The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a look at the carrot approach to Iran; some thoughts about how to protect judges; and the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The United States announced a major shift in policy toward Iran today. Secretary of State Rice said the U.S. will support European negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. It includes the use of modest economic incentives. Britain, France and Germany have been in talks with Iran to halt its production of nuclear material. Under the new plan, the U.S. will drop objections to Iran's entry into the World Trade Organization and allow the sale of some U.S. civilian aircraft parts. A State Department spokesman said that will give the Europeans more leverage in the negotiations. President Bush spoke about it during a visit to Louisiana.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I am pleased that we are speaking with one voice with our European friends. I look forward to working with our European friends to make it abundantly clear to the Iranian regime that the free world will not tolerate them having a nuclear weapon.

JIM LEHRER: Iran dismissed the U.S. announcement as "insignificant." Hours before, the associated press reported the E.U. will support the U.S. In bringing Iran before the U.N. Security council if it does not curtail its nuclear ambitions. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. A judge was shot and killed in Atlanta today. A rape suspect grabbed a gun and opened fire in a courtroom. When it was over, the judge and two others were dead. Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes was presiding over the trial of Brian Nichols. Nichols reportedly grabbed the gun from a deputy, shot and wounded her, killed the judge and a court reporter. Nichols then shot and killed another deputy outside the courthouse, pistol-whipped a newspaper reporter, stole his car and sped off. A massive manhunt is now underway. Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue said every measure was being taken to bring the suspect to justice.

GOV. SONNY PERDUE: All of our state assets are available to Fulton County. They are the lead agency in this investigation and pursuit of this individual. But our Georgia State Patrol, our Georgia Bureau of Investigation, our aviation assets are all at their disposal in the apprehension of this individual. I hope we find him fast and we are looking as we speak and hopefully this can be brought to a conclusion.

JIM LEHRER: The FBI and neighboring states have also joined in the search for the shooting suspect. And in Chicago, police used a DNA match to solve the murders of the husband and mother of a federal judge. Bart Ross shot and killed himself during a police traffic stop near Milwaukee on Tuesday. Investigators said his DNA matched that found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene 11 days earlier. They also found a note in his car admitting to the killings. We'll have more on protection of judges later in the program. In Iraq today, relatives buried victims from yesterday's suicide bombing in Mosul. At least 50 people are now confirmed dead from the blast, which happened outside a Shiite mosque. Today's funerals were kept small in fear of more attacks. They came near the endof another bloody week in Iraq. Nearly 100 people died in attacks. And 45 corpses also were found in two locations. They had been shot or beheaded. Spain marked the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings today. That was the worst terror attack in the country's history. We have a report narrated by Shiulie Ghosh of Independent Television News. (Bells tolling)

SHIULIE GHOSH: Across Madrid 650 church bells marked the exact time the first bomb exploded one year ago. (Bell tolls) Just after dawn at Atocha Station, scene of two of the bombings, tearful mourners paused in silent respect for the dead. Candles and flowers were left to mark the attacks in which nearly 200 people died. For some, it was too much. The atrocity, carried out in the name of al-Qaida, is still felt here. In a Madrid Park, the Spanish royal family joined international dignitaries such as Kofi Annan in a somber vigil. Olive and cypress trees have been planted here, one for every person killed. Nearly 2,000 people were injured when ten bombs exploded on four commuter trains. It was al-Qaida's worst attack in Europe. Today the whole country mourns on the anniversary of the tragedy, the depth of emotion here demonstrated by even the simplest of tributes.

JIM LEHRER: In Washington today, a State Department spokesman said the U.S. and Spain share "a common enemy" and the resolve to defeat terrorism across the globe. President Bush today nominated NASA's next administrator. He's Michael Griffin. He currently heads the applied physics laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. He also worked for the Pentagon's Star Wars missile defense program in the late 1980s. If confirmed by the Senate, Griffin will replace Sean O'Keefe, who resigned to become chancellor at Louisiana State University. Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland announced today that he will not seek reelection next year. He's the second Senate Democrat to announce he won't run again. Sarbanes is 72 years old. He was first elected to the Senate in 1976. He served as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee. As a House member before, he was on the House Judiciary Committee that considered impeachment charges against then-President Nixon. The U.S. trade deficit neared a record high in January. The Commerce Department today said it topped $58 billion. Only November's deficit numbers were larger. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 77 points to close at 10,774. The NASDAQ fell 18 points to close at 2041. For the week, the Dow lost 1.5 percent. The NASDAQ fell more than 1 percent. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: A new approach to Iran, protecting judges, and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - DIPLOMATIC MOVES

