The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, close hot races in North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Texas, highlighted this midterm election day and the Marines called up combat reserves for Persian Gulf duty. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: On tonight's NewsHour, do reserve call-ups and tough administration rhetoric mean we're moving closer to war? We have four expert views. Then Judy Woodruff examines the role of negative campaign commercials this year and growing efforts to discredit them. Finally, essayist Roger Rosenblatt discusses the love that follows musicians like Mary Martin and Leonard Bernstein to the grave. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Today was election day across the country. Voters went to the polls to elect an entire new House of Representatives, 34 Senators, 36 Governors, and more than 6,000 state and local officials. Among the hottest contests were the governor's races in Texas and Massachusetts, and the Senate race in North Carolina. In most of the country, voter turnout was expected to be light. President Bush cast his vote in Houston before returning to the White House this afternoon. Last night, Mr. Bush signed the compromise budget into law. The rancorous debate over that budget was expected to be an important factor in today's voting. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The U.S. Marines today called up more than 600 combat reserves. It was the first time since the Gulf crisis began that combat reservists have been activated. Over 35,000 non-combat troops have been called up since August. Sec. of State Baker was in Egypt today to continue talks about the Gulf situation. He met with Egyptian President Mubarak. And while in Cairo, he also talked with China's foreign minister about a United Nations resolution to authorize the use of force. When asked by reporters if China would support such a plan, the foreign minister said, "We'll wait and see". The Iraqi News Agency said today 108 hostages will soon be released, none of them Americans. The groups includes 77 Japanese. Their release is believed to be a direct result of yesterday's meeting in Baghdad between former Japanese Prime Minister Nakasone and Saddam Hussein. Today's announcement did not say when the release would happen.

MR. MacNeil: Two Palestinians were shot to death today on the West Bank in what Israeli police believe were revenge attacks for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane was shot to death last night after giving a speech in a New York hotel. The gunman was shot and wounded as he fled the hotel and is in the hospital. Police said he is a naturalized American citizen, originally from Egypt, and worked for the city as a repairman. Kahane became known throughout the world for calling for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel. We have a background report narrated by Tom Brown of Worldwide Television News.

MR. BROWNE: Meir Kahane preached violence, and it was through violence that he died. Born in Brooklyn, he emigrated to Israel and was elected to the Knessit, promising to drive Arabs out of the country. But outcried, his radically anti-Palestinian views stopped him from running for a second term. MEIR KAHANE: If they will not leave peacefully, we will use force, and I tell you that they'll leave peacefully. On the day that they hear that Meir Kahane is prime minister, they will leave peacefully. I see nothing wrong with killing someone who wants to kill me and that's normal.

MR. BROWNE: The rabbi was seen by his supporters as a freedom fighter. In West Jerusalem, at the extremist right wing party headquarters there were scenes of intense grief. Many Kahane sympathizers in Israel threatened revenge.

MR. MacNeil: For more on details of the murder and the investigation that followed it we're joined by reporter Bob Liff of the New York Newspaper Newsday who has followed Rabbi Kahane and his followers for a number of years. Bob, what is known by the police about the gunman Al Said Nosir? BOB LIFF, Newsday: Al Said Nosir emigrated from Egypt in 1981. He became a U.S. citizen in 1988. He is married; he has I believe three children. He lived most of the time in New Jersey. He now lives in Brooklyn. He is a boiler repairman, air conditioning, heating repair, who works in a courthouse in lower Manhattan. He's been doing that since 1988. The police say that they believe he acted alone. But because of the tensions surrounding Rabbi Kahane and the possibility that this is part of a cycle of violence that's kind of stemming from the Temple Mount incident, police have put on extra protection at all the Arab missions in the city, at the LL Airline, at a number of Jewish offices, including the Jewish Press, where Kahane wrote a column and once was an editor.

MR. MacNeil: Let me come back to some of those things in a moment. There was a report today, I think it was CNN, that Al Said Nosir, the gunman, had lived on the West Bank for a while. Is that a confirmed report, or is that --

MR. LIFF: We haven't been able to confirm that. We've been looking for links that he may have to any of the other groups. There's a rumor floating around within -- I was at Rabbi Kahane's funeral today -- and there's a feeling among some of the Jewish activists that there was a hit list, there was some formal hit list of which Rabbi Kahane topped it, that there were supposedly five names on the hit list of Jewish extremists, of right wing Jews, and so there's a great deal of fear. And we also talked to Arabs in Brooklyn. We have a very, very large Arab population in Brooklyn. And they're equally fearful, because they fear this same sense of cycle, but we haven't been able to tie down anything yet.

MR. MacNeil: I should just add that the gunman who was hit in the chin by a shot from a post office policeman when he ran across the street is in sedation in the hospital and they say it's probably a couple of days before the police can really question him very much.

MR. LIFF: He hasn't talked at all.

MR. MacNeil: Yeah. Do the police know that he acted alone, or is this wishful thinking and they just hope that he acted alone?

MR. LIFF: It's very much in the police interest for him to have acted alone.

MR. MacNeil: And Mayor Dinkins said today, let's hope to God that he acted alone.

MR. LIFF: It's partly because of these reports of this hit list, although we must tell you we're dealing in kind of a fringe element. Kahane was a charismatic leader of a fringe group and actually leaves this group now without a leader and when you have a militant group and you chop the head off, what the police are concerned with is you have an awful lot of chaos. So they really don't know of any links that this gunman has, but, you know, I assume that they're looking for it. The FBI is looking for it. The FBI has not countermanded the police comment that he seems to have acted alone, because there's a lot more to this story to come.

