The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the latest on three major stories: The fall of Kabul, the capital city of Afghanistan; the nuclear arms summit in Washington between President Bush and Russian President Putin; and the investigation into the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, plus, thoughts on the state of the American mind from essayists Roger Rosenblatt, Clarence Page, Ann Taylor Fleming, and Jim Fisher.

FOCUS - THE FALL OF KABUL

JIM LEHRER: The fall of the Afghan capital of Kabul to the Northern Alliance. It happened late last night, U.S. time, as the Taliban emptied out of the city and the Alliance troops moved in. They were accompanied by western reporters, who had traveled with them on their quick weekend march through Northern Afghanistan's major cities. We start with this report from Julian Manyon of Independent Television News.

JULIAN MANYON: Early this morning we headed for Kabul on a road that until last night was the front line. Fearing encirclement the Taliban had pulled out of all their positions on the Shamali plain. All that was left was abandoned equipment and the massive craters left by American bombs. A village, which had served as a Taliban headquarters, was almost completely destroyed. On our way we passed jubilant Northern Alliance troops racing towards the Afghan capital. They had been urged by President Bush to halt outside the city. For the moment, most of them had. A couple of miles outside Kabul Alliance armor and truckloads of troops formed a massive traffic jam as security men held them back. We struggled to get through. We were among the first journalists to get into the city, and we were immediately greeted by delighted crowds celebrating the departure of the Taliban.

MAN: I feel very happy because the Taliban troops went from Kabul. People of Afghanistan don't like those people.

JULIAN MANYON: One man waved a piece of a Taliban turban, the symbol of their fanatically religious government. On a hillside above the city, shots rang out as alliance soldiers hunted down a few who had failed to escape with the rest. After a chase on foot, the men surrendered and were led away to face Northern Alliance justice. We found other evidence of the Taliban retreat: A vehicle wrecked by an American air strike. This is the debris of defeat -- a Taliban pick-up truck which was packed with their soldiers destroyed by an American missile as it tried to flee Kabul. The bodies of the dead soldiers hideously mangled have been hauled over to the side of the road over there. Nearby we found a military base, which the Americans bombed repeatedly in recent weeks, destroying armor and wrecking buildings. And late yesterday, as the Taliban were pulling out, the Americans bombed the villa, which had housed their head of security for Kabul. The bombs missed their target because the men had fled two days before. I met the owner of the house who had been forced to hand it over to the Taliban.

MAN: You aren't going to pay the rent. And they told us if you come in this area, we will shoot you. Yes.

JULIAN MANYON: You weren't allowed to come back to your own house.

MAN: Yes.

JULIAN MANYON: By lunchtime floods of troops were entering the city, breaking their government's pledge that they would remain outside. The takeover will make America's declared aim of building a broad coalition government more difficult, but Washington will still be celebrating this resounding defeat inflicted on the Taliban.

JIM LEHRER: More now on the reaction in Kabul. Alex Thompson of Independent Television News was also there.

ALEX THOMPSON: Joy and the simple act of flying a kite again; that great Afghan passion which the Taliban tried so hard to stamp out. And in music coming from the few bazaars open today, and, of course, in the crowds gathering to cheer parties of Alliance soldiers wherever they appeared as they began entering the city this morning. (Cheers and Applause) There was a roundabout near the city center, which became speaker's corner as people gave vent to their relief.

INTERPRETER: We thank God for delivering us from them. They sold our country.

MAN: Army and Northern Alliance coming and... Here in Kabul. We are very happy

ALEX THOMPSON: Another man said the Taliban were just cultural vandals.

MAN: They are persons who want to... Destroyed our country, which want to destroy our culture.

MAN: We will shave it as soon as possible.

ALEX THOMPSON: And sure enough, street barbers were busy eradicating the symbol of Talibanism from some chins, though the vast majority of men here, the Northern Alliance included, prefer to keep their beards. Just as many women will still prefer to wear the burkha, but in post-Taliban Kabul, at least they know they've got the choice.

WOMAN (Translated): As a woman, I feel tranquil and free in Kabul. We want peace, we want the burkha to be removed and we want to work.

ALEX THOMPSON: But there was also dangerous anger on the streets here, too. "Death to Pakistan," they chanted. A body at the center of this mob; they said it was an Arab Taliban being spat at, kicked and abused. Thus, within a matter of hours, Kabul had made another of her historic shifts. This time from eastern-backed fundamentalism to western-backed opposition. And it's not just policing. Tanks roared through the city center much to the delight of onlookers, but to the horror of some a little further afield. A sight to make Pakistan flinch and the United States worry. Although the Northern Alliance did say that they'd stop on the outskirts of Kabul-- and they did for a while-- it's now early afternoon and they're rolling their heavy armor right into the center of the city. "Don't be concerned," explained a general, "it's not what it looks like."

