The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: the news of this Friday; then, a look at the growing troubles in Afghanistan, as Taliban attacks increase; a "NewsHour" report on new techniques to detect suspicious behavior among air travelers; the weekly analysis of David Brooks and Tom Oliphant, substituting for Mark Shields; and two 9/11 pieces: the last of our profiles, this one of an Episcopal priest who comforted many at ground zero; and "September`s Song," the words of poet Lucille Clifton.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: A suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. convoy in Afghanistan today. At least 16 people were killed, including two U.S. soldiers. It happened near the American Embassy in Kabul. The bomb blew apart a Humvee traveling in the convoy, and left a six-foot-wide crater.

Meanwhile, NATO defense chiefs met in Poland over the need for 2,500 more troops in Afghanistan. A NATO spokesman said any reinforcements would help.

LIEUTENANT COLONEL NICK GRANT-THOROLD, NATO Spokesman: We need several hundred troops. And I would say they -- combat troops, boots on the ground, would be nice, and -- and also some aviation. And -- and, as I have said already, you know, any nation who answers the call, I`m sure will be welcome.

JIM LEHRER: Nearly 40,000 troops from NATO and the United States are already on the ground in Afghanistan. We will have more on this story right after the news summary.

In Iraq today, three pilgrims were killed by a mortar attack while walking to a religious festival. Police and army troops fanned out around Karbala, a Shiite holy city south of Baghdad. As many as three million people are expected to gather there tomorrow. Clashes outside the city today also left one Iraqi soldier and 14 militants dead.

A U.S. Senate report on pre-war intelligence in Iraq found no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The Senate Intelligence Committee declassified nearly 400 pages today. They revealed, intelligence agencies found no link between Saddam and the terror leader Abu Musab al- Zarqawi. He was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. The report also concluded, post-war findings did not support intelligence that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons.

President Bush will mark the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks with a Monday night address to the nation. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, Mr. Bush will also visit each of the crash sites, beginning in New York, on Sunday.

In Washington today, Snow previewed the speech, which will be delivered from the Oval Office.

TONY SNOW, White House Press Secretary: This is not a political speech. There are not going to be any calls to action for Congress. It will be a reflection of what September 11 has meant to the president and to the country, the realities that it has brought to all of our attention, and how we can move forward together to try to win the war on terror.

JIM LEHRER: We will have the president`s speech Monday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern time on most PBS stations.

Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon today. European warships arrived in the port of Beirut. They will patrol the Lebanese coastline to keep weapons shipments from reaching Hezbollah. Restrictions on air travel were lifted yesterday. Lebanon has been sealed off for the past two months, when the war between Israel and Hezbollah began.

A former deputy U.S. secretary of state confirmed he leaked the name of a CIA operative. Richard Armitage said yesterday he revealed Valerie Plame`s identity to a syndicated columnist accidentally. The leak triggered a three-year criminal investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Armitage said he kept quiet at Fitzgerald`s request.

Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president`s former chief of staff, is the only administration official presently charged in the case.

NASA once again pushed back the launch of the shuttle Atlantis until tomorrow. Today`s problem was with a faulty fuel tank sensor. In Florida, the shuttle program manager said, if the other three sensors are working, the launch will go ahead.

WAYNE HALE, NASA Shuttle Program Manager: We`re going review the data overnight. The engineers are going to look very carefully at how all the other sensors look during the de-tanking, when they go dry. And if everything is performing as we expect, and we just have one sensor continue to be a bad actor, we will launch tomorrow. I still think, in the bigger scheme of things, that it`s the right thing to do.

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow will be NASA`s fifth try at launching Atlantis. Earlier attempts were postponed by Tropical Storm Ernesto and a problem with a fuel cell coolant pump. If Atlantis doesn`t launch tomorrow, the next window is in late September.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 60 points, to close at 11,392. The Nasdaq rose 10 points, to close above 2165.

For the week, the Dow and Nasdaq both gained a half-a-percent. And that`s it for the news summary tonight.

Now: violence in Afghanistan; profiling at the airport; Brooks and Oliphant; a 9/11 profile, and a 9/11 poem.

Ray Suarez has our Afghanistan story.

RAY SUAREZ: Today`s attack in Kabul was the bloodiest in the Afghan capital since the Taliban`s ouster in 2001, and the latest in a new surge of violence.

At least 16 people, including two American soldiers, died in the suicide blast, detonated about 50 yards from the U.S. Embassy. Twenty-six NATO and coalition forces have been killed this month alone, making 2006 the deadliest year yet in nearly five years of conflict. One hundred and forty-nine NATO and coalition troops have been killed so far this year. Immediately after the fall of the Taliban, the totals were about a third that number.

NATO now controls military forces in 19 of Afghanistan`s 34 provinces, since the handover from U.S. and other coalition forces began in late 2004. That`s nearly 90 percent of the country. The heaviest resistance has been in the south, the center of the country`s lucrative poppy trade.

Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world`s opium. The U.N. reported, this year`s harvest is up 60 percent from last year, a new record. The tougher-than-expected resistance has admittedly caught NATO troops off guard, and prompted commanders to call for reinforcements yesterday for the 20,000-strong NATO force.

JAMES APPATHURAI, NATO Spokesman: The Taliban has, this year, substantially, it seems, upgraded its capability to resist, in terms of its tactics and in terms of the numbers that it`s -- that it is massing. They are resisting more capably than we had expected. And that is why we, as an alliance, have to make adjustments to carry out the mission.

