The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, Congress continued to debate going to war in the Persian Gulf. President Bush lobbied hard for a use of force resolution against Iraq and took a call from Soviet President Gorbachev about the issue. Sec. of State Baker told American pilots that the brink of war will be passed at midnight Tuesday. We'll have the details in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Tonight's NewsHour is devoted to the Gulf story with extended excerpts from the debate in Congress. Next, a News Maker interview with Defense Sec. Dick Cheney, then the mood of the American people expressed by citizens and newspaper editors in Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Madison, Dallas, and San Diego. FORCE RESOLUTION

MR. LEHRER: The Congress of the United States continued to talk about war today as a prelude to vote Saturday on whether to approve the use of force against Iraq. President Bush lobbied for the force resolution at a White House breakfast with House members from both parties. Later, during a picture taking session with reporters, he made a public appeal.

PRES. BUSH: I still feel that it would be very helpful to the last step for peace if the Congress had moved and would support the so-called U.N. resolutions that are before the House now and will be before the Senate.

MR. LEHRER: In the Senate, debate was interrupted briefly this morning by demonstrators in the spectators' gallery. They shouted anti-war slogans like "No blood for oil" and "Don't vote for World War III."

SPOKESMAN: The sergeant at arms will restore order to the galleries.

MR. LEHRER: Senate police arrested 11 demonstrators and toured the gallery of all visitors. Those arrested were charged with disrupting Congress and demonstrating in the capital building. We'll have excerpts from the debates themselves in a few moments. Presidents Bush and Gorbachev spoke on the phone this morning for 25 minutes. Mr. Bush told reporters during the Oval Office photo session the Soviet President offered some innovative thinking about the Persian Gulf crisis, and they remained in sync about the situation. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: With the January 15th deadline closing in, Saddam Hussein toughened his rhetorical stance. He told a group of radical Muslims in Baghdad that Iraq would fight a holy war to return the occupied lands to the Palestinians. His government denied a U.S. report that he was ready to accept a MidEast conference on the Palestinian question for a withdrawal from Kuwait. Saddam's uncompromising position cast new doubt on a breakthrough by the U.N. Secretary General. Perez DeCuellar is due to meet with Saddam on Saturday. This evening the Secretary General arrived in Jordan, where he met with King Hussein. Earlier in the day, he won support from the European community for a U.N. peacekeeping role in the Gulf if Iraq withdraws. The Secretary General will also reportedly offer Saddam a guarantee Iraq will not be attacked, a U.N. observer force to monitor an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, a guarantee that the multinational forces will also withdraw, and a pledge for an international conference on the Middle East following an Iraqi pullout. Former President Jimmy Carter today endorsed the idea of a MidEast conference that would discuss both the Gulf crisis and the issue of Palestinian rights. President Bush has repeatedly opposed linking the two issues. Mr. Carter said, "If necessary to save face, we can continue to deny what everyone knows, the linkage does exist."

MR. LEHRER: Sec. of State Baker told American combat pilots in Saudi Arabia the brink of war will be passed at midnight Tuesday. He said many of them had asked him four months ago when they would be called to action. Today he said, "As the clock ticks down to midnight, January 15, I cannot give you a definitive answer, but I can tell you that you will not have to wait much longer for an answer to that question." Earlier in the day, Mr. Baker met with the exiled Emir of Kuwait. We have a report from Saudi Arabia by Alex Thompson of Independent Television News.

MR. THOMPSON: Meeting the Emir Sheikh Haba Al-Saba, it was clear that diplomatic focuses moved to U.N. efforts after Mr. Baker's Geneva talks had broke up.

REPORTER: Mr. Baker, can we just ask you what your feelings are about the proposal to send the United Nations force into Kuwait?

SEC. BAKER: You know, we have been talking for quite some time about the importance of considering security structures in the aftermath of a resolution of this crisis after an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. If there is a peaceful withdrawal, it would be appropriate I think to give consideration to how security will be maintained, and there is no reason why one part of that consideration should not be the consideration of a possible United Nations peacekeeping force. I also believe though that the states in the region are going to have to make the greatest contribution to the security of the region and must be in the forefront of the formation of any regional security structure.

MR. LEHRER: In Washington today, the Saudi ambassador to the United States announced his country would cover 40 to 50 percent of the expense for Operation Desert Shield. White House officials said that the deployment cost $10 billion last year. An eight ship U.S. Navy amphibious task force has entered the Persian Gulf. U.S. Central Command in Saudi Arabia said it will be followed in the next few days by the aircraft carrier Midway. Another 18 ship task force is expected in the Northern Gulf zone.

MR. MacNeil: The U.S. and the Netherlands will send advanced surface to air missiles to Turkey in the next few days. The Patriot missiles will be deployed to protect the Turkish-Iraqi border in the event of war. We have a report on war preparations narrated by Tom Browne of Worldwide Television News.