MAN (Translated): If you've seen tanks in the city, they're going to surround Kabul, not to stay in town. So they're just crossing the city, east, west and south.

ALEX THOMPSON: We were the first journalists allowed into Kabul's airport. The soldiers first carefully removed the Taliban flag. No burning or insulting it because it bears the central words of the Koran.

JIM LEHRER: Within 12 hours of the fall of Kabul, the Northern Alliance foreign minister said his group was ready to share political power in Afghanistan.

JIM LEHRER: British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for the United Nations to establish a presence in Kabul as soon as possible. The U.N. Special Envoy for Afghanistan met with the Security Council in New York. He proposed establishing a multinational security force and a plan for a transitional government to run the country. At the Pentagon in Washington Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. Special Forces were in Kabul, and also in the South, the area still under control of the Taliban.

DONALD RUMSFELD: We are clearly in this for the long haul. We do need to find the leadership of al-Qaida and the leadership of the Taliban and the senior people and to stop them. And then we need to address that network and other networks elsewhere in the world. But it will take time.

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS: The advances of the Northern Alliance lines could not have been achieved without the Afghan citizens rejecting Taliban control, and in some areas Taliban forces deciding to ally themselves with opposition rather than face destruction. As far as al-Qaida is concerned, coalition and Northern Alliance efforts have degraded some of al-Qaida's fighting units and destroyed areas where they might hide. I do have one image for you. It is not a before and after, but rather an example of how the Taliban have parked tanks and other vehicles very near religious sites and residences. As you can see from-- hopefully you can see from the picture there, the distance from the tanks, that are indicated by the arrows, to both the old tomb or mosque in the center and the houses nearby, would make it difficult to strike without causing unintended damage to nearby residents or the religious structure.

REPORTER: Could you... General Myers particularly, looking at the situation, does it seem like what the Taliban did as a strategic withdrawal, as they're claiming, or is it a retreat in defeat? And are they being pursued by U.S. strike forces as they go down South?

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS: I would think it's a retreat. I mean, it's a combination of things. It's defections and it's withdrawal, and it's just trying to blend into the landscape, I would think. And so it's... It appears to be more disorganized than organized. I think they are very frustrated that they were not able to reinforce the North as they thought they could. And yes, as they retreat, we are looking for Taliban on the move, either east or west out of Mazar-e Sharif, or south out of Kabul, or, for that matter, east out of Kabul. The trick is trying to differentiate between Taliban and other forces and other peoples that may be leaving those locations.

REPORTER: Mr. Secretary, there have been reports from the ground that the Northern Alliance have made atrocities in Mazar-e Sharif. Do you give those reports credibility?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I don't know that it's really useful to repeat unsubstantiated and sensational charges that I can't validate, that you can't validate, and that have not been checked.

REPORTER: If there were atrocities that were being committed by the Northern Alliance, are there personnel or troops on the ground who are monitoring the situation?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Okay, let me comment. I'll try to explain what's happening. First of all, the Northern Alliance is not an alliance. There are elements within it that are... It's a loose grouping of different leaders and commanders. My understanding is-- and I could be wrong on this-- but originally they had intended to threaten the city and not go in, and that they changed their mind when they saw that the Taliban were fleeing and that looting was taking place. Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know. But there are a very small number of U.S. forces in the city of Kabul. There are not sufficient forces to monitor or police the entire city. They are a sufficient number that they can give advice and counsel to the people who are in the city, the leadership, and that they can report back that which they see, and we have not received reports back to that effect.

JIM LEHRER: The fall of Kabul and the war on terrorism were on the agenda as President Bush and Russian President Putin began their summit meetings today. Here's what they said at their joint White House news conference.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. Bush: The challenge of terrorism makes our close cooperation on all issues even more urgent. Russia and America sharethe same threat and the same resolve. We will fight and defeat terrorist networks wherever they exist. Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Today we agreed that Russian and American experts will work together to share information and expertise to counter the threat from bioterrorism. We agree that it is urgent that we improve the physical protection and accounting of nuclear materials, and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking.

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (Translated): We consider this threat as a global threat indeed, and the terrorists and those who help them should know that the justice is inescapable, and it will reach them wherever they try to hide. Also, post-crisis political settlement in Afghanistan was discussed. The most important thing for today is to return peace and the life in order to Afghanistan.

REPORTER: Mr. President, the Northern Alliance forces took over Kabul, and there are reports of executions of POW's and other violent reprisals. Can the alliance be trusted to form a broad-based government?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. Bush: I... We listened very carefully to the comments coming out of the Northern Alliance today, and they made it very clear they had no intention of occupying Kabul. That's what they said. I have seen reports of-- which you refer to-- and I also saw a report that said on their way out of town, the Taliban was wreaking havoc on the citizenry of Kabul. And if that be the case-- I haven't had it verified one way or the other-- but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. After all, the Taliban have been wreaking havoc on the entire country for over a decade.

