got to take away that threat of mortal attack.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask you, Mr. Perkovich, do you agree with the Bush administration that Iran really is pursuing nuclear weapons; the statement by them that this is just for nuclear energy is just not true?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Basically, yes. I think it's very important that the Iranians keep saying it's only for peaceful purposes, because that will ultimately make it easier for them to back away. But their record that's been documented for the last 18 years of Iranian behavior is only consistent with a desire to acquire at least the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Mr. Leventhal, what's your view about why Iran is so intent on doing this?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: Well, I think it puts us on a slippery slope. I would just like to make the point, following up on what George said, that if Iran, and I agree with him that Iran has been embarked on a nuclear weapons program, we have to consider the bottom line, we have to consider what a nuclear armed Iran will be like to deal with. And can we deal effectively with a nuclear armed Iran, can we manage a nuclear armed Iran, will it behave the way other nations who have acquired nuclear weapons behave. And I have grave doubts that we could and, therefore, and I think Iran must be prevented from going nuclear and ultimately it may take a military action if the political process does not work out.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. That raises thequestion, Mr. Leventhal: is there a feasible military solution here, or has Iran essentially hidden its nuclear sites so well that an Osirak reactor kind of attack just isn't there?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: Well, I don't want to give the impression that I'm advocating an attack at this time. I think we should be prepared to launch the best type of attack we could if circumstances warrant. I think in that situation that we could get a good portion of the Iranian nuclear program. We could surely remove the sheer reactor, the large power reactor that was begun by the Germans and finished by the Russians; it has not gone hot yet. That would eliminate Iran's rationale for a fuel cycle under peaceful auspices. Whether we could get all the enrichment facilities, some of which may be co-located in residential areas, it's hard to say. But I think we could surely set the program back. But I would hope that would not be necessary, that the message that the U.S. is getting now is an interesting one, it's a two-pronged message. To Iran, I think they're putting them on notice that they might face a military intervention by Cruise missile and such, but it's also an appeal to the Iranian people where hope is being expressed by the president himself that if you stand for liberty, America stands with you. And I think that can have an undermining effect on the regime as much as the military threat.

MARGARET WARNER: And I want to get to that regime change talk or political talk. But let me ask you, Mr. Perkovich, first, what is your view of whether a military attack is feasible?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: Well, as one of the European negotiators told me a couple of months ago, look, if there's a really good military option, please tell us what it is, because that will give us much more leverage when we negotiate with the Iranians. But in fact, there is no good military option, not only because we don't know where all the targets are and it would be a risky long campaign, but also what would happen afterwards. Iran would remove all possibilities of inspection. We would lose any capacity to know what they're doing in the future. There would be for terrorism, there would be all sorts of consequences in Iraq where we have great stakes. So you add all that up together and you say maybe we'll have to resort to military force after trying everything else, but it's not going to be a good option.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now, what is your view, Mr. Perkovich, of -- Condoleezza Rice at every single stop, sometimes the question would be about the nuclear program, she would have a couple sentences and then she'd segue into talking about democracy, into talking about greater rights for Iranians at home. Is the U.S. now much more actively encouraging at least regime change from within? Is that a productive approach to take?

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I think basically yes, in the sense that clearly a majority of the Iranian people are frustrated that the real power in their country is held by unelected figures, and that the figures they get to elect, the parliament and the president, had reform agendas that were stifled. And clearly this is frustrating to people, and it's correct for the European Union and the U.S. to point that out. So I think that is constructive. It's interesting that it follows a script with which Dr. Rice is very familiar in the sense that this is what we did in the Cold War. We simultaneously negotiated with the Soviet Union on arms control and security issues while all the while saying that the Soviet system was fundamentally wrong and needed to be changed.And it was done ultimately from within and peacefully.

MARGARET WARNER: It is a very familiar script. But Mr. Leventhal, in the case of the former Soviet Union you had these other republics that had nuclear weapons, they also once they broke away from the Soviet Union were willing to give them up. Do you think that a change in government in Iran would necessarily dampen Iran's nuclear ambitions?

