The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of the news: A Newsmaker interview with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; the latest on today's terrorism arrests in the U.S. And elsewhere; and a report on the fight over women at the masters golf tournament.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The Bush administration held out hope today of winning the use of military bases in Turkey, for a possible war with Iraq. But, there was no sign of progress. The Turkish government has demanded some $30 billion in economic aid, in exchange for letting U.S. troops use the bases. The U.S. has offered $26 billion. Today, Secretary of State Powell met with the head of the NATO alliance, which includes Turkey. Afterward, Powell said the two nations were still talking.

COLIN POWELL: I reaffirmed to them yesterday morning in a phone call to the prime minister that our position was firm with respect to the kind of assistance we could provide with respect to the level. There may be some other creative things we can do, but the level was our ceiling, and I know that they are in consultation now within their government, within their council of ministers and I expect to hear back from them before the day is out.

JIM LEHRER: In Turkey, the prime minister said there would be no answer today. But the economy minister said the dispute might be resolved within "the coming days." We'll talk to Defense Sec. Rumsfeld about this and other things in a moment. The U.S. continued work today on a new U.N. resolution that could authorize military action against Iraq. Secretary Powell said he hoped to win support in the Security Council. But an unnamed, senior U.S. official told the Associated Press the resolution would be offered next week, whether it has the votes or not. There were conflicting claims today about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Washington Post reported U.N. officials are complaining the Iraqis have done little, since last Friday's meeting of the Security Council. At that session, most of the Council members spoke against military action. But, a spokeswoman for chief inspector Hans Blix said today Baghdad had met one demand. It supplied a list of those who allegedly disposed of biological weapons material and missile parts. A South Korean fighter jet violated South Korean airspace today, for the first time in 20 years. The incident came amid the ongoing nuclear standoff between South Korea and the United States. The intruding plane crossed a boundary over the Yellow Sea, before turning back. South Korea alerted air defenses at Inchon, and scrambled two planes to intercept. Israeli troops blocked the main road in Gaza today, restricting more than one million Palestinians. It was part of a new campaign against the militant group Hamas. In the West Bank Israeli soldiers arrested 40 Palestinians; they also killed three people in a search for a group throwing fire bombs. That violence came as the two sides held talks in London. The FBI arrested a Palestinian professor today in Tampa, Florida, on terrorism charges. Sami al-Arian was accused of being the U.S. leader for Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group blamed for dozens of deaths in Israel. He'd been banned from the University of South Florida after the 9/11 attacks, for allegedly advocating violence. He denied that today, and said his arrest was "all about politics." In Washington, Attorney General Ashcroft said new, anti-terror laws made it possible to bring charges.

JOHN ASHCROFT: A very substantial and important aspect of this case is the facilitation that comes between the intelligence effort and the law enforcement effort which previously had been forbidden and which was previously something be simply didn't get done and couldn't get done because we had those impairments.

JIM LEHRER: Two other people were arrested in Tampa and one in Chicago. Four more suspects are living abroad. We'll have more on this story later in the program. Also today, the United States and Britain froze the assets of a Kurdish guerrilla group based in northern Iraq. The group, Ansar al-Islam, is accused of having links to both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. A former U.S. Air Force master sergeant was convicted of trying to sell national secrets. Brian Regan was acquitted of spying for Libya after a federal trial in Alexandra, Virginia. The jury resumed deliberating on whether his offer to Iraq included nuclear documents and war plans. A conviction on those grounds could make him subject to the death penalty. A Mexican teenager had a second heart-lung transplant today in North Carolina. She had previously received organs with the wrong blood type. Seventeen-year-old Jessica Santillan had been near deathwhen her body rejected the first transplant, two weeks ago. Duke University Hospital said the surgeon, and others, failed to confirm the organs were compatible. But last night, doctors operated again, after locating another set of organs. They said the girl was in critical condition after the surgery.

DR. DUANE DAVIS: Unfortunately, I don't own any crystal balls, and I cannot predict the future. We can just hope that she will recover. As they said, there's nothing we know of right now that would say that any of the damage is irreversible. That does not mean that she will necessarily recover from that, but there is a chance and a good possibility that she could.

JIM LEHRER: The United Network for Organ Sharing based in Richmond, Virginia, is now reviewing what led to the initial botched transplant. The group matches organs and recipients. A spokeswoman said today any recommendation would be for corrective action, not punishment. There were two pieces of downer economic news today. The Labor Department reported wholesale prices shot up 1.6 percent in January, the most since 1990. A surge in energy prices led the way. And the Conference Board, a business research group, said the Index of Leading Economic Indicators fell slightly in January, after three months of gains. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost more than 85 points to close at 7915. The NASDAQ fell three points to close at 1331. The states will decide whether to make the regional Bell telephone companies share local networks with competitors. The Federal Communications Commission voted three to two to grant the states that authority today. It was a compromise involving federal rules on local phone service. The Bells had wanted the rules abolished. FCC Chairman Michael Powell said today's vote would hurt consumers. Supporters said it would keep phone rates lower. And that's it for the News Summary tonight, now it's on to, secretary Rumsfeld, the new terrorism arrests, and a golfing dispute.

NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: And now to the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Mr. Secretary, welcome.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Nothing, no breakthrough yet on the Turkish bases situation, is that right?

DONALD RUMSFELD: That's correct.

JIM LEHRER: What's the problem; is it money?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, no. It's - it's the fact that Turkey is a democracy, has a relatively new government. It is wrestling with a whole set of issues, and the reality is that what the United States has asked of Turkey is significant, and so they need time to think it through and talk to their parliament and then give consideration to it. I suspect in the day or two immediately ahead, why we'll have some sort of an answer, and in the last analysis Turkey is our ally in NATO; Turkey is participating now in Operation Northern Watch, where we have coalition aircraft in Turkey that monitor the northern portion of Iraq. And they have been helpful in any number of ways.

JIM LEHRER: What would not having access to their bases do to a potential military action against Iraq?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't think that's really the issue, whether they'll have access to their bases and whether we'll be able to over-fly and those types of things; we already have that for Operation Enduring Freedom, the global war on terror. I think the real issue they're considering now would be the extent to which they want to increase that to permit larger numbers of heavier troops to come in from the North in the event that the decision is made that force is necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein.

JIM LEHRER: But if you don't have - there are 40,000 troops -- what I've been reading - there are 40,000 troops that the U.S. wants to put into the Northern boundary through Turkey for potential with conflict with Iraq. If you can't do it that way, what I'm asking is -

DONALD RUMSFELD: We'll do it another way.

JIM LEHRER: You'll do it another way. And it still can be done and it's not going to upset things. I just - did you read the New York Times? The New York Times quoted a White House spokesman - a White House person this morning as saying that this was extortion in the name of alliance; that's what Turkey was up to. Do you agree with that?

DONALD RUMSFELD: No. I don't. I mean, I think what it is, is a democratic country going through the whole series of questions as to what they think their role ought to be, and that's fair. These are tough issues that countries are wrestling with. I think that's not the way I would characterize it.

JIM LEHRER: The Turkey problem aside, is the U.S. military ready to go against Iraq?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: In general terms - I know you don't like to talk specifics - but in general terms what is the force that is ready to go?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I would characterize it as ample. The United States - at the president's request - decided that as the diplomacy took place in the world and in the United Nations that it was important to begin flowing forces to support that diplomacy. And we've had many, many weeks now to do that. The United Kingdom has had many, many weeks to do that. Other countries have taken steps to deploy various types of assets. NATO did this last week, deployed some capability to Turkey, for example. Other countries have been deploying things like chemical and biological detection units to Kuwait. So a number of countries have been flowing capabilities and forces into that region. And then there's been a good deal of time, so we are at a point where if the president makes that decision, why, the Department of Defense is prepared and has the capabilities and the strategy to do that.

JIM LEHRER: In general terms, the figure is 150,000 troops, five aircraft battle groups and heavy bombers, is that roughly it, from the U.S. point of view?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I don't do numbers.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. But that's the conventional wisdom; it's in every story.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It doesn't make it so.

JIM LEHRER: I know. I know.

DONALD RUMSFELD: You know the old rule: People who don't know talk and people who know don't talk.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. But are these - how - are there limits to how long these American forces can remain ready to go?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, there's obviously a preference. You don't ramp up to a high level and sustain it for a long period easily. What you have to do is rotate capabilities in and out over time.

JIM LEHRER: We keep hearing that the time is running out to keep these forces ready. Is that true?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, the way to think of it, it seems to me, is the way the president put it; and that is that it's been 12 years. What's being tested now is not whether or not inspectors can go in and find weapons of mass destruction. That's not what inspectors are for; they're not finders or discoverers. What's being tested now is whether or not Saddam Hussein is going to cooperate. And it doesn't take a lot of time to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein is going to cooperate. So once the construct of that issue is placed properly before the world, it seems to me the answer gets increasingly clear. We've now had 17 resolutions. It's been 12 years. They've tried diplomacy. The world has tried economic sanctions. The world has tried military activity in the northern and southern no-fly zones. At some point - at some point - why -- the time runs out. And that's what the president has said.

JIM LEHRER: Now, I didn't make my question clear. I meant is there a time element involved in keeping those thousands of troops-- how many ever there are, in bombers and hardware-- at a state of readiness before they have to stand down? That's what I meant.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, as I say, it costs money. It keeps people away from their homes and families and their jobs in the case of Guard and Reserve. So obviously your first choice is not to flow forces and then sustain them there for one, two, three, four years whatever, another twelve. There has to be some end to these things. Either you use them or you bring them back.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let's talk about that a moment. Do you feel that just having this large force that you outlined in general terms is a momentum for war in and of itself just because they're there, they must be use used?