REPORTER: What specifically can be done in the next several days to ensure the safety of the citizens of Kabul?

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (Translated): Well, the thing is that Northern Alliance did not take Kabul by storm. The Northern Alliance has been looming over Kabul for a long time. Suddenly, they discovered all of a sudden that Kabul had been abandoned, and they had to insert there certain security elements to prevent looting and robberies and murders. There was complete lawlessness in that city, and the situation must be put under control and it was very difficult.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes the story from there.

RAY SUAREZ: For more on the situation in Afghanistan, we're joined by Peter Tomsen, a former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan. He is now ambassador in residence at the university of Nebraska at Omaha. Phyllis Oakley, a former Afghanistan desk officer at the State Department; she is now an adjunct professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University. Former member of Congress Don Ritter is founder and chairman of the Afghanistan-America Foundation, formed to bring peace and stability to that country. And Kawun Kakar is an Afghan who until earlier this year was a UN human rights officer in Afghanistan. He is a managing member of the Institute for Afghan Studies.

Well, Guests, for weeks senior policy makers have been counseling patience saying that it was going to take a long time to evict the Taliban from much of the country. What happened? How did we get to this day so quickly? Ambassador Tomsen?

PETER TOMSEN: This also happened in 1992, April-May, when the Communist regime fell. There was a wind that swept through the North as whole groups of Communists defected to the Mujahadin. This same thing is happening now. The anti-Taliban wind has swept through the North. I expect within a week that whole areas of the South, the Pashtun South, will also feel this wind especially in the eastern areas near Kandahar - Zabul -- and others, and later on in the eastern Gilzai areas.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you agree, Mr. Ritter?

DON RITTER: I think that's a pretty good perception. The only thing I would like to point out about 1992 was there was no U.S. presence. There was no... Essentially the Northern Alliance was also an alliance with the United States of America. And I think we are exerting quite an influence on the Northern Alliance. They know that they couldn't have done what they did without U.S. air power, although they did a lot themselves, they needed us. So I think it's more positive than some people are giving... are saying. I think there's going to be a peaceful solution in Kabul, and I think reconstruction is on the way.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Professor Oakley, you heard this described as a wind. Does it create a new situation that's durable or transitory?

PHYLLIS OAKLEY: It creates a new situation, but let me get back to some of the things that you said in the beginning. We had expected the fight in Afghanistan to last a long time, and I think it still will. We've now pulled off the Northern Areas. That was relatively easy. But think of the Mujahadin who all during the 1980s never held the cities, and I think the Taliban are reverting to traditional Afghan tactics of fading back into the hills, the mountains, the caves, where they are going to continue to harass the groups. In my view, the military side has gotten way ahead of the political. We need to kind of slow down for a minute and make sure that there are some southern political moves that can come up and meet with the Northern Alliance. The other thing that I would certainly hope is that we get the humanitarian assistance routes open quickly so that the supplies needed to get through the winter can begin to flow. It's still complicated. It's still not over. And it still will always be in an Afghan context.

RAY SUAREZ: Kawun Kakar, how come this all happened so quickly in your view?

KAWUN KAKAR: The Taliban regime was one of the repressive regimes and Afghans resisted their rule in Afghanistan. What needs to be done now is that there's a need for an establishment of a multiethnic regime in Kabul that would not allow Taliban that are retreating to take... Consolidate their rule in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: But you just heard Professor Oakley suggest that the military has gotten way ahead of the political. Do these quick Northern Alliance victories complicate international efforts to form a new government in Afghanistan?

KAWUN KAKAR: The past experience in 1992 by the now mostly Northern Alliance group and also by Taliban show that once a group takes control of Kabul, then it is not likely to leave Kabul or share power. Now hopefully this time the situation will not be repeated. Therefore, the recommendations by top UN Official Brahimi that there be a provincial interim government or a council headed by the - a symbol of unity, referring to the former king, to take... To establish a group in Kabul, and that would be supported by a multiethnic security force, would allow the formation of a multiethnic government that could further the U.S. objectives of rooting, eliminating the remaining al-Qaida leaders and Taliban leaders and not allowing them to take ahold in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Peter Tomsen, at first it sounded like he was suggesting that in part the appetite for compromise might be blunted a little bit by quick victories and the fact that they're doing reasonably well in the Northern Alliance.