PAUL LEVENTHAL: I think it would. I think a democratically elected government would not have the same fears that the theocratic regime presently has. And I think --.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean fears of its neighbors, of the U.S. being in the neighborhood --

PAUL LEVENTHAL: Yes, exactly, I think there could be a normalization of relations with the U.S., and the perceived threat I think would be removed quickly. Now there's this notion that there's a great nationalistic support for a nuclear weapons capability in Iran and that an attack on Iran would have the Iranian people rise as one in support of this despised regime. I frankly question that. I think the administration is taking the right course in appealing both to the Iranian people, to seek the freedom and the liberty that the United States supports, sending a very strong message to the Iranian regime that it could face military consequences, I think that's the correct approach to take.

MARGARET WARNER: A final word from you, Mr. Perkovich, about whether you think a change in government there would tamp down Iran's nuclear ambitions.

GEORGE PERKOVICH: I think it would make it easier to deal with Iran. I don't know if ultimately it would change, because there are questions about what's the future of Iraq, what kind of government is there, what's the U.S. Military presence in the region? Pakistan has nuke lower weapons, Israel has nuclear weapons, so all that would have to be worked out, but I think clearly it would be easier to deal with a truly elected and representative regime in Iran, and in any case the human rights situation would be better, the terrorism situation would be better. So this is something to wish for. The question is: How do you bring it about? And I don't think the U.S. can change the government in Iran; the Iranian people have to do that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, we'll leave it there. Thanks, George Perkovich, Paul Leventhal, thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Social Security on the road; Shields and Brooks; neglected news; and remembering Ossie Davis.

FOCUS - SOCIAL SECURITY ON THE ROAD

JIM LEHRER: Now taking the big Social Security debate outside Washington. Kwame Holman reports.

SPOKESMAN: Ladies and gentleman, the president of the United States. (Cheers and applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: President Bush was greeted by a loud and friendly audience of invited guests in Omaha, Nebraska, this morning-- the same kind of reception he got yesterday in Fargo, North Dakota, and Great Falls, Montana. Those are states the president won easily in the fall election, and this week they became starting points for his new campaign: To change Social Security.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You see, I believe one of my responsibilities is to travel our country talking about problems and how we intend to solve them, reminding people that the job of a president is to confront problems, not to pass them on to future generations and future presidents. (Applause)

KWAME HOLMAN: The president went on to outline what he says the problem is.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Greater promises to more people who are living longer with fewer payers. That's a problem, particularly when you start doing the math. The facts are, in 2018 that the amount of money going out of Social Security is greater than the amount of money coming into Social Security.

KWAME HOLMAN: Congressman Ben Cardin has been traveling as well, around his heavily Democratic district in Maryland. He didn't draw the big crowd the president did, but yesterday in the town of Odenton, Cardin did fill the community center with his promise to give constituents his own take on the president's Social Security plans.

REP. BEN CARDIN: Let me tell you, I disagree with the president. As your congressman -- (applause) -- as your congressman, it's important for me to let you know how I feel. But it's essential that you know the facts about Social Security. If we understand the facts about Social Security, I believe this nation will make the right decision.

KWAME HOLMAN: Cardin first reminded his audience why President Franklin Roosevelt and Congress created Social Security.

REP. BEN CARDIN: Before we had Social Security, one out of every three Americans who were over the age of 65 lived in poverty; today that's less than 10 percent. Social Security has worked. And it's important not just for people who are retired, not just for people who are disabled. It's important for young people; it's important for every American. And we need to strengthen Social Security, not to fundamentally change Social Security.

KWAME HOLMAN: But changing Social Security is just what the president called for this morning in Omaha. And the biggest change would be the gradual transition to new personal retirement accounts.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If you invest your money in conservative stocks and bonds, you're likely to get around a 4 percent rate of return, which is greater than double the money you're earning right now in the Social Security trust. And over time, that means your own money will grow faster than that which is in the Social Security trust. In other words, you'll have more money when it comes time to retire. That's what that means. And that's an important concept.