MR. MacNeil: Sure. Do they think it's significant that no Arab group has claimed responsibility for it or no group has claimed responsibility even though the Islamic Jihad and Abou Abbas, the terrorist who lives in Syria, have applauded it publicly today?

MR. LIFF: I would think that that's part of what the police are depending on. There's a certain routine that happens in terrorist attacks, and the only thing is we have no experience with terrorist attacks in this country related to the Middle East except for the murder of Alex Oda, who was the -- who was the Arab in California who was killed, but people suspected of having links with Rabbi Kahane, but that link to Rabbi Kahane was never proven.

MR. MacNeil: The administration -- the American administrations, going back to the Carter administration, but certainly in the last 10 years, have been warning repeatedly that we must expect that some forms of terrorism would arrive in the United States. Do the New York City police, are they acting tonight as though Middle East terrorism has now arrived in the United States?

MR. LIFF: It seems to me because of the extra security and because of the number of police and the number of undercover police -- I actually recognized that at the funeral today -- that they are not saying that but they are acting as if that is the case.

MR. MacNeil: And the actions they are taking are -- you mentioned briefly and I interrupted you --

MR. LIFF: They -- immediately after the shooting last night, there were calls placed to some prominent Jewish leaders from the police saying, look out, there was immediately security put on the Israeli mission, on all of the Arab missions to the UN, as well as the Arab consulates here in New York City. I know that there was a car, for instance, found of the Jewish Press this morning, a car that didn't look as if it belonged there, drew a rather large police response, which turned out not to be anything. But people are, but the police are edgy, without actually saying they're edgy.

MR. MacNeil: One more question. You've been covering the followers of Rabbi Kahane for some time and I read a story you did this summer on some of his followers being trained in the mountains North of New York City in the use of firearms. Are they the kinds of people who would turn to violence, themselves, to avenge this killing or are they milder people than that?

MR. LIFF: That's a very, very difficult question. The story I did this summer had to do with a group called the Jewish Defense Group, which is an offshoot of an offshoot of JDL. When Rabbi Kahane left New York and settled in Israel in 1971, he left behind a JDL that basically crumbled, again tied to his charismatic leadership. There is clearly the potential the violence. There were two Arabs, an elderly Arab couple killed near Nablus, I believe it was, on the West Bank today. Saul Margolis who is an attorney from Washington vowed revenge, said -- he is now the head of Kach USA, which is the Kach movement, is the Kahane movement, and he said that Arabs should not sleep comfortably tonight. So there are threats of violence. To link that to a specific act of violence is a much more complex question.

MR. MacNeil: Right. Well, Bob Liff, thank you for joining us.

MR. LIFF: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The fight for control of the government of India intensified today. A no confidence vote over Prime Minister B.P. Singh's handling of a violent religious dispute is scheduled for tomorrow. Former Prime Minister Rajiv Ghandi today gave his endorsement to the leader of the opposition Socialist Party. More than 300 people have been killed during the past two weeks in Hindu-Moslem violence. There was a major earthquake in Iran today. It measured 7 on the Richter Scale. It's epicenter was in the mountains, about 550 miles South of Tehran. It is not known how many people, if any, were killed. About 50,000 people died in Northern Iran in June in a quake that measured 7.7 on the Richter Scale.

MR. MacNeil: That's our summary of the news. Still ahead, are we moving closer to war in the Gulf, the role of negative ads in today's elections, and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - CLOSER TO WAR?

MR. LEHRER: Our lead story tonight is an update of where matters stand in the Persian Gulf. Closer to war or closer to peace. The question is there to be asked everyday but today in particular the Marines announced the call up of reserves for combat duty in the Gulf. There are reports that the Army and Air Force may soon do the same thing as the total U.S. force in the Gulf goes over 200,000. It comes while Secretary of State Baker is in the Region shoring up alliances and resolves and follows several days of tough talk from President Bush. We have four perspectives Bruce van Voorst a Senior National Security Affairs Correspondent and former Mid East Bureau Chief for Time Magazine. Geoffrey Kemp served on the National Security Council Staff in the First reagan Administration. He is now a Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He just returned from a trip to the Middle East. Phebe Marr a Senior Fellow at the National Defense University. She has lived and taught in Iraq and has written many books about that Country. Rashid Khalidi is a Professor at the University of Chicago. Author of numerous books on the Middle East, He joins us tonight from Chicago. Bruce Van Voorst to you first. Why are the Marines and the others going to call up combat reservists?

MR. VAN VOORST: Well first point to be made is that they have had this authority for some time. Although the other troops that were called up were not combat types, they were combat support types. They were medical people truck drivers and things like that. The Marines operate on a different system and they really need these combat forces to be called up now to fill out their capability. The key point to keep in mind, I think, that this is not related to the 100,000 call up that we were talking about for the last couple of weeks.

MR. LEHRER: The Marines specifically?

MR. VAN VOORST: Yes 630 or so.

MR. LEHRER: But the other one is still out there right?

MR. VAN VOORST: The possibility is definitely out there.

MR. LEHRER: We are talking about Army, Air Force and even some Navy personal as well. Is that right?

