The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight a report and reaction to the escalating death and disarray in Indonesia, a Newsmaker interview with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, political analysis by Mark Shields and Kate O'Beirne, substituting for Paul Gigot, and the story and music of Frank Sinatra, the one of a kind who died last night. It all follows our summary of the news this Friday. NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The capital of Indonesia was calm tonight, after four days of arson and looting. Tanks and armored personnel carriers patrolled the streets of Jakarta, where 200 were killed. Many were looters trapped in shopping malls at a fire. The violence brought an exodus of Americans and other foreigners, diplomats, and minority Chinese shopkeepers, who were the targets of angry mobs. President Suharto ordered the army to restore order. In Britain, President Clinton was asked if Suharto should end his 30-year rule.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: A loss of life and other destructive developments have been heartbreaking. The question you asked is one the Indonesian people have to decide. What we do believe in the reporting is that the present government and the president find a way to open a dialogue with all elements of the society and that it lead to a general a genuine sense of political reform and reconciliation.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on Indonesia right after this News Summary. The president spoke on Indonesia and other topics in Birmingham, England. He's meeting this weekend with the leaders of the group of eight, the seven major industrialized nations and Russia. The G-8 summit was to focus on issues of economics and crime until Indonesia and the Indian nuclear tests forced their way onto the agenda. On the India story today Prime Minister Bashpayi said in a magazine interview India is now a big bomb nuclear weapons state. He then retracted the statement, saying India has the capacity for a nuclear bomb, not the bomb, itself. He insisted it would not be used aggressively. India conducted five tests this week with what it called nuclear devices. The prime minister also said India would not be cowed by U.S. economic sanctions or world condemnation. In neighboring Pakistan Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot met with government officials and urged them not to respond to India with nuclear tests of their own. In Washington State Department Spokesman James Rubin commented on those talks.

JAMES RUBIN, State Department Spokesman: We believe that testing is a live possibility. We're very aware of the political pressures that exist in Pakistan, but we hope that as a result of this mission that the government there analyzes the situation and concludes that not going forward with the testing program will redound to the advantage of Pakistan and testing will not.

JIM LEHRER: Pakistan's prime minister said late today his country was in no rush to begin nuclear tests. His government also issued a statement saying it would take U.S. advice under consideration in any response to India. Mr. Clinton also had a message today for the Israelis and Palestinians. He said it was time to move on the peace talks. But there wasn't a movement in the negotiations between U.S. and Israeli officials. In Washington Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu met with U.S. mediator Dennis Ross before going to New York. Security remained a sticking point in a U.S. proposal for Israel to give another 13 percent of its territory to the Palestinians. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with Netanyahu later in the program. Smoke from wildfires in Mexico and Central America covered part of the southern United States today. Arsonists and farmers clearing land were blamed for starting the fires. Hot, dry weather has helped the smoke spread. The smog is particularly thick in Texas, where residents have been warned to avoid exposure to the bad air. Flight delays at Houston airports have resulted from poor disability. Frank Sinatra is dead. He died last night of a heart attack at a Los Angeles hospital. He was the crooner who became a one of a kind singer and star and stayed a star for sixty years. He was 82 years old. We'll have his story and music at the end of the program tonight. Between now and then the worsening situation in Indonesia, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Mark Shields and Kate O'Beirne. UPDATE - DAYS OF RAGE

JIM LEHRER: Indonesia. Our coverage begins with this report from Jakarta by Ian Williams of Independent Televison News.

IAN WILLIAMS, ITN: This is what remains today of the Jakarta shopping mall swept by an inferno that claimed the lives of 200 people. They were from a neighboring slum and had joined the frenzy of looting from a store few could have afforded to buy from. But they were trapped and burned alive, unable to escape a blaze started by their fellow looters. Today stunned relatives attempted to identify what remained of the victims. It was the biggest loss of life since the crisis began. But it didn't deter continued looting across the city as crowds helped themselves from gutted department stores. Then the soldiers arrived and attempted to stop the pillaging of this store though some appeared indifferent to the greets from the military. They did arrest some looters who still clung doggedly to their booty even as they've been led away. And once the soldiers had gone back came the looters. It was a scene repeated sporadically across Jakarta, though after yesterday's chaos, the streets were quieter, patrolled by the army and special forces. It was to a military airfield outside his ransacked capital that President Suharto returned today, showing little sign of heeding demands to step down. He met his closest advisers and the military leadership, some of whom have appeared reluctant to crack down on the unrest. The armed forces may be divided, some sections uncertain or uneasy about how to react to this crisis, but that's a mood shared by the hesitant leaders of Indonesia's opposition. Outside one of the city's biggest mosques a flag hangs at half mast, remembering the students killed by the military this week. Friday prayers turned into a political rally addressed by the man who's trying to unify and give focus to the fragmented and weak opposition movements. Amian Rice leads one of the country's biggest Muslim organizations and had this message for the president.

