The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a Newsmaker interview with John Danforth on his findings about what happened at Waco, political analysis by Mark Shields and Paul Gigot, a conversation with the United Nation's top official for refugees, and a California doctor's favorite poem. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The federal government was cleared today of wrongdoing in the Branch Davidian deaths seven years ago. The judgment came from an independent investigation conducted by former Republican Senator John Danforth of Missouri. 80 people died in a fire at the cult's compound outside Waco in 1993. Last year, Attorney General Reno named Danforth to investigate. He released his preliminary findings at a news conference in St. Louis.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: One, government agents did not start the fire at Waco. Two, government agents did not shoot at the dividends Davidians on April 1993. Three, the government did not improperly use the united states military. And four, government did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up.

JIM LEHRER: Danforth did criticize several employees of the Justice Department and the FBI on one point. He said they failed to disclose that federal agents had used pyrotechnic teargas canisters.. But he said they did not start the fire that destroyed the Davidians' compound. We'll talk to Senator Danforth right after this News Summary. Talks continued at the Camp David summit today. A State Department spokesman declined to characterize progress since they nearly collapsed on Wednesday night. In Jerusalem, an Israeli cabinet minister said Prime Minister Barak might accept shared control of Arab sections of the city, but Palestinians rejected the idea. We have a report from Philippa Meagher of Associated Press Television News.

PHILIPPA MEAGHER: These Palestinians are adamant that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Until now, Israel has always insisted it will never relinquish control over any part of the city, but on Friday there were signs of a possible deal.

MICHAEL MELCHIOR: There is an American proposal which is a good basis for a compromise, which keeps Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, undivided Jerusalem -- at the same gives wide administrative authority in some of the outskirts of the... Palestinian outskirts of Jerusalem.

PHILIPPA MEAGHER: For many Palestinians, it's a step too far.

HANAN ASHRAWI: For them to maintain West Jerusalem, and then try to confiscate or annex parts of East Jerusalem, and then give us symbolic sovereignty over the suburbs of Jerusalem, this is not the approach at all that is workable.

PHILIPPA MEAGHER: Both the Israeli and Palestinian leaders will have a tough time selling such a deal to their people when they return.

JIM LEHRER: The G-8 economic conference opened today with words of support for the Middle East summit. President Clinton and other leaders of the world's richest nations met on Okinawa. They suggested they might help pay the financial costs of an Israeli-Palestinian deal. They also talked about granting debt relief for the world's poorest countries, among other things. In the U.S. presidential race today, Republican George W. Bush said he'd decide on a running mate this weekend. Aides said he might announce it as early as Monday. There was new speculation it might be Senator John McCain, but McCain said nothing had changed since May. That's when he told Bush he did not want to be considered. Vice President Gore addressed the AFL-CIO convention in Washington. He criticized Bush's plan to let people invest Social Security money in the stock market. He said it would create a $3 trillion shortfall. The Pentagon today announced new plans to fight harassment of gays in the ranks. It requires action against all antigay behavior, and it holds commanders responsible for enforcement. It also call for more intensive training for all personnel. A Pentagon official said this.

CAROL DiBATTISTE: ... now to be totally engaged in addressing all forms of harassment, including mistreatment, inappropriate comments, and gestures, we do believe this is a step forward because 're getting ever involved in it -- not just the highest levels, not just the lowest levels, even the intermediate levels of command, and we're training people on what clearly will be expected o them.

JIM LEHRER: The plan is response to a murder last summer at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. A soldier there killed another soldier there he thought was gay. An army report released today found that members of the victim's company violated e military poly on gays, but it did clear commanders of any wrongdoing. Repeal of the marriage penalty won final approval in Congress today. The Republican measure passed the Senate one day after passing the House. It would reduce taxes by $90 billion over five years. But President Clinton said again today he would veto the bill. He said it's too expensive. Last night, the Senate unanimously confirmed Norman Mineta as Secretary of Commerce. The former California congressman will be the first Asian American to hold a cabinet position. He replaces William Daley, who left to run the Gore presidential campaign. Also last night, the House voted to allow sales of U.S. food and medicine to Cuba, and to let Americans travel there freely. The Senate approved similar provisions as part of an agriculture bill. President Clinton has said he supports drug and food sales to Cuba. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to John Danforth, Shields and Gigot, UN Refugee commissioner Ogata, and a favorite poem.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: The Waco investigation: Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today's findings come seven years after an inferno ended the siege on the Branch Davidians' compound near Waco, Texas-- a siege that began with the killing of four federal agents in a gun battle with the group. On the 51st day of the standoff, a huge fire tore through the sect's wooden outpost. Group leader David Koresh and 79 other members and their children died. Hours before, federal agents had tried to end the episode by putting teargas into the Davidians' buildings. At the time, Attorney General Janet Reno defended the action.