DONALD RUMSFELD: No, I don't. What I think of them as, Saddam Hussein was ignoring the United Nations for the past period of years. Saddam Hussein is not ignoring the United Nations did. He's not cooperating but he's not ignoring them. Inspectors are back in there. They're not being cooperated with, so they're not finding much. But the only reason Saddam Hussein has changed at all is because of the flow of forces and the threat of force.

JIM LEHRER: What would be your... as secretary of defense, what would be your position on pulling those troops back, bringing them back home? In other words, if there was a peaceful solution to this, I've heard what you said, that you don't think that's going to happen, he isn't cooperating but if somebody pulls something out of a hat, is it... what's the down side of bringing all those people back home and all that equipment?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I think... I still... I mean, everyone agrees the last, the last choice is to use force and have a war. There are dangerous things. People get killed. Unforeseen things happen. There still is at least a remote possibility that he could decide to leave the country at some point. To the extent he is persuaded that it's inevitable that he's going to lose his position and his regime is going to be cast out, it's at least possible... is it 1 percent? I don't know. But it's not 0 percent that he might leave. The second possibility is the people in Iraq might decide he should leave -- and help him. And so that's a possibility. If that happens, if that were to happen, as remote as it may be, it would only happen because the people in Iraq-- he or the people around him who decide they would prefer he not be there-- were persuaded that it was inevitable that he was going to go either voluntarily or involuntarily.

JIM LEHRER: Would it be your position that, hey, look, we've a war without having to fight it?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, my goodness, that would be -- everyone's first choice would be to not have to have a conflict.

JIM LEHRER: You do understand that people believe... as you know, this is a matter of public debate. People think, oh, my goodness, Pres. Bush and Sec. Rumsfeld have all these forces there now and they feel obligated to use them. You're saying that is not the case.

DONALD RUMSFELD: No. The president's determination-- and I work for the president-- his determination is that Iraq be disarmed. His first choice is that it be done voluntarily. The Iraqi regime refuses to cooperate with the inspectors and with the United Nations. They have for many, many years. His second choice would be that the regime leaves -- voluntarily or involuntarily. And the last choice would be that the regime has to be thrown out. And the president is determined that if that's necessary, he will lead a coalition of a large number of countries and do that.

JIM LEHRER: Let's talk about that option. How would you describe the mission of that? If, in fact, it comes to military action and those people, those Americans and the others who are standing by have to actually take military action, what's the goal? What's the mission?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The mission would be to invade the country, make it very clear that the purpose was, number one, to change that regime and disarm the country; that the purpose is to disarm the country of weapons of mass destruction, and it would be done in a certain way adhering to certain principles. And the principles would be that when that regime was gone, the new government of Iraq -- and it would be an Iraq that would be for the Iraqi people. It wouldn't be a regime, you know, determined from outside of Iraq-- but it would be a single country, it would be a country with no weapons of mass destruction. It would be a country that did not threaten its neighbors. It would be a country where the people of that country, the ethnic minorities and the religious minorities, would have a voice in their government and that there would be some process, the sooner the better, that Iraqi people could govern themselves. The oil is the oil of the Iraqi people, and this speculation around that somebody is interested in their oil is nonsense. That oil belongs to the Iraqi people and it will be important for the Iraqi people.

JIM LEHRER: On the combat itself, are you planning... are you and your folks planning for a ferocious war where, I mean, an all-out defense by the Iraqi military when the U.S. comes in and the others come in?

DONALD RUMSFELD: The task of war planners is to plan for every conceivable contingency. They are doing that -- from the most pessimistic to the most optimistic.

JIM LEHRER: Is it likely that... the Gulf War spoiled everybody, of course. Most of the Iraqi military threw down their arms and surrendered. Are you expecting that to happen again?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, I would expect that there would be Iraqi forces that would surrender rather rapidly. Their morale is not high. They also have lived under Saddam Hussein and know what kind of a person he is.

JIM LEHRER: Is that a central part of your planning? Does that have to happen for this to be successful?

DONALD RUMSFELD: No, no, no, absolutely not. No. As I say, Gen. Franks and his planners have developed plans that will address the wide variety of contingencies.

JIM LEHRER: What about the use of chemical and biological weapons?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Including that.

JIM LEHRER: Against our folks.

DONALD RUMSFELD: They have looked at the risk that Saddam Hussein, which says they have no chemical and biological weapons, of course, would use biological and chemical weapons against U.S. forces. They could use them against neighboring countries like Kuwait or Jordan or Turkey or Israel. They could also use them against their own population and blame them on the United States or coalition forces. They've done that before. So there are a variety of ways they could use chemical or biological weapons.