MR. BROWNE: Turkey is the only native country with the front line position with Iraq, an unenviable position but one the country is quickly coming to terms with. Ankora has not so far said it will join in any multinational attack on Iraq, but in the last few weeks, the army has been heavily boosting its forces in the Southeast to the country along its 200 mile border with Saddam's regime. Combat training for troops has also been stepped up. And as the military moves in, civilians fearing an early start to hostilities have begun to move out. Across the Mediterranean, Israel too has thrown its defense preparations in high gear. Though 230 miles away from Iraq, it's perhaps more to fear. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly warned he'll launch chemical warfare against Israel if attacked by American troops. To protect themselves, Israelis have been advised to seal doors and windows in their homes. The education ministry said it was organizing special sealed rooms in all the country's schools. Supermarkets have seen a run on supplies of canned goods, rice, sugar, and other emergency items. Major chains have said they'd stay open longer to allow people to stock up. The past few days have seen a mass exodus of foreigners from Israel. Now the United States has urged all its citizens to consider leaving. Israel is thought to host up to 100,000 Americans, many holding joint U.S.-Israeli citizenship.

MR. MacNeil: Deputy Sec. of State Lawrence Eagleburger will go to Israel this weekend. A State Department spokesman would not explain the reason for the trip, but sources told the Associated Press he will urge the Israelis to stay out of the fighting if war erupts between the U.S. and Iraq. He'll also assure them of U.S. support if Iraq attacks Israel. At the State Department, Spokesman Richard Boucher said a war could mean an increase in terrorism aimed at American targets. He issued this warning.

MR. BOUCHER: The U.S. government has evidence that terrorists supported by Iraq are planning to mount attack in most regions of the world. We believe the Middle East and Europe are the most likely locations, but we also have reports of terrorist planning in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The American public should be aware that in the event of military action involving the United States and the Persian Gulf, the threat of terrorism against American citizens would increase significantly.

MR. MacNeil: The International Energy Agency announced it will release 2 million barrels of oil a day from government reserves if war cuts into world supplies. The agency represents the United States and 20 other oil consuming nations. FOCUS - DEBATING WAR

MR. LEHRER: Now to excerpts from the congressional debate over going to war in the Gulf. It continued at full throttle and emotion today, with votes expected in both the House and Senate sometime tomorrow. Kwame Holman reports.

MR. HOLMAN: Senate debate on the Persian Gulf was proceeding quietly this morning. Sam Nunn of Georgia was discussing the impact of economic sanctions against Iraq when about a dozen demonstrators in the visitors' gallery began chanting anti-war slogans.

SPOKESMAN: The sergeant at arms will restore order to the galleries.

MR. HOLMAN: Once the gallery was cleared, Nunn continued, referring to the gallery outburst to characterize the debate on the floor.

SEN. NUNN: We may disagree in this chamber, but when this vote is over, and I expect I will not be on the prevailing side, when this vote is over, we're going to stand united. We're going to stand united, and that word should go out. Debate in our society is absolutely essential. The Congress has a role, as I said. We have though the absolute obligation of debate, and for a debate to be interrupted with that kind of outburst simply has no place in the Senate, nor in our democracy, as I understand it.

MR. HOLMAN: As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn is considered the member with the best understanding of U.S. military capability, yet, Nunn supports continued sanctions.

SEN. NUNN: I'm absolutely amazed when people say we've waited four months and five months, and the embargo hasn't worked. They must not have been there at the beginning, or they must not have talked to anybody at the beginning about how long it was going to take. It's very puzzling to me how someone could give up on an embargo after five months, when nobody that I know of predicted that it was going to last less than nine months to a year, and most people said a year to eighteen months. The Bush administration is correct when they point out that sanctions do not guarantee that Iraq will leave Kuwait. But the story does not end there. What guarantees do we have that war will be brief, American casualties will be light? No one can say whether war will last five days, five weeks, or five months. We know we can win and we will win, no doubt about that. No doubt about who wins this war. Our policy and our military planning, however, cannot be based on an expectation that the war will be concluded quickly and easily.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: What, I ask of my chairman, is the implication on the other forces that travel long distances, endured great hardships, and are now standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans in the desert.

SEN. NUNN: I would say the reaction would be mixed. Some of our allies would breathe a sigh of relief. Others would say, you led us right up to the brink of war and now you're going to give sanctions a time to work. It depends on how the President handled it. It depends on whether he was willing to go to a rotation policy, which I hope he would. It would not be an easy adjustment, but when you consider the alternative, I say to my friend in Virginia, you have to look at the other side. The other side is where we know we are heading. The other side is war.

MR. HOLMAN: It is the lack of proportionate international support that angered Michigan's Don Riegle.

SEN. DON RIEGLE, [D] Michigan: I'm convinced, as I stand here, if the issue to the United Nations was this, look, we'd like you to put together a 500,000 person international, multi-national force that over the next 90 days would replace the American force, we'd be part of it, we'd be our fair share of it, but only a part of it, get all of the rest of the U.N. nations involved, let's have an honest to goodness U.N. force in there, and then if we're going to have an offensive action, let's let that be who carries it out. If that were put on the floor of the U.N. today for a vote, how many votes do you think that would get? How many votes do you think that would get? And that's why it hasn't been done that way, because there aren't the votes for that, because the rest of the world is not willing to fight this fight unless it's being done with young people from this country. And that's wrong. It's just plain wrong.

MR. HOLMAN: Kit Bond of Missouri agreed that other nations should be doing more, but said that's not the issue before the Senate.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER BOND, [R] Missouri: No. The reason we're here is to debate on which resolution we pass. And I believe the reason we must adopt a resolution supporting the position of the U.N. resolution is very simple and straightforward. The simple reason we must act is that we cannot allow Saddam Hussein to profit from his aggression.

MR. HOLMAN: And two other Republicans, McCain of Arizona and D'Amato of New York, agreed, saying no to the President would do irreparable harm to him and to the country.