PETER TOMSEN: That's right. But I also think in the South you're going to see some areas liberated, huge area, around Kandahar, Hamid Karzai, a very prominent Pashtun leader is receiving a lot of support. I wouldn't be surprised if there's huge defections to him in the next couple of weeks. He would be then negotiating the Northern Alliance from somewhat of a position of power. Then other parts, other ink spots will grow in the Pashtun areas with our help, the help of our Special Forces and commandos. I'm very thankful, let me add, that we haven't made this an American war. We haven't introduced American ground forces. We've gone about it exactly right using Special Forces to assist the Afghans. We did that in the Soviet-Afghan war when America helped the Afghans to defeat the Soviets. We didn't do it ourselves. We should adopt that same approach now to finish this off. I think the Taliban are going to be finished off fairly quickly. The big danger that lies ahead is the Pashtun-non-Pashtun divide and also remnants of the Islamic extremists remaining in Afghanistan to cause problems in the future.

RAY SUAREZ: So how do you work with that Pashtun, not Pashtun divide, Don Ritter?

DON RITTER: Well, I think the comments earlier about trying to set up a government that's broadly representative of the various ethnic, tribal and religious factions is essential and it's kind of sad that this hasn't happened already because everybody knew that this was the end game with the Northern Alliance moving, and yet the processes that have been going on for several years now, Istanbul, and now Rome and Bonn have yet to come up with this kind of broadly representative body and hopefully Brahimi, as the gentleman said, can work with some of the key parties, some of the key Muslim nations that can come in and can develop relationships, form a council, bring in the key Afghan parties, have a police force. These are the kinds of things that are going to have to happen. And a lot of it is up to the Afghans themselves. The Pashtuns are going to want very much to participate in the national government. I don't think the Northern Alliance sees a national government without the participants of the Pashtun. The United States is here now. It wasn't here. It's there now. It wasn't there in 1992.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Kawun Kakar, in the past, efforts to build those broad pan ethnic coalitions have not been very successful. What's different about this situation in 2001 that might give it a better opportunity for success?

KAWUN KAKAR: The big difference this time is the involvement of the international community. Afghans have had multiethnic governments in the past for decades, yet the war in the '80s and '90s, made it difficult to build such a government because of the intervention of foreign neighboring countries. This time the neighboring countries have to be checked and the international community, the UN, has to step in and form this... send in a multinational force that would be providing security for such a government to establish, so the big difference this time is the involvement of the international community. And it's hoped that as the international community has come together to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida that they will also step in and establish a multiethnic... Help establish a multiethnic government as well so that the al-Qaida and the Taliban leaders are removed from Afghanistan.

RAY SUAREZ: You know, Professor Oakley, we watched those troops coming in, armored personnel carriers, tanks, but it's hard to get an idea of the scale, what kind of place Kabul is. Is it a huge, sprawling low-rise place? Does it have a city center that is built up, that has civic buildings, government buildings? Is it a big place?

PHYLLIS OAKLEY: Well, it has been a big place, and I think that there are many people that can make a description better than I can; but most of it is mud-brick and it's spread out. And I think we have to understand the destruction that has been in Kabul since the beginning of the 1990s. This is not a city with great avenues that have been cared for. There are, of course, lots of government buildings spread out. There is an old American embassy that had been there that was most recently quite damaged. I've heard people talk about the whole of Afghanistan as a moonscape, that this is very rugged, dry, arid land, very difficult. And particularly in many areas they've had a drought for the last four years. And I couldn't agree that this time is different because of the international community, but I'd like to add one more thing. It's clear to me that the international community is going to come in with resources now, that there is a will and a desire to help rebuild this country that has been so ravaged. And I think to ensure that those resources are fairly distributed, they're the carrots to get people together, and I think we'll probably have to use a few carrots.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, how do you time the two tracks of the military and the humanitarian? If resources are going to be brought to the country, how does that mesh with... How does that move in "truck" with the efforts to win victory on the ground as well?

PETER TOMSEN: Well, it's more political than it is military. I'd say it's about 15% military and 85% political, including defections and humanitarian assistance coming in. The humanitarian assistance that is going to Kabul and the other liberated areas and I think before long it will be going to Kandahar and other cities as well as the North, it should come with a price tag, that is to say, the international community hopes and expects the Northern Alliance and others to move towards a broad-base political settlement process. There also should be simultaneously an external dimension to this where the United States is using its great diplomatic weight and prestige to pressure the neighbors of Afghanistan who have been intervening in Afghanistan beginning with the soviet invasion in 1979 -- continuing with the elements, the radical elements from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, setting up the Taliban and this extremist network inside Afghanistan. We should be working for an international accord by which all of Afghanistan's neighbors will step back and not attempt to spread their hegemony into Afghanistan and permit the Afghan settlement process to go forward without outside interference.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, we've talked about the political and the humanitarian. What about the military? What do people at the Pentagon have to be thinking about now in light of these new realities of the past several days?