KWAME HOLMAN: One woman told the president that if her late mother had been able to save money using a personal retirement account, the savings earned would be helping her today.

WOMAN: So that's the reason why I'm in so much support of this plan, because of the fact that once a person expires, their Social Security benefits will now go to their families and it won't be floating out there somewhere under a number. And as I look at my situation, you know, being that I am currently a student, a doctoral student, and using my tuition money in order to help support my sister, this is bankrupting me.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: And one of the benefits of personal accounts, a personal retirement account, is that you leave something behind for your children or grandchildren.

WOMAN: That's right.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: And I think it's fair. I think there -- you know, there's a group, the life expectancy of certain folks in our country is less than others, and that makes the system unfair. In other words, if you're dying earlier than expected, the money you put into the system simply goes to pay somebody else.

KWAME HOLMAN: Ben Cardin also discussed the personal accounts.

REP. BEN CARDIN: The president is suggesting that we take money out of the Social Security system to set up private accounts for younger workers. These aren't changes that strengthen Social Security. This is carrying out an agenda to minimize the Social Security as your core basic retirement security.

KWAME HOLMAN: One woman said all the talk of accounts to benefit the individual bothered her. She said all generations had worked together under Social Security, but would no longer under the president's plan.

OLDER WOMAN: And in doing that, we lose the sense of the younger people and their needs, of those on disability and their needs. We get so concerned about "how am I going to get what I need?"

REP. BEN CARDIN: Social Security is called "Social Security" for a reason. The name is what it is. It is what we believe a collective responsibility that we have as a nation, to make sure that people who get hurt or disabled or families who have a death when there's young children, that they are protected. That's what Social Security is about.

KWAME HOLMAN: Congressman Cardin told his constituents it might take some time for them to understand all the intricacies of the Social Security debate. President Bush admitted the same in Omaha and promised to continue explaining the problems of Social Security over the next several months.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

So, David, how would you score the opening rounds of this fight over Social Security reform?

DAVID BROOKS: I guess the thing I would emphasize is this is the opening round. The Democrats are pretty united, they pretty much know what they think; they're against personal accounts.

JIM LEHRER: Ben Cardin pretty speaks for them, does he not? I don't mean he speaks for them but he represents the kind of the Democratic view. Do you agree with that Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I do.

DAVID BROOKS: A tremendous party unity, they don't have a counter proposal, but they're against personal accounts. One thing I'm struck by talking to people this week is how much the Republicans are still at first base on this. That the members of the Congress many of them are still getting educated. So they're not even thinking about plans, and then as far as the administration goes, they have this notion of permanent accounts, but then how to adjust the benefits, whether the plan should start in the House or Senate, whether the president should propose a plan or wait for Congress to do it. None of that has been decided and none of it is going to be decided for months. So this is going to be a long drawn out process, and the administration is basically, they're sending the president on the road, they're going to see what the country looks like in a few weeks and then they'll start making some decisions.

JIM LEHRER: How does it look to you at this moment, early moment?

MARK SHIELDS: I agree with David's assessment, Jim; I would just add this. I thought in that piece that Holman did, that the woman who said to Ben Cardin this is - there is so much of this talk now about I, how am I going to do what am I going to do and that Social Security was each generation looking out for the next generation. What we have here really I think are two competing American narratives. The first is the great frontier story, myth if you would, of the rugged individualist, the guy who owes nothing to anybody, who by sheer guts, determination, self reliance, prevails over others and wears no man's collar. The other is the competing frontier narrative of the small town where people pool their talents, their time, their energy, resources to build a barn or to build a school, and Social Security certainly follows that second model. And that's what it has been about. And I think what we're talking about here is something, you know, rather profound, and I think that's what we're going to be wrestling with over the next, it's going to be a great philosophical fight as well.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS: I imagine the third frontier town called Crush your Children, Wyoming, where one generation imposes incredible costs on the generation to come. And which is what the Social Security system is right now; it's an over promised program where today's seniors are getting benefits, and my generation, frankly will be getting benefits that will impose ruinous tax rates on my kids' generation. And that's just where the burdens are being thrust and that's why this system and why the Medicare system aren't sustainable. As for the idea that Ben Cardin mentioned of the safety net, I think we all agree on that; I think everybody says there has to be a safety net. I mean, the great success of Social Security was the reduction of poverty among the elderly, nobody disputes that.