JIM LEHRER: Do you expect that -- expect them to do it?

DONALD RUMSFELD: What we expect is that it's our job to be prepared for any conceivable contingency. And therefore all the way from that unhappy thought -- and dangerous thought -- all the way over to catastrophic success where so many people surrender so fast that the task becomes very quickly humanitarian assistance and medical assistance and water and those types of things. So they have developed contingency plans for the full spectrum of contingencies.

JIM LEHRER: What do you expect the Iraqi civilians to do, to treat American troops as liberators or as conquerors?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I suppose you'll get that across the spectrum as well. Certainly the people that are close in to Saddam Hussein or... would know that their future is not bright. The people who are engaged in managing or using weapons of mass destruction would have to know that their future would be bleak. On the other hand, people who surrender and people who recognize that resistance is not wise, that it's inevitable that the United States and the coalition forces would prevail and acquiesce in that, would be treated quite differently.

JIM LEHRER: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?

DONALD RUMSFELD: There's obviously -- the Shiite population in Iraq and the Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam Hussein's regime. They represent a large fraction of the total. There's no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to Afghanistan -- the people that were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaida would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that. Now, is there a risk when that dictatorial system isn't there that there could be conflicts between elements within the country, get-even type things? Yes. And we've got to be careful to see that that doesn't happen.

JIM LEHRER: What about just the basic idea that they've been told for years that the Americans are the infidels? I mean, it would be like welcoming Hitler into Chicago if he had taken over, you know... I mean, is that not....

DONALD RUMSFELD: Jim, my goodness.

JIM LEHRER: I'm just saying the enemy.

DONALD RUMSFELD: That's a terrible thought.

JIM LEHRER: I know. But are you....

DONALD RUMSFELD: If a politician had said that, they would get in trouble.

JIM LEHRER: I know. Know, but I'm just saying, is your planning, the war planning based on the idea that the Iraqi people are going to welcome American troops and American invasion?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Contingency planning is based on a full spectrum of possibilities. And that is one. There are others at the other end of the spectrum that are less happy. And the plans have been prepared to deal with that full range of possibilities. But to suggest that a war plan depends on one of them happening would be wrong.

JIM LEHRER: It's been suggested that you all are emphasizing only the up side of this, and that you haven't talked publicly about, hey, wait a minute, they may not... they may resist. They may do this. They may do that. Thousands and thousands of people could die including a lot of Americans. Do you feel that this has been... that American people have been told enough about the possibilities for the down side of this kind of conflict?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I think the down sides have been widely discussed. I mean, I prepared a list of things that could be very unpleasant back in September or October, and I've added to the list. And everyone who works with mehas seen the list including the president and the National Security Council. And they know that there are a full range of things that can be unfortunate and make life very difficult. And we've heard them all: The use of weapons of mass destruction; the possibility of firing ballistic missiles and chemical weapons into neighboring countries; the possibility that one ethnic group in the country could take advantage of disorder and attack another ethnic group; the possibility of using chemicals against his own people; the possibility of fortress Baghdad and urban conflict and it goes on and on; flooding -- the possibility of flooding. There are any number of things that can go wrong. Now there are also a number of things that can go right. And what one has to do is to look at them at all with a cold eye and be very clear that you've simply got to be prepared to deal with all of them. And that is what Gen. Franks and his team have been doing. And he's doing a superb job for the country.

JIM LEHRER: You mentioned yourself the possibility of a humanitarian crisis that could come. Is the intelligence information saying-- it's been written up in the papers-- that Saddam Hussein may intentionally try to starve these people, may intentionally set the oil fields afire, may intentionally do all kinds of things to create a humanitarian crisis, chaos or his own people. Are we prepared to deal with that?

DONALD RUMSFELD: We are certainly organized and have thought through what we would do in each instance where we have either imagined or seen intelligence that suggests that that regime might do one or more of those things.

JIM LEHRER: And there are a lot of what they call, you know, the private aid groups have been on this program and elsewhere saying that there has been very little coordination with them from the U.S. Government. They're prepared to help out and all that. And they're waiting for the calls. Have you all been talking to them? Are your folks talking to them?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Yes. There are inner agency groups in the United States Government that have been planning the civil side, a post Saddam Hussein Iraq, that is to say, what do you do about food, what do you do about water, what do you do about medicine? And they have been working for weeks, and they have been coordinating with international groups. Indeed, there have been stockpiles of various types of humanitarian assistance that have already begun to flow into the region. And there's no question but that the United States military is prepared to participate and help, international organizations including the United Nations are already storing materials, and I think probably the information you have is out of date.

JIM LEHRER: Okay, all right. Are you concerned about how just the prospect of going to war is dividing the world?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, you always would want unanimity in anything. And of course the president has not decided to go to war.

JIM LEHRER: I'm saying just the prospect of it.