JANET RENO: (April 19, 1993) I approved the plan, and I am responsible for it. I advised the President, but I did not advise him as to the details.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the months that followed, Reno and the FBI Came under heavy criticism for their handling of the crisis. Especially strong were relatives of the Davidians, as well as several members of Congress.

REP. JOHN CONYERS: (April 28, 19930 Now when in God's name is the law enforcement at the federal level going to understand that these are very sensitive events that you can't put barbed wire, guns, FBI, Secret Service around them, send in sound 24 hours a day and night, and then wonder why they do something unstable? This is a profound disgrace to law enforcement in the United States of America.

DICK DeGUERIN: (July 25, 1995) Whether you accept that David Koresh started the fire and committed suicide with all of those people, or whether it was accidental or not, there's one thing certain: Those people would be alive today if those tanks and teargas hadn't started rolling on April the 19.

KWAME HOLMAN: Then, last summer, came word the FBI was reversing a position it had held since the disaster, that its agents had used nofire-producing weapons or equipment in their attack. Instead, the FBI acknowledged firing so-called pyrotechnic teargas canisters at a compound building.

JANET RENO: I am very, very troubled by the information I received this week suggesting that pyrotechnic devices may have been used in the early morning hours on April 19, 1993, at Waco. At this time, all available indications are that the devices were not directed at the main wooden compound, were discharged several hours before the fire started, and were not the cause of the fire.

KWAME HOLMAN: Two weeks later, Reno appointed John Danforth, a former Republican Senator from Missouri, as a special counsel to investigate the actions of federal authorities. He spoke on the NewsHour that day.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: (September 9, 1999) That what we are going to be looking at are two fundamental questions: One, was there a cover-up? I have no preconceived idea of that one way or another, but that's a question. And two, did federal government people do something really bad-- namely, did they kill people?

JIM LEHRER: And now with his conclusions, former Senator Danforth joins us again from St. Louis.

Senator, welcome.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: And your conclusion on the question about whether or not agents killed people. Your answer is no, is that correct, sir?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: My answer is no and it's an absolutely clear answer. As I said today, I stated it with 100% certainty. There is no question about it. There is no evidence of gunfire by federal agents that morning. There is absolutely no evidence that the government officials started the fire. By contrast, David Koresh and his followers spread fuel throughout the complex, lit it on fire. And that was the cause of the tragedy; moreover, the Branch Davidians killed about 20 of their own people execution style mainly by shooting them in the head.

JIM LEHRER: So let's take this one at a time. The starting of the fire -- that is -- you have conclusive evidence that that fire was started by those people themselves?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Absolutely conclusive -- including the results of electronic surveillance, which had to be enhanced to hear what was happening. But you could hear the Davidians talking about spreading the fuel. Also, there's physical evidence such as Coleman lantern, containers with puncture marks so the fuel could be spread.

JIM LEHRER: Did that electronic surveillance shed any light on why they were setting the fire?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, we've examined the fire why they were setting the fire. And we've interviewed six of the surviving Davidians. We believe that it's related to the religious beliefs of the Davidians; that they believe that death by fire doing battle with the Babylonians, which is how they viewed the government, would transport them to heaven.

JIM LEHRER: So it was in fact a mass suicide?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Yes, it was. I would consider it a mass suicide plus the execution of about 20 people, including five children. So I wouldn't lump the children in the suicide.

JIM LEHRER: Who did the shooting, Senator? Who shot whom and why?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: The only people within the complex were the Davidians themselves. And I can't tell you whether they shot people. I can just tell you the results.

JIM LEHRER: But do you believe... is there any evidence to indicate that these 20 people were singled out because they didn't want to go along with the suicide? They wanted to escape? Is there any evidence on that issue at all?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: I don't think so. I think one of the people was shot in the back, which might indicate that, but most of them were shot in the head.

JIM LEHRER: Why were the children shot? Do you have any idea?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: I can't judge this at all. You know, as I say, we were really looking into whether or not the government was culpable and trying to figure out what happened. And it's absolutely clear that government agents did not fire shots that day.

JIM LEHRER: They fired no shots at all?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: No shots at all.

JIM LEHRER: And the evidence about that, you say is 100% certain, is that correct?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: It's 100% certain. And, in fact, the evidence presented on the other side was so weak that it had to do with so-called flare tests, which showed flashes. We hired two sets of experts to examine that issue. In both cases they concluded with, again, total certainty, that the reflections were... the flashes were glints of reflected sunlight and that they were not any kind of shots by guns.

JIM LEHRER: These were flashes that turned up on videotape.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Right.