JIM LEHRER: Today's Iran story, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Today at the State Department, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained the new U.S. policy toward Iran and Europe's efforts to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Here is an excerpt.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The key here was to establish with our EU allies a common agenda, a common approach to the issue of getting Iranians to live up to international obligations which they've undertaken. And, again, let's just be reminded that the Iranians have an obligation to demonstrate that they are not trying, under cover of civilian nuclear power development, to develop a nuclear weapon. So the European Union three have undertaken these negotiations. We've said for a quite a long time now we've supported this diplomatic effort and that we wanted it to succeed, and that Iran ought totake the opportunity given to it.

RAY SUAREZ: Late today Sirus Naseri, Iran's nuclear negotiator, responded to the U.S. offer, saying: "What is being suggested is very much insignificant. In fact, it is too insignificant to comment about." The Bush administration has been skeptical about chances for success in Europe's negotiations with Iran, and up until today, it's opposed offering incentives to aid those talks. Today's announcement comes three weeks after President Bush visited Europe, where European leaders asked for such support.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on this latest development we get two views. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. From 2002 to 2004 he was a staff assistant on Iran policy in the office of the secretary of defense. Vali Nasr is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He was born and raised in Iran, but is now an American citizen.

Professor Nasr, given America's skepticism about the European effort and its scathing criticism of Iran's nuclear program, what do you think behind this change in policy?

VALI NASR: Well, there is obviously dynamics in U.S./European relations in terms of how to approach Iran and also how to strengthen Europeans' position in dealing with Iran. But also at some level there are regional issues, including Iran relations with Hezbollah, which are important given the developments in Lebanon and also the domestic change in Iran as Iran is preparing to move towards the presidential election. The announcement from Washington will have a great deal of impact on the public discussion in Iran and democracy as well as the nuclear weapons issue.

RAY SUAREZ: So you find this a positive move forward?

VALI NASR: Yes, it is a positive move forward. It is not give than it will actually lead to the desired end, but at least it has put on the table a challenge to the Iranian government before its own population as well as in terms of its negotiations with Europe.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Rubin, do you agree that this is a positive step and do you share Professor Nasr's analysis that there were reasons building up for this change in tone?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Oh, there most certainly were reasons building up, but I don't share Professor Nasr's outlook. I do think it's a setback. The reason being isn't just what was mentioned but what wasn't mentioned. In the past, we've always talked about Iran as an impediment to Arab/Israeli peace -- to terrorism, Iran's relations with al-Qaida and democracy. And this wasn't mentioned and the fact that we set -- we made an offer to Iran but we didn't talk about democracy, we didn't talk about any of the dissidents in Iranian's political prisons will be seen in Iran and by the Iranian government as a sign of weakness on our part and a sign of strength on the part of the Islamic Republic.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Nasr, does the United States have the leverage to address any of those questions since there are frozen commercial assets, no trade and no diplomatic relations between the two states?

VALI NASR: Well, those issues that were mentioned are issues of importance and they're of importance to the Iranian public as well. This announcement, however, was specifically about nuclear weapons issue and Iran's giving up plutonium enrichment. What was offered to Iran is politically significant, particularly the part about membership in WTO because it will go to the regime's ability to address serious domestic economic issues in Iran. And I do agree that, in fact, thoseare tantalizing for the regime in Iran because if it's able to break out of economic isolation that it's suffering from currently, it would be able to address political issues in Iran much more successfully as well.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael Rubin, do you think this really has any chance given that, from the outset, the United States has demanded that in return for these easing of certain restrictions, it wants unconditional promises from Iran that it will stop enriching uranium and Iran has, for its part, promised that it will never make a promise to stop enriching uranium.

MICHAEL RUBIN: That's why I'm not sure that I have too much faith in this process. When I'm in Europe talking with Europeans at conferences, oftentimes they bash the United States for not engaging with Iran during the official proceedings but in the hallway they will say that they think it's inevitable that Iran will get nuclear weapons and that's sort of a sign that they don't see these negotiations as being sincere. What I worry about is that, to make a football analogy, we're at the two-minute warning and Iran is running down the clock. If Iran does get nuclear weapons, then that matters more for Iran domestically from the standpoint of Iran's rulers, this is about domestic Iranian politics and not necessarily about foreign affairs.