RAY SUAREZ: Taliban fighters, after taking refuge in Pakistan, are returning to Afghanistan and contributing to the rise in violence, a problem which leaders from both countries recognized earlier this week in Kabul.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf:

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, Pakistani President: I completely agree that there are al Qaeda and Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Certainly, they are crossing from Pakistan`s side, and causing bomb blasts and terrorist activity in your country. We have to fight terrorism with military force, all the force available. And we will carry on doing this, whether it is al Qaeda or Taliban or anyone.

RAY SUAREZ: On Tuesday, Pakistan`s government and pro-Taliban rebels signed a deal to stop crossing the border into Afghanistan. In return, the province will be granted more autonomy.

What is life like in Afghanistan five years since the Taliban were thrown out of power?

For that, we turn to Sarah Chayes, a former National Public Radio reporter who covered the U.S. military operation in 2001. She moved to Afghanistan in 2002, and has lived there ever since. She now runs a cooperative that makes soaps and skin creams from local agricultural products. She`s also the author of "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Fall of the Taliban."

What`s causing the sudden spike in violence and the lethality projected against NATO troops?

SARAH CHAYES, Author, "The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Fall of the Taliban": You know, what`s interesting is, I don`t see this as a sudden development. It`s been a progression, really since late 2002. And it`s been a kind of sawtooth progression.

So, you would have a spike in violence, and then it would come down for a few months, sometimes six months, as much as six months. Then, it would spike up. And each spike has been higher than the last. So, the first answer to your question is that this is basically -- the last spike was -- you know, was almost this high. And this spike is even higher.

There`s another issue. I don`t see this as -- as an indigenous uprising, in the way that the insurgency in Iraq could be considered an indigenous uprising. It`s really coming across the border from Pakistan.

But there has been a growing disillusionment with the Afghan government on the part of regular people in southern Afghanistan, which is where I live. And, so, it`s been five years now, and people are really running out of patience.

And that means that, if that 20 guys with guns knock on your door at night and say, look, "We need dinner; can you feed us?" people are more likely to do that, because they just don`t feel the allegiance to the government that they did in 2002.

RAY SUAREZ: So, there`s an atmosphere, you`re saying where there`s a tolerance of these outside forces that are willing to attack the new Afghan army, willing to attack NATO forces in their areas?

SARAH CHAYES: That`s right.

And -- and the problem is that the new Afghan army, for example, is experienced by regular people as being just as hostile to their interests as the Taliban are. I have someone in my cooperative says to me one morning, almost with tears in her eyes: We don`t know what to do, because the Taliban prey on us at night, but the government soldiers prey on us in the daytime.

And that means that people get shaken down. They get, you know, their telephones stolen. You -- you know, when the army is deployed in an area where there`s Taliban fighting, to have checkpoints and things like that, they routinely just take everybody`s money. You know, everyone that they`re searching to see if it`s a -- if -- if it`s a Talib, they will take their money, or their telephone, or any other valuables they might have.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you were there at the time of the fall of the old government and the beginning of this new order. Was there optimism then?

SARAH CHAYES: Totally.

RAY SUAREZ: Was there support for the new system?

SARAH CHAYES: Absolutely. I mean there was Kandahar, right, you know, the heart of darkness, that was the fiefdom of the Taliban. People were overjoyed. People were so inspired by the radio interviews that President Karzai -- at that time, future President Karzai -- was delivering from his, you know, readout up in the mountains north of -- of Kandahar.

People were so excited that, at last, they could rejoin the community of nations, you know, that, at last, they could have a -- a government that took care of them, and, at last, they could have some individual liberties. But -- and -- and they really had a lot of patience. It took them a long time to get -- to get disillusioned with -- with what was delivered to them in the name of government. And they`re very disillusioned now.

RAY SUAREZ: So, is there a nostalgia for the Taliban?

SARAH CHAYES: To some degree, there is.

But it`s not at all ideological. It`s not about Islam. It`s not about crusade against the West. It`s about: You know what? There was no corruption under the Taliban. Public officials didn`t extract bribes from people. It was a taxi driver -- I took a taxi from the Pakistani border to Kandahar. This was even a couple of years ago. And he was ranting the whole time.

He said: You know what? Now, every time I pass a police check post, I get money taken from me. But, under the Taliban, I could drive, and I could drive at night, without being afraid.

And, so, people remember that, under the Taliban, they had some law and order. The -- the rules were excessively strict, and people didn`t like that. But at least they knew what they were, and they knew that, if they obeyed these rules, that they would be safe. And now there`s chaos.

RAY SUAREZ: In Kandahar Province, does it look, looking out at the world from the town where you live, as if more NATO troops would make a difference?

SARAH CHAYES: I think the current level of NATO troops is not sufficient, because I know of firefights that have happened that NATO hasn`t even been able to think about.

I mean, I know there was a district headquarters about a mile south of Kandahar proper. So, we`re talking on the fringes of the city. There was a four-hour battle between the Taliban and local security forces, the police, that NATO couldn`t even -- couldn`t even back up the police, because they were too busy elsewhere.

So, it`s certainly true that the degree of -- of fighting is more than NATO can handle right now. But I don`t believe that this is a problem that can be solved only by military means. It`s like, it`s necessary, but it`s not sufficient. We need more military pressure to be put on -- on these forces.