JIM LEHRER: Right. Now, on the fire, no connection at all -- you're absolutely certain -- between the firing of those pyrotechnic flares and the fire, correct?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: That's right. The pyrotechnics were fired four hours before the fire. They were fired at a target 75 feet away from the residential complex that went up in flames. They were at what amounted to a foundation, a construction site with concrete walls, with water in the bottom of it. They bounced off, and they caused no fire at all.

JIM LEHRER: What about -- what would you say to - we just ran a tape from the - one of the House hearings on this issue - that this was a profound disgrace for all law enforcement. Can you - would you agree with that?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: I would not agree with that. Now we didn't get into questions of judgment as to - and whether the FBI should have attempted to put the teargas in and that kind of thing. I leave that to the law enforcement people. We got into what I called the dark questions of whether really evil deeds were caused and they were not. And I think what happens when something like this occurs is that it's so shocking and the visual image of the flames and the knowledge that 80 people died, that there's a desire on the part of all of us, maybe all of us, to explain and to decide, hey, something was wrong and government must have done something terrible. So I think we jumped conclusions. But when the conclusions relate to really terrible suggestions, such as shooting people and setting buildings on fire with people in them, I think that we've exaggerated situation, and that's really an unfair thing to charge.

JIM LEHRER: You spoke to that directly in your three-page preface to your report. And you were... you expressed terrific concern over the fact that there was this conclusion jump, this jump to this conclusion almost immediately that the federal law enforcement officers had caused those people to die. How do you explain that, Senator, this jump, this conclusion jump?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, that is the concern expressed in the preface because 61 percent of the American people according to one poll believe that the government started the fire. I think when something terrible happens, we want to try to say somebody is to blame. I think that there are various forums for people who have dark theories of what happened, and those forums help gain public traction for terrible thoughts about what happened and I think basically that's it. I also think that the government in this case, particularly government lawyers, were not forthcoming about the use of the pyrotechnics, even though the pyrotechnics had nothing to do with the fire. The fact that they were not forthcoming caused a lack of confidence in government, so people said, well, if they're not totally truthful even about inconsequential matters, they're not truthful about anything at all.

JIM LEHRER: So that fed this belief, you think?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: That fed it. And I think the two lessons are first of all, that I think all of us have to be skeptical when people are charged with very serious things or when government is charged with very serious things. There has to be some kind of, you know, presumption that these terrible things didn't happen, and burden on those making the charges to come up with more evidence than is the case here. And I also think that one of the lessons is that the government has to be very candid and very open, which was not entirely the case here.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let's go through that. There were FBI agents and Justice Department lawyers who withheld this information, correct?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Right.

JIM LEHRER: And are they still on the payroll?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Why? I mean why are they still working?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, first of all our report was just issued today, so I don't know what's going to be done. I know in the case of one FBI lawyer, we are referring this matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility in the FBI. So I don't know what's going to happen in this the case. They will have to weigh it and reach their own conclusions.

JIM LEHRER: Do you have any idea why these people withheld the information?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: No. The remaining subjects for investigation... And as I said today, we're about 95% finished, but there's about 5% left, and it all has to do with why there wasn't disclosure of the use of the pyrotechnic devices. And this is something that we're continuing to investigate.

JIM LEHRER: But the lack of disclosure, was it at the very top of the Justice Department or...

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: No.

JIM LEHRER: ..where was it? Tell us where this happened.

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Yeah, I think that is a very important point to make. It was not at the very top of the Justice Department. Janet Reno knew nothing about it. The directors at the time and now of the FBI had no knowledge of this. It was a surprise to them. On the other end of the spectrum the FBI agents who were present at the time and who were actually firing the pyrotechnics were totally open about it. They made no bones about it. They told the government lawyers. But somewhere in between the people who did it and the very highest levels of the Justice Department, evidence that was known by people, information that was known by people, was not passed on and was not disclosed to the public. And, in fact, it was not only not disclosed, but contrary representations were made so that it reinforced the idea that no pyrotechnics were used when in fact they were.

JIM LEHRER: They, in effect, lied?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: They in effect lied.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. And how many people were involved in this?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, these are matters that are under investigation right now. There was one FBI lawyer who had information who did not pass it on. We are looking into the so-called criminal trial team, the team of Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted the Branch Davidians back in 1993-1994. And we're looking into the question of whythe projectiles that were shot, the pyrotechnic projectiles and the shell casings are missing.

JIM LEHRER: Senator, you said at the end of your preface and let me quote you here, the Waco investigation is the most important work I have ever done. Why is that?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: That's because the real issue has to do with public confidence in government. It has to do with the consent of the governed, which is right there in the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. It's the basis of government. When 61% of the American people believe that government would do something as terrible as set a building on fire with 80 people in it, it seems to me that the confidence of government has been so shaken, that this is a serious matter. And the only way to deal with it is to get at the truth. We've been engaged at this now ten plus month, very detailed investigation in order to lay out the truth.