AMIAN RICE: He should stand down for the safety of the nation.

IAN WILLIAMS: In spite of his strong following, many student leaders who spearheaded the street protests are wary of him. With the crisis intensifying, thousands have been desperately trying to leave the country. Jakarta's airport was packed today. Flights were full. The American embassy has urged its nationals to get out also here, hundreds of ethnic Chinese who have been targeted by the rioters, fleeing for their lives from the city and a country in chaos.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the perspective from two Indonesians now in the United States. Sylvia Tiwon is a professor of Indonesian studies at the University of California-Berkeley. Rizal Mallarangeng is a Ph.D. candidate at Ohio State University and a columnist for Indonesia's largest newspaper, Kompas. Mr. Mallarangeng, help us understand what is happening in your country. Should this be seen as a classic revolt of the people?

RIZAL MALLARANGENG, Columnist, Kompas Newspaper: We have to understand these events lately in the last week separately. Up until three days ago there was a genuine reformers movement from the middle class. But it was soon overtaken by the riot the riot of the dispossessed of Jakarta, looting and burning everything. These two events were different.

JIM LEHRER: The first group students, the middle class.

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Right. The middle class movement demanding for Suharto to step down, democratic movement, and it was started systematically and very beautifully. But up until three days ago when the momentum was there, the biggest momentum ever for launching a democratic movement, for everybody's surprise, everybody never predicted before that on Thursday morning the riot broke out, which killed the momentum of democratization.

JIM LEHRER: And that's an entirely different those people who are looting those stores and who died in these fires and in these malls are not the same people who were demonstrating when this thing began?

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Yes, different. Before Thursday the movement was by students, supported by university professors, by the nurses, by the doctors, by the lawyers. Those people were the representative of emerging middle class. Their demand basically is for Suharto to step down and hence start the process of democratization of the country. Without Suharto go, there is no hope for a genuine reformation three days ago.

JIM LEHRER: Just three days ago. Ms. Tiwon, do you read it the same way?

SYLVIA TIWON, University of California, Berkeley: I would see it as slightly different. It's just a little bit different, although it's true that now riots have overtaken the political demonstrations with political demands for reform, the demonstrations were not only students and intellectuals, university professors, doctors, you know, the professional rising middle class. They were also workers, factory workers. They were ordinary people. They were street sellers. They were bus drivers and taxi drivers. They were all in that mess. And they were supporting the students very, very strongly in their attempt to bring you know demand reform. And so what you get now at this writing is, indeed, the dispossessed of Jakarta, and I think what you're seeing is the end of the theory of trickle down.

JIM LEHRER: What about also the need for order, does this separate those folks who were demonstrating from the folks who were rioting? Do--the original demonstrators now would probably support restoration of order, Ms. Tiwon?

SYLVIA TIWON: That is the belief right now. I think it's too early to tell, although it's true that the students have retreated to the relative safety of the compasses. But there's still the possibility of the professionals and the students getting back together again because there is a real sense this has got to go on, although

JIM LEHRER: The people the reforms are political?

SYLVIA TIWON: The political movement has got to go on, but that is a real commitment there. There is a shock, of course, that this has happened, although, again, this is this follows a pattern that has been established by the new order since around 1974, you know, when students and the intellectuals demonstrated for political reform, and there's provocation of the dispossessed, and that's turning into riots, and so then the attention is focused on the riot, and the middle class retreats into fear of the masses.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Mallarangeng, does that mean that the restoration of order gives new strength or renewed strength to President Suharto?

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Yes. The riots in the last two days gave the chance to Mr. Suharto to regain some lost ground. You have to remember, three days ago, he was very defensive, and everybody thought that he was going to go in a matter of days. That was the highest moment let's say the Wednesday evening, when the procession of the dead students were started right before it was broadcasted nationwide, and Indonesian played the sacred song, the national anthem for dead heroes. It was the type of a song gugarbuna. So

SYLVIA TIWON: Falling

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Falling falling leaves falling flowers. Now, at that moment, everybody I mean, all observers that I know of in America thought Suharto's days were numbered. But to everybody's surprise, the next day, the morning started around 11 o'clock this dispossess of Jakarta, which had nothing to do with democracy and reformation started to burn and loot the Chinese. Now, I agree with Sylvia that the movement up until three days ago were also it were involving the masses, the workers, the small people, but the movement was led by the middle class sons and daughters. It was from the university, right? There is no doubt about it.