But, unless the Afghan government can come in there and provide the kind of regular services that ordinary people want from their government, all they -- all the military could really do is displace the problem for a little while.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you live near the border with Pakistan. Is that border a porous one?

SARAH CHAYES: Oh...

RAY SUAREZ: And what difference does it make to life where you live that that is not a protected border?

SARAH CHAYES: It`s not just that the border is porous. It`s that Taliban cross the main crossing point. This is not happening in mountains and on little trails that nobody can -- can control.

This is happening at the main border crossing point that is patrolled by Pakistani frontier guards. And the difference that it makes is that we feel, in Kandahar proper, extremely exposed, because it feels like you don`t -- you know, anybody could be anybody. There are -- there are teams of day laborers that come in from Pakistan all the time. You don`t know who those people are.

And, so, it`s a very frustrating situation. And I know, when I have had conversations with U.S. troops, for example, who have been engaged in these firefights, they`re -- they`re frustrated, too, because they say: You know what? You know, we will -- we will be in hot pursuit of (AUDIO GAP) we have had a firefight with, and they will just disappear across the border, and we can`t follow them.

I have had a -- a -- a soldier tell me: You know what? The Pakistani border is just an imaginary line keeping us from doing our job.

RAY SUAREZ: You are trying to run a business in a place that`s also one of the most heavy opium cultivation belts in the world.

SARAH CHAYES: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: What does all that money coming in do to the legitimate side of the -- of the ledger, whether you`re a civil servant or a farmer or someone trying to run a business?

SARAH CHAYES: Well, one thing it does is raise property values. We would love to buy a piece of land and build a facility, a production facility, but it`s totally out of reach. I mean, it would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars to buy a decent -- I mean, we`re talking an acre, less than an acre, in Kandahar, you know?

(LAUGHTER)

SARAH CHAYES: I mean, this is not New York City. And, so, that`s one problem. I...

RAY SUAREZ: Because there`s so much money in opium?

SARAH CHAYES: That`s right.

There`s so much money in -- washing around the economy in Kandahar that it -- I mean, the supply of money is greater than the supply of goods. And that means that the prices of goods go up. It`s -- land is also a way to, you know, kind of salt your money away.

But I find that, actually, Afghan farmers are very interested in diversifying what they`re growing. There are all sorts of reasons why they grow opium. One is that there`s, you know, not such an efficient market for some of their other very valuable products, like pomegranates, that, you know, we have all been reading about recently, or almonds, or apricots.

They grow really valuable crops. But the issue is, how do you get them out of Afghanistan to places that can spend more money on them?

Also, imagine a place where there`s no banking system. So, no one can take out a loan from a -- from an institution. They take out a loan from a -- from a trafficker. And they have to pay it back in opium. So, that`s some of the ways that it -- that it really disturbs, you know, regular economic transactions.

RAY SUAREZ: Sarah Chayes, thanks for joining us.

SARAH CHAYES: Thanks for having me.

JIM LEHRER: And still to come tonight: Brooks and Oliphant; plus, our final 9/11 profile, and a 9/11 poem.

But, first, watching for suspicious behavior at airports.

"NewsHour" correspondent Tom Bearden has our report.

TOM BEARDEN: The planes that destroyed the World Trade Center took off from Boston`s Logan Airport. Afterwards, the agency that operates the 84-year-old airport, the Massachusetts Port Authority, was lambasted in the press for poor security.

But a lot has changed in the last five years. In fact, Logan just won an award for dramatic improvements in security. The one getting the most attention is something called behavior pattern recognition.

It means that, while today`s fliers surrender their water bottles and watch the clock, a lot of people are watching them with trained and practiced eyes. They are looking for people behaving suspiciously, and singling them out for greater scrutiny. The Transportation Security Administration is now in the process of adopting the idea nationwide.

Everybody who works at the airport, from federal baggage screeners, to state police, to ticket agents, to fast-food vendors, is required to receive training in the technique. There`s even a one-hour course for bus and cabdrivers who frequent the airport.

Thomas Kinton, who now runs the entire Massachusetts Port Authority, is one of the people who began the program.

THOMAS KINTON, CEO, Massachusetts Port Authority: A trooper in plainclothes or in -- in uniform may be observing a crowded terminal. The flow of that terminal may be left to right, for whatever reason. Maybe it`s the morning outbound traffic. If you have got somebody going against that flow, why?

More importantly, observe them. And, if they were going against the flow, and they had a bag in their hand, and the ticket counter was to the left, but they were heading to the right, and then they came back without the bag, that`s an important piece of behavior to get on right away. Or the way they`re walking, indicating whether they`re secreting something on their person, is another thing to zero in on.

TOM BEARDEN: If any observer sees behavior they believe is suspicious, they call in state police to ask questions, beginning with relatively simple ones.

THOMAS KINTON: Where they`re going. Can I see your travel documents? One, two, three questions, it`s over. Have a nice flight, safe trip, welcome home, whatever it is, if the questions have been answered right. If they`re not answered right, then you`re drilling down a little deeper. And you`re saying, well, why are you here? Let me see some identification.

What do you mean you`re meeting this person? You`re in the domestic terminal. This is not the international terminal.

TOM BEARDEN: Consultant Rafi Ron worked with Kinton to develop behavior pattern recognition. It`s based on a similar technique used at Israel`s Ben Gurion Airport, where Ron was head of security. But Ron knew it had to be modified for the U.S.