JIM LEHRER: You said that even in the course of your investigation there were still some people within the Justice Department who tried to withhold information from you or did not... were not forthcoming. What is that all about?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, I think that one of the problems to try to explain why Justice Department lawyers or officials would not be totally forthcoming with information is that there is a kind of a bunker mentality. Something terrible goes on. Investigations are held, such as the special counsel investigation or congressional hearings. They feel that they're under siege in the Justice Department; they feel that any information that's given is going to get people in trouble. And therefore, they tend to be very close fisted in passing on the information. And then that, in turn, feeds the disbelief or the distrust of the American people.

JIM LEHRER: And you think this is a very serious problem, do you not?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: I think it's a very serious problem. I think that the preface of our report really lays out what I believe about this. How can it happen that when there is really no evidence that government agents did these terrible things, how can it happen that people would come to believe that? How or why is it that we as a people are so ready to believe such dark things? And what can government do to make sure that public confidence is at a high level, rather than public confidence easily shaken by the failure to turn over evidence even on small matters such as the pyrotechnics, which had nothing to do with the fire?

JIM LEHRER: Finally, Senator, on that question, as it relates to that general question, the specifics you've already mentioned, the people who withheld information, who were not forthcoming, what was your overall impression when you finished? You interviewed 900 people. You reenacted the incident down there. You did tremendous investigating. What was your overall impression of the people involved in this who work for the United States Government?

SEN. JOHN DANFORTH: Well, I can tell you my impression of the people from the postal inspection service who were part of the investigation, is that we have some very good people in law enforcement in this country. My impression of the -- certain people in the justice Department is that they should have been forthcoming. They had information, and that they didn't disclose this information, and that caused real damage to the country. And my impression just as a general principle is that when charges are made, and very serious charges about anybody, including government, all of us owe a degree of skepticism about those dire charges and a degreeof presumption that people really are innocent, and not just jump to the conclusion that to make a charge is tantamount to proving the charge.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Senator Danforth, thank you very much.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, African refugees, and a favorite poem. Margaret Warner is with Mark and Paul.

MARGARET WARNER: And for our end of the week political analysis we turn, as usual, to syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "Wall Street Journal" columnist Paul Gigot.

Mark, this Waco issue has been with us for seven years now. John Danforth, one of the most respected Republicans going says government did nothing wrong. Do you think this is going to put an end to the conspiracy theories?

MARK SHIELDS: I hope it does, Margaret. I mean I would just eliminate your qualifier. He is one of the most respected men in American public life. And I thought he spoke eloquently in his interview with Jim about that obsessive... whatever it is, compulsion on the part of some people in office, probably most conspicuous, the chairman of the House Investigating Committee, Dan Burton of Indiana, always to ascribe some nefarious, perverse sinister motive, especially to public service. I'm grateful to hear him, especially in view of the charges against the FBI and the American law enforcement, that they did their job...and to hear the terrible... I mean this suicide-murder described in full.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you think the impact is going to be?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I think it's good to have Jack Danforth come in and not make this a partisan issue. Let's face it. It says that Dan Burton is to blame but the administration hasn't inspired a lot of confidence. But I think it's good to get Danforth in there and say what he did. The fact that he was willing to score some of the Justice people for not being forthcoming with him buttresses his credibility when he makes judgments and says, look, they were not responsible for the murders at Waco. And I think we owe him a debt for looking at the facts

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's turn to the presidential race. The speculation is just at a feverish pitch now about Bush's vice presidential choice. Headlines this morning-- Mark, I'll start with you-- reviving speculation about John McCain based on some purported conversation between McCain and the governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge. What is this all about?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, let's start by saying, nobody knows what it's all about except that it put John McCain back in the mix. John McCain remains, according to the "Wall Street Journal," NBC News, all of the surveys and according most of all to importance of election of Republicans who are on the ballot this fall, the most popular figure, most in and out of the party. Just as one example -- Charlie Bass, Republican from New Hampshire running for reelection, a little nervous, just did his poll. McCain came back at 81% favorable in his district. The first thing Charlie Bass did was pick up the phone and call John McCain. So there are a lot of Republicans worried about keeping the House who'd like to keep John McCain on the ticket. George Bush may not be one of them, the governor of Texas. But it started that speculation anew, and quite frankly, I think it probably sank that speculation as well because if there's one thing we've learned out of Austin is that they don't like anybody talking about anything that goes on in their minds in their tribal councils or anything of the sort. And loyalty means secrecy and taciturn approach. And John McCain, whatever else he is, he may be very loyal, but taciturn he is not.