DONALD RUMSFELD: I understand. You'd always prefer that everyone agree. And yet you say dividing the world. I don't know that I would say that. I think that if I were to look at the globe and the countries on earth, I would find people in almost every country who agreed and people who didn't agree. And you'd find in Europe that eight countries signed a letter supporting the president, that ten countries signed a letter supporting the president. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to support the resolution, 17th resolution on Iraq, Resolution 1441. So, to say that it's dividing the world I think is a bit of an overstatement. There are an awful lot more people who didn't demonstrate than who demonstrated. And demonstrations occur in democracies. That's what we do. We have free speech. And that's fine and that's fair. And these are tough issues. These are not easy issues. The idea of having to think about the prospects of the use of chemical or biological weapons by a terrorist state or by a terrorist network killing hundreds of thousands of people is not a nice thing to think about. And it's not something that people immediately say, "well, we have to avoid that." We have to think about that a while.

JIM LEHRER: But it has not given you any pause at all to consider whether or not-- the numbers you just laid out, that aside-- that the message as to why this military action may have to be taken has not gotten through to every you feel it so strongly clearly and so does the president and so do a lot of other people -- Tony Blair, others - and yet it hasn't gotten through to a lot of other folks. Does that not concern you, bother you?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Of course. You always would prefer everyone agree. But I've never seen a situation where everyone agreed. In democracies, everyone never agrees. And it doesn't mean that someone is right and someone is wrong. It means that, in my mind at least, it means that in this instance, these are difficult issues for people to wrap their heads around. And yet the risk of being wrong, the risk of inaction... there's risks to action. And you've been discussing them at length here. There are also risks to inaction. Three thousand people were killed in the United States on Sept. 11 in a very conventional -- unconventionally delivered -- but a very conventional attack. If that had been chemical weapons or biological weapons, it might not have been 3,000; it could have been 30,000 or 300,000 or a million. And we know that. And the world has to think about that. Now, there's a big effort going on in the Congress to try to connect the dots. Who knew what before Sept. 11? What could you have known, a phone call here, a credit card there, someone taking flying lessons -- how do you connect those dots? How many countries would have participated in trying to stop that before it happened -- based on that fragmentary information? And yet we have Sec. Powell's powerful presentation to the United Nations, laying out the case as to what the Iraqi government has been doing.

JIM LEHRER: Well, as you know, they're all over you in Europe and elsewhere because of remarks you made about Germany and France and all of that and suggesting that you, above a lot of others, really are not that concerned about what the governments....

DONALD RUMSFELD: I am concerned. I mean I just went over to Munich and spoke to their Kunde conference -- the security conference -- and met with all of those folks. Needless to say you're concerned. You want as many people as possible to agree with you. And the president has taken this to the United Nations. I keep reading things like "unilateral." I can't make a prediction but I'll bet you anything there is at least a 50-50 chance that there would be more countries, if the decision is made, that there would be more countries supporting the United States in a coalition of the willing with the United Kingdom and other countries in this coalition than there were in the Gulf War in 1991. So the charge "unilateral" just isn't right. The allegation that the United States has an issue with Europe isn't right. The issue in Europe is between Europeans; it's basically between France, Germany and the rest of Europe.

JIM LEHRER: What's your own view about the positions of France and Germany on this?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I think they're democracies. They have to decide what they want to decide. They're sovereign countries. People elected those people to office. That's what they think. And that's life. But the idea that therefore there's a split between the United States and Europe, I think is a misunderstanding. There's a split between the rest... most of the European countries -- the eight and the ten -- and France Germany.

JIM LEHRER: But there's also a split between the United States and France and Germany as well.

DONALD RUMSFELD: But not with the 18 countries of Europe.

JIM LEHRER: No. But there is with France and Germany.

DONALD RUMSFELD: On this issue. And we're allies with NATO.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that's all it is - that's all it is, is this issue?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, certainly that's all it is today. I mean, I think they made a mistake on Turkey, and I think they've corrected it now. They opposed sending defensive capabilities, chemical and biological detection units to Turkey in the North Atlantic Council. And since then, they've permitted it to happen and they've since been deployed so I think that they've changed their position on that, which is a good thing.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think eventually they could even change their position on military action?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't know. I wouldn't want to predict. Of course, you know, things change; times change.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

DONALD RUMSFELD: If the inspectors found something that was disturbing to them, I just don't know what will happen. We would much prefer that Germany and France were in agreement.

JIM LEHRER: But it's not necessary?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, you'd prefer it. The president has indicated that he will... if Saddam Hussein doesn't cooperate and he doesn't flee and he isn't removed and the president is determined to see that he's disarmed, then he will lead, he said, a coalition of willing countries. And there will be a large coalition. There will be a lot of countries.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Thank you.

FOCUS - TERRORISM ARRESTS

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, today's terrorism arrests, and the Masters challenge. Ray Suarez has the terrorist story.