RAFI RON, CEO, New Age Security Solutions: At Ben-Gurion Airport, we simply interview 100 percent of the passengers, something we cannot do here.

At Logan Airport, we had to come up with something that would allow us to select, out of the thousands and thousands of people that go through the airport every day, those fewer number of people that we want to talk to.

TOM BEARDEN: The Transportation Security Administration is now beginning to roll out its own version of behavior pattern recognition, under the acronym SPOT, for screening of passengers by observation techniques.

Psychologist Paul Ekman developed some of the training methods that TSA will use.

PAUL EKMAN, Psychologist: Micro expressions are concealed emotions. They last typically a twenty-fifth-of-a-second. Most often, they`re fairly intense, but they`re so fast that, without training, you don`t see them.

TOM BEARDEN: He produced a computerized self-training program that will teach screeners how to recognize what he calls micro-facial expressions that can give away emotions.

PAUL EKMAN: And what it tells you is that the drooping of the upper eyelid could be a bit sleepy, bored, or what could be the beginning of sadness.

TOM BEARDEN: Mmm-hmm.

PAUL EKMAN: What was it?

TOM BEARDEN: I would say fear.

PAUL EKMAN: OK. We will go to the next.

TOM BEARDEN: Surprise.

PAUL EKMAN: OK.

TOM BEARDEN: Oh, it`s way too fast for me. Disgust.

PAUL EKMAN: And now what it -- what it`s doing is, it`s calculating what...

(CROSSTALK)

TOM BEARDEN: How bad I was, yes.

PAUL EKMAN: ... got right.

So, you got 43 percent.

TOM BEARDEN: That`s better than I thought.

PAUL EKMAN: That`s not terrible, but you want to do better.

TOM BEARDEN: Behaviorists like Ron and Ekman say the U.S. has, for too long, relied exclusively on technology, and concentrated too much on finding things, instead of identifying people who might be a threat. Part of that is cultural, the democratization of security, screen everybody for everything.

But Ekman and Ron say, technology is predictable, and, therefore, vulnerable. Ekman says, adding behavior to the list of things to look out for, and having trained interrogators question people so identified is hard to beat.

PAUL EKMAN: You can`t defeat it. It`s an involuntary action. We have tested over 10,000 people in law enforcement. They don`t see it. An hour`s training with a C.D. on their own, they can see it.

TOM BEARDEN: But Ekman says, more basic research is needed to make sure screeners are properly trained.

PAUL EKMAN: We don`t know, nor does SPOT, how effective is that training? We need to do the evaluation and find out what percentage of the people trained remember two weeks later. When do you need a refresher course? Does everybody benefit? Or I think they spend more than three days in SPOT. Do you need five, or would do two do just as good as three? This is not rocket science.

TOM BEARDEN: Ron thinks that the TSA`s SPOT program, which will only train federal screeners, doesn`t go far enough in training those who will do the questioning. He points out that shoe bomber Richard Reid was interrogated by untrained French police before he boarded his flight and was allowed to proceed.

The Massachusetts State Police get three hours of training. TSA says local police will be given a one-hour course in questioning techniques. In Israel, interrogators are trained for months.

RAFI RON: I think that the -- while TSA can recognize suspicious behavior, at the end of the day, they call in a law enforcement officer to interview the person. And if this law enforcement officer doesn`t have the skills to do that, it is -- he is doomed to fail.

JOHN REINSTEIN, Legal Director, Massachusetts ACLU: What we`re going to get is a reintroduction of racial or ethnic profiling.

TOM BEARDEN: John Reinstein is worried about inadequate police training, too. He`s the legal director of the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union. Reinstein characterizes TSA`s proposed training program as bargain-basement.

JOHN REINSTEIN: I think what you`re asking of the screeners is to exercise an extraordinary amount of judgment, based on a range of particularly subjective factors. And, under those circumstances, I think that it is likely that -- that ethnic or racial profiling will creep back in.

I -- I think, in a system where people expect terrorists to be of a particular ethnicity, those are the people they`re going to find.

TOM BEARDEN: The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against Massport and the state police, saying that ordering officers to approach and question people and to ask for documents before they enter the airport`s security zone is a violation of the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

George Naccara, the federal security director at Logan, says, anybody using race as part of behavior pattern recognition is simply doing it wrong.

GEORGE NACCARA, Federal Security Director, Logan Airport: We find that terrorists come in different sizes and shapes and -- and colors. And we`re looking for behaviors purely. Race is not a factor on our score sheet. We have a very formal process, which is different from other derivatives of this system.

Our -- our formal process identifies many, many behaviors that we`re looking for. And -- and race is not a factor.

RAFI RON: When we started the program at Logan Airport, we had more lawyers in the room than trainees. They -- but it -- it was right. And I respected that, because I think that we do need to work 100 percent within the law, and 100 percent within what the American public, they -- wants. And this is also to preserve civil rights.

TOM BEARDEN: The argument over racial profiling aside, Ron and Massport officials say, behavior pattern recognition by itself isn`t enough. Logan has a layered security system. It includes random roadblocks on approach roads and a new 10-foot-high concrete wall topped with barbed wire.

Bomb-sniffing dogs are on almost continuous patrol. And state police officers openly walk the terminals armed with powerful submachine guns.

TROOPER KEVIN MULLEN, Massachusetts State Police: Deterrent would definitely be the word. I think that`s why they implemented this, to -- a little show of force, and also maybe a comfort factor for the public. But I think the main mission definitely is the deterrent factor, though.