PAUL GIGOT: Yeah. This little boomlet, I think, has more to do with House Republicans in particular from swing districts, the head of the House Campaign Committee, Tom Davis of Virginia. They like the idea of showing up in the polls. 95 House and Senate candidates requested that John McCain appear for them.

MARGARET WARNER: 60 of them signed this letter urging Bush to appoint him.

PAUL GIGOT: Sure. And there is no question that McCain has a lot of appeal to swing voters, even if he is the vice president. You have to think hard about that. On the other hand, George Bush, if he wins, has to make sure on January 21, next year, he's inaugurated, he doesn't regret that decision for the next four years.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. So -

PAUL GIGOT: There... just to finish that point, to connect the dots, there is a problem of loyalty and whether or not George Bush picks John McCain, whether he thinks he can live with him as Vice President, because John McCain is an independent man. He doesn't like to be number two. He would tell you that himself.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. This is the last time we'll talk about it, without knowing who his choice is, so I'm going to put you both on the spot. Who do you think is the optimum choice for Bush?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, there are three choices that terrify Democrats, terrify them. First, obviously, is Colin Powell. I mean Colin Powell, there was a brief flurry this week in the middle of week in Austin about a rumor that Colin Powell may be available. That would make such a profound statement about George Bush himself, that he is not fearful, unlike most presidential nominees. It speaks volumes about who somebody chooses. I mean, it said a lot about Walter Mondale when he chose Geraldine Ferraro. It said a lot about George Bush when he chose Dan Quayle; it said a lot about Dick Nixon when he chose Spiro Agnew, and said something very big about Ronald Reagan when he offered it to Gerry Ford, and Jack Kennedy when he offered it to Lyndon Johnson. For him to offer it to Colin Powell, not to be afraid of being dwarfed, of a stature gap, would be something, and race trumps choice. It would eliminate abortion as an issue for the Republicans.

PAUL GIGOT: Sure.

MARK SHIELDS: Okay. Second, is John McCain. Democrats are terrified of John McCain because right now among undecided voters in the presidential race, which is now narrowed to the margin of error, we're talking about two to one unfavorable toward Bush and Gore, while McCain among the same voters is three and a half to one favorable. The third one is Tom Ridge, governor of Pennsylvania who every Democrat I've talked to said would carry Pennsylvania and bring with him three House seats that are up for grabs, that the Democrats are eyeing for their new majority and Republicans are defending.

PAUL GIGOT: I agree with him on the first two, but not the third. One transforming figure in this race and that's Colin Powell. ... He brings such special characteristics to the race and to history that it would be remarkable, and I think George w. Bush has asked him. In fact, he has really sat down and said, "we need you" and Powell's answer is, "look, I'm just not interested in elected politics. I'll be your secretary of state but not elected politics." McCain, I think it's a question of, it would help for the election? I don't know whether Bush can live with him for four years or whether McCain could live in that job for four years. Tom Ridge, one thing we know aboutthe Bush campaign in Austin is they like to control the message. If you name Tom Ridge, it is an abortion story. And it is an abortion story leading up to the convention, it is an abortion story at the convention, and that creates potential problems.

MARGARET WARNER: And a distraction for whatever they're trying to say.

PAUL GIGOT: And a distraction. He is trying to say I've got a message of compassionate conservatism, I've got a message on education that's about me, and Tom Ridge, let's have a fight about abortion, and it opens up Pat Buchanan potentially. Pat Buchanan is nowhere in the polls; he has flat lined. Ralph Nader is doubling his vote in the polls. But you give Buchanan that opening. And I everything I know about the Bush campaign tells me they are probably not going to make that kind of a risky choice. The decision you have to think about is, does he go really safe then with somebody like Frank Keating, governor of Oklahoma, Dick Cheney former Defense secretary, maybe a Jack Danforth from Missouri, well regarded. These are people who have real stature, they've been vetted nationally. Certainly Dick Cheney has, Frank Keating. We saw in the Oklahoma bombing aftermath, he performed very well. But they're not going to excite people but they're not going to do you any harm.

MARK SHIELDS: All this about connecting the dots, we heard Senator Danforth talking about Waco. What led to Oklahoma City...Waco - that's what McVeigh and the paranoids said. That was part of it; that's what led to it, that was their retaliation. The very fact that Frank Keating, governor of Oklahoma, handled himself well and one thing he is remembered for alt all nationally... Or made any conspicuous contribution was the Oklahoma City bombing, a direct consequence of Waco.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Now the one issue on which Bush and Gore actually engaged this week was when Gore went down to Texas yesterday and attacked Bush for squandering the budget surplus in Texas. Why is Gore doing this?