JIM LEHRER: Ms. Tiwon, what happens now? I mean, I know that's an impossible question but things were calm today, as we saw in that report, at least compared to what had happened before, and the police and the military have restored order. Does this mean that the violence is over for now? Is there any way to know?

SYLVIA TIWON: I'm not sure that the violence is over for now. We have to remember also that even though the army was saying that they're controlling the situation that they're going to crack down on the rioting and all of that, Gen. Prabo stated that admitted, in fact, that these seemed to be organized riots; [b] The army did not impose a curfew, which is something that they normally do when, you know, there's a threat of riots. The first thing they do is impose a riot. They did not do that, and that leads me to think what you know that there's something else going on, there's a jockeying for power, and, if necessary, these riots will take place again.

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe, Ms. Tiwon, that President Suharto is not on his way out, as he appeared to be a few days ago? Do you agree with Mr. Mallarangeng?

SYLVIA TIWON: I agree that now the situation is less clear that, you know, it seemed a few days ago that it seemed clear that there was no way we could continue, but now it would seem with these riots and, remember, that these riots took place when he was out of the country, so he comes back to restore order, and this is the image that Suharto has created for himself. And if people continue to believe this, and the intellectual elite believe this, then, yes that pattern will be established. And if the U.S. government believes that also, then that will certainly reinforce that pattern and allow Suharto to stay in power.

JIM LEHRER: Mr. Mallarangeng, speaking of the United States and the rest of the world, should they just keep hands off and let this thing flow its natural course, whatever it may be, with Suharto, without Suharto, whatever?

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Yes. Well, there's nothing much let's say Mr. Clinton can do, other than, you know, persuading, and, you know, providing a safe mechanism, for example, for Suharto if Suharto decides to go down, but I just want to emphasize again one thing. First, the reformation process is to continue. There's no doubt about it. But the question is the timing: when and how long. These riotings it will become more complicated. There is now temptation for Suharto to impose order in a very short time. Now, in order to do that he is going to kill a lot of people. Now, here is when Mr. Clinton and the rest of the world comes in.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, we'll yes, go ahead. Go ahead and finish. I'm sorry.

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Right. He can say, okay, Mr. Suharto, order is very important, stability very important, but, look, if you want to do it, do it in such a way that you don't have to kill and imprison too many people.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Well, look, thank you very much for being with us tonight. Thank you both.