DON RITTER: Well, first of all I think one could step back and say, "what an incredible job our United States Navy did, what an incredible job our Air Force did, how our Special Forces as spotters on the ground linking planes to targets." And also what an incredible job the Northern Alliance did. They fought for all those years. They were in the wilderness. So, we don't diminish the role of the military. But I think the military has to become more of a police force which is multi-ethnic, which is trained by people coming in from the West, not just Americans. And I also think that the military becomes maybe part of the reconstruction effort that, you know, these are going to be soldiers looking for a job. I think reconstruction is the carrot-- and I agree with Peter. But I think the reconstruction carrot has to be developed real quick. We don't have any time to wait on this. Now it doesn't have to be, you know, fully 100% developed. But this is the... Probably the only thing that's solid and material that can be put before these folks that have been fighting and fighting each other for a long, long time.

RAY SUAREZ: I'll have to leave it there. Guests, thank you all.

FOCUS - THE PUTIN VISIT

JIM LEHRER: Now, more on the first day of the Bush-Putin summit and what President Bush called "a new day in the history of Russian-American relations." The two Presidents talked to reporters after three hours of talks at the White House. The key topic was nuclear arms. President Bush said the United States would reduce its nuclear arsenal unilaterally from its current 7,000 weapons.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: As Russia and the United States work more closely to meet new 21st century threats, we're also working hard to put the threats of the 20th century behind us once and for all. And we can report great progress. Current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's strategic realities. I have informed President Putin that the United States will reduce our operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to a level between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade, a level fully consistent with American security.

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (Translated): We appreciate very much the decision by the President to reduce strategic offensive weapons to the limits indicated by him, and we, for our part, will try to respond in kind. On the issues of missile defense, the position of Russia remains unchanged, and we agreed to continue a dialogue and consultations on this. I believe that it's too early now to draw the line under the discussions of these issues, and we will have an opportunity to continue the work on this, one of the very difficult issues, at the Crawford Ranch. Specific numbers were mentioned here with regard to the reductions of offensive weapons -- when, and if at all, one could expect that such specific numbers made public be substantiated by some papers -- maybe during a possible visit by President Bush to Moscow? And, by the way, when could this visit take place?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Got to get invited first. (Laughter) Do you want to start, or you want...

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (Translated): President Bush is aware of that, and I would like to reiterate he has an open invitation to visit the Russian Federation with an official working or a private visit, in any format, at any time convenient for him. I mean, the best time would be during the time of the beginning of the year, White Nights, in St. Petersburg. Of course, the official part would start in Moscow, in the capital of the Russian Federation. But as for the business part, I think that before that time, our advisers will continue working. And we, for our part, for the Russian part, are prepared to present all our agreements in a treaty form...

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah. I think...

PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN (Translated): Including the issues of verification and control.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah. I think it's interesting to note that a new relationship based upon trust and cooperation is one that doesn't need endless hours of arms control discussions. I can remember watching the news years ago and seeing that people would sit at tables for hours and hours and hours, trying to reach reduced levels of nuclear armament. My attitude is, "Here's what we can live with." And so I have been asked a level that we're going to... That we'll stick by. And to me, that's how you approach a relationship that is changed and different. And we'd be glad to... I looked the man in the eye and shook his hand. And - but if we need to write it down on a piece of paper, I'll be glad to do that.

REPORTER: You mentioned past discussions on the ABM Treaty. What progress are you making, and are you convinced you won't have to withdraw from the treaty now?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is obviously a subject that's got a lot of ramifications to it. I clearly heard what the President has had to say in his view of the ABM Treaty; he's heard what I've had to say, and we'll continue working it. But my position is is that it's a piece of paper that's codified a relationship that no longer exists. It codified a hateful relationship, and now we have got a friendly relationship. And I think we need to have a new strategic framework that reflects the new relationship based upon trust and cooperation. But we'll continue to work it.

JIM LEHRER: And the two Presidents will continue their talks at Mr. Bush's Texas ranch tomorrow and Thursday.

UPDATE - AIRLINER CRASH

JIM LEHRER: Now the airliner crash yesterday morning in New York. Kwame Holman has our update.

KWAME HOLMAN: Shortly after flight 587 went down, federal investigators began to focus on possible mechanical failure, and not terrorism. Witnesses reported the airbus 300 lost an engine and other pieces after takeoff from Kennedy Airport. The wreckage rained down across Jamaica Bay and the Rockaway section of Queens. Federal investigators quickly recovered the cockpit voice recorder, and last night, the National Transportation Safety Board said what they heard on it bolstered their working theory that the crash was an accident.