SEN. ALFONSE D'AMATO, [R] New York: Mr. President, let me say that I think it's going to be rather difficult for any President, this President and any in the future, to conduct foreign policy and to have our allies rely upon his word and our commitment.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN, [R] Arizona: In this new world order, it is clear to me that if we fail to act, that there will be inevitably a succession of dictators, of Saddam Hussein, of which around this globe they're in abundance either in reality or would be, and those dictators will see a green light, green light for aggression, a green light for annexation of its weaker neighbors, and, indeed, over time a threat to the stability of this entire globe.

MR. HOLMAN: While the resolution giving the President authorization to use force might be in trouble on the Senate side, there is no doubt it will pass comfortably through the House. Nevertheless, the debate there has been spirited.

REP. JAMES TRAFICANT, [D] Ohio: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Well, let me tell you what, ladies and gentlemen, what you're voting on today. There's a saying that our allies have from Japan to Germany and all around the globe. They say when the going gets tough, send in Uncle Sam; Congress won't object to it, they'll even pay for the damned thing!

REP. BILL McCOLLUM, [R] Florida: If we're going to avoid war, we've got to send a message to Saddam Hussein, it's as simple as that. That message has to be that we stand behind the President and if, indeed, it comes to D-day, whatever day that is, the 15th of January or the day after or two weeks later or whatever, then we will go to war. If he believes that, I think that he will withdraw. At least, there's a good chance he will.

REP. JOHN LEWIS, [D] Georgia: War is bloody. War is vicious. War is evil. War is messy. War destroys the dreams, the hopes, and the aspiration of a people. It breaks up families. I was in the Persian Gulf. I returned on yesterday. I saw those young men and women and if we go to war, some would not return to this land.

REP. JOSEPH KENNEDY, [D] Massachusetts: There's a misguided machismo mentality in America that says somehow or another this is the John Wayne aspect, this is the way we ought to conduct foreign policy, we ought to be the bully boys, we ought to get out there and be the policemen of the world. The fact is, folks, if we had to take that battle to every single conflict around this world, this country will not be morally bankrupt, but will be bankrupt economically as well within six months.

REP. GERALD SOLOMON, [R] New York: My colleagues, you've just heard from a member of the Kennedy family of which we all respect. Let me read you a quote from another Kennedy on October 22, 1962. "My fellow citizens, let no one doubt that this is a difficult and dangerous effort on which we have set out. No one can have foreseen precisely what course it will take, but the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing! The 1930s taught us a clear lesson. Aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war." John F. Kennedy, a great American.

REP. SCOTT KLUG, [R] Wisconsin: I will not support the President's request, intending that it be interpreted as a signal for or as any endorsement of war. War must be the absolute last resort and it is clear to me at this time we have not reached that point. I will support it in the hope that it will strengthen the President's hand and give him one more card to play in the hope that it's a card we will never have to play.

REP. DON RITTER, [R] Pennsylvania: Why are we leaving to the last moment, the last second almost, in the clock of history to come down here and act divisively in front of Saddam Hussein, who watches us on CNN?

REP. DONALD DELLUMS, [D] California: What better picture can we send that we in this country have a right to dissent, that we have a right to our relative perspective that people can talk about war and peace in an open forum, that the Ron Dellums of the Congress can stand up and oppose the insanity of war, what better statement can we make to Saddam Hussein than a Democratic form of government based on the rule of law in a constitutional form of government is the way with the future, not the way with the past, and I yield back my time.

MR. HOLMAN: Both Houses will vote their positions on the Persian Gulf tomorrow. NEWS MAKER

MR. LEHRER: Now to a News Maker interview with the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

SEC. CHENEY: Good evening, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: How's this debate going, from your point of view?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, it's been fascinating to watch, Jim, both sort of from terms of my official responsibility as a Secretary of Defense, but also as a former member of the House, I have met yesterday with all of the House Republicans, today with all of the Senate Republicans, and couldn't help but think as I traveled to the Hill to participate, consult, if you will, that these events are more momentous, the debate more significant than any I participated in in my 10 years now as a representative, and I think that shows in the debate that we've seen it is an extremely serious matter for the nation. It's a matter that I think deserves the kind of hearing it's had. Obviously as part of the administration, one who's involved with the President and wrestling with our policies, I'm heartened by the fact that it appears that we will, in fact, have support from the Congress for the President's policy and position.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what it kind of looks like, you're going to win in the House?

SEC. CHENEY: That's what it looks like. The House looks good. The Senate has been very close and knowing the Senate as well as I do, I wouldn't want to make the hard and fast prediction till votes are actually counted, but as of tonight, we appear to be making progress towards hopefullya majority for our position.l

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Dole indicated last night -- he's the Senate Minority Leader -- that if it looked like the President was going to lose in the Senate that the Republicans might filibuster, rather than end up with a negative vote. Does the administration support that approach?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, I'd prefer to take a more positive approach in the sense that we hope we will have the votes, that we clearly would like to avoid a negative vote. If the -- if it's not possible to get a majority of members to support the basic resolution that we are urging them to support, then there are a number of members of the Senate I think with some justification that suggested it would be better not to have a vote at all, that is, not to have a negative vote that undermines the President at the last possible moment and sent Saddam Hussein the worst possible sign. A negative vote out of one of the Houses of Congress at this point would absolutely convince Saddam that we are divided as a nation and probably would do more than anything else to ensure that he will not get out by the 15th of January.