MR. VAN VOORST: Right but the thing is that the military will call up active forces up first. As Secretary Cheney pointed out last week he still has 50,000 troops in Europe that he has top remove during the course of year. These are the kind of troops that they really want in Saudi Arabia because they are well trained and heavily armored. They have the big tanks and the modern equipment and it is likely the big transit of forces that go would be some of the European forces. There are also let's not forget further active forces in the States that can be called up. Only when that is taken up I think will we see the call up of the National Guards. Again the Military wants heavy forces out there.

MR. LEHRER: Heavy forces?

MR. VAN VOORST: Meaning big tanks, big artillery. The kind of things that really role over your toes. Because they have seen in the recent weeks how Saddam Hussein's forces have been strengthened. The Iraqi forces are digging in and that is a big heavily armored outfit.

MR. LEHRER: I know that numbers are tricky on this Bruce but I said introducing this right now over 200,000. Where are we? Is there any way of knowing exactly how many American servicemen women are there now?

MR. VAN VOORST: No body knows preciously. It is part of the game that the Pentagon plays with us to keep us in the dark because they want to keep Saddam Hussein in the dark. His intelligence is very bad we understand. So precise numbers or the precise location of the forces is not entirely clear. But it is also clear that we are, you have to differentiate the forces on the ground in Saudi Arabia, we have an amphibious force the Marines have in the Persian Gulf and also we have four air craft carriers with battle groups and that is a lot of soldiers and sailors as well. But we are pushing probably a 180,000 troops on the ground in Saudi Arabia right now.

MR. LEHRER: If this operation that you just outlined either bringing them from the States or bringing them from Europe it could go to 250,000 to 300,000?

MR. VAN VOORST: I never believed it but it looks as we might have a quarter of a million troops on the ground. And by the way there is no ceiling. Cheney keeps saying that he will not name a figure on how many troops should be brought in. The question is what it takes to make an impression on Saddam Hussein and the military does not want to have that great disadvantage which still exists.

MR. LEHRER: Okay Phebe Marr what impression do you believe this is having on Saddam Hussein? if he is the person who must be impressed what is the impression?

MS. MARR: Well unfortunately the impression is not sufficiently solid yet to show much signs of moving in the direction that we would like to see. namely a withdrawal from Kuwait. I think the rethoric from President Bush. I think this kind of call up, I think Secretary Baker's trip out there has made Saddam nervous and edgy. He called in his generals the other day. There seems to be more preparation for a possible attack but it is my view aside from a certain amount of smoke and mirrors we don't really see to much movement from the kind of strategy that he has been pursuing from the start and that strategy is if possible to weaken and break up the alliance. Though I do think that he has focused on the potential military threat. I think that he is leaving the boycott aside for the moment as something he can cope with and what he would like to do is to neutralize the military threat and therefore he is focusing on what he perceives to be the weakest elements in the coalition. France, perhaps, China or the Soviet Union and if he can get one or more of those, particularly one of those on the Security Council to neutralize the military threat to say this is out rather we are going to solve it politically he would have achieved part of his objectives.

MR. LEHRER: So your perception of his perception of the word threat is the UN coalition led by the UNited States will in fact attack either Kuwait or attack Iraq in order to get him out of Kuwait or in order to get this thing off the dime?

MS. MARR: Oh yes, I think, that is definitely his perception of what the potential threat is. It would certainly be an air attack on his assets in Iraq, and I don't want to speak whether that would be followed up by a ground attack but he is definitely nervous about that and I think he would like to neutralize this by these political ploy.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Khalidi, is that how Saddam Hussein reads the viability of that threat that is going to lead to a possible peaceful solution or this is going to have to be followed up on in some real concrete way?

MR. KHALIDI: Well. I think, that he has to both perceive that the threat is credible and I agree with Phebe. I am not entirely convinced that the Iraq is convinced that the United States will or can successfully launch a military operation. And I think there also has to be a carrot in addition to the stick. That is to say there has to be some kind of opening for him to go in to. The idea of his accepting or Iraq accepting unconditional surrender has not seemed particularly appetizing, I am sure to the Iraqis and I don't think they are very likely to accept that.

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. No matter how many troops we put in and how heavy they are and all the things that Bruce just outlined that will never happen, you think on its own?

MR. KHALIDI: I tend to doubt it. I really don't think that we are going to see the kind of climb down that seems to be part of the scenario put forth by the Administration. I really do not see the Iraqi leadership deciding that it is going to put its tail between its legs and crawl out of Kuwait essentially giving a victory to the United States. I think that they are not convinced that the United States is capable of taking the kind of casualties which would required to evict the Iraqi Army from Kuwait and I think that the Iraqis believe in addition to the things that Phebe Marr talked about, possibilities of splits in Western international alliance that the Arab alliance is not solid. And that is may be possible for them to work on splits in that. They certainly know that there is a lot of public support in the Arab World for a peaceful option including in many of the countries that have contributed troops to the American operation in Saudi Arabia.

MR. LEHRER: You mean they believe or the Iraqis believe that Egypt say Syria just to use two examples would prefer a peaceful rather than military solution to this?

MR. KHALIDI: Well there have been many signs out of both Saudi Arabia and Egypt that both of these countries would probably prefer a peaceful outcome if they can get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. I think that leaders of both countries have said that they would prefer not to see Iraq destroyed as a power. They would not like to see the balance in the Region complete tipped in favor for example of Iran and both of these countries as well as other countries in the region all want Kuwait out of Iraq very badly, probably want to see some trimming of Iraqi wings as it were but they are probably very distressed of an Iraq utterly destroyed. For one thing because their public opinion is probably going to hold very heavy Iraqi casualties against them for aligning with the United States against an Arab country if there is massive destruction in Iraq which is most likely, I think if there is a war.