GEORGE BLACK, NTSB: There's no evidence on it to indicate a problem not associated with an aviation accident. It is good quality data or voice quality, and it starts at the gate. The other thing that... The only other obvious thing is that the pilot flying was the first officer, which is not unusual because the captain and the first officer usually take turns flying legs of their trips.

KWAME HOLMAN: This afternoon, the NTSB's George Black had a more detailed account of what was heard on the cockpit recording.

GEORGE BLACK: The first portion of the flight appeared normal. The co-pilot was flying the leg. At 107 seconds after the start of the take-off roll, an airframe rattling noise was heard. The captain makes a comment about "waken counter" at 114 seconds after the start of the take-off roll. That would have been seven seconds later. A second airframe rattling sound was heard at 121 seconds after the start of the take-off roll. The co-pilot calls then at 125 seconds after the start of the roll for max power. There are several comments suggesting loss of control of the aircraft at 127 seconds after the take-off roll initiation, and the cockpit voice recording ends at 144 seconds after the start of the take-off roll.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, investigators found the plane's other black box, the flight data recorder, and are analyzing it. They also were looking into past problems with General Electric engines like the ones on Flight 587. The NTSB warned less than a year ago that the engines could fail in flight and send hot metal fragments ripping into control systems. There also was the possibility the engines failed after sucking in birds, a longstanding problem at Kennedy Airport.

GEORGE BLACK: There was no evidence on initial inspection of the engines... Of any kind of foreign object damage including a bird. We'll have to await further examination of the engines at teardown in the hangar to completely analyze the -- the condition of the engines and any part they might have played in the accident.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, New York Mayor Rudolph Guiliani said search crews recovered 262 bodies-- all 260 people on the plane and two people killed on the ground. Several others were missing.

FINALLY - STATES OF MIND

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, some closing thoughts on the American state of mind two months after the September 11 attacks, hours after the fall of Kabul and the crash of American Airlines Flight 587. They come from our NewsHour essayists Clarence Page of the "Chicago Tribune," Jim Fisher, Anne Taylor Fleming, and Roger Rosenblatt.

State of mind, Clarence. When you first heard about this American Airlines crash yesterday, what went through your mind?

CLARENCE PAGE: Deja-vu or as Yogi Berra said deja-vu all over again. It was really a flashback. You know, I was waiting for the second bang. You know, this is something we have seen in these Osama bin Laden related terrorist episodes that there is a first explosion and then a second one. That happened with the Africa embassies, it happened with the World Trade Center. By the time that second plane hit, everybody saw it because by then the TV cameras were there. The second bang didn't come. But there was that big black cloud over the horizon, over New York's horizon. And there was that terrible feeling that I had inside that, you know, are we... You know, is this it? Is this the other shoe we've been waiting to drop? I think our mood is jumpy in that sense, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: But your first reaction was this was another terrorist attack.

CLARENCE PAGE: That was the question, right, exactly.

JIM LEHRER: Ann, was that your first reaction?

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Sure I think inevitably we all do... You know, I go by the television set in the morning and I go for the impulse to turn it on or turn it off. Hoping nothing had happened and I flicked it on and there was a plane crash. I think the inevitable feeling is, it's happened again. And I think as the day wore on, they quite quickly said it didn't seem to be that. But the weird thing is that didn't calm any nerves. And it seems still strangely of the picture that adds to the unsettlement, even though they're saying fairly flat out now I think that it wasn't a terrorist act.

JIM LEHRER: Jim Fisher, what did you think when you first heard about it?

JIM FISHER: I hate to break the... Sound like a Pollyanna but I thought it was an accident from the very first. I heard Rockaway. Then I thought JFK. I'm an old aviation editor. I remember when they used to go down in the Bay all the time there. I never thought it was a terrorist attack. I just think New York would be the last place a terrorist would want to go and try to fool around again because....

JIM LEHRER: You were thinking all of that when you first heard it?

JIM FISHER: I thought accident.

JIM LEHRER: You thought accident. What did you think, Roger?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I thought it was deliberate. I thought it was a terrorist attack that had gone wrong, that they had wanted to commandeer the plane and head for the UN since the UN was meeting. It's interesting. It's the mindset that terrorism puts you in. It changes thewhole way you think. Then I started to be ashamed of myself thinking because I had a choice I'd prefer it to be an accident than a terrorist incident.

JIM LEHRER: Why?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Imagine having that choice.

JIM LEHRER: Why would you prefer it to be an accident?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Because then it would seem that the city was not going to be a target for the terrorists and this would not be part of a scheme of terrorism but just a terrible thing that happened as an act of fate.

JIM LEHRER: Clarence, a lot of....

CLARENCE PAGE: I'd like to add to that by the way.

JIM LEHRER: Go ahead.