TOM BEARDEN: Logan was the first U.S. airport to install explosive detection scanners connected by miles of conveyor belts. It spent $146 million of its own money, before there was any discussion of federal reimbursement.

Logan was also among the first airports to install permanent concrete bollards curbside to keep potential car and truck bombs from crashing into the terminals. And they have expensive stainless steel trash bins, designed to contain explosions and vent them upwards.

There are even infrared cameras to scan the surrounding bay for boats that come too close to the restricted zone marked out by security buoys.

But one of the most important innovations takes place in a conference room.

Logan Airport officials say, one of the keys to their entire security plan is a simple morning meeting. They call it the 8:30. We weren`t allowed to photograph it or disclose where it takes place. But they say it`s the reason the many federal, state and local agencies who often have overlapping jurisdictions here, are able to work together.

GEORGE NACCARA: We`re in a room every morning at 8:30, Saturday and Sunday included, every holiday included, ever since September 12, 2001. And it -- it causes us to focus on the security events of the previous day and -- and the events of the -- of the coming day.

TOM BEARDEN: I`m told one of the biggest values of that meeting is that it eliminates turf battles.

GEORGE NACCARA: Absolutely. Again, it allows us to share opinions, to -- to assess our response effectiveness, and we -- we don`t lay blame.

TOM BEARDEN: Kinton says, the frequent contacts between agencies have made it easier for the various bureaucracies to overcome their rivalries and work together.

THOMAS KINTON: Years ago, it was a struggle. They value it today. They participate. They -- they welcome it. They welcome the interaction and the support. So, I think we have broken down that stovepipe approach, and have communicated across the line, and learned to respect one another.

TOM BEARDEN: During the week we were at Logan, it experienced two major security incidents: the revelation of the U.K.-based plot to bomb 10 passenger jets bound for America, and a flight diverted here because of the actions of a disturbed passenger.

Kinton says, the 8:30 made it all go smoothly.

THOMAS KINTON: I was out there as that aircraft was landing. Sixty percent of the people I knew from the 8:30 meeting, from law enforcement, TSA, city of Boston, EMS, and so forth, were all people we interact with on a daily basis.

TOM BEARDEN: Logan officials say, their system works so well that, after the diverted plane incident, the airport was debriefed and back to near normal at 1:30 the same afternoon. That used to take a week.

The 8:30 meetings, behavior pattern recognition, stronger perimeters, just a few of the many lessons Logan officials say they learned from September 11 -- the result is an overall security system, they believe, will go a long way to prevent something similar from ever happening here again.

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Brooks and Oliphant, "New York Times" columnist David Brooks, and columnist Tom Oliphant. Mark Shields is off tonight.

David, the president`s secret prisons, 14 terrorists transfer, alleged terrorist transfers, announced, how big a deal was that?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it`s a pretty big deal. I think it reflects a couple things.

The first thing, obviously, is, there are some decisions that have forced their -- their hand to be a little more open, but, secondly -- and almost more importantly -- change in the internal power structure of the administration.

There have always been two these tensions in fighting terror, one, to kill the bad guys, two, to have some moral authority to win over people, and to -- to be a good citizen of the world. And the former camp was winning for about three or four years. And, for a number of reasons, the latter camp is now winning. And, if you want to put in it a shorthand, I would say it`s the State Department winning over the vice president`s office.

But I do think there has been a slow evolution within the internal debates of the administration.

JIM LEHRER: Do you see it the same way?

TOM OLIPHANT: Sort of.

One reason that I don`t think it has proved to be a big deal is that the political content of this move was drained almost immediately. Factually, there is no rush here. I mean, the procedures for trials could be agreed upon tomorrow, and it would still be a long time before there would be any trials.

And, secondly, to the extent there`s been a difference of opinion here, as David noted, it`s been inside the administration. And it`s also been between the president and Republicans in the Senate, and between the politicians in the administration and the uniformed military legal system in the Pentagon.

So, I think, when all this was -- happened on Wednesday, there was an expectation of politics that the reality underneath it kind of eliminated.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let`s follow up on this particular thing. The -- the president`s proposal for these military tribunals that he wants, many Republicans, including John Warner, or John Sununu, and a lot of others -- in fact, Sununu, on our program last night, very clearly said: I`m not going for this, as long as the defendants don`t -- are not allowed to look at the evidence against them and all that sort of stuff.

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: What`s going on there?

DAVID BROOKS: Right, Lindsey Graham.

JIM LEHRER: Yes, Lindsey Graham -- Lindsey Graham.

DAVID BROOKS: John McCain.

JIM LEHRER: John McCain. You got it. It`s a long list, yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And these are heavyweights.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And, so, what you have is a number of people more -- on the more conservative side, saying, we should not be giving classified information to suspected terrorists. And so they want them removed from the courthouse while that comes up.

Other people, I think including Lindsey Graham, say, that will last about 15 seconds on appeal, that it`s -- you just can`t have a trial that way. And, so, they`re now talking amongst themselves. And from what I was told, there is an expectation they will come up with some compromise language.

And I would have to say that, on balance, the Warner camp probably has a little more muscle, because of where the president`s standing is, because of the legality of the issue. But I -- I suspect the Republicans will come up with something. And, then, as Tom indicated, the question is, will the Democrats dissent? And they probably won`t.

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree? The Democrats will go along with that, won`t they?