MR. LEHRER: Now where does that leave U.S. policy and strategy Mr. Kemp?

MR. KEMP: I think that it is right on track. I think there are all sorts of problems but it is quite remarkable that we have come this far so far with out any break in the coalition. Sure Mr. Heath has gone to Baghdad, Mr. Nakasoni has, there is concern about Willie Brandt and we don't know what the Soviets are up too but by and large this extraordinary coalition has stuck together and in my judgement because we have pursued a two track policy of building up this enormous military force while pursuing the UN Sanctions. I think the dilemma is that the two sanctions that really count, that is to say the sanctions on high technology and the sanctions on revenues are not really going to start to bite for several months. Unfortunately they will probably start to bite when we lose the window of opportunity for using military force.

MR. LEHRER: What do you mean?

MR. KEMP: Well I think that most experts believe that the best time to use force in probably between late November and the end of January. After that the weather starts to change. It starts to get much hotter and you then run in to the Muslim month of Ramadon which could create a lot of problems for us in the Arab world.

MR. LEHRER: That just is not time to go to war?

MR. KEMP: Well that is what everyone says. Also the weather is getting hot. That means that if you don't have a war between now and February you may have to wait until next October and the question is can we keep the coalition together till next October. Keep all those troops out there in the desert.

MR. LEHRER: You have heard what mr. Khalidi and Phebe Marr have said. How does the United States and the coalition show its resolve short of firing a live round at some body?

MR. KEMP: Well I think two ways. First I think more noose type resolutions from the UN. Inching gradually towards an agreement on the limited use of force.

MR. LEHRER: Limited use of force?

MR. KEMP: Limited use of force. Lets say that we had a UN resolution that said we could sent in unarmed vehicles or ships or planes to feed the people in out Embassies. Would the Iraqis attack. There are things that you can do short of actually starting a war that would need UN backing that I think would send a message to Saddam Hussein.

MR. LEHRER: Bruce Van Voorst do the people at the people at the Pentagon the military people who are sitting in front of maps and working out strategies do they believe that kind of thing is possible. To go in some limited way and do something?

MR. VAN VOORST: I don't think so. I think that is a very precarious course to follow because if we go in there either with helicopters trying to resupply the embassy or as some people have suggested possibly trying to bring a ship in that could provide the provocation for military operation that we really do not want to do at this point.

MR. LEHRER: Now when you say that we do not want us to do that at this point. Who is the we?

MR. VAN VOORST: The senior military command at the Department of Defense. Then also I think the President.

MR. LEHRER: Why? Their conversations that they are having now as we are having this conversation what kind of casualties are they talking about. What kind of war are they talking about?

MR. VAN VOORST: They take very seriously the Iraqi Military capabilities and the Iraqis have 430,000 troops, a lot of tanks, a lot of artillery, the have a lot of experience in defensive operations, they are dug in, they have an infra structure. This is not going to be a push over and I think this is a factor which has become very clear not only in the Pentagon but in the State Department and the White House as well. I agree with Jeff that we are on a course for which there is still time. The President is turning the screw. Today's marine call up is just another notch on this. We want to see how the embargo is working. Again the embargo is not going to bring Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait by itself but it is going to make very clear what we may be able to do in the longer run. The President has to make it clear,to everybody including American public opinion and our allies in this very complex coalition that has exhausted every means that he can to achieve a peaceful settlement.

MR. LEHRER: Bruce I read somewhere today in preparation for this discussion that we are having today, unfortunately I don't have it in front of me. Unfortunately it wasn't Time Magazine. But that most of the experts at the Pentagon are saying that once it goes in to military action that at least 30,000 Americans will probably die, in other words 30,000 in that area. Is that what they are figuring?

MR. VAN VOORST: Two points on that. First of all if we have military operations they are going to be all out. There is going to a heavy air operation, there is going to be some ground operations. It is going to be a combined military operation which carries with it the real possibility of casualties. Now how many casualties that is some thing that depends so much. These are guesstimants. These are extrapolations from the past. A critical factor there is whether they can crack the moral of the Iraqi Army in that first week. If they can the casualties will be much lower but no body that I know of is projecting an accurate figure on this.

MR. LEHRER: Now you are saying Ms. Marr from Saddam Hussein's point of view he doesn't believe that the American public and the American Government would support an action that would cause that kind of scenario?

MS. MARR: That seems pretty firmly fixed in his mind that the Americans can not stomach high casualties. he has Vietnam in mind. Of course he doesn't understand our system. he doesn't know how to read us very well but he does watch CNN and he listens to Congressional debates and so forth and I think the critical issue here is does the United States have actually have the will to use this force that is has amassed. I would like to say that he is not without his vulnerabilities. His communications network could be cut off. Those 430,000 troops that are sitting there their logistics could be cut off. No troops like to be cut off with out water, bullets and the moral of those troops that he has sitting there are rather questionable too.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Mr. Khalidi this question. Do you think that if the United States or the coalition tried a limited action along the lines that Geoffrey Kemp outlined that Saddam Hussein would let it stop at that? Or do you think his reaction would be all out?