RIZAL MALLARANGENG: Thank you very much. NEWSMAKER

JIM LEHRER: The prime minister of Israel and to Elizabeth Farnsworth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Prime Minister Netanyahu has been in the United States addressing private groups and meeting with American officials who are trying to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back on track. And he had lunch today in New York with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Mr. Prime Minister, welcome.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Prime Minister, Israel: Thank you.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Bring us up to date on the negotiations. Are the talks between the U.S. and Israel at an impasse?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: No. I don't think they are. We are trying to find a creative way to overcome the differences between our views on redeployment. I have to stress that we are looking at the entire package, not only what is called the second redeployment, but also the third redeployment. We want to know the full amount of territory that we would redeploy from and not just have it string along one after the other. And, of course, we want to ensure that the Palestinians will carry out their part, which is fighting terrorism, annulling the PLO charter that still calls for our destruction. All these things have to be put together in a package, and we are trying to do that. I cannot tell you right now if we'll succeed. We're certainly trying.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: But negotiators are meeting as we speak?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Yes, they are, and I'll meet with Mr. Ross in Washington when I get there just before I leave for Israel on Sunday, so we are--we are making a full court press to see if we can arrive at an agreement. I suppose if we do, that's one path. If we don't, there are always ways to back out of a dead end alley and try another way, but one way or another, we are going to engage and try to arrive at a solution that would advance a real peace, a a secure for us. That's the key word for us. Security must be maintained both by having Israel redeploy only from areas that will--that the withdrawal from them will not jeopardize our security and, of course, having the Palestinians fulfill their part of the equation that they haven't fulfilled so far. They must fight terrorism.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You said in a speech last night to the American Jewish Committee in Washington, D.C.: "We're prepared to make concessions and I gather we probably will, but not those that will endanger our security." Could you tell us what concessions?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Well, you know that we're talking about terrain or land that does not have any Palestinians living on them. The Palestinians now control 98 percent of the Palestinian population. The Palestinian Authority has under its jurisdiction all the land where all the Palestinians live, so the areas that we're talking about are empty areas, empty of Palestinians. This is not now a negotiation about the human rights of Palestinians who are living under Israelioccupation. None of them are, except 2 percent. We're talking about something else. We're talking about, in fact, areas that are a part of the ancestral Jewish homeland, Judea; that's wherethe word "Jew" comes from. That's where we have been for thousands of years. The same thing applies to Samaria. These are areas that are very, very precious to us from an historical and national point of view, but also they happen to be very important for us from a security point of view because Israel is such a tiny country. It's all of 40 miles wide. It's the widest point. And ifyou were to take away all of the West Bank, just lop it off, we would be all of 10 miles--15 miles wide. So we are looking at those areas, open areas empty of Palestinians that are less important, less vital for our security, and it is those areas that we're prepared to disengage from.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So right now would it be right to say that the negotiations are about percentages, 9 percent, 10 percent, 11 percent, 13 percent of Palestinian lands or of lands in the West Bank that you would withdraw from?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: These are not Palestinian lands.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: I'm sorry. I meant land in the West Bank.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: These were-- these are part of the ancestral land of the Jewish people, land of Israel. It was also land from which we were attacked. The reason we arein those lands now is because we were attacked from them when Israel was indeed ten or fifteen miles wide. It was too tempting; the high ground above our cities controlled by an Arab army was too tempting a situation that it prompted a war. And we don't want to get back to a situation where we're back in vulnerable and indefensible--or rather indefensible and vulnerable boundaries that would not bring peace, but prompt another conflict. So, in fact, we are talking about, if you will, percentages or territory that we can redeploy from, without creating such a temptation, withmaintaining security for our state and our people. But we're also looking at the other side of the equation, and that is, what have the Palestinians done? When are they going to do what theypromised to do in the Oslo accords and in the Hebron withdrawal accords that I signed, namely, fighting terrorism, dismantling the terrorist organizations, annulling that covenant, stopping this insightful propaganda that--this incitement for violence that unfortunately produced the clashes that we had yesterday, which tragically consumed the lives of innocent people? These are allthe things that we have put on the table, and we're trying to tie the knot, if you will, around the entire package.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And Mr. Prime Minister, what would be the consequences if an agreement isn't reached and the United States does withdraw from its mediating role? What would be the consequences for Israel?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I don't think any of us can withdraw from the quest for peace any more than any of us can withdraw from breathing. We have to breathe and we have tocontinue to seek peace. It is our mandate. It's our responsibility, and I don't think anybody is about to walk away from that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think the dangers are now of increased violence in the West Bank and in Gaza and in East Jerusalem? There was, there were shootings yesterday of Palestinian demonstrators, and there was a short amount of violence apparently today in East Jerusalem. Could that get worse now?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Well, I hope not. And I hope matters come back to relative tranquility at the very least. There was a shooting in response to Molotov cocktails thrown at Israelis by the rioters. Now the rioters were incited by official callings, including by Mr. Arafat himself on a rather inflammatory speech a day earlier broadcast on Palestinian television. You have to ask yourself, what are they protesting about? Do you know what they're protesting about at this juncture? Why they held these riots? I bet you don't, but I'll tell you. They're protesting about what they call "the catastrophe", and the catastrophe occurred 50 years ago, and that is the founding of the Jewish state. They're not protesting about present disposition of lands or percentages or anything of the kind. They conducted these full-scale riots under the direction of the Palestinian Authority to protest the creation of the Jewish state. And that is something that we find in the peace process with some people who are asking us to give them land right next to our cities, they're not even accepting the creation of the Jewish state, so I think there has to be achange of mind. This is--this is no way to educate the Palestinian people for peace. There really has to be a change of mind not only in fighting terrorism and in stopping the fanning of violence, but also in a public education that says to people, you know, we're for peace. We're eschewing the path of war, and the simplest and most important thing that the Palestinians could do would be to convene the Palestine National Council, which is the governing body of the Palestinian Authority which Mr. Arafat heads, and to have them ratify a letter that he sent President Clinton in which he said which items of the Palestinian charter that call for Israel destruction, which of them are null and void. I think we want to see that, and unless he can do that, we have to ask, what kind of peace is this? What kind of peace is it if you cannot say that the charter calling for Israel's liquidation is null and void?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Just very quickly before we go, what's your best guess? Do you think you will have an agreement before you go back to Israel?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I hope that we have progress to that effect. I want to advance security for Israel because that is the foundation of a real peace. A peace without security is a sham. It won't hold. But a peace that meets the security requirements that I believe are necessary for Israel's future, and the compliance requirements that the Palestinians will fulfill theirobligations, if I have, if we progress towards that and, indeed, conclude an agreement, I wouldn't hesitate even a second to bring it before the cabinet and before my coalition, and I'm sure thatit'll pass it.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Mr. Prime Minister, thank you very much for being with us.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields & O'Beirne and so long Frank Sinatra. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Our end of the week political analysis and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And we get that analysis from syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Kate O'Beirne, Washington editor of the National Review. Paul Gigot is off tonight.A lot of situations seem to be unraveling abroad, Mark, this week. Indonesia, the India bomb test, problems with the Middle East peace process. What are the consequences here at home of all this?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, to quote the late Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill all politics is local. The perception of power is power. If enough people think you have power, you have power. The United States is the only superpower in the world, but and there's nobody vying, there's nobody pushing off. It strikes me that Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 not because he was going to be better on foreign policy or global leadership than George Bush. George Bush owned that card. The American people weren't considering that an important element in the job description in 1992, nor even in 1996. And I think, if anything the president at this point politically is at a time when he's looking for global successes, or international achievements for domestic political reasons, and they aren't there.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree, Kate, that it's maybe it's a little more important for the president than he might have thought six years ago?