CLARENCE PAGE: Among my friends we were saying the same thing. Isn't this ironic about the new age that we're kind of relieved that it was an accident. You know, Jim, I think we Americans know if it's an accident we can fix it. There's some hope of fixing it. We can explore it, analyze it, break it down and find a way so this particular kind of accident won't happen again. But terrorism is more complicated. There are too many unknowns. Where is the manual? Where do I open the hood? How do I fix this? That's much frightening for us.

JIM LEHRER: Now, there are a lot of newspapers really came down hard this morning in the editorials saying okay even if it does turn out to be an accident, our state of mind, our immediate reaction, meaning the big "our" the big American reaction, "oh, my God" except for Jim Fisher we've just demonstrated it here.

CLARENCE PAGE: God bless Jim Fisher.

JIM LEHRER: But the immediate American reaction was another terrorist attack. They said it's been fed by the fact that the Congress of the United States has yet to get its act together on an airline security bill two months after this thing happened. Do you agree with that?

CLARENCE PAGE: I certainly do. By the way I'm like Jim Fisher when it comes to the anthrax attacks. I thought from the very beginning this was an American nut for a lot of reasons I won't even bother to go into right now. Now we're starting to see the FBI coming around to my train of thought there, but it is true because of the current atmosphere we immediately think Osama bin Laden right off the bat. Yeah, I think Congress looks even worse now. We saw them looking not at their best when they allowed partisan politics to get in the way of reaching a settlement over airline safety, over whether the security people at the airports ought to be federally employed or not. These are issues that we turn to Congress to settle and do it pretty quick. We have Thanksgiving holidays coming up. We're talking about them being at an impasse perhaps through New Year's. This is not good.

JIM LEHRER: From the perspective of Kansas City, Jim, does the congress look like it's doing its job on this or is this just business as usual?

JIM FISHER: Well, I hate to sound like a contrarian but who cares? I just flew out to Phoenix last week. The people at the gate were doing a great job. I don't know what the government could do more. The most... The happiest thing I saw is the bars on the door. A woman looked over to me and says, well, they're not going to get in the cockpit if anything happens we're going to have to do it ourselves. I think a lot of Americans have decided that they're going to fly, they're going to do the best they can, those bars on the door have made, I think, hijacking a futile endeavor. Why would you want to get a bunch of people going to Phoenix and terrorize them and let the plane go on? What the hijacker wants is control. And if the pilots-- and I hope they never do-- if they won't come out, hijacking is -- it's a no-win situation.

JIM LEHRER: So the Congress, what the congress does or doesn't do doesn't matter from your perspective, that is not a big issue that they haven't been able to get their act together in two months.

JIM FISHER: No I think congress is looking just like they always do, banal.

JIM LEHRER: And from Los Angeles, Ann?

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: I think people are very concerned. One of the things that... Whether this was an accident or a terrorist act, I think the general sense of unsettlement is pervasive. I think people have behaved extraordinarily well. I don't think you hear panic but I think you do hear an enormous amount of unsettlement. I respectfully disagree with Jim. I think flying is a nerve-wracking experience now. The plane I was on, there was no bars on the door. I mean they were stopping people, you know, middle-aged women and taking away their tweezers, but meanwhile you knew that the luggage was going on that they weren't checking still. That's still a state of affairs.

JIM LEHRER: Are you personally... Are you personally a little afraid when you fly right now?

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: I have to be honest, I am.

JIM LEHRER: Go ahead.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: And avoiding it, Jim. Flat out avoiding it. I know a fair amount of people are. You know, I think Americans are enormously resilient, enormously optimistic but at the moment I think there's an overwhelming sense that while people are still supportive of the war, things might be going well in that immediate sense, you know, the fall of Kabul, et cetera, that the huge underlying issues-- airline safety, economic security-- our overwhelming dependence on oil-- all of these big underlying elephants in the living room are still there. We're dealing with the immediate and dealing with it fairly well, but these huge underlying, nagging things, I mean, who's talking conservation? Who's saying, you know, let's cut our dependence on foreign oil and we can obviate some of these problems? I keep feeling that the American people are ahead of the curve, as I often do these days, and that there's a pervasive sense of unsettlement that is profound and I think accurate.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Roger? Do you feel a sense of unsettlement?

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I do. I also think that there's a countervailing element of sort of sobriety and a somber feeling and autumnal feeling, if you will, in this season, that is attractive in its own way. People are making better discriminations on what's important in the news. They're making better discriminations on what's important in their lives. But if I might return to the question of government for a second --

JIM LEHRER: Sure, you may.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: I not only think that Congress is behaving poorly on these air safety issue, I think Congress is behaving poorly on several issues, and they're doing it at the worst time possible because this is a time when people, however suspicious they are ordinarily of government, want to give wholeheartedly their support to anything in government. And if I may speak of bison and if I may speak of civil liberties, if you start doing pork barreling nonsense on saving the bison or that industry rather, they're certainly not saving the bison, and tampering with....