MR. LEHRER: What's the difference between a negative vote and a filibuster that prevents a negative vote?

SEC. CHENEY: It wouldn't help, it wouldn't be helpful in that respect. Obviously, the ideal outcome, from our standpoint, would be one in which the Congress does, in fact, voice support for the position the President has taken and the position the United Nations has taken.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, even if your side, if the President's side does prevail in the Senate, using the Senate as the major problem here from your point of view, it's going to be by very few votes. What kind of message is that? I mean, what kind of support is that for going to war?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, there are a number of I guess aspects of the debate that we have that others outside the United States might not understand. They might not understand a debate at all at this particular moment. That's the way we function as a democracy. I harken back to the days before World War II when Congress decided to keep the draft going by a single vote. Momentous decisions are often made in this country by relatively few votes, but we do operate on the basis of majority rule, and in this case, I think, as Sam Nunn, himself, said in the debate, once the votes are cast, we will be a united nation.

MR. LEHRER: As a practical matter, from yours and the President's, administration's point of view, it doesn't really matter what the Congress does tomorrow? In other words, you've got it in the House, if the Senate looks like it's going to vote "no", there's going to be a filibuster, so nothing's going to happen tomorrow to change the President's position or anything else, is that right?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, I wouldn't want to take it quite that far, Jim. I think that members of the Senate legitimately feel their votes ought to count, what they do does matter, and we would like very much to have the support for the President's position. How the Senate might respond or might deal with the situation if there is not a majority for the resolution, I'll leave to the Senate leadership.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Nunn, as we heard in the excerpts, his major argument, one of his major arguments against going along with the President is that nobody, including you, can guarantee a quick and easy war, and the suggestion of a quick and easy war just doesn't add up. How do you respond to that?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, we've been very careful not to create unrealistic expectations about how cheap a victory might be. We have tried very hard to be very forthright, very honest, and very direct with the American people and the President. We do not know precisely how costly a war might be, and --

MR. LEHRER: In terms of lives.

SEC. CHENEY: In terms of lives. And we've -- rather than float a figure that is artificially low or artificially high, it's simply not possible to know. It depends very much upon what happens. War is at best an uncertain enterprise and I think in terms of contemplating that possibility, it's important not to create false hopes or expectations. On the other hand, I think given the forces that we deployed, given what our capabilities are, based upon the best military advice that I can get as Secretary of Defense, I'm confident that we could achieve our objectives and will do it in the quickest possible fashion at the lowest possible cost, if we have to do it.

MR. LEHRER: What does quick as -- I mean, here again Sen. Nunn said nobody can say whether it's going to last five days, five weeks, or five months. I mean, you must have some ballpark thinking here about how long it would take and -- but you're not -- you can't tell us what that is?

SEC. CHENEY: I've been very careful not to talk about the operational considerations for obvious reasons. And again, I don't want to be in the business of making a forecast or a prediction that can't be absolutely backed up. But I -- my own personal view is that it is not the kind of thing that would drag on for a long period of time.

MR. LEHRER: Define long period of time.

SEC. CHENEY: A matter of months.

MR. LEHRER: A matter of months.

SEC. CHENEY: I think the President's philosophy that he's pursued based upon recommendations from our senior military commanders in the field and the Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Powell, has been based very much upon the proposition that we wanted to get all the force over there we could so that if, in fact, there were a conflict, that we could achieve our objectives in the shortest possible time, because that's the best way to minimize casualties. And that's exactly what we've done. The notion that this would be a long, drawn out affair I don't think is a valid one.

MR. LEHRER: Why is that not valid?

SEC. CHENEY: Because of the size of the force and because of the capabilities we have and because of our relative strength compared to -- and that of our allies compared to that of the Iraqis.

MR. LEHRER: Is it based on a calculation that at some point before Iraq is destroyed that Saddam Hussein will stop the war, in other words, throw up his hands and surrender and say, okay, guys, you've got me, or is it based on the calculation that Saddam Hussein will actually go to, will fight to the last Iraqi?

SEC. CHENEY: It's based upon the fact that our objectives are limited, our objectives are to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We're not attempting to take Baghdad from a military standpoint. And it's based upon what I think is reasonable confidence on the part of our commanders that we do, indeed, have significant capabilities that would allow us to achieve our objectives in a relatively short period of time.

MR. LEHRER: Every expert that we've had on this program, every military expert from all over the lots -- you know how many lots there have been for five months -- all of them have said you will never get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait militarily unless you attack Iraq, itself, and particularly Baghdad, and particularly the crucial things that are so dear to him, because that must then be part of our strategy, right? It isn't attacking him in Kuwait, it's also attacking him in Iraq. Is that a safe assumption?

SEC. CHENEY: One of the difficult parts of my job, Jim, are all the experts you've had on your show.

MR. LEHRER: Right.

SEC. CHENEY: The -- what we've said -- and we obviously again have to be careful, they can say anything they like, they're experts. Those of us who bear some responsibility have to be a little more circumspect. But we've made it clear that our objective is to liberate Kuwait, but we've also made it clear that there won't be any sanctuary inside Iraq for Iraqi forces.

MR. LEHRER: And that -- okay, I read you. I read you there. As far as casualties, Congressman Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, had a report this week that said he said that it's possible there ought to be five hundred to a thousand American deaths. Is that in your real world?