JIM LEHRER: His figures are basically correct.

DAVID BROOKS: Right, nobody has gone back to Calvin Coolidge days. The idea is to make the program sustainable, because it is not sustainable right now. And so we're having a discussion, and there is a philosophical dispute about how to fix it, but it's not, I don't think it's rugged individualism on the one hand, or versus community on the other. It's big government either way.

JIM LEHRER: Big government either way?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, David says this onerous crushing burden. You know, the Center for Budget and Policy, one of the really respected think tanks in town, points out that if you simply suspend the president's, don't make permanent the president's tax cuts for those earning over $350,000 a year, I mean, these aren't people that are worried about paying the baby-sitter on Saturday night, you could take care of everything that's involved in Social Security -- the entire shortfall, okay. So we're not talking about a crushing burden. But there really is, in one case, I mean when the president says, hey, if you're over 55, 55 or over, you don't have to worry, you know, now that is an appeal to me. I mean I'm over 55, you know, and saying hey, you don't have to worry, don't worry about those folks who are 54 or 52 or 47.

JIM LEHRER: That's a new approach you're saying?

MARK SHIELDS: It's a new approach. It's the "me" nation versus the "we" nation.

JIM LEHRER: You don't buy that -

DAVID BROOKS: That's politics; there is an element of generation al self interest, I guess, here. We saw the Democrats just in Kwame's piece in front of a group of seniors and that is the group they're talking to, saying worry about your Social Security, we saw the president with a younger woman and he is very much appealing to a younger generation that politically doesn't think they're going to see Social Security. So there is that generational element. I am not quite sure President Bush introduced selfishness into American public life.

JIM LEHRER: But you don't think this is, you just disagree completely with Mark about whether he introduced it or not, that that's what it's going to come down to?

DAVID BROOKS: I'm not quite sure what you mean.

JIM LEHRER: Well, in other words, he's saying if you're over a certain age you have no problem, you have no problem at all, but if you're blow that age you do have a problem.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he wants to reassure people just as a matter of practicality, you can't change the system to people who are ten or fifteen years away from retirement, that's just a matter of practicality.

JIM LEHRER: Social Security aside, is there anything else lingering in the pundit air about the president's state of the union address, two days later?

MARK SHIELDS: No. I mean the memorable moment was the two women, the Iraqi women whose father had been killed by Saddam's intelligence force, and the mother of the Marine sergeant from Texas who had been killed; I mean, that's the moment; and that was obviously the dramatic highlight and the emotional highlight. And in an interesting way, it does just underline the president has put all his hopes and all his political destiny Iraq, in the Iraq policy.

JIM LEHRER: Not Social Security?

MARK SHIELDS: No.

JIM LEHRER: You can talk about it and it's going to dominate the dialogue, but it's still Iraq, do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's both actually. I think, you know, one of the things about the guy is he's a consequential president, that the word they use and that's the word he believes in.

JIM LEHRER: Explain what that - how they use that word --

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there's Walter Dean Burnham has this theory of you transformational presidents and non-transformational president. Franklin Roosevelt was a transformational president, somebody who didn't just occupy the office but fundamentally changed the country. And Bush came in and said that's the kind of president I'm going to be. It's kind of remarkable that people achieve this office and don't want to be that kind of president. So he really has, this search was, you know, the pile driver speech. And one of the things I've noticed about him, we talked about the risky nature what was he does, but there's been less talk recently about whether he's a lightweight or not. Remember all that talk a couple years ago, now you may hate him or like him, but he is seems a more substantive figure because of the ambition that he --

JIM LEHRER: Do you buy that?