PAUL GIGOT: He's doing this because he needs to make sure - the best argument he has is that George Bush is too risky. He's too risky because he's from Texas, and it's too conservative for the rest of the country, just like New York is too liberal, Massachusetts is too liberal for Republicans - Texas is too conservative; he's trying to make that case. The other one is he's too inexperienced. And that's why Gore is zeroing in on the budget surplus, because he's trying to say, look, if he can't control the budget surplus in Texas, he's not going to be able to manage responsibly the budget surplus in Washington. The problem he has is he doesn't have a good factual case in Texas right now, because there really still is a very big surplus in Texas. What we're talking about here is just a fill-up in spending that has been popped up here. It's more than amply taken care of by the revenues that they expect. But that's why he is making the argument.

MARGARET WARNER: Does it have legs for him?

MARK SHIELDS: Sure it has legs. The only public record the man has is as governor of Texas. I agree with Paul on the point - I mean, it's a place where first of all Gore has standing unlike anybody else in the history of the country. This is the only eight-year period in the history of the United States in our entire history where deficits have gone down and surpluses have gone up every single consecutive year of a presidency. That's a remarkable record. I think Paul is absolutely right about Michael Dukakis had to explain Massachusetts, where a convicted murderer could have a weekend pass -- something that hadn't been debated in Massachusetts -- Michael Dukakis didn't pay a price for. George Bush didn't pay a price in Texas for being the first and only governor in 125 years to endorse the NRA-backed concealed weapons law. That strikes most people in American suburbs in places like Michigan and Illinois and California as loony. So what you want to do is not simply the deficit - you want to do Texas outside the mainstream.

PAUL GIGOT: But the reason he is going after the budget deficit is the gun control argument hasn't worked as well for Gore as he thought it would. The lesson of Dukakis... if you're a Republican right now, and the lesson Democrats took away is you better respond and Gore is going to win this argument unless the Bush campaign comes back more strongly, I think, than it did this week. I mean, the governor was not at his best when he was responding to this, and then they did issue press releases. I mean, my e-mails are filled with their responses. But I don't sense that they were engaging in this quite the way they need to, to make sure that this argument doesn't sink, because if it does sink in that somehow there's something a little dangerous about Texas, it's going to hurt George Bush.

MARK SHIELDS: It's more than just gun control. I mean, it is the lowest number of children with health insurance in the country and the - and sort of a Texas ethos, which is if things are good, if you're a success, this is a great state, low taxes, no taxes, very low public services, but if things are going for you, if you're old, young or sick, this may not be. Is that George Bush's view of America?

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both.

FOCUS - HELPING THE DISPOSSESSED

JIM LEHRER: Helping refugees in Africa, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: There are more than 22 million refugees across the world, and six million of them are in Africa. This woman has spent nearly a decade focused on their dilemma. Sadako Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, says her mission is to find food, water, shelter, and protection for the refugees, and when possible, help them to go home. Last month, Ogata spent two weeks meeting refugees and heads of state in six African nations: Sudan, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Millions of African refugees in these countries have been displaced by years of border wars, ethnic disputes, and human rights abuses. First stop was Sudan, host to one of the largest refugee populations in the region, estimated at more than 390,000. Most are Eritreans who've fled their country's with Ethiopia . Almost 100,000 have fled to Sudan just in the last two months. Meanwhile, Sudan's own people are spilling across its borders. Years of civil war, coupled with drought and famine, have forced more than 375,000 Sudanese refugees into neighboring countries since 1983. Violence in the Democratic Republic the Congo has uprooted hundreds of thousands of people and killed tens of thousands more. The country, once called Zaire, has been crisscrossed with troops from neighboring countries and violent rebel groups from within during two civil wars in as many years. Citizens of neighboring Rwanda and Burundi have fled to the democratic Republic of the Congo to escape battles between Hutu and Tutsi tribes in their own countries. Rwanda and Burundi have sent troops to support rebels trying to overthrow the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Laurent Kabila. Some 60,000 Rwandans and 20,000 Burundian refugees who fled the ethnic conflicts in their respective countries are thought to remain in inaccessible areas of the eastern part of the country. For years, the High Commissioner has called on the world community to bring pressure on warring countries. Ending the conflicts would stop many of the refugee flows. Ogata leaves her post as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees at the end of the year. And now, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Sadako Ogata. She joins us here in Washington. Madame commissioner, welcome.

SADAKO OGATA: Thank you very much.

RAY SUAREZ: You're just back from Africa. And we heard a litany of the really tragic cases through the Great Lakes region. Now that you're back, can you point to any bright spots?