KATE O'BEIRNE: Well, Mark saw exactly right. People didn't look to Bill Clinton either time. I mean, clearly both George Bush and Bob Dole were rightly viewed as far more experienced in foreign policy, but, remember, it was the economy, stupid. And, of course, when things happen around the world, like much did this week, and world affairs are forced on our attention, I do think it contributes when we can no longer avoid the issues, it does contribute to an unease Americans feel, I think, about Bill Clinton's ability to deal with foreign policy. They could put it out of their minds when no large problem is looming. And, Mark, of course, and it's critically important our president, I think, be stronger on foreign policy. Mark's exactly right. We are the sole superpower, but that's bound not to be the case forever. Who are the emerging powers? Certainly China is critical. Many of the people see Bill Clint's policy on China as completely schizophrenic. It seems the business of his foreign policy is business. He, of course, has sat idly by watching China export nuclear technology to Pakistan, which, of course, became very relevant this week with India's India's move. He has permitted the American companies to provide technology to China. That's been very important for them in developing potentially aggressive military missile technology. Which way is it? Because that is a superpower we're going to have to worry about post Cold War. What are our challenges? I don't think we've heard Bill Clinton and his team talk about them effectively. If it's going to be regional challenges, rather than the old superpowers' standoff between us and the Soviet Union, how do we respond to these regional challenges? There's no strategic vision from this administration.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think the American public or Congress is going to hold Clinton accountable here, or responsible for what's happening?

MARK SHIELDS: No. I mean, I think there's minimal American interest in global policy. It was not a factor in any election. And it's not on American radar scope right now. Does America like to see the Americans like to see America stumbling or appearing to be ignored in the world? No. But there is, Margaret, we went through half a century where the overarching vision and value of American foreign policy was opposition to totalitarianism, first with Hitler, and then with the Cold War. And that papered over a lot of differences between the United States and other countries. And we had a common foe. There's nothing like a common foe. And I don't know if it was Eduard Shevardnadze, the foreign minister of the late Soviet Union or Mikhail Gorbachev who said we're going to do a terrible thing to you; we're going to deprive you of an enemy or vision. I don't fault the president for it right now. I mean, maybe we're just struggling toward one. But without that we're left to sort of domestic policies where H. Lobby becomes assertive. Kate mentioned China. There's a China lobby. The China lobby is the American business community. They don't want you to mention human rights. They don't want you to mention China and Tibet. They you're not supposed to do that. We have an Israeli lobby. We have a Greek lobby. We learned this week there's no India lobby because there was no organized effort to criticize the United States the president's recommending sanctions against India.

KATE O'BEIRNE: I think the American voters took foreign policy more seriously in the old Soviet Union days. It would have been very difficult for somebody as inexperienced and with unformed views as Bill Clinton, I think, to be elected when the stakes seemed to the American public so stark and so big. George Bush post Cold War was struggling towards this new world order, but at least, it seemed to me, his administration was involved in some sort of a big think, trying to figure out what this might look like. That's not what we're seeing now. I think Mark's right. I think this administration seems to drift from problem to problem, and that causes a lot of unease, I think, on the part of the public when there's a potential problem like Iraq or China or India.

MARGARET WARNER: But, of course, Congress has also weighed in a lot. They even did this week again I mean, do you think global instability makes Congress and the president more likely to work together in foreign affairs, or less likely? Does this have any impact?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, this is a Republican Congress that has no been willing to take the president on much domestically. They're still sort of licking their wounds from the back of the hand they collected in 1995, and their survival in 1996, so, yes, there has been there had been an attempt on foreign policy. Certainly in the Middle East, which is intriguing, you used to see the Republican Party emerge as "the" pro-Likud party in American politics.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Netanyahu

MARK SHIELDS: Mr. Netanyahu's party. The more hawkish position--to have the Speaker of the House accuse the Secretary of State of being an agent of the Palestinians, I mean, to use that phrase, which is rhetorical garbage, I mean, it really is, you don't call someone an agent of a foreign power in the United States. That's outside the bounds. But I don't think there's any question that there is that the Congress has decided to pick arguments and stake out claims with this administration. And certainly Kate played up China and China's the legitimate one, where you get into religious rights, religious discrimination. Americans abhor that.