MARK SHIELDS: I do. I think that's true. I think what was most interesting to me about the president's approach in the post state of the union world, in Kwame's piece in particular, is he's following the model that he used in 2001 on his tax cuts. He's going to the states that have senators, states that he carried in the presidential election, trying to convince Democratic senators to support him. There's a profound difference. I mean, not only is the country a lot more polarized than it was 2001, there's a lot less trust between the president and the party, weapons of mass destruction, the 2002 campaign. But Jim, in 2001 he was Santa Claus, he was saying come on vote for this tax cut, it's going to be good, it's going to be pleasure; it's painless. Now he's saying, you know, vote for this, it's cold showers and root canal. And even though it hasn't been spelled out, it's going to be benefit cuts. The president has ruled out any tax increases on Social Security, so I mean what he's saying now is I'm asking you to vote for pain. That's a lot more difficult.

DAVID BROOKS: Just to underline that, the president gives a speech on Wednesday, and on Thursday Jim McCrery, who is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Social Security Subcommittee chairman, very, very smart guy, very major player in this, comes out and says the outlines of the president's plan are not going to fly. How often does that happen? And so what McCrery and Bill Thomas, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee are saying, we've got to broaden this debate. And I think the administration is seeing that, and that's why they're so slow to come out with a plan, because you just got to throw a lot of things on the table.

JIM LEHRER: New subject. Barring some upset, Mark, it appears Howard Dean is going to be the new chairman of the national Democratic Party, new national chairman of the Democratic Party. For whom is that good news and for whom is that bad news?

MARK SHIELDS: Listen to the conservative commentators, I mean, they're just salivating over it, they're gleeful.

JIM LEHRER: Should they be?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I don't think so. I think Howard Dean has not won this; it's a comeback of sorts. I'd say two things about it. Howard Dean Democrats are still dying for somebody to stand up and say this is what it means to be a Democrat, Howard Dean does that very, very well. Everyone on the other side wants to concentrate on that one moment -- and secondly I'd say about Howard Dean, the party chairs appear together on television. Now Ken Mehlman is an extremely effective --.

JIM LEHRER: He's the new chairman of the Republican Party.

MARK SHIELDS: And I got to tell you, I don't care who you are, if you've got Howard Dean appearing against Ken Mehlman, I don't think it hurts the Democrats in the least.

JIM LEHRER: How do you look at it?

DAVID BROOKS: I'm just taking off my bib from the saliva that's been drooling down. The Republicans have been calling Karl Rove and saying, are you running both parties now? I think Dean comes with a pro and a con. The pro is the money. The Deaniacs are the fundraising base of the Democratic Party now. Al Gore raised $50 million from individuals in 2000. John Kerry raised $225 million from individuals; he raised $87 million just over the Internet. And that was set off by Dean.

MARK SHIELDS: Howard Dean.

DAVID BROOKS: And so Dean represents what I think of as a university town fundraising base that is now the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, so they've got a lot of money, that's good. The bad part is that it's a university town liberal base. So to me this part of the party is a little more secular, and a little more strident than the people they need to win to get a majority.

JIM LEHRER: Just a few seconds.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, a governor, a family doctor, balanced the budget, in a small state, I mean, you can play the caricature, you can play the reality, I mean, Howard Dean has a record. I don't think he's going to self-destruct, and I hate to disappoint Karl Rove -

DAVID BROOKS: He's not as liberal as he appeared but he is still a secular strident person who is not a mainstream middle class Midwesterner.

MARK SHIELDS: -- National Rifle Association endorsement --

JIM LEHRER: Thank you both. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

FOCUS - NEGLECTING NEWS

JIM LEHRER: Now the overlooked humanitarian stories the press has not covered recently or thoroughly. Media correspondent Terence Smith has our story.

TERENCE SMITH: Once a year for the last seven years, Doctors Without Borders, a medical assistance group that operates in more than 70 countries, has released a list of what it calls the ten most under reported humanitarian stories of the year. Joining us to talk about this year's list is Nicolas De Torrente, the executive director.