RAY SUAREZ: Professor Nasr, is there a fundamental disagreement between the Europeans and the United States on where this all ends? Have the Europeans, as Michael Rubin suggests, already secretly concluded that Iran is going to end up a nuclear power while the United States is not?

VALI NASR: Well, those sentiments have been expressed, that it would be very difficult to prevent Iran from going nuclear. But the key issue is that what kind of a soft landing there would be in terms of the negotiation process. The Iranians are -- what matters to the Iranians essentially is regime survival. More than the nuclear issue, they want to make sure that there would not be either a military or a political push to top it will regime in Tehran. And they're going to bargain very hard with w the Europeans and the Americans to get guarantees about the regime survival, both with regard to military action against Iran as well as supporting a democratic movement within Iran before they're going to make any concessions about the nuclear weapons issue.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, when you talk about regime survival, which Iranian regime? Aren't there some serious divisions and different point of views at the very top of the Iranian power structure?

VALI NASR: That's very true. And that's partly why we're not going to get the very clear answer to the initiatives today out of Iran today. There are different vested power centers within Iran. They react to the U.S. position very differently. But it's very clear that the Iranians are -- the Iranian government, the regime around the supreme leader, the revolutionary guards and the power elite, are very worried both about the democratic movement within Iran but also about the access of evil rhetoric that the U.S. had since the Sept. 11 bombings and what they perceive as encirclement of Iran by the U.S. troops within the Middle East and a push by the United States to remove this regime. For them, survival matters most, and they're going to bargain very hard for that.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you agree, Michael Rubin?

MICHAEL RUBIN: I agree. And the Iranian -- we're not only coming up to elections. presidential elections in June, 2005 in Iran and, of course, the Iranians are going to contrast their experience and their voter turnout with what happened in Iraq. But we're also coming up to the 100th anniversary of the constitutional revolution in Iran. Iranians are very conscious of history and the Iranian government is very afraid right now that Iranians might look back at a fairly liberal constitution of 1906, very liberal basic laws, and question why, for example, women had some rights then that they don't have now and so forth.

RAY SUAREZ: Given the foment that Professor Nasr was talking about even if you do start this process and get some positive reaction from Tehran, do you believe that Iran is a reliable partner in a negotiation like this?

MICHAEL RUBIN: Unfortunately, to have successful negotiations and successful diplomacy, it assumes the sincerity of both parties. We have already given Iran four last chances. I'm not convinced that Iran is very sincere, and that's why I worry that we took certain issues such as democracy, such as acknowledging dissidents off the table. It wouldn't have been that hard to do. In my many ways, this is isn't just about iron's nuclear program, this is becoming a test case for the Bush doctrine.

RAY SUAREZ: How about you, Professor Nasr, is Iran likely a partner that's reliable on such a serious matter as nuclear nonproliferation?

VALI NASR: I think it's too early to tell. However, there are a lot of incentives for Iran to play ball with the United States and the Europeans on this issue provided that it believes that the outcome would preserve the regime. And that's why the things that were not only the table today may actually make this succeed with the Iranian government; namely, the Iranian government may take these economic incentives believing that the only issues that it will have to discuss with the Europeans will be economic and the nuclear issue. To see a future in which opening of trade with Iran will actually provide the regime with greater stability to create, if you will, another form of Middle East authoritarianism where it has relations with the West and it has successful economic arrangements with the West. Iranians talk all the time about their future being that of a China model. Namely, the future they would like is non-democratic but engaged economically with the West. And the author of their membership in WTO is a step in that direction.

RAY SUAREZ: Are there upsides for you if you take Professor Nasr's view that openness to WTO, keeping an aging plane fleet in the air, that these are things that might soften the west Iran/Iranian relationship?

MICHAEL RUBIN: I'm not so sure it will. Iranians do talk all the time in the official journals and the newspapers about the China model which the professor talked about. The problem is, with the China model you also have a threat of Tiananmen Square and when before we talked about the Iranian nuclear programs being more important domestically than in terms of foreign relationships, one of the key pillars which the Iranian regime might use to keep itself afloat is the fact that if they have a nuclear deterrent that if they crack down on their own, if they crack down on the reform movement, the democrats and the dissidents, that no one in the outside world can do anything to stop them. I actually do think we've taken a major stem back with this initiative.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you both for being here.