KATE O'BEIRNE: We just passed a bill overwhelmingly in the House that the Clinton administration on religious persecution sanctions against countries that persecute China's largely the target of it denying non-humanitarian aid, and that's a bill that this administration vehemently opposes. His policy now in publicly pressuring Israel 4/5 of the Senate, including lots of Democrats signed a critical letter, so I think Mark's right. It splits all over in the absence of a perceived threat to our own vital interest. Then I think you're more apt to see bipartisan cooperation. But there's a lot of freelancing going on now IMF and UN funding.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me change the subject before we go to a big story this week, which was Microsoft and its ongoing battle with the Justice Department. Just today, Microsoft, Kate, withdrew or delayed its release of Windows 98 software, its new software, trying to settle this case with the Justice Department. Is the Justice Department right to pursue this antitrust case against Microsoft?

KATE O'BEIRNE: Margaret, I'm uneasy with the government regulating competition. Now, I worry that they are moved by the feeling that big is bad. Big alone is not bad. Now whether or not there are illegal, real illegal practices like price fixing is a different matter. We don't want to send a message to innovative companies and entrepreneurs be successful but don't be too successful. You know, if you are successful enough to satisfy millions of consumers, we're going to be breathing down your neck and trying to stop you from what you're doing. I think that's a real mistake. In the 1950's, it was General Motors, and then along comes foreign competition. In the 1970's, it was IBM.. They'd cornered the market on main frames. What the government had not foreseen as they dragged IBM through the courts for 13 years was along comes the personal computer. Very often, if we're patient, the market takes care of these situations.

MARK SHIELDS: I think I disagree. I think that it's interesting. Joel Klein is the assistant attorney general for antitrust. He was boy, he was absolutely censored in the editorial pages of the New York Times as being too weak, too easy. He wasn't up to this job. And I'll tell you I mean, he's a tiger. I mean, he's not taking on a mom and pop store with Microsoft, he's taking on Goliath. I mean, this is the biggest guy on the block, and

MARGARET WARNER: You don't think Bill Gates is pop?

MARK SHIELDS: Bill Gates is the richest man in America, and Democrats historically

KATE O'BEIRNE: Is that the problem, though, that he's the richest man in America?

MARK SHIELDS: No. No. The problem is whether, in fact, there's a monopolistic pattern here that stifles competition in the long run and stifles innovation, and that's what and I thought it was fascinating that Microsoft blinked. It was Microsoft who said, let's not go to court for fear and I think Joel Klein and the Justice Department want to go, because they want to lay down. They want a court ruling that lays down rules as to what is appropriate and inappropriate. But we're seeing merger mania across the board. We're seeing it in banks. We're seeing it in airlines. And it's time to have an energetic antitrust department.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you this administration, this Democratic administration has been tougher or different than previous Republican ones on antitrust?

KATE O'BEIRNE: I think it's still being sorted out, Margaret. There enough new Democrats in the administration who are less friendly to that kind of government regulation. Joel Klein seems to be the kind I think who's the individual case. What exactly does the law say? But it's very difficult. What he's also about doing is predicting the future competitive influences of any kind of a deal. And we have a sorry track record trying to do that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Thank you both very much. Have a great weekend. FINALLY - IN MEMORIAM

JIM LEHRER: Frank Sinatra, the one of a kind who died last night. Kwame Holman begins.

KWAME HOLMAN: From Hoboken to Hollywood--from New York City to the Cannes Film Festival--to the meeting of world leaders in Birmingham, England--everyone was remembering Frank Sinatra today.

FRANK SINATRA: Do you ever stop to think what the world would be like without a song? It would be a pretty dreary place.

KWAME HOLMAN: Francis Albert Sinatra was the only son of Sicilian immigrants born in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1915. As a teenager he was the lead tenor in a local band. The Hoboken Four won a contest on Major Bowes Radio Amateur Hour in 1935. Soon after, Sinatra struck out on his own. His first big break came in 1939 when he joined Tommy Dorsey and his band.

FRANK SINATRA: [singing] I walk along--they'll ask me why and I'll tell them I'd rather.

KWAME HOLMAN: It was in the 40's that Sinatra becamefamous, a teen idol who earned the nickname "the voice."