RAY SUAREZ: The eight men indicted today include four U.S. residents. One of those is University of South Florida Prof. Sami Amin al-Arian, known widely for his pro-Palestinian views.

PROFESSOR: It's all about politics.

RAY SUAREZ: The other four men charged live in the Middle East and England. They are not in U.S. Custody. The Justice Department accuses the men of membership in Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a group on the U.S. list of terror groups. Last summer the organization took responsibility for this suicide bombing in Israel which killed 20 civilians. In Washington, Attorney General John Ashcroft explained the allegations.

JOHN ASHCROFT: They financed, extolled, and assisted acts of terror. Our message to them and to others like them is clear: We make no distinction between those who carry out terrorist attacks and those who knowingly finance, manage, or supervise terrorist organizations.

RAY SUAREZ: The government says the 45-year-old al-Arian is the U.S. head of the Palestinian Jihad. The engineering professor has denied terrorist links, but the accusation isn't new. Just after the Sept. 11 attacks, his university placed him on forced leave, saying he was funding and aiding terror groups. Al-Arian said he was being punished for his political views. Here's an audio portion of a speech he gave last August.

AL-ARIAN: I'm also a Palestinian by birth, which to a lot of people may not mean a lot, but to a Palestinian it means homeless, stateless, someone who cannot identify to any country or land, someone who is always searching for that thing that a lot of people take for granted.

RAY SUAREZ: If convicted, the eight men face life in prison. We get more on today's arrests from Eric Lichtblau, Justice Department reporter at the New York Times. Eric, in addition to being members of this group, what are these eight men accused of doing? What does the indictment say they were up to?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Well, the indictment lays out a case against all eight alleging that they in essence were helping to organize the Jihad movement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and were providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in laundered money to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group and were intimately involved in the organizational and planning efforts of the group.

RAY SUAREZ: Do they say that this has been going on from the United States for a long time?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: They trace this back to the late '80s and early '90s. The wire intercepts that they have on these men, taped phone recordings, particularly of Mr. Al-Arian, go into a lot of detail and conversations throughout the early '90s, '94, '95 particularly. There are dozens of phone calls in which they are quoting verbatim conversations with Mr. Al-Arian allegedly had with people both in the United States and overseas.

RAY SUAREZ: In their indictment, does the Justice Department connect any specific activities of these eight to specific acts of terrorism on particular dates anywhere else in the world?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: No. They don't put them at the trigger. They are saying that the four Americans and the four men overseas were providing the backbone of this organization, that they were providing money and organizational support. The closest they really come to identifying them to specific acts is to say that Mr. Al-Arian had knowingly given money to the families of suicide victims, to martyr families as sort of a payback for suicide killings.

RAY SUAREZ: As someone who has been watching the Justice Department since 9/11, can you conclude from the indictment that the kinds of information included in there or the kinds of information that the government doesn't have to tell you about the indictment is a result of new laws like the Patriot Act that came into force after the terrorist attack?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Well, certainly the Justice Department is using tools that they did not have before 9/11. The patriot act gave them the ability to use information gathered in intelligence information... intelligence investigations in criminal cases. They are putting that to the test, really, here in this case by citing dozens and dozens of electronic intercepts and other information gathered from intelligence and using that in the criminal case.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot of the things that the Justice Department alleges today to my understanding are crimes under any standard: Immigration fraud, perjury, interstate extortion, conspiracy to kill and maim. Why charge this case under RICO? Is there anything that they are allowed to put in evidence, or does it lower their burden of proof or change the way they have to argue their case in any way?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: It doesn't really lower their burden of proof. It just allows them to sort of paint a broad pictureof what they're alleging was a criminal enterprise of an organization that by definition they're saying was in the business of financing terrorism.

RAY SUAREZ: So if they can just prove that-- well, RICO is an acronym for Racketeering, Influence, Corrupt Organizations-- RICO, if they can prove membership, a system, contact, then they've shown a conspiracy, right?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Right. What they're saying here is that Mr. Al-Arian and the others who were indicted today were essentially using fronts in the world of academia and in fundraising to aid and abet terrorism.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor al-Arian was already the subject of a lot of controversy in Florida already, wasn't he?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Sure, especially after 9/11. He made some rather provocative comments, pro-Palestinian, anti- Israeli comments that attracted a lot of controversy, and as you noted, he was suspended by the University of South Florida because of that. His status there is still pending, but certainly this isn't going to help today.

RAY SUAREZ: Were any of the other accused men -- people that when you heard the names or saw the names you said, "aha," knew that these were subjects of interest to the Justice Department?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: None of the high-profile that Mr. Al-Arian had, but there was one other gentleman who was also an instructor at university of south Florida.