TOM OLIPHANT: You know, this happened four years ago with an obscure provision in the legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security. And out of that teeny little disagreement came a huge advertising campaign and really the result of the election.

The same mistake will not be made twice. The only thing I would add...

JIM LEHRER: You mean the -- let`s be specific.

TOM OLIPHANT: The Democrats will hide...

JIM LEHRER: The Democrats will support McCain, Warner?

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

TOM OLIPHANT: I think one should be more cynical than that...

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

TOM OLIPHANT: ... as well as accurate.

The Democrats will hide...

JIM LEHRER: Oh.

TOM OLIPHANT: ... behind the skirts of Warner, McCain, and Graham.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

TOM OLIPHANT: And anything they agree to basically will be the Democratic position. It`s almost policy that there not be any daylight between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

I think there were expectations in the other direction at first, when Bush acted. There`s another reason, though, that I think the Republicans are holding kind of firm in the Senate. And that is, they have been through a situation where, in effect, they tried to tell Bush that, if you do this unilaterally, the legal system, you are likely to get slapped down in the courts.

And that means that three or four years could pass, and we will be all the way back to square one, which is where we are. Nobody wants to see that mistake made again. They want to design a system that can withstand the appellate courts. And that`s why they will be careful this time.

JIM LEHRER: David, speaking of cynicism, is it a mistake to suggest there`s any connection between the November elections and the president`s decision to make this announcement this week?

DAVID BROOKS: I wouldn`t totally rule out a connection.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: So -- so, I mean, it`s obviously part of a political campaign.

And, yet, sometimes, when one talks about politics, there`s sort of a -- an assumption of cynicism, that they -- it`s all Karl Rove or Lee Atwater, somebody like that, sitting around strategizing.

And there is some -- there is a -- a different feel to the way people in the administration talk about this and the way a lot of us analyze it. I mean, they -- they really see it as the central issue of our time. And, so, while it`s coincidental and it does have potential political advantages for them, they really describe it to themselves as the thing they were put on this Earth to do.

And, so, there`s a much less cynical tone than there would be if they were talking about tax cuts or anything else like that. This really feels like the core of what they do.

And the fear the president expressed in the speeches about the seriousness of the threat, that is a fear that they genuinely feel about the threat. And a lot of my -- a couple of my friends, more on the Democratic side, said: They`re fear-mongering. They`re fear-mongering.

But they`re not faking it. They really feel that level of threat. And other people may not feel it, and think it`s fear-mongering. But -- but the tone is a little different than normal politics.

JIM LEHRER: Is it fear-mongering, Tom?

TOM OLIPHANT: No, I don`t think it`s fear-mongering. But I -- I think the political content of this has to be recognized.

I mean, obviously, the Democrats could have made a big mistake on Wednesday, when Bush made his announcement and his proposal. They didn`t. But part of this involved -- and I thought it illustrated the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats in the current environment. And it`s really cultural, Jim.

Republicans...

JIM LEHRER: Cultural?

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes. Republican -- think of Republicans as very disciplined fanatics.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

TOM OLIPHANT: And then think of -- think of...

(LAUGHTER)

JIM LEHRER: Just hold on.

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: Hold on. Just hold on.

TOM OLIPHANT: On the other hand.

And then think of Democrats as totally undisciplined neurotics, and you have the setting in which all this happened on Wednesday. People are thinking, oh, my God, he`s done this, and the Democrats will do that.

In truth, the factual situation obliterated this -- this initial thought. But that`s the basic difference. The Democrats are looking over their shoulder, expecting to lose at the last minute again. Republicans have this discipline about them that causes them sometimes to march in lockstep off a cliff.

DAVID BROOKS: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: All right, David.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, to some extent, I agree. Whenever -- whenever I interview people in Republican administrations, I always think they`re -- they`re bland, but normal. And, in Democratic administrations, they`re neurotic, but interesting.

(LAUGHTER)

TOM OLIPHANT: That`s right.

DAVID BROOKS: But -- but I would say, now, after all that`s happened, Republicans are bland, but neurotic, which is the worst combination of all possible things.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: But...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: And I would say that the serious point behind that is...

JIM LEHRER: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: ... that the party is no longer a lockstep party in general. It is a party with distractions.

JIM LEHRER: And there`s proof.

TOM OLIPHANT: Right.

(CROSSTALK)

JIM LEHRER: I mean, the president -- the president`s proposal is already being shot down by his own party.

(CROSSTALK)

TOM OLIPHANT: But I think there`s important flip side to this point.

And that is, through bitter experience, most Democrats have learned the importance of security, not as an issue, but on its -- on its own merits. And -- and that lesson learned is reflected in their behavior today.

I mean, you -- you see initiatives now to do far more in areas other than criminal trials, like the ports, chemical plants, nuclear plants, big trains, and all the rest of it, that reflect, at last, an understanding that security is a serious business.

DAVID BROOKS: But my only question would be, is -- do they -- do they know they shouldn`t put a foot wrong, or do they feel it in their guts that this is what they have to do? And that, I`m not clear about.

(CROSSTALK)

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, I...

DAVID BROOKS: I would go by individuals.

TOM OLIPHANT: I think, after the experience of 9/11, it -- it -- this is all about individuals, David, I think.