SEC. CHENEY: Again, I've got a lot of respect for Les. He's a thoughtful, knowledgeable observer and analyst, and chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House, but it all depends upon what happens and when it happens, and how successful the operation is. It is scenario-dependent and dependent upon the kinds of assumptions you make. You can get any outcome you want with respect to the casualty estimates.

MR. LEHRER: Some members of Congress who have talked to members of the administration in the last couple of days have suggested that you all are prepared to go literally at midnight on January the 15th. I'm not suggesting you will go, but you're prepared to go. Is that true?

SEC. CHENEY: I think an accurate way to state it, Jim, would be that if the President gave me instructions tonight, we would be in a position to undertake military action almost immediately. As time passes and we complete the deployment that's now underway, our capability will grow. We still are in the midst of moving the 7th corps out of Germany, the 1st infantry division out of Kansas, those units are still en route to the area. They have not all arrived yet, so if more time passes, we'll have more capability. But we've got a lot of force there today. We've got over 350,000 personnel. We've got some three aircraft carrier battle groups. We've got several divisions on the ground, so significant capability there right now.

MR. LEHRER: Just for the record, when is Tuesday midnight, is it Tuesday midnight Eastern Time, Washington, or is it Tuesday midnight Baghdad Time, which would be 4 o'clock in the afternoon? What's the magic time?

SEC. CHENEY: I'd have to buck you to the U.N. Security Council who crafted the resolution for an interpretation of what they meant by midnight by the 15th of January. The resolution I believe says specifically that he should withdraw all of his forces, that if he's not withdrawn all of his forces by the 15th of January. Then member states would be authorized to use any means necessary, but we haven't gotten into a debate over which time zone we were talking about.

MR. LEHRER: Are you personally at ease on this Friday night about all of this?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, Jim, it's -- I think to say I'm personally at ease would not be an accurate statement by any means. I've got a job to do and I will do it to the best of my ability. The President's the one who bears the significant burden and those of us who are involved in this decision for the country are I think enormously aware of potential consequences of the decisions we make. I've made several trips to the Gulf and spent a lot of time with our young men and women who are out there. I am enormously proud to be associated with them. By the same token, I am very much aware of the potential cost to them of the various courses of action that are available to us, and I think an accurate way to state it would be I am very much aware tonight on this particular night when Congress debates these issues of what's at stake for the country.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you.

SEC. CHENEY: Thank you, Jim. FOCUS - VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

MR. MacNeil: With the rest of tonight's program we assess the mood of the American people as their lawmakers prepare to vote to authorize force or dependence on sanctions. We'll hear from newspaper editors around the country after our own sampling of opinion on the streets of their cities.

LARRY PAHLKE: [Chicago] I don't believe there's going to be a war.

MS. BRACKETT: Why not?

MR. PHALKE: I just don't think Hussein's that crazy. And they seem to be very good poker players and I feel this war is just not going to come off. I think it's because of the presence of our troops and the President with his strong policy and I back him completely.

MARC BURTON: [Chicago] I support the idea of freedom, but I think there should be dialogue instead of war.

MS. BRACKETT: Do you think that's still possible?

MR. BURTON: I think it's possible, but somebody has to give, either Saddam Hussein or President Bush.

MS. BRACKETT: How much should the United States give?

MR. BURTON: To avert war, anything that's possible. I mean, whatever it takes. I mean, I'm a product of the Vietnam War. I wasn't in the Vietnam War, but I grew up in that era, and I think a lot of the young people now forgot about the war in Vietnam, they forgot about the young people who died in Vietnam, and I had brothers who went over there and they didn't come back. It's that simple.

JONATHAN SLOCUMB: [Atlanta] America's known for its strength and I think if we settle right now and have those people think that we are a weak nation, I think they'll be against us, so I'm in favor of we elected Bush, so let him do his job and I'm sure we'll come out victorious. I'm already singing the victory song, so it doesn't bother me at all. I'm sorry that some people are going to be killed, but I believe that when it's your time, it's your time any way.

BRITTON McGILL: No, I don't believe that we should go to war with Iraq, because the whole idea of protecting American interests over in Iraq is preposterous, because the first thing America went over there to thwart Iraq from invading Saudi Arabia, but now it's turned into Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally. That has nothing to do with America. It's just protecting the Jewish money and American interest over there and we're willing to risk over 10,000 lives for something that has nothing to do with America.

RANDY HASSLER: [San Diego] I have a son that's in the air guard, so that hits home a little bit closer because I'm thinking that I could have a son that goes over there. He's still finishing his training now, but I don't think any of us are prepared to start hearing about loss of lives in general, let alone to hear that it might be a friend or loved one. I just don't think we're ready for it and I don't think we'll realize the impact until the shooting starts.

LISA TRESNER: To me it's not an issue. It has nothing to do with oil. It's more a humanitarian thing. I had a lot of friends that were living in Kuwait, Arab friends that were living there, and they're very nice, peaceful people, and I just don't feel that somebody should be allowed to come in and invade their country like that and just rape it or whatever they wish.

ANTHONY BARLOW: I don't support military force because I don't believe our nation should be bailing -- putting in $38 million a day and then seeing it escalate to war and then the war going to $1 billion a day. I mean, I don't think our economy can face that kind of pressure. I don't believe it's right.