MICHAEL RUBIN: Thank you.

VALI NASR: Thank you.

FOCUS - PROTECTING JUDGES

JIM LEHRER: Now, safeguarding judges: Kwame Holman begins our coverage.

KWAME HOLMAN: Shots rang out at about 9:00 A.M. on the eighth floor of the Fulton County Courthouse in Atlanta. Witnesses said the suspect, 33- year-old Brian Nichols, was to appear in court on rape and kidnapping charges when he overpowered the armed deputy escorting him into the courtroom and began shooting. Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes died on his bench. A court reporter also died on the scene, and a deputy shot outside died later at a hospital. Another deputy was wounded.

DENNIS SCHEIB, Attorney: Deputies ran through there with their guns drawn and indicated the judge had been shot and told everyone to stay in the courtroom.

REPORTER: Did you ever think something like this could happen at the Fulton County Courthouse?

DENNIS SCHEIB: Yes. I mean, I've told them for years that the security up here wasn't good. There are too few deputies, too many inmates, and the deputies have to get too close to the inmates, and they have guns on them when they do that.

KWAME HOLMAN: Witnesses said the gunman fled the area by car- jacking at least one car. In Chicago, authorities said DNA tests helped confirm responsibility for the murder of two family members of a federal judge. Judge Joan Lefkow's husband and elderly mother were killed execution-style in the family home 11 days ago. Bart Ross committed suicide Wednesday, leaving a note saying he was the killer. Ross had made threats against Lefkow and other judges. In a letter to a Chicago television station, Ross said he regretted the killings but "had no choice but to shoot" Lefkow's family members when they discovered him hiding in the basement. Judge Lefkow had dismissed a malpractice suit Ross had brought against several Chicago doctors, hospitals and the federal government seeking $1 billion. Federal marshals had protected Judge Lefkow and her family in 2003 when white supremacist Matthew Hale was convicted of plotting her murder. The protection lasted a few weeks.

JIM LEHRER: Margaret Warner takes it from there.

MARGARET WARNER: In view of the tragic events in Chicago and Atlanta, how safe are America's judges? What is being done? And what can be done to keep them safe? For that, we turn to: Judge Jane Roth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit-- she also heads the security committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference; Frederick Calhoun, who previously worked for the U.S. Marshals' Service and helped develop their federal judicial threat assessment system in the 1990s-- he's now an author and security trainer; and Aaron Kennard, Salt Lake County sheriff and president of the National Sheriff's Association. Welcome to you all.

Let's first talk about the threat, the problem, Mr. Calhoun. How often are judges attacked like this?

FREDERICK CALHOUN: Fortunately not often. It's relatively uncommon. Since 1979, there have been three federal judges assassinated, which is not a lot. The state and local judges tend to be targeted for violence a little bit more, but then again, not a great amount. There have been seven state and local judges killed between 1970 and 2001. So taxi drivers, convenience store workers, people who work in mental hospitals all have a much higher rate of violence.

MARGARET WARNER: And where are judges most at risk -- in the courtroom or outside?

FREDERICK CALHOUN: Once again, you have to distinguish between whether it's a federal judicial official or state and local. It is... the Marshal Service and the administrative office of the U.S. Courts, Judge Roth, have done a terrific job at fortifying federal courthouses. So it is no coincidence that the three federal judges who have been killed since 1979 were all killedat home.

MARGARET WARNER: Judge Roth, let me turn to you. I think I read today that there are at least 700 threats against federal judges a year and that that is a sharp increase over the last two decades. How threatened do federal judges-- I mean, you're one yourself-- feel just as a matter of course?

JUDGE JANE ROTH: I think in the courthouse we feel very safe. There are judges who feel a significant risk in their home and that, of course has increased since the tragedy in Chicago. And I think a re-evaluation of off site security is very important at the present time.

MARGARET WARNER: And some judges have said that they think the Internet has made them more vulnerable. Do you share that? And explain that, if so.