Welcome to the broadcast. Can you tell me -- you mentioned at the very top of your list the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And tell me what the situation is there, why it's on the list, and why it's been on the list for several years.

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Thanks for having me, Terry. The purpose of the list is to really draw attention to situations where there's -- we feel there's a glaring mismatch between the -- what our field teams see in terms of human suffering, human despair on the ground that they're trying to address through medical work, and the level of international attention, media attention and coverage to the issue. And I think the Congo is one of the countries where this mismatch is the most pronounced because the situation in the Congo is extremely grim and has been extremely grim for years now for the population there. The war in the Congo has - there have been efforts to try to bring it to a close. There have been peace negotiations. There's a transitional government installed in Kinshasa, the capital. But in this country that's about the size of Western Europe, this is not translated into any meaningful improvement in the quality of life-- and I mean the very basic quality of life for people. Access to medical services is inexistent in most of the country. Militias and armed groups continue to operate with impunity. Just a couple weeks ago, 100,000 people were displaced by soldiers moving into an area that was contested between two groups that are supposed to be in the same government together. So this is really... the daily reality of life for people in the Congo is extremely grim, extremely brutal, and there's really not much that's being done to try to change that.

TERENCE SMITH: What would explain, in your view, the relative lack of coverage of the story of that magnitude?

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Well, there seems to be an implicit assumption that people are not that interested in this kind of story, and, therefore, the media in general does not tend to put -- invest the resources necessary to try to cover this story, these kinds of stories. Admittedly, these are difficult stories to cover. The Congo is a huge place with a very -- for instance, with lot of variation between different parts of the country. It's insecure. The issues are complex. It's not that simple to try to convey what is happening there. But at the same time, there's not much effort to try to overcome that... those obstacles because the assumption is that, well, you know, people are not interested about what's going on there. It's just an ongoing African conflict, and, you know, there's nothing much to be done about it. And I think that's the assumption that we have to challenge because, in fact, a lot of people are interested -- in the United States, in particular -- about what's going on outside national borders, and there are connections between what happens anywhere in the world and our life here in this country.

TERENCE SMITH: Another country on your list is Colombia, and that, too, like the Congo, has been on your list for six years. Now, there, there is substantial American involvement and quite a bit of money measured in the billions invested, and yet you find... what aspect of it is not getting covered in your view?

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: We're looking really at the humanitarian dimensions, the human dimensions of these crises. So there has been, of course, attention to the situation in Colombia, but the attention has really been focused on the drug production and trade, the role - the destabilizing role, as it's presented, of rebel groups in the country. But what is not being shown is how Colombians are really trapped -- in many parts of the country -- trapped between the government, between the paramilitary groups, between the rebel groups with no way to escape and very little access to essential services and a constant suspicion that they may be helping or associated with the other side. This is resulting in high levels of violence in the countryside in certain... in the shanty towns of big cities like Bogota where people have been displaced to, and that human side of things is what is not being shown and not being reported on.

TERENCE SMITH: We can't go through all ten of them, but there is another humanitarian crisis or aspect to a story-- North Korea-- that you have on the list, that is generally covered in terms of the growing nuclear threat.

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Well, yes. It's a little bit like Colombia. There are aspects of the situation in North Korea that are covered, obviously, the nuclear threat and the regional security issues around the Korean Peninsula. But again, what is the daily life of people in north... for people in North Korea? What is the plight of people who are trying to escape North Korea and become refugees in China? What is happening in terms of the crackdown on Chinese groups and Korean groups that are trying to help these refugees, not only the refugees themselves? This is what's not being covered. And the situation inside North Korea remains extremely severe for the majority of the population there.

TERENCE SMITH: Chechnya is on your list, and yet that's a story that is covered periodically. Same question, really: What aspect of it is not getting covered?