SADAKO OGATA: Yes. There are lots of continuous tragedies, and if you say the bright spot is, even if the situation right now is dismal, when the peace talks bear fruit, there is going to be possibility of people going home. And maybe the brightest spot today is in Burundi where President Mandela's peace efforts may bear fruit in a not too distant future. In which case, we will be very busy bringing back some 400,000 Burundi refugees from Tanzania. I cannot say this will take place very soon, but I hope so. And there we have to start preparing for them coming home and making the Burundi... I just opened a school there, and hopefully that there will be more children going to school, and therefore there will be need for schools and various facilities. So that is about the most bright spot of the country, six countries that I went this time.

RAY SUAREZ: And wars continue in several other countries. Have you got you the tools you need to sustain people until they can go home?

SADAKO OGATA: This is constant appeal for funds, assistance, and also trying to appeal to the leaders to look at the human costs. Congo is the worst place. I have seen... I've gone to these countries several times in the past. But unless they can get the conflict down, we can just barely help these people survive. But the human cost is something that the leaders must think much more, and this was the kind of messages I was also giving to the leaders.

RAY SUAREZ: Recently the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke, has been talking about making a distinction between people who are chased out of their home but remain in their home country, versus those refugees who cross international borders. Do they have a different status in the eyes of the United Nations, and is this a useful or important distinction for us to make, because there are millions of them as well?

SADAKO OGATA: The legal distinction is important to make, because once they cross the border and no longer under their government's protection, my office comes in, clearly, to get them safety, setting up camps where possible, and I can intervene on behalf of these people. These people are non-nationals in a foreign land. This is where my office function comes in. There are many who do not quite cross the border, fleeing from the same causes, and inside their country, and very often we do help both of them. But it's more difficult to help them in their own country when the country situation, the authorities themselves, are the causes of their flight. But in terms of trying to help them, giving them the basic necessities, trying to give them more safe conditions is something we try. I'm not saying we succeed all the time, because there the big obstacle is we cannot reach them in the midst of the conflict, and we cannot assure their security nor the security of our own staff.

RAY SUAREZ: I know that in diplomatic terms it's sometimes tough to bring this up, but are there some refugees who are simply never going to go home? Do we have to begin, in the world community, to look at large numbers of people and say, well, we now have to look at them as living where they live now?

SADAKO OGATA: Oh, I think we should. And always we think that the solutions are of three kinds. First of all, those who will go home after the conditions that led them to flee improves. I mean war is over. Mozambique was a typical example. We took back some 1.8 million people there when the war is over. And this is why we talked about Burundi. If the conflict inside Burundi is over, they will go home. But then there are those who become assimilated, can stay in the country, and be given chances to work. The Sudanese refugees in Uganda, northern part of Uganda where I visited is a typical example where Uganda allowed them to work in the field and gave them land. So there they're quite resettled. And I think many of them will stay, although they all say they want to go back. So there's a community... There's a communal spirit there, too, because many of the Ugandans who receive these people were once refugees in Sudan, and so there is this feeling of sympathy. So that kind... if they choose to stay on, I think they can. And the third category are those who think they will never go back home or can stay where they are being... living as refugees and they seek resettlement in another country like in the United States who has brought in a lot of African refugees into the country. So there are different ways of solving their problems.

RAY SUAREZ: In some of the countries that you've had to deal with in recent years, even people who have made it into camps and are getting supplies and getting clean water, are in danger. There are security problems.

SADAKO OGATA: Yes, this is where we try very hard to eliminate the security problem, so if there are... I mean, it's a large number of people. There are common criminals, and so on. So we try to bring in some police-type work. I mean, like in the Tanzanian camps we are helping Tanzanian police be able to perform these duties much better by bringing in some equipment and also doing some training. So it's a varied work that we do.

RAY SUAREZ: Have you had any luck in getting people to live with each other? I mean, in Timor or the Balkans, there are refugees fighting each other.

SADAKO OGATA: That is the ultimate solution I think: People fleeing conflicts going into another country, going back home. This we face a lot in Bosnia or Rwanda where finally they have a chance to live together. I am trying to promote the idea of coexistence. I mean reconciliation is a grand word. I mean, sometimes it's an objective of the last resort. But before that, I think they have to learn to live together. We have taken initiatives, women's initiatives, we call them, of bringing Rwandan women together of different... Hutus and Tutsis who had different experiences, talk over things; we just provide opportunities. I think job sharing is going to be very important among people who had different backgrounds on the different sides of various conflict, to have to start working together. So these are measures that we have to take.

RAY SUAREZ: Last year you wrote in an article, "Humanitarian aid will remain a band-aid applied to a gaping wound unless there's the political will to tackle root causes." Now that you're in your last months as high commissioner, can you look back and say that you finally convinced countries that root causes are really where this battle starts?