JUDGE JANE ROTH: Yes, I do. Because there is a great deal of information that can be found about judges, where they live, their Social Security number, where members of their family can be found, on the Internet. And that can be developed when you buy a refrigerator and sign the warranty card and that information is sold by the manufacturer to list making companies and even though your name does not appear as a judge on the Internet, if someone... if someone who wants to do you harm knows your name, they can find out a great deal of information on the Internet about you. And I think that emphasizes the need to have greater security off site for judges.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Sheriff Kennard, sheriffs, of course, provide the security at most county courthouses, which is where most people go to court. How great a threat do you think there is?

SHERIFF AARON KENNARD: Well, we train our people on the very issues that you spoke about and that the judge spoke about. There is a greater threat, as the judge indicated, to the judges off site. Internally, access to the courts as well as the courtrooms, we have our people very well trained and they are all armed. Some of that training involves weapon retention, arrest control techniques as well as self-defense techniques. So our people are trained in the issues. What happened today is very unfortunate. I would like to see the actual situation as to how it went down.

MARGARET WARNER: And how did you... it you feel you in Salt Lake County had to respond to today's shooting in Atlanta? Was there a reaction?

SHERIFF AARON KENNARD: Well, as soon as I heard of the story I immediately went to my court and assembled my command staff. We approached the judges that were in session and we had a high-profile situation going as we speak. And I also have a judge that I have placed under 24 hour protection because he has had threats placed against him. We ratcheted up our security in Salt Lake County because of the incident in Atlanta and hopefully others took the same advice and did the same thing.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Calhoun, is there a profile, a type of person who makes threats against judges and/or actually carries them out?

FREDERICK CALHOUN: No, I'm not a great believer in profiles. In assessing someone who may be a risk to a judicial official, a judge or a prosecutor, you can't go by any rational standard of is this case important? What would be reasonable to you and I to say "oh, this is a weighty matter so the motive is higher" really doesn't apply in the judicial setting because what you want to know is how important does the individual you're assessing feel that the case is. I know of a case in Alexandria, Virginia, quite sometime ago, in which a judge levied a civil fine against a person who would not control his dog barking. And that individual felt insulted by the fine and five years later went back and killed the judge.

MARGARET WARNER: Sheriff Kennard, let me go back to you. Today the situation was that there was a deputy, as we're told, a deputy was carrying a gun while handling the prisoner, getting the prisoner to the courthouse. Are there national standards and, if so, what are they for when a courthouse personnel like sheriffs and their deputies carry guns in the courthouse and courtroom?

SHERIFF AARON KENNARD: There are no national standards. We have American Jail Association that has some standards dealing with jailers, how they're transported, but we have some standards within the State of Utah dealing with court security. But to my knowledge, there are no jail personnel or corrections or deputies that are not armed in dealing with these people, because the judges expect the very last resort, that a deputy be armed and be able to neutralize a threat. Another issue that may come before us all would be the use of the taser weapons in this regard, too. So the duty of the deputies is to protect the judges as well as the defendants and the public in these courtrooms.

MARGARET WARNER: But just, quickly, aren't there usually at least metal detectors at the entrances of courthouses?

SHERIFF AARON KENNARD: Well, there are, but there are also ways of compromising just about every security effort that is put before anybody. The last line of defense is going to be that deputy and if that deputy has no means by which to neutralize the threat, if somebody is able to compromise our security, then we have to rely on the very last line of defense.

MARGARET WARNER: Judge Roth, tell us more now about what kind of protection you're... you said that the courthouses are very well fortified but what if a judge feels under threat at home or outside or receives a threat. What actually is done to protect you?

JUDGE JANE ROTH: Well, if there is a direct threat to the judge, the United States Marshal Service will provide protection, a protective detail, perhaps cameras on the house depending upon the nature and the extent of the threat. But tragedies happen usually without warning and the Marshal Service will do an evaluation of the residence of every judge. I had that done of my residence. They recommended an alarm system. They recommend cutting back shrubbery around the house so intruders can't conceal themselves. They recommend very strongly that off dog and I have a large St. Bernard which they approved of highly as a security measure. The problem is that what they recommend... the judge, then, has to pay for out of your own personal expense.

MARGARET WARNER: That was going to be my next question. One other question to you: Now, the marshals in your courtroom, even those close to the prisoner or the defendant or, for that matter, the plaintiff, are they armed?