MR. KHALIDI: It is hard to say. I think there is a great possibility that his reaction would be massive. It depends on how he reads what the United States is up too. And I would agree with Phebe Marr, I don't think, that Iraqi leadership reading of what the United States is doing is necessarily is very good. I would add however that one of the problems that it is unclear to the Iraqis and many people exactly what the objective is of this whole operation. Is it simply get the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait. Is it simply to end the aggression and implement Security Council Resolutions or is it the destruction of Iraq's military potential and I think the lack of clarity on that. The fact that these things have been discussed very widely in this country are listened to by the Iraqis means that it may be possible for the Iraqi Leadership to get a lot more support from the Iraqi people because they and many people in the Arab world probably believe that Iraq as a power is going to be destroyed. Than would be the case it were simply an issue of Kuwait which in the rethoric of the Administration I am afraid that it is not when we are talking about Hitler and Munich analogies it is very clear that it is not and that is the kind of thing that is likely to encourage, I would argue a massive response.

MR. LEHRER: Geoffrey Kemp what do you think of that?

MR. KEMP: Well I think two things. One I think that the Pentagon and the figures that Bruce gave, very conservative quite deliberately, I think quite correctly. we are preparing for a worst case. 30,000 casualties it would be a horrible war. But there is probability it wouldn't be that way at all. No wars actually turn out to be the way they are planned. It could be the Iraqis collapse. It could be a very very quick war. We don't know what is going to happen that is the first point. The second point is that I think the one thing that most of the Arab Leaders, the Israelis, ourselves the European allies agree on that whatever else Saddam Hussein can not be allowed to withdraw behind his old borders and sit on this massive military arsenal. So something has to be done to defang him. Not necessarily to destroy him. Not to weaken Iraq to the point there is a vacuum there but to at least make sure that he does not get hold of nuclear weapons. And my judgement is that can be done through other ways than military force. Although that may be problematic in the future. If that is so there is a good case to be made for sticking with sanctions even after we have resolved the Kuwait problem.

MR. LEHRER: What you have just outlined at least. I think would be the Administration position as we speak. Is that your understanding of the Administration position?

MR. KEMP: Yes the Administration has not yet spelled out how it intends to deal with the Iraqi military machine after he has withdrawn from Kuwait. One way is to go in and virtually destroy but that brings up enormous problems of invading Iraq, occupying Iraq. We would break the coalition if we did that. No the preferred option is to stick with sanctions and I think we'll get enormous consensus on this throughout the whole world. No one wants Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons.

MR. LEHRER: Go ahead Mr. Khalidi?

MR. KHALIDI: The point I would make is that this is a sound approach as far as it goes but it doesn't go far enough. The problem of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a regional problem. Addressing solely Iraq's possession of nuclear weapons or chemical weapons or ballistic missiles is a partial view at best. I think that what ought to be done now is an aggressive approach to deal with the whole issue of the proliferation of these weapons throughout the Middle East. Doing it any other way is going to be unsuccessful and it is going to be seen as partial and is going to lead to a backlash.

MR. LEHRER: Bruce.

MR. VAN VOORST: That's terrific. I think everybody in the administration would endorse the objective of trying to deal with the broader, longer-term questions, but that is not the administration policy at the moment. The administration policy is out of Iraq, out of Kuwait, and restore the Kuwait government. There's no way that the military operation by itself can be assured of achieving these broader goals of the proliferation or taming Saddam Hussein in the future. That has to be in the context of some other negotiations and take place later unless we want to go in, as suggested, and actually have military occupation.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Do you agree, Ms. Marr, that there is a confused signal coming from the administration at this point as to what the objectives are? You heard what Mr. Khalidi outlined a moment ago.

MS. MARR: Well, I suppose there's a little confusion. From inside the administration where I sit, it doesn't look so confused. We have said pretty clearly that we want to deter an invasion of Saudi Arabia. We feel we've done that. We want a withdrawal from Kuwait. The President has said he wants security in the Gulf, which I take to be an improved balance of power in the region, a reduction of Iraq's military arsenal, its million man army which it's throwing around in the region and perhaps may be constituting as much of a threat as chemical weapons, and we want our citizens and citizens of other countries out safely. And I believe, as Geoff said, that we're following the two track policy. I would like to say also that Iraq's economy was in bad shape before this crisis and however long the sanctions go, it's going to be in even worse shape when it's through, and I believe that we would be able to have a lot of economic leverage on Iraq to induce it to move in a different direction in terms of its armaments than it is now.

MR. LEHRER: Finally and quickly, Bruce, this time last week there was a lot of talk because the President was out on the campaign trail talking about Hitler and all of that sort of thing, there's a lot of war talk, war fever, is that real? Is it worse now than was a week ago? Is it getting better? How would you judge it?

MR. VAN VOORST: I think the President has made something of a mistake by focusing on the war issue last week. It was easier to campaign on the basis of a war which hasn't started than on the basis of recession, which has, but I think that now that the elections are passed, we can look at this whole issue again and this week's events in Saudi Arabia with Sec. Baker, there are the controls -- that seems to be another -- there's progress across the front. This does not mean we won't have war, but I think we're in a period now where there is a lot of restriction and a lot of diplomacy taking place.

MR. LEHRER: Phebe Marr, gentlemen, thank you very much. FOCUS - VOTE - MUD-SLINGING

MR. MacNeil: Up next on this election night, negative advertising. Yesterday Judy Woodruff took a look at this campaign trend and the impact it's had in this election cycle.

MS. WOODRUFF: Political mudslinging isn't new. It has been a mainstay of American politics since the first days of the republic. What has changed is the use of negative campaigning on television. With a 30 second attack ad, mudslinging has reached new lows.