HELEN HARTFIELD: [Dallas] I'm kind of at odds, because I have a son that is eligible to go. He's in the reserve. I wouldn't want to see him go, but then on the same hand, I don't think Saddam Hussein is right, because I feel like he's kind of in comparison with a bully in school. If you let them take over one thing, then they'll take over another thing and just keep taking over, so I think he has to be stopped, and I hate that it might cost lives, but I think that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

JOHN SCHUTZA: I don't really have any strong opinions about it. I think it is definitely a strategic area that we need to be concerned about and I, so far I agree with President Bush's policy and that is to pressure Saddam Hussein politically and economically, but I'm not sure that I'm ready for any type of military force to be used.

SUSAN MITCHELL: I think it's horrible and I wish it'd hurry up and end so our boys could come home.

CORRESPONDENT: How do you expect it to end?

MS. MITCHELL: People gettin' together and tryin' to make it end. That's the only way it's going to be, if they talk it over, but it seems to me like they don't want to talk, so I really don't know how they're going to end it that way.

CORRESPONDENT: What, do you feel that we would go to war?

MS. MITCHELL: Well, I'm hopin' we don't, but if it comes to it, I guess we'll have to. There's no other choice.

BEN MASON: Well, naturally we are aware of what happened in Vietnam and I, myself, I'm really reluctant to get ourselves in a mess where we're going to have more young people killed. We've had enough bloodshed. I wonder if the reasons for us being over in the Middle East are really justified. I mean, I wonder if we're really there for the reason we say we're there and whether or not those reasons are justifiable.

GRACE MAIR: [Teaneck, N.J.] I think it could be another Vietnam War. No war is short and it bothers me. It bothers me that we in the United States forget what war is, the consequences of war. And I think we are just too hasty, also that we're much too intelligent, we're much too intelligent to be engaged in this. I think we should talk. I think war is too barbaric and it just mustn't be.

TIM RICHARDS: I think the world's looking pretty much in the same situation it was looking at in the mid '30s, where the Chinese were being beaten up on by the Japanese or little European countries by the Germans. Most people said, well, concessions, if we give in, it'll be all they want; a lot of people say the same thing now, if you just give Hussein part of Kuwait, that'll be enough, it'll be finished. But Hitler wasn't ready to stop when he got a little piece of Czechoslovakia. He wasn't ready to stop when he got Austria.

ANDREW LUFTIG: The way I feel is if we don't stop 'em now with tanks and planes, in 10 years we will have to stop him with atomic bombs, because he will have it at that time and he will not hesitate to use 'em.

MR. MacNeil: Joining us now are editors from several of those same cities: Gerald Warren of the San Diego Union; Lee Cullum who edits the editorial page of the Dallas Times Herald; Erwin Knoll of the Progressive Magazine in Madison, Wisconsin; Cynthia Tucker,associate editorial page editor of the Atlanta Constitution; Clarence Page, member of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune; and Ed Baumeister of the Trenton, New Jersey Times. Ed, that last man was in your state, New Jersey. Do you agree the U.S. should go to war now?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Well, our newspaper doesn't, but what I'm struck by looking at all this is that we all seem to be in our own little opinion micro-climates. A fellow wrote to our newspaper this week and said he had not met person one, nobody wanting to go to war, in the check-out counter, going around town, his friends at work. An opinion and research company in Princeton, which is in our area, did a survey for Times Mirror this week and discovered that 75 percent of the American people were ready to use force either next Tuesday or sometime afterwards. What strikes me is it is not much debate as there was in Vietnam. It's not the guys in the Legion Hall versus the young people, but I think we're all pretty much before the force is used sort of self-contained.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, are you for authorizing force, or patience and sanctions?

MS. TUCKER: Well, the Constitution's editorial page has voted very reluctantly to support President Bush in his request for the authorization to use force. We don't think that it should have come to this, we don't think it had to come to this, but now that President Bush has sent out the messages that he is prepared to use force imminently, that that is absolutely what we should do, I think that Saddam Hussein will get the wrong message now if Congress does not give the President the authorization to use force. So yes, the Constitution's editorial page has reluctantly supported the President in that.

MR. MacNeil: Lee Cullum in Dallas, force or sanctions?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, in Dallas, we definitely think the Congress should give the President the resolution that he wants, but we want more negotiations. We want the President to be in a position to negotiate for maximum strength. That's why the Congress should back him up and so should the country and so do we, but we are not ready to give up on diplomacy. We do think something could be done about the Rumala Oil Field, about the Bubianamorba Islands. We think that a peace conference for the Middle East is not out of the question and the talking should not stop on these vital questions. They do mean life and death.

MR. MacNeil: That sounds a bit different from what you were saying on behalf of your paper a while ago when we talked. Has your paper actually changed its opinion?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, we have not changed in our support of the President. We supported him in August. We support him now in January. We'll support him on the 16th of January. But we would like to see more flexibility. We're very apprehensive about the prospect of war. We grow more apprehensive today. We look at the price of oil down here in Texas. If the war should be prolonged, it would go up to $50 a barrel and could bring the world to its knees in a worldwide depression, and to pay for such a result with the lives of our young people would be very difficult, indeed.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page in Chicago, force or sanctions?