And each person has gone through the horror of the last five years. It`s been almost a personal journey for everyone who`s had to do it. And if the Democratic Party, as an institution, wasn`t quite there five years ago, there`s no doubt in my mind that it is today.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of personal journeys, this is September the 8th, three days before September 11. And a lot of people are talking about what this -- what 9/11 did to our country, and where are we five years later as a result.

What are your personal thoughts, David?

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I -- I shared a sense, pre-September 11, a `90s sense, that the central story of the day was globalization. It was about the convergence of peoples and markets and communications, and that human beings were fundamentally the same. We had different cultures, but we all wanted the same thing.

I think, since 9/11, I have become much more aware of how different human beings are, how in -- because they need identity, they form tribes. And those tribes are solidified by hating other people. They need not only freedom, but they need a sense of moral order. And those moral orders sometimes contradict each other.

And, so, human beings are much more unalike than I thought they were. And, when you go back and look at early days of the Iraq occupation, the -- trying to create a stock market, it was like they -- they were liberating a country sort of like our own.

But it`s not. And the Sunnis and Shia are now not like they are. So, the -- the landscape of reality to me was -- was sort of rolling hills before. Now, there are cliffs and chasms between peoples and groups. And that`s much uglier.

JIM LEHRER: Tom.

TOM OLIPHANT: Yes, we -- we each express this personally, I think.

But, at -- at horrible cost, I think we have learned that, in the 21st century, there is -- America has no invulnerability from the forces at work in the world. And part of what fell on September 11, in addition to those two buildings, is any notion that the oceans protect us, that we`re not in the middle of the world.

And, secondly, we did not understand that there really is an enemy out there. And -- and one thing that has changed, for as far as the eye can see, is that this disease, I will call it, of extremism in the Muslim world is real, and has to be confronted.

JIM LEHRER: Do you -- either of you, have you developed any tics as a result of 9/11, personally, like, when you hear an airplane go over?

A man was telling me the other day that, the first time in his life, since 9/11, every time he hears a plane, he looks up, and he thinks he can`t -- he can`t look at an airplane and not think of 9/11.

Do you have anything like that in your life, David?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I -- I can`t say I do.

I`m struck by how, in the day-to-day life, my life is the same. And that`s true of most Americans -- if you look at most social indicators, exactly the same -- the same. It`s the mentality that has shifted.

And, so, to me, the idea that you would see on TV or the Internet beheadings, that was a non-normal part of life in the `90s. But now it`s something we have -- we have seen, and people getting blown up every single day.

TOM OLIPHANT: I do.

I mean, I was out on the street, taking a little break, and felt the thud of the plane hitting the Pentagon, a mile away. I didn`t know where my wife was for a couple of hours -- or an hour or so.

There is a feeling not of sadness, but of nervousness, vaguely, that I have when I go to an airport. I`m aware that it`s a different environment. I -- I hate it.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think it`s permanent? Do you think this is with us?

TOM OLIPHANT: It`s -- no, I think it`s as far as the eye can see.

I remember, one point of agreement at this desk the night of 9/11 -- and it was with Bill Kristol -- that we`re at war. And I still really believe that.

JIM LEHRER: You believe that as well?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, certainly, though, I would say, over the time, I - - my office at The Times is a block from -- or two blocks from the White House.

I used to go in thinking, will this be the day that I`m down there when something bad happens, and I would feel guilty about working at home? I would say that`s diminished, and I feel a little guilty about that.

JIM LEHRER: All right.

Well, thank you both very much.

And now the last in our series on lives changed by the events of 9/11. In her own words, here now is the story of an Episcopal priest who, for months, served as a chaplain at ground zero in New York.

REVEREND JANET VINCENT, Episcopal priest: He preached the Gospel, and he loved Christ. And that`s what we`re asked to imitate after him, in our own lives, and in our own way.

My name is Janet Vincent. I`m an Episcopal priest for 23 years now. I live in White Plains, New York, which is 30 miles from ground zero.

Gracious God, we ask your blessing on all...

In White Plains, I`m the rector of Grace Episcopal Church and the president of the Grace Church Community Center.

The evening of September 12, I received a phone call at about 11:00 p.m. And it was a woman. And she just kept telling me over and over again that her husband was dead, her husband was dead, and would I help her? And that was how I got my introduction to ground zero. I wound up going down there within the first week of the attack, and helped her and some other widows whose husbands had died in the north tower.

I was probably on site 25 times. I wrote in my journal that I wondered if the experience would always leave me aching, and I wrote that almost a year after the attacks and several months after my last visit to ground zero. And I have to say now, almost five years later, it still haunts me in some ways. There are haunting elements of it.

One of the most amazing experiences of going down there was the bond I made with a number of firefighters, who I got to know in various circumstances. I got to see their pain firsthand.

"A FEMA worker hands me my first respirator and a hardhat. I get a quick lesson on proper fit. I tell a battalion chief that I`m here to gather some ash. He doesn`t seem surprised. He asks me if I would first come with him. They are pulling some body parts out of the pile, and he would like me to bless them. `There are civilians,` he says.

"I am overwhelmed and appalled, but I shake my head yes. I will follow him. I didn`t think I would get close to the wreckage. I am splattered with mud, and I can taste the grit in the air. The stench is awful. I wear my mask until someone speaks to me, and I must answer. Can`t talk with a mask on. I think, `This can`t be good for my lungs.`

"I pull the mask down, and, in that moment, I am one of them. They bring me in. I have no prayer but, `Oh, God,` and the last phrase of the Hail Mary. `Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.`

"I feel stripped of every comforting phrase, every bit of theology and any sense of purpose, except to be there. The being there makes me feel sick. `Just hold your ground,` I think. `Don`t vomit and don`t turn away.`

"It`s my first inkling that I am a witness. That`s my job. I never looked away."