ANNOUNCER: [NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AID] Bush supports the death penalty for first degree murderers. Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison. One was Willie Horton, who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times.

MS. WOODRUFF: This now famous commercial about a Massachusetts prisoner released under a law pushed by Michael Dukakis was perhaps the most vicious of the 1988 Presidential campaign. It highlighted a national trend toward media mudslinging in political races. That trend has continued this year in House, Senate, and Governor's contests around the country. In California, the law and order issue is being used in the Governor's race. In his TV spots, Republican Pete Wilson has focused attention on his Democratic rival Dianne Feinstein's support of a former State Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird, who was a proponent of the death penalty.

PETE WILSON: When I was Mayor, I went to the funeral of too many cops. I've had a campaign worker raped. It does get me in the gut. I'm damned if I'm going to have that kind of state and we can change it.

ANNOUNCER: Pete Wilson opposed Rose Bird. Dianne Feinstein was one of Bird's fund-raising chairmen.

MS. WOODRUFF: For her part, Feinstein has gone after Wilson's voting record in the Senate.

ANNOUNCER: Republican Senate Leader Robert Dole explains how they got Pete Wilson to vote against Social Security.

SEN. DOLE: Sen. Pete Wilson had had an appendectomy that morning. We rolled him in from the hospital, he came up to the capital, he was under heavy sedation, and they rolled him in the floor. I said vote yes, he voted yes. We rolled him out again. He does better under sedation.

ANNOUNCER: Imagine what Willie Brown in the legislature would do to him in Sacramento.

MS. WOODRUFF: One of the most negative Senate races has been in Massachusetts, where Republican James Rappaport is trying to defeat Democrat incumbent John Kerrey. In his TV commercials, Rappaport reminds viewers of Kerrey's job as a former Lt. Governor to now unpopular Michael Dukakis.

ANNOUNCER: He's back. Oh, not Mike Dukakis; he's gone. But the man who was Mike Dukakis's lt. governor, he's back. He and Dukakis were a team; they think like a team. They both believe in bigger government. Mike Dukakis stayed here and John Kerrey took their ideas to Washington, tax and spend, spend and tax. Kerrey and Dukakis, Dukakis and Kerrey. You thought he was gone, but he's back.

MS. WOODRUFF: After this commercial ran, a poll showed Rappaport moving to within 4 points of Kerrey. Kerrey struck back.

ANNOUNCER: James Rappaport, he launched his career in his father's real estate empire, dealt with millions in federal housing dollars. Up in Vermont, James Rappaport headed the family's dairy farm and milked taxpayers for another cash subsidy. Living high in Hawaii, he made a fortune on a savings & loan deal that cost taxpayers millions. Now James Rappaport wants to go even higher to write our tax laws unless we burst his balloon.

MS. WOODRUFF: Commercials for House races have also taken on a cutthroat edge. In Virginia's eighth district, Democrat James Moran has attacked the Republican incumbent Stan Parris on the abortion issue.

ANNOUNCER: Stan Parris has a different view than the rest of us on a woman's right to choose. Stan Parris has said that women who choose the option of abortion should be treated as criminals and serve jail term. Stan Parris would rather see Virginia's women behind bars than trust them to make their own choice. Our country was founded on principles of individual rights and liberty, and it's a shame Stan Parris has such a different view on just exactly what that means.

MS. WOODRUFF: Parris has in turn unloaded on Moran.

STAN PARRIS: My opponent is trying to mislead you about my position on abortion. My position is clear. I oppose abortion, except when the life of the mother is in danger or in cases of rape and incest. Moran, on the other hand, supports abortion on demand for any reason, abortion late in pregnancy, abortion for teen-agers without their parents' knowledge, even abortions because parents don't like the sex of a child. Now I ask you, who's the extremist on abortion?

MS. WOODRUFF: Just this year, local news organizations have started to scrutinize the most negative ads. Some newspapers are printing what they call truth boxes to examine the claims in the ads and measure their accuracy, and a few television news outfits are also airing segments analyzing the ads.

SPOKESMAN: And if you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar, what exactly do you do? That's the position the Wilson people face on the issue of the Senator's attendance, which is among the worst. Their solution, to go on the attack. Here's the ad.

ANNOUNCER: [NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD] When Dianne Feinstein attacks Pete Wilson's attendance, remember, Wilson's attendance is a solid 92 percent.

SPOKESMAN: Wrong. That was Wilson's attendance last year. This year up to the August recess, Wilson had an 88 percent record, according to Congressional Quarterly Magazine. In either year, Congressional Quarterly says that was the third worst record in the Senate.

ANNOUNCER: Wilson missed votes while helping earthquake victims and foran emergency appendectomy.

SPOKESMAN: True enough. What the ad doesn't say is that two days after his appendectomy in 1985, Wilson was wheeled onto the Senate floor in a hospital bed to cast the key vote on a bill reducing Medicare funding and freezing Social Security benefits.

MS. WOODRUFF: Whether or not this has prompted candidates and their media consultants actually to change their strategies, it seems that at least some are being more careful. We're joined now by David Broder, National Political Correspondent and columnist with the Washington Post, Larry McCarthy, Republican Political Consultant to several campaigns in this election, including the Pete Wilson For Governor Campaign in California, and Richard Kimball, Director of the Center for National Independence in Politics, which publishes a voter's self-defense manual to help inform voters about candidates running for office in their state. Mr. Kimball joins us from public television station KUAT in Tucson, Arizona. David, let me begin with you. How do you define what's negative? Is it just criticizing the other candidate, or is it criticizing beyond a certain, with a certain tone or --

MR. BRODER: I think when substantially all the information that the voter receives is about the other candidate than the one who's paying for the ad in my books that is a negative ad. It is telling you some reason not to vote for the other candidate, not a reason to vote for the person who's paying for it.