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Well, what's happened in Chechnya over the past year or so is that people have been pressured to return to the country from -- who had been displaced in neighboring republics-- in Dagestan and especially in Ingushetia, which are two neighboring republics. They've been pressured to return under the pretense of normalization inside the country. And although the situation has improved a little bit inside, the level of assistance and the level of -- again, the services to the population, the basic security -- security is a very important thing for people. It remains very, you know, very tense inside the country, and that has not been... again, it's... the plight which we're concerned about is the plight of ordinary people and the basic necessities of life. Are they safe in their homes? Are they able to have access to medical services? Do they have sufficient food? And that aspect of things is really what is not being shown. It's not being mentioned when there are fleeting mentions in the news about these countries. Chechnya, it's all about the, you know, terrorist attacks in and around the country, not about the plight of the population.

TERENCE SMITH: Another entry on your list of underreported stories is not a country but a disease: Tuberculosis. Now, many people consider that a cured disease. They think it's largely eradicated. And yet that is not the case.

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Yes. I mean, it looks like a disease of a by-gone era. But, you know, the early 20th century, when we have this image of people in sanatoriums in alpine resorts in Europe, not at all. The TB is mounting -- there's a surge in the number of TB cases and deaths associated with TB in particular, linked as well to the HIV pandemic and AIDS pandemic. Co-infection between AIDS and TB, that is really not being reported. And what we are feeling here is that the lack of attention to the disease itself means that there is not much investment in improving the tools that doctors have at their disposal to fight TB. And we're really fighting TB with one hand or even two hands to hide behind our back. The diagnostic tools to detect the disease, it's over a century old. There have been no new innovative TB drugs for decades. This is a completely neglected disease, although the number of people that are affected by it in today's world in the 21st century continues to rise.

TERENCE SMITH: We should note in closing here that you also mention the situations in northern Uganda, in Somalia, Burundi, Ethiopia and Liberia. Let's hope they get some more attention in the year ahead. Nicolas De Torrente, thank you very much for joining us.

NICOLAS DE TORRENTE: Thank you very much, Terry, for having me.

FOCUS - IN MEMORIAM

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, remembering Ossie Davis. As an actor, writer and director, Davis' career lasted more than 50 years on stage, screen and television. He was deeply committed to advancing the cause of civil rights on screen and off, and many of his roles dealt with questions of racial justice. He often starred with his actress wife, Ruby Dee. They were married more than 50 years. Here they are together in one of their best-known films, "Do the Right Thing." Davis plays a neighborhood fixture known as "Da Mayor." Ruby Dee is the unwilling object of his affection.

ACTRESS: Hey! You old drunk! What did I tell you about drinking in front of my stoop? Move on, you're blocking my view. You are ugly enough. Don't stare at me! The evil eye doesn't work on me.

ACTOR: Mother-sister, you've been talking about me for 18 years. What have I ever done to you?

ACTRESS: You're a drunk fool.

ACTOR: Besides that? Da Mayor don't bother nobody, and nobody don't bother Da Mayor. But you. Da Mayor just tend to his own business. I love everybody. I even love you.

ACTRESS: Hold your tongue. You don't have that much love.

ACTOR: One day you're going to be nice to me. We may both be dead and buried, but you're going to be nice. At least civil.

SECOND ACTRESS: May I help you?

ACTOR: I want some flowers.

SECOND ACTRESS: The whole thing?

ACTOR: The whole thing.

SECOND ACTRESS: It's very expensive.

ACTOR: I know, I'll pay.

ACTOR: I thought you might like these. Guess not. There is nothing like the smell of fresh flowers, don't you agree, mother-sister? Summertime, all you can smell is the garbage. The smell overpowers everything, especially the soft, sweet smell of flowers. If you don't mind, I'm going to sit right here, catch myself a breeze or two. Then I'll be on my way. Thank the Lord the sun is going down. It is hot as blazes, yes, Jesus. Well, guess I'll be on my way.

JIM LEHRER: Ossie Davis was 87 years old.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major developments of this day: Secretary of State Rice sharply criticized Islamic clerics ruling Iran and warned again they must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. And Iraqi election returns showed a Shiite coalition building a huge lead. Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.