SADAKO OGATA: No... Well, I know that that is the cause. At the same time, for governments who are unstable-- and most of them are unstable when there are large refugees either fleeing or receiving-- to convince them, that is not easy. So I think step by step my agency, or those who are involved in humanitarian work, will have to take measures that would lead to eliminating root causes, and this community work, coexistence kind of thing...

RAY SUAREZ: For the wealthy countries, as well, isn't it easier to load up a plane than to settle a conflict once and for all?

SADAKO OGATA: Oh, that is true, yes. But I think we live in a world together. And you cannot feel very safe if you know that part of the world is in fire or in conflict. And I think this kind of sense of sharing has to spread in the wealthier countries, too. Band-aids will not solve the problems forever.

RAY SUAREZ: What would you like to accomplish in these last months? Are there some things that you're close to?

SADAKO OGATA: Oh, I think if there are any opportunities for people returning, I'd like to promote that. And this is why I like to follow very much the peace process in Burundi. The solution is what I would like to follow up -- and also to come up with ideas and be a kind of advocate of the kind of process required to bring refugees back home, people living together again. I think there are concrete measures I would like to take.

RAY SUAREZ: Sadako Ogata, thank you for being with us.

SERIES - FAVORITE POEM PROJECT

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, another poem from Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky's project of asking Americans to read their favorite poem. Tonight's reader is a doctor in San Jose, California.

LYN AYE, Anesthesiologist: My name is Lyn Aye. I'm an anesthesiologist in San Jose, California. I was born in Burma, and my favorite poem is "The Way of the Water Hyacinth," by Zorjee. I think poetry has played an important part in the lives of people in Burma, perhaps only by default, perhaps, but there wasn't much television... or there was no television at least, when we were growing up, so that we spent a lot more time with books and reading. Different, you know, forms of poetry, I guess, plays an important role in different ceremonies that we have, like people recite poems extemporary, like do little satires. I suppose it's like a poetry slam here. Well, I've known this poem since my childhood, and I actually happen to know the poet personally. He was a friend of the family, and this was a very well-known poem in Burma at the time I was growing up, too. And it was later developed into a novel, and even became a film. Zorjee was his pen name. Actually, I believe his wife was there helping my mother through my birth. So his family, at least, was always there from the beginning, and we grew up as friends, and had a lot of visits. But I almost always remember seeing him, you know, in his... he would sort of come out and say "hi," and then just go back into his den and write. And of course he was a librarian, and he loved books, and writing and poetry, but he was always a very gentle person, and a very learned person, too. "The Way of the Water Hyacinth," by Zorjee. This is a poem which I translated from the Burmese. "Bobbing on the breeze-blown waves bowing to the tide hyacinth rises and falls falling but not felled, by flotsam, twigs, leaves, she ducks and bobs and weaves ducks, ducks by the score jolting, quacking and more, she spins through spinning, swamped, slimed, sunk she rises resolute, still crowned by petals." And this is the way it sounds in the original Burmese. (Reciting poem in Burmese) Water hyacinths are, you know, fairly commonly found in Burma. There are a lot of rivers and water. And actually, Rangoon, where I grew up, it's the capital city, it's in the delta of the Irrawaddy River, so there's a lot of water around. And water hyacinths are found very commonly along the lakes and the rivers of Burma. And Zorjee was using a fairly commonly found object in nature, and using it as a symbol of, I think, of life in Burma. And he was trying to... That's what it says to me, anyway. Paint a picture of overcoming obstacles, and he's using that as a symbol, as the water hyacinth in the poem is buffeted, you know, by this whole host of ducks. It's at the whim and the mercy of the tides in the first part of the poem, but then how it... even though it faces, it subdues, it triumphs over it, and is still resolute. I think he did that because he wanted it to be a symbol of the common person, and to an extent, what all the poems that went before were more stylized and more about kings and courtiers, like that, and he was the first one to really write a poem about... more about the common people, their experiences, their feelings, and their emotions, and their experiences. And I think that's perhaps why he picked, perhaps, a more common, in that sense, a flower rather than a sort of a more regal, you know, lotus. This poem has stayed with me through the years because whenever I feel embattled, I've gone back to it for the sense of reinvigoration and resolution. And of course, also in good times, I go back just for the rhythm and the sound, and the rhythms it brings back of my childhood.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday: An independent investigation cleared the federal government of wrongdoing in the Branch Davidian deaths in Waco. Former Senator John Danforth led the probe. On the NewsHour tonight he said Americans should have a degree of skepticism when people accuse the government of such terrible acts. And George W. Bush said he'd decide on a running mate this weekend. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.