MR. PAGE: Well, my newspaper has come out in favor of Congress giving President Bush support. At the same time, there's a sense that Congress -- my newspaper feels that Congress has a duty to declare itself and not to lay back, as it has for weeks now, and try to have it both ways, castigating Bush if this doesn't work or standing with him if it does work. Congress needs to declare itself. My newspaper has felt all along that there are very strong, compelling reasons for us to be there. Notice, Robin, that I say my newspaper. I do not agree that there are strong, compelling reasons and I don't think most people I've talked to on the streets do. When I see polls like the Times Mirror or the Washington Post that show most people supporting the use of force in the Middle East, I am skeptical of the way that question has been posed. I think the debate has been posed too much in terms of should we fight or should we pull out, and there are so many middle measures that can be done I think that most people don't understand how practical a MidEast peace conference would be, don't understand how many other options there are. At the same time, people are looking for other options. I think there's a sense certainly I think in the Midwest that we're kind of like an automobile that's hit a patch of ice, and no matter how hard we try to put on the brakes, we're just skidding right into disaster.

MR. MacNeil: Are we skidding into disaster, Erwin Knoll?

MR. KNOLL: Oh, yes, I think we are. We were opposed to the military intervention in the Persian Gulf back in August. We're opposed to it today. We think no compelling case has been offered to justify the kind of carnage that is bound to ensue if we go to war in the Middle East. I heard earlier in the program both Sec. Cheney and Sen. Nunn say that once the Congress votes, there will be a united nation. No way, they're profoundly mistaken. There is very powerful resistance to this war in this part of the country and I suspect all over the country, and it will not be a united country. It will be a country terribly divided by this issue.

MR. MacNeil: Not a divided country, Gerald Warren in San Diego?

MR. WARREN: Divided to an extent, Robin. I believe the leadership of this country, as expressed by the Senators you quoted, will say let's get together and support the President. There is opposition to the President's position, no question, and you see that opposition in the debate in the Senate and the House today. But I'm fairly confident and our newspaper believes that Congress will give the President the authority to use force, if necessary, and we like to point out that this is not a question of whether or not President Bush will start the war. Saddam Hussein started the war when he invaded Kuwait in August.

MR. MacNeil: Cynthia Tucker, do you sense in your community any kind of consensus on this, or is it like the little sample we showed going into you all over the place?

MS. TUCKER: I think it is all over the place in this region. One interesting and ironic thing is happening here in Atlanta. As it happens, President Bush unknowingly I imagine chose Martin Luther King's birthday, January 15th, as the deadline for Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait. So there are many civil rights leaders who are deeply resentful of that. As followers of Martin Luther King, Jr., they are pacifists anyway, so there have been some protests here in Atlanta. And it is also interesting to note that the Senior Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn, is leading the loyal opposition to the President. However, I think that in general terms here in the Southeast, the people will support the President, but they are very, very troubled and very fearful about the threat of war.

MR. MacNeil: Do you sense a consensus shaping around this?

MR. BAUMEISTER: No, not at all. What I'm struck by on both sides is the enormous amount of information people have in the run-up to this. It is not like it was in Vietnam, where we sort of learned these things as the conflict was going on.

MR. MacNeil: But there was a consensus generally, either by default or deliberately at that time, wasn't there, in that war?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Yeah. And now you hear people citing well, the British drew the borders on the one side, and on the other side, they'll cite fifteen or sixteen reasons why we shouldn't be there at all. There's an enormous amount of information in the debate, not all of it probably fully understood, but that's a big difference between now and Vietnam.

MR. MacNeil: Lee Cullum, do you sense a consensus among the people your newspaper talks to and you talk to?

MS. CULLUM: Not at all, Robin. In fact, we did a telephone poll in the last couple of days. It's not scientific by any means, but we do invite our readers to call in, and 54 percent are in favor of a strike after January the 15th, if Iraq is not withdrawn from Kuwait; 46 percent are opposed. So it does mirror the nation somewhat. There is deep division. I do find a lot of support in Dallas according to my telephone and my mail of Ross Perot. He's been appearing all over the country on the Phil Donahue Show and in speeches and at the National Press Club --

MR. MacNeil: On this program.

MS. CULLUM: -- on your program too of course, opposing military action and I've had several calls saying, please print some of these transcripts, which we are doing. He has a lot of support in Dallas.

MR. MacNeil: Erwin Knoll, is there a consensus in Madison?

MR. KNOLL: Oh, no, but I think that there is a predominant view that is definitely anti-war. Last Wednesday evening we had a remarkable meeting at our state capital here, more than a thousand people jammed into the state assembly chamber, the galleries, the nearby hearing rooms, to talk to a United States Senator, two members of the House, a number of members of the state legislature about all this, and I would say that the sentiment ran more than 10 to 1, perhaps as much as 20 to 1, against the war. And that includes all kinds of people, rural people, church people, labor union people. Many groups that were in favor of the Vietnam War and supported it, at least at the outset, are absolutely opposed to this military exercise from the very beginning.

MR. MacNeil: Clarence Page, if there is so little consensus the countries like our sample, so all over the place, and we are to use your phrase, on an icy patch drifting uncontrollably, and the Congress votes very narrowly in both Houses for the resolution to authorize the use of force, what real kind of authority does that give the President after January the 15th, do you think, what kind of --

MR. PAGE: It certainly gives him more authority than he has now. It's tantamount to a declaration of war. I don't care how close the vote is, and I'm confident he will get that vote, and why, why that measure of support at a time when there's so much of a lack of consensus? I think the strength of this country, Robin, is the fact that when in doubt, people pull together and say, well, he is our commander in chief, let's go along with him and hope he's right. As we've seen in the past, the commander in chief was not always right and sometimes pays the consequences of his errors. At the same time, I think if you went out here in downtown Chicago and stopped 10 people, you'd get 10 different opinions about this.