JUDGE JANE ROTH: The marshal who is escorting the prisoner would not be armed. There would be armed marshals in the courthouse and it's our practice not to permit any other armed law enforcement officer in the courthouse except the United States Marshals.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Calhoun, let me ask you about at least protection at the federal level. The inspector general of the Justice Department last year issued a report last year actually sort of critical of the threat, assessment and the response of the Marshal Service. Do you think there's room for improvement?

FREDERICK CALHOUN: There's room for improvement in any organization.

MARGARET WARNER: I guess how is my question.

FREDERICK CALHOUN: I'm a great believer in physical security and then being enhanced by a very robust training program so that law enforcement goes into the courthouse and trains not only the judicial official but the judicial official's staff, the people in the mail room, the people in the clerk's office, anybody that has any dealings with the public, to train them on inappropriate communications, surveillance behaviors, things that to a law enforcement officer would be troublesome and then how to report that and to whom to report that so that those issues and events and behaviors come to the attention of law enforcement where they can identify someone who may be intending violence and then assess them and pick the appropriate threat management strategy.

MARGARET WARNER: I saw you shaking your head when I asked about whether there were metal detectors at most county courthouses.

FREDERICK CALHOUN: That comes with the issue that Judge Roth is very familiar with. It's all budget. It's what you can afford. I've known of courthouses that had magnetometers in the basement because they couldn't staff them.

MARGARET WARNER: Quickly, Judge Roth, you're meeting with the attorney general next week. Are you going to suggest more needs to be done and if so, give us the one most important thing.

JUDGE JANE ROTH: Well, I think the most important thick is a reconsideration of what off-site security will be offered to judges and their families.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you all three very much.

FREDERICK CALHOUN: Thank you.

SHERIFF AARON KENNARD: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Earlier in the program tonight, David, it was suggested that today's Iran policy announcement amounts to a retreat from the Bush doctrine. Do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS: I actually don't agree with that. I've heard of that from some of my friends on the right. I think first of all, it's amazing to see the multilateral cooperation all of a sudden. The Bush people speaking in French and, you know, it's the new Bush term. But I think what it did was laid down a map-- maybe not a solution, but at least a way ahead. Let's face it -- Bush really had no Iran policy that was plausibly effective. But when he went to Europe and he said "okay, we'll help you with the carrots." But then after a few months you've got to agree us that it's totally unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. And the Europeans have agreed to that. And then if the carrot policy doesn't work, we've got to go to the U.N. and the crucial question is: What date does that happen?

JIM LEHRER: When does that happen?

DAVID BROOKS: And the supposition is it will be about June. So give the carrots a try, member June we'll go to the U.N. And that has its own problems but at least you've got a road map, you've got the West working together and you've got a test of test points.

JIM LEHRER: How do you read it, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: Any time, Jim, in Washington, when an administration announces that a policy is not a change of policy, it's a change of policy. And this is a change of policy. David's right, there was no policy before so this is a new policy. And it's a policy that does show wanting to play with others and go along and be part of a cooperative effort. I think the date becomes very difficult because, as we heard in the discussion, the elections in Iran are in June. And this could be a... you know, you talk abouta rallying point for a nationalistic candidacy, they're trying to tell us that here they come, are we going to stand up to the evil West? I mean, so they have to be... they have to be very careful of that, that it does not become the dominant issue in Iranian politics.

JIM LEHRER: Is there a danger here, maybe danger isn't the word. Is there a possibility here that we might get caught up again a deadline situation and suddenly be in a confrontation that was not part of the plan?

DAVID BROOKS: No, there is that danger. The danger as we go to the U.N.... even if we go to the U.N., there's a great likelihood that Russia or China will veto anything. So then we are in a situation where we've declared that it's unacceptable, Russia or China or somebody has vetoed it, we don't have sanctions and they're going ahead. And then what do we do? In that case, at least the U.S. can say "hey, we offered the Iranians a good deal. We took the European road for a while, we gave them a good deal; they've turned a way for it; they still went for the nuclear weapons." And that gives you a lot more justification to do whatever you need to do.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, are critics likely to be saying tomorrow "wait a minute, we smell Iraq coming again," or is there an Iraq --

MARK SHIELDS: I think there's sort of a sense relief to see the president being collaborative and cooperative but I think the military option, Jim, is somewhat limited by just the fact that our troops are so extended and we don't have... we don't the military manpower to launch that kind of a... I mean, you know, we lost more Americans in February, 2005 in Iraq than we lost in February 2004. So I mean the election was wonderful but this is not a time for a victory lap in the Middle East.