MS. WOODRUFF: You have traveled around so many of the states for their elections this year. What's your impression? Are the ads more negative this year than they've been in the past, the same?

MR. BRODER: I don't think you could say that they're more negative Judy. I think we've been seeing this. I think the first time I was really struck by it was in the off year election of '86 four years ago when many candidates in Governor and Senate races particularly in both parties found that there were fewer risks than they had expected in just going out and knocking down the reputation of their opponent. It was picked up to some extent by both sides in the primaries of Presidential primaries of 1988 and then with quite spectacular effect by the Bush campaign in the general election of '88 and 1990 just carries on in that pattern.

MS. WOODRUFF: Richard Kimball, what's your impression? Are the ads any worse this year than you've seen them in the past?

MR. KIMBALL: I think the strategies of negative campaigning have been fairly consistent over history. One famous ad back in '64 used against Goldwater that everybody uses as an example showed a nuclear bomb going off in the background with a young lady picking petals off a flower. In fact, I think Adlai Stevenson as applied to the TV ads, an early quote in the 1950 race focused on it; he said, "If we're going to start campaigning and advertising ourselves as boxes of cereal, democracy will die, for you could not win the Presidency without proving you're unworthy of the job." By his definition, we're of course all out proving that we are unworthy of the job. I think the dangerous part of the negative ads is that it's become quite sophisticated. Candidates spend most of their time today raising the money so that they can go out and accurately measure what their constituencies want to purchase in the political marketplace and then they go have their own image tailored to fit or their opponent's image of course in the worst tradition not to fit and then they saturate the public with that meaningless emotionalism. And that's what's dangerous. Today a candidate --

MS. WOODRUFF: I was just going to say let's switch to Larry McCarthy. Are you guilty of what Richard Kimball was just describing?

MR. McCARTHY: Well, I think the use of negative campaign commercials has probably plateaued this year. From what I can tell, they are a little bit less strident than they have bene in past years, but I think in terms of the proportion of a campaign advertising dollar that goes to negative or comparative commercials, that's about the same as it's been in the past.

MS. WOODRUFF: You called in a column earlier this year -- and you have really been talking about this for some time -- on the media to scrutinize these ads. Some of that has happened this year. Is it enough and is it having any effect?

MR. BRODER: More of it has happened than I ever imagined. It's in a clear majority of the states; now more than one newspaper is taking on this task of helping the voters sort out what is true, what's false, what's exaggerated, what's distorted in these ads. And I think it does help. It's not a complete answer, but I think we are a step further down the road toward keeping some degree of honesty in campaign dialogue than we were two years or four years ago.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is it having an effect, Larry McCarthy on what you do?

MR. McCARTHY: Yes, it makes us much more careful as we draft the commercials. This time for the first time in my memory at least, we actually fax out quite voluminous amounts of documentation and Federal Express out copies of the commercials to twenty or thirty reporters every time we do a commercial.

MS. WOODRUFF: But realistically -- and are they scrutinizing every piece of every ad you put out?

MR. McCARTHY: Every ad we put out goes in one of the truth boxes in several California papers and at least one California TV station.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is it that way all over the country, David?

MR. BRODER: No, it's not all over the country. I think it's rare that a television station has stepped up to the way in which KRON has done in San Francisco. I assume that's the one you're referring to.

MR. McCARTHY: Yes, that's it.

MR. BRODER: And there are not nearly as many of those. I think in probably 30 or more states that I'm aware of, at least one newspaper has been doing this pretty consistently and with all of the ads in the campaigns.

MS. WOODRUFF: And Richard Kimball, is this the sort of thing that voters should take some, should be relieved at that finally the press is beginning to look at these ads?

MR. KIMBALL: Well, sure, I think that's a positive step, that any scrutiny, any vigilance over inaccuracy in advertising is important, but I don't think that's the only issue here. We're talking about a system that is designed to tailor images and put out information, whether it's positive about the candidate, themselves, or negative about their opponent. It is essentially meaningless in terms of making wise, prudent decisions in the voting booth. The fact is we have a whole industry that has grown up around this, that is used exclusively to manipulate the voter's emotions around things that don't lend themselves to a useful discussion of concerns facing society and the options for dealing with it. So how can we be expected in the end to govern ourselves successfully if we aren't going to be given the one essential ingredient to self-government and that is that useful discussion? We turn the whole system into one national crapshoot every two years if we don't provide that necessity.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, how do you get that useful discussion to take place inthis climate?

MR. KIMBALL: Well, I think -- first I think we'll probably have a problem in convincing people that democracy really does work. We've got 3/4 of the American public who are not expected to show up at the polls. We're the least participating democracy on the face of the globe today. You have to do that. But once you've done that, then the answer I think becomes rather simple. You have to ensure access, instant access, to useful, factual information about candidates. The systems that the Senator deals with is trying to test a way in which we put an enormous amount of information at people's instant disposal, candidates' backgrounds, birthplace, voting record, who's paying for their campaign, the analysis of their performance by liberal groups, conservative groups, a variety of them, and then it just sits there, waiting for that instant, that moment when each individual voter becomes interested, whether they're arguing with our spouse or a neighbor or they hear some outrageous television ad, all they have to do is pick up a phone and access information that they think is important about who they want to know it about, rather than the other way around. Turn the system that has been used to manipulate them to their advantage.