MR. MacNeil: What do you think it gives him a mandate to do, Clarence?

MR. PAGE: I think, well, you know that's a good question. I've heard Sec. Cheney say that we only wantto take back Kuwait. At the same time, common sense is telling people that we want to do more than that and that people will be disappointed if this is a limited war that gets us bogged down at that line in the sound like we got bogged down, the DMZ in Vietnam, so I think it gives them a mandate to win quickly. Then we've got to raise the question of what do we get when we win? I'm afraid there are other consequences in that region of the world that will be awaiting us that could be quite dire, indeed.

MR. MacNeil: Gerald Warren, if he gets the narrow vote in the Houses and with the state of opinion in the country the way it seems to be, what does the President have a mandate to do after January the 15th, a quick strike, more diplomacy, and hold the force back, what do you think?

MR. WARREN: I believe he has -- we believe as a newspaper that he has a mandate to use force when he is convinced that Saddam Hussein will not withdraw unilaterally from Kuwait, and that's enough force to do the job to get him out of Kuwait. And I don't see there's any other way to see it.

MR. MacNeil: Well, I mean, to use force, to entitle him to make that decision immediately after the 15th, or to appear to try a lot harder before he uses it?

MR. WARREN: Well, I don't know how much harder he can try. If we are to say that we're going to use force if he does not unconditionally withdraw, he being Saddam Hussein, which appears to be the consensus of this country, then you must allow the President to do it when he's convinced that that is the case.

MR. MacNeil: What do you think about that Lee Cullum? You mentioned earlier trying harder for more diplomacy and negotiations. What would the resolutions, if they pass narrowly and if stated public opinion give the President a mandate to do in your view?

MS. CULLUM: Robin, certainly as a matter of law, the President would have a right to strike on January the 16th. In terms of public opinion, I think he will have the country somewhat with him in the beginning, but I think that support could dwindle as time goes on. We hope very much at the Times Herald that he will try diplomacy longer, that he will hold his forces in check in Saudi Arabia, keep them there, practice a policy of containment, and see if diplomacy can't work finally.

MR. MacNeil: What do you hope he will do, Cynthia Tucker, if he gets these resolutions?

MS. TUCKER: Well, the Constitution's editorial page hopes exactly the same thing that Lee Cullum was just saying that her paper hopes for. We have asked in our editorial that even if President Bush gets the authorization, and we think he will, that he will proceed with negotiations, and that he will give sanctions more time to work. However, I have to say that I think he could get in political trouble as time goes on either way. I think some members of the public want him to go ahead and do something decisively, quickly, so that we can bring the troops back home, but I think that if we get into a war that goes on even for four or five months with mounting casualties, I think people will be very unhappy and again want the President the President to get out and bring the troops home.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Cynthia Tucker, and all other editors with us, thank you all for joining us tonight. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: In other news today, the Soviet Union tightened its grip on Lithuania. We have a report from the republic's capital by Penny Marshall of Independent Television News.

MS. MARSHALL: Soviet troops started to move into Vilnius overnight. Convoys of APCs driving through the center. They passed all the strategic government and communication centers before withdrawing to their bases. Thousands of demonstrators gathered outside parliament this morning as the tension in this war of nerves between Moscow and Vilnius intensified. Amongst the crowd, pro Soviet demonstrators surrounded and outnumbered. By midday tanks had taken over the local defense ministry. Shots were fired, but the crowd would not be deterred. Soldiers with automatic weapons controlled the entrances and took over the building. ITN's cameraman was knocked to the ground for stopping and filming. Several people were injured in this confrontation between Soviet military might and local assistance. Paratroopers also took over the press center here and there was more confrontation with soldiers pushing back the unarmed crowds gathered in protest. The soldiers also used their weapons here. Hundreds of paratroopers now occupy the building. Lines of tanks stand in place, and as a warning to these people seeking independence, the red Soviet flag is flying in at least one building in the city. Lithuania's President now fears his parliament may be taken by force. He joined the crowds to swear an oath to fight to the death to protect it.

MR. LEHRER: President Bush was asked for his reaction to the Soviet crackdown at the White House this morning. He made these remarks after having spoken to Soviet President Gorbachev on the telephone.

PRES. BUSH: The United States feels that the use of force, particularly in the Baltics, would be counterproductive. There was some discussion of the internal affairs in the Soviet Union when I talked to Mr. Gorbachev. He knows of my position, that we view the Baltics differently. They were not incorporated. We feel that they have a very different standing than other republics, and I have reiterated my position on that.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news, the Labor Department reported wholesale prices fell .6 percent in December. It was the first drop in eight months, mainly on lower energy and food prices. For all of 1990, wholesale prices rose 5.6 percent, largely because of a sharp rise in oil prices due to the Gulf crisis. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Recapping the top story of this day, Congress continued to debate on going to war in the Persian Gulf, President Bush lobbied hard for a use of force resolution against Iraq, on the NewsHour tonight, Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney said a vote against that resolution would send the worst possible signal to Saddam Hussein. He also said he believed the United States would win a war against Iraq within a matter of months. Good night, Jim.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night with full coverage of the diplomatic, military and political developments of the day before the U.N. deadline. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.