JIM LEHRER: All right. New subject, Mark. Social Security. Big stories today in the newspapers, at least here in the East, as they call it, suggesting that the whole personal security account business is in so much trouble it may not even be brought to the floor of either House for a vote. Is that... does that read right to you?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, what's been most amazing to me is that the whole aura of genius that absolutely sort of encompass it had White House after the president's reelection victory and the Republicans' victory in the House and the Senate -- all of a sudden it's subject to second guessing, doubt, criticism, open skepticism from Republican office holders. And they're going very public on it. And it is... I mean, Lindsay Graham, probably who's been a strong supporter of the president --

JIM LEHRER: From South Carolina.

MARK SHIELDS: South Carolina who put it very bluntly - said, hey, the sideshow, personal accounts, were always a sideshow and they became the main event. The main event had to be in which the administration did not emphasize in the judgment of many of its own supporters adequately is to save and strengthen Social Security. The problem is saving and strengthening Social Security is not a plausible or believable mission for a conservative administration any more than a liberal administration says "we want to save and strengthen the anti-ballistic missile system, star wars." So as a consequence, personal accounts, which had the greatest appeal to George Bush's most conservative tax cutting free market people became the centerpiece and I think it's... they're paying a serious price for it because the intensity of the opposition is there and it's especially among older voters.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. I'd say the appeal is among younger voters who don't vote, the opposition is among older voters who do vote. I think what happened -- Republicans really were trying to shift the attention this week to the solvency issue. And I think what they've got to do is split the vote. They have got to have one vote on solvency, which is what combination of tax cuts and benefits -- or tax hikes and benefit cuts will get us solvent and then a personal account vote which may or may not pass because I think once you get it on to solvency -- and we saw a bunch of plans from Chuck Hagel, from Sen. Bennett, from Lindsay Graham, wanting to cut benefits for the rich, maybe raise taxes on the rich, a lot of progressive plans --

JIM LEHRER: Raising the payroll cap.

DAVID BROOKS: At least over $100,000 would pay more. I think what they're trying to do is say, okay, "Let's get serious about solvency," and I think when they do that, then they begin to split the Democrats, which hasn't happened so far. You get one group of Democrats who really do want to tackle this issue and will entertain benefit cuts. You get another group who don't want to talk about it and then another group who want no benefit cuts at all. Their position is totally untenable.

JIM LEHRER: Do you think that... in other words, are you saying then that personal savings accounts are off the table now for all practical purposes?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I'm saying right now I think nothing will happen this year because the Democrats...

JIM LEHRER: On personal savings accounts.

DAVID BROOKS: Nothing, on anything.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

DAVID BROOKS: Because Rick Santorum said on a conference call last week --

JIM LEHRER: Republican senator from Pennsylvania --

DAVID BROOKS: Second in the Senate. "If there are no personal accounts, I'm voting no." And there are a lot of Republicans who feel that way. So we've got a deadlock unless there's sort of some big change.

JIM LEHRER: Nothing's going to happen this year?

MARK SHIELDS: Rick Santorum is a different senator this week than he was last week because Bob Casey, the state treasurer of Pennsylvania just announced his run against him and he's ahead of him in the polls. And so Rick Santorum has spent a lot of time between Harrisburg and Allentown right now concentrating offering minimum wage proposals in the Senate instead of personal accounts right now. I think the fault lines, Jim, are not simply with the Democrats. I mean, you have the Republicans... what you have is lack of enthusiasm from business Republicans. I mean, other than those...

JIM LEHRER: You mean for the whole...

MARK SHIELDS: The whole Social Security thing.

JIM LEHRER: Just leave it alone?

MARK SHIELDS: They see all this political capital. They and the social conservatives who are opposed to same-sex marriage, who are concerned about rampant abortion and gay rights and sort of what they see as the corrosion of the culture, they see their issues just being pushed totally aside by Social Security. There are moderate Republicans who are deeply concerned about the deficit. We had the biggest deficit, Jim, in American history in the month of February, biggest budget deficit. First time it's ever hit three figures. That's the month of February.