RAY SUAREZ: What kind of track record does the Justice Department have, specifically the Ashcroft Justice Department, since 9/11 in cases like this? Have there been a lot of them?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: There have been more than a hundred terrorist financing investigations, and the Justice Department has a somewhat spotty record. They had a case just last week where they reached a plea bargain with the head of a Chicago fund-raising organization where he admitted to having given money, laundered money to rebel groups in Chechnya and Bosnia, but didn't admit to anything involving terrorism, which was the original charge. They were alleging essentially that he was the financier for bin Laden, and the plea bargain did not show that in the end.

RAY SUAREZ: Was he connected in any way or is the Justice Department saying he's connected in any way with the Chicago area man who was indicted today?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: No, there's no connection, and they haven't drawn any connection between the people implicated today and al-Qaida. This is being portrayed strictly as a Palestinian effort.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, these men will go through the normal court system? There is no special court or special process that you know of... since a lot of these prosecutions have been the subject of some controversy in their nature, the Taliban-connected cases and the people who were detained after the terrorist attacks?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Right. They're not using any tribunals. This is strictly going through the federal courts as a standard criminal case, the same as it would have, really, before 9/11. You know, there's some interesting questions to be raised there as to how they're deciding who will go through regular courts and who will not as in the cases of the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, for instance, who is being held in non-civilian court.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there a lot of these cases currently being argued, prosecuted, heard in federal courts around the country?

ERIC LICHTBLAU: There are probably about 100 or so cases of individuals who have been charged with in some way aiding terrorist organizations overseas, either providing material support, financial support, or otherwise.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there any connection to foreign intelligence services in helping develop the information? I noted that several of the men are permanently resident overseas either in the MidEast, one in the United Kingdom.

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Right. Well, the Israelis certainly played a part in this investigation in providing some of the key intelligence. There are even indications that they were... that they initially handed the case to U.S. authorities back in the early '90s -- that they tipped them off to the existence of this supposed cell group in Florida.

RAY SUAREZ: Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, thanks a lot.

ERIC LICHTBLAU: Thank you.

FOCUS - THE MASTERS CHALLENGE

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a golf story that goes way beyond the fairway. Media correspondent Terence Smith reports. (Whack of golf ball)

TERENCE SMITH: It is this season's real life soap opera, a diversion for Americans grappling with problems at home and abroad. A golf story recently captured the media's imagination and posed a thorny question: Should the venerable Augusta National Golf Club, host of the legendary Masters Tournament, change its long-standing membership policy and admit women? And related questions: Should golfers like Tiger Woods take a position on the issue? And if Augusta sticks to its policy, should CBS Sports broadcast the tournament this year as it has for more than 40 years? Amidst the headlines about possible war and terrorism, the dispute has received an extraordinary amount of press coverage, more than 40 stories in the New York Times alone. The woman who started it all, Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, says she understands what the fuss is all about.

MARTHA BURK: Well, I think it has everything. It has money, it has power, it has sex, it has sports. Those are all things that guys care about primarily, and guys are still running the media. ( Laughs )

TERENCE SMITH: She says the story began when she wrote a simple, private letter to William "Hootie" Johnson, Augusta National's chairman, asking the club to rescind its ban on women members.

MARTHA BURK: It was such a small part of our agenda. It was almost trivial in terms of our entire sphere of activity.

TERENCE SMITH: And now?

MARTHA BURK: Well, now, because of the media attention and the fact that it's a debate in the popular culture about the role of women in this society, it has become major.

TERENCE SMITH: Burk's letter elicited an angry, three-sentence private response from Johnson and a three-page public statement in which Johnson refused to discuss the issue with Burk, and said the club would not be pressured "at the point of a bayonet." With that, the fat was in the fire. The argument splashed over the front pages, and civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for a change of venue.

JESSE JACKSON: The Masters perhaps should be shifted to a country club that is fair and open and American. The Masters is too much Americana for the gender bias to be so un-American.

TERENCE SMITH: Hootie Johnson declined our request for an interview, but has released a videotaped explanation of his club's policies.

WILLIAM JOHNSON: At its heart, August National is simply a club where friends gather to play golf and socialize. Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish.

SPOKESMAN: ...One that went left...

TERENCE SMITH: Bob Verdi, senior writer for Golf Digest and Golf World, said Johnson has a reputation as a progressive business leader in the south. But he says it was Johnson's terse response to Burk that ignited the issue.

BOB VERDI: I think that-- and I don't want to speak for Mr. Johnson-- I think if he had what we call in golf "the mulligan," a do-over, he might change one or two things.

TERENCE SMITH: In a widely publicized editorial, the New York Times called upon golf's number one player, Tiger Woods, who has won the last two Masters tournaments, to boycott the event. While saying that if it was up to him, women would be admitted to Augusta's Fortune 500 membership, Woods has steadfastly refused to give up his participation in the event.