Like many of the firefighters and others that I met down there, in those first weeks, if Osama bin Laden had been in front of me, and I had a gun in my hand, I`m sure I would have pulled the trigger. But I have come a long way since that experience and that initial raw anger.

I never know how to answer the question of, how can there be a God if this thing can happen, if this kind of destruction and violence and hatred can be let loose in the world and in our city?

All I can say is that, from the experience of being there, it was apparent to me that there -- that there is a God, that people have hope.

On 9/11, I was with a friend at the church. I knew I had to make communion bread. And I knew, instinctively, that we were going to need a lot of bread. And it turned out, that week, we did. And that communion bread became symbolic for my whole ministry at ground zero.

I -- I found myself finding ways, and various ways, to feed people. So, I would make peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that I would eat on the way down. I would give it to firefighters. I was bread. I was bread. And, in many ways, they became bread for me. And, at the end of the experience, I can say that I was fed as well.

I have some training as a still photographer. I did that as a young person, before I went to seminary. And, on one of my first trips down to ground zero, I actually brought an old Nikon with me and had it stuffed in a bag.

But, when I brought the camera to my face and pressed the shutter, it froze. And I knew, in that moment, that I wasn`t there to be a photographer. I was going to be in the moment, in the place, with nothing -- nothing between us. Later on, I took a few pictures, because it became important to me.

I had a dream. And, in that dream, I died and I was sitting on the porch of heaven with Jesus and another man that I recognized as Mohamed Atta.

Mohamed Atta, one of the terrorists of 9/11.

And Jesus looks at me and he says: Well, it`s wonderful that you`re here, Janet, but there`s one thing that -- that you might do before you go in. He says: I think you have something that belongs to him. And you should -- you might want to give it back, because he needs it.

And that referred to a visit I had, had with a pulmonary doctor, who had said to me that, for the rest of my life, I would have Mohamed Atta in my lungs, for being down at ground zero and not always wearing a respirator.

And, in that moment, when Jesus says that, I wake up from the dream. And it`s very clear to me that I`m not giving anything back to him. And, then, fast-forward a year, and I`m off on retreat and out on a long walk. And my breathing is great, and I`m feeling great, and everything`s wonderful. And I realized that, oh, I have given it back, that somewhere along the road -- I don`t know where -- and it wasn`t by any will of my own, I think -- I gave it back to him.

The theme of reconciliation has, obviously, I guess, been a big one for me over these last five years. How do we -- how do we bridge this chasm of hate between cultures and people? How do we bridge it in our own communities and our own personal lives? We have to put down our need for revenge or hate, and that violence doesn`t -- doesn`t bring peace.

We have an essential message to share with the world: Be not afraid. Don`t be afraid to live your life. That`s the Easter message. Don`t lose hope. And rise up. Rise up.

I think 9/11 has allowed me to make freer choices. Some time in middle or late October, I`m going to be moving to Washington, D.C. I`m going to a new parish, St. Columba`s. And I think, before I go down there, I will make a visit to ground zero to say goodbye to that site, which has meant so much to me, and -- and wish it well, and maybe give it my last blessing.

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day.

A suicide car bomber in Afghanistan killed at least 16 people, including two U.S. soldiers. Israel lifted its naval blockade of Lebanon, allowing European warships to patrol the Lebanese coastline. And NASA once again pushed back the launch of the shuttle Atlantis, until tomorrow.

And before we go this particular Friday night, an excerpt of a 9/11 poem from Lucille Clifton, former poet laureate of Maryland, a Pulitzer Prize nominee, winner of many awards for her poetry.

LUCILLE CLIFTON, Former Poet Laureate Of Maryland: My name is Lucille Clifton.

I was having lunch at Saint Mary`s College in Maryland on September 11, when I watched on television the devastation of the Twin Towers. And I thought a lot about that and about the fact that my eldest daughter had, had a new baby girl five days before, and about love and continuing and fear and hope.

And this poem is a reaction to those thoughts and feelings. The poem is called "September`s Song: A Poem in Seven Days." And I would like to read two days in the poem.

"Tuesday, 9/11: Thunder and lightning, and our world is another place. No day will ever be the same, no blood untouched. They know this storm in other wheres -- Israel, Ireland, Palestine -- but God has blessed America, we sing. And God has blessed America, to learn that no one is exempt. The world is one. All fear is one, all life, all death, all one."

"Sunday morning, 9/16/01. For Bailey. The Saint Mary`s River flows as if nothing has happened. I watch it with my coffee, afraid and sad, as are we all. So many ones to hate. And I, cursed with long memory, cursed with a desire to understand, have never been good at hating.

"Now this new granddaughter, born into a violent world, as if nothing has happened, and I am consumed with love for all of it, the everydayness of bravery, of hate, of fear, of tragedy, of death and birth and hope, true as this river, and especially with love, Bailey Frederica Clifton Goin, for you."

JIM LEHRER: You can read the entire poem and learn more about Lucille Clifton and our poetry project by going to our Web site at PBS.org.

And a reminder: "Washington Week" can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations.

We will see you online, and again here Monday evening with a special discussion about the impact of 9/11.

Have a nice weekend. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.