MR. BRODER: The key thing is that the mass media, television in particular, can be used to impart useful information to voters and you don't have to go back into ancient history to find examples of that. Even in these 30 second ads, all you have to do is look at the ads that Ronald Reagan did for his own candidacy in 1980 and you can see how a candidate can use the campaign, can use television itself to give people vital information about what he intends to do in government and that is the model that we have to somehow get back in front of these candidates.

MS. WOODRUFF: Larry McCarthy, what do you do instead to get to a more positive message, or in your view, is that just not realistic to even try to do that?

MR. McCARTHY: We, I think almost every political and media consultant would prefer to run positive commercials, and they usually do that until the point at which the polls say you are falling or you're behind and you have X amount of days to close the gap and what is the best method to do that, and more often than not, that is a contrast or negative commercial.

MS. WOODRUFF: David, as long as the negative commercials work in the minds of these people who are either running or who are running their campaign, are you ever really going to be able to make any inroads?

MR. BRODER: Well, they may work for the consultants and they may work for the candidates. I think for the moment that the vote is counted, but they don't work in creating the conditions that enable those people to function in government. I'll give you two quick examples. George Bush told the American people over and over, "Read my lips, no new taxes." When he had to raise taxes as President, he is paying a very heavy political price for that duplicity. The same thing happened to Jim Florio, the Democratic candidate for governor of New Jersey who had to do the same kind of flip flop. Negative campaigns do not create conditions that enable the winners to govern, and I can't see if I were a candidate, why I'd want to run a campaign that I know is going to undercut my ability to function in the office that I'm seeking.

MS. WOODRUFF: But what about David's broader point, or deeper point, rather, that you know you've got to at some point think about what happens after election day and that is attempting to govern? The consultantshave a responsibility in that area, political --

MR. KIMBALL: I think that they do have some responsibility but remember that their first responsibility is to make sure that their candidate, the person who hopefully they share their beliefs and commitment to is elected to office in order to get those programs enacted.

MS. WOODRUFF: David.

MR. BRODER: I'm sure that that's the way that they define their responsibility. And the difficulty is that that responsibility essentially stops on election night when governing begins.

MS. WOODRUFF: Richard Kimball, when you hear this discussion, do you get more optimistic, less optimistic, about your ability and the abilities of others trying to reform the system to do something about it?

MR. KIMBALL: Well, I think the only way you reform the system is by making sure that voters have access -- if they choose to use it, it's up to them -- but have access, ready access to actual useful information about these candidates. Candidates are going to do what is prudent, what allows them to win, and if a negative commercial brings you up in the polls in the final weeks, you're going to do that negative commercial or you're not going to win and the people that will do negative commercials will win. And there's sort of a natural weaning away. All the people in this country that are unwilling to participate in that garbage, of course, don't run for office, and that says something about the system. Those that tend to have a little higher character, that don't do those kinds of things, aren't willing to participate, we don't use in the selection process in leadership in this country.

MR. BRODER: And the serious threat is that it's not just potentially good candidates and office holders who are opting out, more and more voters are opting out, and I think reform -- we've talked very politely about this -- we're talking about the survival of the small deed democratic system which depends on the participation as well as the consent of the government, the extent to which people are saying, I don't care to participate if this is all that politics is about. If they're not talking about the choices that are relevant to my life and they're not giving me any clues as to what they're going to do the day after the election's over, why should I participate? We cannot have a functioning democracy that is based on that degree of cynicism.

MS. WOODRUFF: Go ahead.

MR. KIMBALL: People I think have to look at these people, Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, as nothing more than what they are, the hired help. That's all they were ever designed to be. The problem is that in their campaigns, which is supposed to be their application of employment, they're putting nonsense in it, and people are enormously frustrated and can't deal with that, that huge industry that has labeled this nonsense of negative advertising, of image tailoring, hug the spouse, ride a horse through the forest or whatever the latest commercial is, destroys democracy, it strips them of that one absolute requirement, and that is a discussion of issues. I mean, the only way you get around that is by giving them an alternative to shortcut that campaign and give what is useful independently and that's the only way I think in the end you provide people with that useful, but not only useful information, but you provide a salutary effect amongst candidates, themselves, if there's a way to double check the credibility of commercials, and statements on the part of the candidates.

MS. WOODRUFF: Larry McCarthy, do you have one last word to defend yourself?Are you destroying democracy?

MR. McCARTHY: I'd like to think not. Perhaps the most depressing part of my job is when you've aired the commercial with a full week at a thousand gross rating points, and so the average Californian, let's say, saw the commercial 10 times, you'd be stunned to see how little actually sinks in and how little people actually pay attention. You know, we do talk in very simple, easy to understand terms in commercials, because we have to in order to communicate to the largest number of voters out there.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right, gentlemen. We thank you for being with us. It's a subject that I have a feeling we may be coming back to again. David Broder, Richard Kimball, Larry McCarthy, thank you all for being with us. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Once again, the top stories this Tuesday, today was election day for the House of Representatives as well as 34 Senate seats, 36 governors and thousands of state and local officials, and the Marines called up more than 600 combat reserves for duty in the Gulf. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. Our discussion on the Gulf ran a little long and the Rosenblatt essay didn't make it, but it will on some other night. And we will see you here tonight with Gergen & Shields and other analysis of the election. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.