TIGER WOODS: They're asking me to, you know, give up an opportunity to do something no one has ever done in the history of the Masters, is win three straight years.

TERENCE SMITH: Pros on the PGA Tour have been besieged by questions about the Masters controversy, and they often express their frustration at the media's obsession with it. Regardless of their personal sentiments on the issue, most argue that they are golfers, not social activists. They say this is not their battle.

PHIL MICKELSON: I think it's wrong to bring the players into this. This is... this really has nothing to do with the players.

WOMAN: Hi.

TERENCE SMITH: Phil Michelson, one of the PGA's top money winners, says the tour itself does not discriminate, and has welcomed women.

PHIL MICKELSON: We play the PGA Tour for a living, and we have done our best to not discriminate. Shoot, we've got women playing in our tournaments. We don't care who competes, men, women, what ethnicity. It makes no difference. If you can play golf and play it well, you are welcome on the P.G.A. Tour.

TERENCE SMITH: Augusta National, they say, is not the P.G.A.

SPOKESMAN: From Sea Island, Georgia, Mr. Davis Love, III. (Applause)

TERENCE SMITH: Network advertisers, like those at this winter's Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, value golf's audience demographics-- upscale, highly educated, and highly paid. Consultant Neal Pilson is a former head of CBS Sports.

NEAL PILSON: The Masters is the jewel of CBS' golf coverage, and it gets the best ratings of any golf tournament year-round.

TERENCE SMITH: But Augusta National has released its television sponsors this year to shield them from criticism, and will bear the costs of televising the event. CBS Sports has declined to comment or take a position, even in response to Martha Burk's proposal that the network boycott the event.

MARTHA BURK: CBS is practically becoming an anti-woman network, I believe. This is over the public airwaves. It is a venue that discriminates against half their viewers. And they have basically said, "we don't care."

TERENCE SMITH: But while Neal Pilson thinks Augusta National would be wise to admit women, he says CBS should carry the event as it always has.

NEAL PILSON: The experience of Augusta National has been it generates huge audiences. And I think that's where CBS' main obligation lies. It lies to its viewers who look to CBS to carry the Masters. I don't think that CBS or CBS Sports should be used as a weapon or as an instrument to affect social change. That's not the role of a television sports organization.

TERENCE SMITH: CBS, at this point, has not faced a public outcry from viewers about covering the masters. And Augusta National points to surveys that show that the public is not nearly as absorbed with this story as news organizations are. An Associated Press poll in December found that three- fourths of those surveyed said Augusta's men-only membership policy had no affect on their view of the Masters.

Do you think the public cares about this?

NEAL PILSON: Frankly, no. I take great issue with the amount of media attention that this story has gotten, in the New York Times and in the other papers around the country.

TERENCE SMITH: You think it's excessive?

NEAL PILSON: I do think it's excessive, because what we are talking about here is the admission of one woman to a rather small golf club in Augusta, Georgia.

TERENCE SMITH: But Martha Burk argues that the issue is bigger than golf.

MARTHA BURK: This is not about membership in a club. It's about exclusion, it is about power and keeping women out.

TERENCE SMITH: Burk says that by holding a major tournament there, Augusta National has ceased to be the simple, private club that Mr. Johnson portrays, and she says if the PGA Tour, and not individual golfers would stand up to Augusta, the issue would go away.

MARTHA BURK: They are claiming it's not an official event, but they recognize the winnings, they recognize the victory in the record books. If they were able to just overcome their own hypocrisy in this, they could end it, and they should.

TERENCE SMITH: Golf writer Bob Verdi says Augusta National has always done things its own way...

SPOKESMAN: John, John, John?

TERENCE SMITH: ...And that the players are individual competitors who may play where they wish, regardless of the PGA Tour.

BOB VERDI: I think that they have decided that it's not in the tour's domain, because I think you get into a very grey area there if the tour starts saying to its member players, "well, you can't go there," forgetting that these are independent contractors.

TERENCE SMITH: Neal Pilson predicts that the stalemate will not go on indefinitely.

NEAL PILSON: My guess is somewhere between now and the 2004 tournament I don't expect any change for this coming year-- a woman quietly may be admitted to Augusta National.

TERENCE SMITH: Meanwhile, the lovely course at Augusta is being prepared for this April's Tournament. The golfers have received their invitations from the club, and Martha Burk and her supporters are planning to take their protest to the streets outside Augusta National.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Defense Sec. Rumsfeld said the U.S. has made no progress in gaining the use of military bases in Turkey for a possible war with Iraq, but on the NewsHour Rumsfeld said he did not think Turkey's demand for economic aid amounted to extortion. He said he hoped for an answer from the Turks in the next day or two. And the FBI arrested a Palestinian professor in Tampa, Florida, on terrorism charges. Tonight's edition of "Frontline" is about the forces that shape the Bush administration's approach to Iraq. Please check your local listing for the time. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.