[Screaming Girls]

KWAME HOLMAN: Bobby socksers swooned when he crooned. His songs were intimate, lyrical, and romantic.

[" THE SECOND TIME AROUND"]

KWAME HOLMAN: A series of stormy marriages and messy divorces led to dark and melancholy songs--and coincided with a decline in the popularity of Sinatra's music. In the 1950s a fateful collaboration with the Nelson Riddle Orchestra, along with a growing presence on the silver screen, put Sinatra's career back on track.

[SINATRA SINGING: and one more for the road.

KWAME HOLMAN: He danced--here with Gene Kelly--and acted with a host of Hollywood greats, appearing in more than 60 films, and winning an Oscar in 1953 for his performance in "From Here to Eternity."

[MOVIE SEGMENT]

KWAME HOLMAN: But whatever else he undertook, it was singing and Sinatra that were synonymous.

FRANK SINATRA: [singing] Fly me to the moon. Let me play among the stars.

KWAME HOLMAN: Even for the Apollo 11 astronauts who put Sinatra at the top of their play list for their trip to the moon. In the 1960's, Sinatra's image as a bad boy grew, aided by the popularity of his confederation of buddies known as the "rat pack." The number of Sinatra's critics, as well--but the singer, who rarely gave interviews, dismissed them, and was quoted as saying "whatever has been said about me personally is unimportant--when I sing, I believe I'm honest."

SINATRA SINGING "NEW YORK, NEW YORK": Start spreading the news. I'm leaving today. I want to be a part of it, New York, New York.

KWAME HOLMAN: In December 1995, New York City lit up the Empire State Building in blue lights in honor of ole' blue eyes. It seemed the entire world wanted to help Frank Sinatra celebrate his 80th birthday. Simultaneously, a 450-song Sinatra anthology was released on CD--as was a handful of new books--including a coffee table memoir by his daughter, Nancy, chock full of family photos. In recent years, Sinatra's health declined and he rarely was seen in public. A year ago, he suffered a heart attack. Last night, reportedly with his wife, Barbara, at his side, Frank Sinatra succumbed to another heart attack at a hospital in Los Angeles.

FRANK SINATRA SINGING: When somebody loves you, it's no good unless he loves you all the way.

KWAME HOLMAN: Frank Sinatra was 82 years old.

JIM LEHRER: We're joined now by John Lahr, author of the recent book "Sinatra, The Artist and the Man." He's a staff writer for the New Yorker. And Frank Rich, who writes on culture, among other things, is a columnist for the New York Times.John Lahr, as a singer, what was it Sinatra could do that nobody else could?

JOHN LAHR, Author, "Sinatra, The Artist and the Man:" Well, at the time he broke in I think the thing that defined him was the seamless of his sound, the fact that he had learned from playing with Tommy Dorsey to sort of make his voice the equivalent of Dorsey's trombone and extend the phrases so that you actually he could hold his breath longer and, therefore as often, and that seamlessness and the intensity with which he rendered those songs was really exceptional, and he caught the mood of the time.

JIM LEHRER: Was this something that he was born with, or something that he taught himself?

JOHN LAHR: Well, you know, like any great star, it's a gift, and he was also his own greatest invention. He used to swim underwater and practice sing songs to himself underwater just to practice his breath control. And it increased the bellows, as he called them. But that was part of it. And part of itwas the terrific sort of intensity and charisma that he was able to project. One of his wives, Ava Gardner, said his a large part of his talent was his ability to flirt with the audience. And I think that she was on to something.

JIM LEHRER: Frank Rich, what would you add to that in terms of the specialness of his singing?

FRANK RICH, The New York Times: Sort of to pick up John's thought, quoting Ava Gardner, there's an emotional intensity, and intimacy that is really rare. Many, many singers aspire to that. Many of them fake it. He really delivered it, and there's such an honesty to the emotions of him at his best. He could also be very phony at its worst. But there's such an honesty there. I think that's one reason why he has continued to impress and speak to generations who have come long after the style of song that he championed has sort of faded from view.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. He had his little down period, but people of all ages listen to Sinatra music as we speak.

FRANK RICH: Right. And yet, the great body of his music is a popular music that is rarely written anymore. He sort of kept that in fashion just because he's so timeless I think he helps make us appreciate how timeless these songs are in a way very few other singers can these days.

JIM LEHRER: Frank, as an actor, how does he rate?