JIM LEHRER: You're talking about in economic stimulus package.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: Yes, sir. I'm talking about that and I'm talking about the civil liberties interference in being able to get in on a conversation between a lawyer and a client. Patriotism here is a very important thing to pay attention to, Jim, it seems to me. And the patriot is the one who supports the basic principles, the basic tenets of his or her country especially in a time of danger. So I am particularly concerned that Congress is toying with a very delicate business when it tests our patriotism in an automatic way, when patriotism should never be automatic and we should watch it when it's greedy and we should watch it when it starts tampering with civil liberties.

JIM LEHRER: Clarence, you're here in Washington. They're way out there. They're in New York and Los Angeles.

CLARENCE PAGE: I'm in the real world.

JIM LEHRER: And Kansas City. What is your reading of why Congress on these issues... Forget whether you have one position or another on the issues, that they just can't resolve these things in this atmosphere?

CLARENCE PAGE: It's downright reflexive, Jim. There's a sense that they each come to the table with their agendas -- their constituents -- they're lobbyists. When we get a big new history- shaking issue like terrorism, now everybody's pet cause becomes an anti-terrorist cause, even saving the bison industry. It's just reflexive. It's just like with President Bush who railed against the ways of Washington on the campaign trail after the crisis began his first reflex was a very Washington thing. He created a new office just like Harry Truman created the national security advisor after the hydrogen bomb, President Bush creates the homeland security director who has a very amorphous office right now. Another layer of bureaucracy -- so Washington is still finding its way.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: Jim, can I say one thing the other day I was riding along with my mom who has lived many a life. And I said to her what do you think? She said it feels to me like we have an antique government for a modern situation. It just blew my mind. I thought that's exactly what it feels like. It feels like they're on a an old page and the whole country has moved on and is saying help us, we're willing to be patriots, we're willing to do this but for gosh sakes get with the program. Understand we need things to happen and we need things to happen now. Blow open the discussion about oil and conservation. Get the air marshals going. I mean the whole thing seems like sea sludge. And I think people are really feeling that.

JIM LEHRER: You feel that way in Kansas City, Jim?

JIM FISHER: No, I'm sorry.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, Jim.

JIM FISHER: I think most of Americans are just going on with their lives. We're not... Most of them are not dependent on government to do everything. We're going to get on those planes. We may worry a little bit what goes in the baggage but we think that will get worked out. It just seems to me that the government is doing as good a job as they can. This is a war. If you go back and look in the history of World War II, there was pork-barreling bills back in World War II to build dams on the Missouri River which weren't really needed in 1944. So that's nothing new. We've done that. You look at the civil war. There's a lot of pork in the civil war. I think most Americans are just going about their lives. Congress and Washington and maybe even the media has become a little superfluous to them because we've found out that in light of the 11th of September, there are more important things to worry about than Gary Condit or the latest celebrity murder in LA or whatever goes on among the rock'n'roll groups.

JIM LEHRER: Well, I was with you Fisher until you said the media was irrelevant. Then you lost me. Okay.

CLARENCE PAGE: Let'sstop preaching and go to....

JIM LEHRER: We're going to leave it there. Thank you all four very much.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: And before we go, some other news of this day. A German court convicted four people in the 1986 bombing of a West Berlin disco. The explosion killed two U.S. Soldiers and a Turkish woman and wounded 229 others. The United States blamed Libya for the attack and retaliated with air strikes. The court found Libyan agents planned the attack, but it said prosecutors failed to prove that Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi actually ordered it. President Bush today signed an order allowing suspected terrorists to be tried by military commissions instead of civilian courts. A White House spokesman said it would help bring the September 11 attackers to justice. He said military proceedings make it easier to protect intelligence sources and methods among other things. On the anthrax story, the Centers for Disease control said there's evidence of another tainted letter somewhere in the State Department's mail system. Eight of 55 samples from an off- site mail facility have tested positive for the germ. A search of the State Department system is under way. Also today, the "Washington Post" reported spores were discovered in the central mailroom of Howard University in Washington. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 196 points, about 2% to close at 9750. The NASDAQ Index gained 51 points, nearly 3 percent... To close at 1892.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And recapping the top stories of the day, Northern Alliance forces captured Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan; in Washington, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said a small number of U.S. Troops were in Kabul, advising the alliance. And President Bush met with Russian President Putin at the White House and promised to cut the U.S. long-range nuclear arsenal by two-thirds or more. Putin said he would try to respond in kind. A programming note before we go. A Nova/"New York Times" report on bioterror airs tonight on most PBS stations. Please check your listings for the time. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.