JIM LEHRER: It is hard to get attention on anything else right now, is it not?

DAVID BROOKS: But it's absolutely appropriate. The deficit is something, the entitlement problem is --

JIM LEHRER: Part of that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it's bigger than that. There are two big problems that America faces: Nuclear bombs in the hands of al-Qaida and that we get crushed under the burden of the entitlements program. If we don't tackle Social Security this year, we're not going to do it in an election year; we're not going to do it before a presidential election. Our next bite of the apple is 2009. We're not going to do Medicare, which is a much bigger problem. You're getting into a situation around 2010 where already the budget commitments of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are just crashing everything else in the deficit... in the government. That's why this is so important.

JIM LEHRER: Quick thing and then I want to go to John Bolton.

DAVID BROOKS: Okay. Oh! The problem...

JIM LEHRER: I know you disagree with everything he just said.

MARK SHIELDS: The problem - David talks about there's going to be this emerging rational thoughtful consensus. We're going to cut benefits and raise taxes. Mike Pence and the Republican study group in the House went on record and said "there's no way in the world we'll vote for any tax increase. You can cut out this $90,000 playing games with that, we didn't come here to raise taxes" announced the majority leader of the party in the House. There are active votes in the House. The Republican House is not going to pass something with tax increases.

JIM LEHRER: John Bolton, the president's new nominee for U.N. ambassador -- a lot of heat immediately generated by that. Does it deserve to be a heatful - heatful -- is that a good word? Does it deserve to be....

DAVID BROOKS: Humid?

JIM LEHRER: A humid nomination?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he's a polarizing figure. He's a guy with straight strong opinions.

JIM LEHRER: Remind people why.

DAVID BROOKS: He's criticized the U.N. for being basically a big messy bureaucracy. He said you could chop off ten floors of that building and it wouldn't do any harm -- things I think are true. And he is a straight talker, tends to be a little abrasive, blunt, not very diplomatic. I actually think he's an outstanding choice, one, because of the reason we were talking about earlier, Iran. He's there for Iran because if this goes to the U.N., you want somebody strong and straight talking to talk about Iran. I happen to think our best ambassadors to the U.N. have not been diplomats, they've been people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who were blunt talkers.

DAVID BROOKS: Daniel Patrick Moynihan and John Bolton should not be mentioned in the same sentence. They really shouldn't. John Bolton is a guy who just loves too he's bombastic. He loves to say things that are totally provocative and totally incendiary. A.

JIM LEHRER: For instance?

DAVID BROOKS: That the U.N. doesn't... there is no Security Council, there is no Security Council, the United States is the t Security Council. I mean, this is supposed to be the one-world organization where we're supposed to meet and resolve things without force. That's what the U.N. is about. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the conservatives like to say he's like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was outraged at a U.N. resolution that equated Zionism with racism.

DAVID BROOKS: Who overturned that resolution? John Bolton overturned that resolution.

MARK SHIELDS: Forget John Bolton. I'm talking about Moynihan. But Moynihan believed and if you ever talked to him or interviewed him he believed devoutly and passionately in the mission of the U.N. This is a man who doesn't... this is like, Jim, having Howard Stern appointed chief of protocol. It's like Siegfried and Roy going to the Pentagon, Mary Baker Eddy being surgeon general.

DAVID BROOKS: That's a ludicrous character.

MARK SHIELDS: This is not somebody -- this is a guy who loves to talk tough; who has got on his desk a grenade with a pen out. I've never known anybody who saw any combat....

DAVID BROOKS: This guy was assistant secretary of state for international organizations under the first President Bush, he's been in administration after administration, he's written serious works. You may not agree and he can be a little abrasive, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan can be, but he's achieved a lot of things, including getting the resolution on Zionism equals racism repealed. I don't want to stress the Moynihan-Bolton relationship. But the idea that he's some nut case, that he's Howard Stern is just ludicrous. He's a serious writer. He's been writing about the U.S. for ten years --

MARK SHIELDS: Somebody ought to believe in the mission they're assigned to.

JIM LEHRER: It's been nice chatting with the two of you tonight and I'm really glad we got to Bolton before we go. Bye.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day: The U.S. announced it will use economic incentives to support European negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. And a man in Atlanta shot and killed a judge and two others after grabbing a gun from a courtroom deputy. Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.