FRANK RICH: As an actor, I think he's a very good singer. He [laughing] you know, a lot of his movies were, after all, jokes. Some of them, of course, the rat pack movies, were designed to be jokes. But, you know, he's an okay actor. I think we look at his 50's comeback as acting being part of that. But even in the clip "From Here to Eternity" that we just saw, this is not great acting. He was in a few good movies, including most notably, the "Manchurian Candidate," which may have been his best performance.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. John Lahr, a lot of singers have tried to be successful actors and were not able to do it, but Frank Sinatra was. What would you attribute that to?

JOHN LAHR: Well, I mean, can I just say to Frank's point that his real acting, his great acting was as a singer. I mean, that's what sort of people don't understand. He was a dees, dem, and dose guys. He was a man who even at the time he broke through as a young crooner was a volatile, tough guy, but the person he projected in song was a delicate, sensitive, lyrical person. Now, he had those qualities, but what song did for Sinatra, what those lyrics did, and why he defended them and did them so brilliantly, they provided a scaffolding for him to express these feelings and get and lose the sense which he had all his life of humiliation for his lack of education and his inability to sort of own the manners of the class that he aspired to, so really people always said of Sinatra that he lived in his songs. And what that is to me, and I think it is true, it was really the acquisition of a class. It was and he really turned it into a landscape, and he painted he painted himself into that landscape so that we can't imagine a great many of those songs without him.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes. Now, Frank, Sinatra did have his dark side. I mean, he had some friends who had associations with the police and among other characters, and he drank and he played wildly and all of that, but it didn't seem to matter. Why not?

FRANK RICH: I think it's a tribute to his talent. I mean, really often his public life away from singing was often contemptible. He certainly we know he did a lot for charity, and he did individual acts of charity for friends who were down and out. But that aside, he did hang around with mobsters to some extent. He injected that atmosphere into the Kennedy White House, it seems, and, of course, he was very, had this air of violence around him and was very insulting and abusive to people, particularly women in the press. Yet, such was indeed this performance that John just described, which did come from something within his heart, obviously, that it could counteract that and transcend it. He's such a great artist, and communicated something else through his art that overrode it.

JOHN LAHR: Can I say something?

JIM LEHRER: Sure, John. Go ahead.

JOHN LAHR: I just wanted to say that the press has to divide Sinatra the good and Sinatra the bad, but I think that the point is he was of a piece. He was great as a singer because he felt things very strongly, and he expressed that feeling through and with the lyrics he could and the music he could control what he called his Sicilian temper. Without that scaffolding, things could get ugly, but he still reacted to the world in the same sort of intense explosive manner, so that the shadow and the light are inevitably mixed and I think add to his allure and power with the public.

JIM LEHRER: But did he John, did he deserve the reputation for being a mean just the way Frank described him?

JOHN LAHR: Well, let me put it to you this way, Jim. The word "monster" has its warning and it seems to me that he epitomized all those things, which is part of his greatness.

JIM LEHRER: Frank, I have said three or four times now, getting to this segment, that from the very beginning of the program tonight, just in introducing it just now, that Frank Sinatra was one of a kind. Am I right to say that in terms of his as one of a kind as a performer?

FRANK RICH: Yes. I would clarify it in this way. Obviously, there's a number of other great American singers, some of whom sang the same music that he did Ella Fitzgerald, Tony Bennett. There are many, many others--we could spend all night listing them.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

FRANK RICH: But this morning I was speaking to one of the few song writers of his hey day who's still alive, Cy Coleman, who wrote "Witchcraft." And the point he made to me that to him made Sinatra unique was he was the last one, the only one with the force to put over that music, those kinds of songs internationally. As much as we might love Mabel Merce or Tony Bennett, it they're not in the same at the same level Sinatra was in speaking to people all over the world through these great American popular songs.

JIM LEHRER: I take it you would agree with that, John?

JOHN LAHR: Yes. The only other thing I'd add to what Frank said is that I think it's one of the great American show business careers, and one of the interesting things to me is that with each generation, we seem to sort of personify the mood of his time, and in the 40's that crooning really did calm a culture in a very volatile moment. It was very much an anadigm, when it came to the 50's, the swinging Sinatra, the rat pack, that was the mood of abundance and the party that he was at the head of the table at.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. John, Frank, thank you both very much for being with us.

JOHN LAHR: A pleasure.

JIM LEHRER: And there's only one way to end this discussion and this program tonight, and that is with Frank Sinatra singing. Here is in 1974, in Madison Square Garden in New York, and the song is "My Way."

[FRANK SINATRA SINGING "MY WAY"] RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the other major stories of this Friday, Indonesia was calm after four days of arson and looting; the prime minister of India said his country has the capacity for a nuclear bomb, not the bomb, itself, and on the NewsHour tonight Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said talks with the United States might still produce a creative way to revive the stalled Middle East peace process. We'll see you on-line and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.