The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MAC NEIL: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, we look at Bosnia with UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, then our regional editors and commentators and Mark Shields and Paul Gigot react to Bosnia and to matters domestic, including President Clinton's and Senator Dole's separate trips to the West. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MAC NEIL: A US F-16 fighter jet was shot down by Serb gunners over Northern Bosnia today. The fate of the pilot is unknown, but the Serbs claimed to be holding him hostage. The NATO aircraft went down over Banja Luka in Serb-held territory. It was apparently hit by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile while enforcing the no- fly zone over Bosnia. The jet, like these F-16's, took off from Aviano Air Base in Northern Italy, a main staging area for NATO patrol operations over Bosnia. There were reports the plane exploded in mid-air but a parachute opened before it crashed. A search and rescue mission is underway. This afternoon, President Clinton spoke to reporters in the White House Rose Garden.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am very concerned about the loss of our F- 16 over Bosnia and the failure of the American pilot, and we are following that situation closely. I have spoken today with President Chirac about the situation in Bosnia. We've also been in touch with the NATO commanders and with other governments. I want to reiterate and make absolutely clear that our policy on Bosnia remains firm. For reasons that I think are obvious I will have no further comments on the situation today.

MR. MAC NEIL: Later, the President met with Defense Secretary Perry and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Shalikashvili. They'll be attending a meeting of European defense ministers on Bosnia this weekend in Paris. In Bosnia, 120 of the United Nations' 370 peacekeepers being held hostage were reportedly released. Belgrade Television said they were freed on orders from Serbian President Milosevic. The Bosnian Serbs also released a civilian worker who was detained yesterday, but they took another 33 UN soldiers hostage. We'll have a Newsmaker interview with UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali after the News Summary. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: In economic news today, unemployment fell .1 of a percent in May to 5.7 percent. But despite that, the Labor Department said 101,000 non-farm jobs were lost during the month. Southwest Bank of St. Louis cut its prime lending rate. Bank officials cited the job losses as evidence of a slowing economy. The rate was cut from 9 to 8 1/2 percent. And the Commerce Department reported the Index of Leading Economic Indicators dropped .6 of a percent in April. It was the third straight monthly decline. The index gauges future economic activity. A statement today from the President's Council of Economic Advisers said the current slowing of the economy was in part the result of rising interest rates in 1994.

MR. MAC NEIL: Rescue workers in Russia today pulled two more survivors from Sunday's earthquake on Sakhalin Island. But the number of bodies found is now up to 866, and is expected to rise. The quake also damaged two pipelines in the area, which is the site of an oil field. Thirty-four hundred tons of oil seeped out before the lines were shut down, most of it into nearby lakes and rivers.

MR. LEHRER: And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the UN Secretary General, our regional editors and commentators, and Shields and Gigot. NEWSMAKER

MR. MAC NEIL: We lead tonight with the embattled United Nations peacekeeping operation in the former Yugoslavia and a Newsmaker interview with the UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. I spoke with him at UN headquarters in New York late this afternoon.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Secretary General, thank you for joining us. There was a report late this afternoon that on President Milosevic's orders the Bosnian Serbs have released 120 of the UN hostages. Do you know about that?

BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI, UN Secretary General: I've still not received an official confirmation about this news, but this is just a first step. What we are asking is the immediate release of all the hostages without any conditions, and immediately.

MR. MAC NEIL: Turning to the American plane that was shot down today, does that represent in your view, since the plane was flying for NATO to support UN Security Council resolutions, does that represent a grave escalation of the situation to you?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Certainly this represents an obstacle to the peace process. I'm very much concerned about the life of the pilot and the crewmen, and we are following with great attention the last evolution of the situation.

MR. MAC NEIL: There's a report from the NATO admiral, Adm. Layton. He says he's heard it reported that the Bosnian Serbs captured the downed pilot and are holding him. Do you have any confirmation?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No, we have no confirmation, but, again, we need -- we will ask the immediate release of the pilot.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is the situation in Bosnia now out of the control of the United Nations and of NATO?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I will not say it is out of control, because you are still on the ground, we still have the capacity to contain certain events, but on the long-term, I don't believe that within this mandate we will be able to continue this operation.

MR. MAC NEIL: I'll come back to your views of the mandate in a moment. Let me ask about a couple of other things that are happening now, particularly this weekend. Britain and France are apparently creating a rapid deployment force in Bosnia, for action in Bosnia. How do you understand such a force would be used?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Still, I have not the last information, but I was told that this force would be an integral part of the United Nation forces, because we cannot afford to have two commands. It will complicate our work on the ground.

MR. MAC NEIL: So it would come under United Nations command?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: It would come under United Nations command. At least, this is the information I have received.

MR. MAC NEIL: So would you see it as an augmentation of the UN force, the UNPROFOR?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Yes. And it may be necessary to protect the -- to find a way to save the hostages and to protect the United Nations forces on the ground.

MR. MAC NEIL: How could additional troops be used to save the hostages?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: We would put more pressure. The fact that there are more forces proves that we are ready to put more pressures on the Bosnian Serb in the case that they will not release the hostages.

MR. MAC NEIL: Not for a rescue mission per se, militarily?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Again, I don't believe that a rescue mission will be constructive, but again, this is a possibility. So we must maintain the pressure on them until they will release all the hostages.

MR. MAC NEIL: You've told the Security Council that the UN force as present constitutedand set up could not carry out its mandate. Could the British-French force be a way of saving the UN mission?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No. But, but by the way, I'd say this. Since one year in official document sent to the Security Council that our mandate is a mandate of peacekeeping, i.e., that it is a force of inter-position, and our role can be only to keep peace if there is no political will among the two protagonists of the dispute, the force is useless. We may offer humanitarian assistance. We may show the flag of the United Nations, but we cannot impose peace if there is no political will.

MR. MAC NEIL: Many American politicians looking at that same reality are calling for a total withdrawal of the UN force, but that is one of the options you oppose in your report this week. Why do you oppose withdrawal?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I oppose withdrawal because the presence of the troops help us to offer a massive humanitarian assistance. We are offering assistance to more than 2 million displaced persons and 2 million refugees. The airlifts in -- for Sarajevo is the longest in the history of humanity. Thousands of tons have been transported by plane to save the population of Sarajevo, so this is due to the presence of the United Nations forces. For humanitarian reasons they must continue to stay there.

MR. MAC NEIL: Some of the same American politicians advise lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian Serbs -- on the Bosnian Muslims -- Bosnian government, and letting them and the Bosnian Serbs fight it out among themselves. What is your reaction to that?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: My reaction is that both the French, the British, the Russian, the Spanish, and the Canadian have said that if they would lift the embargo, they intend to pull out their troops. So my aim is to maintain the troops on the ground.

MR. MAC NEIL: Another option that you offer in the four that you present to the Security Council is changing the mandate of the present force and building it up and strengthening it and permitting it to use force more than it's permitted to do at the moment. But you say that wouldn't be appropriate for a peacekeeping force, and it should be replaced by an international force, such as was the case in Haiti. And yet, you don't really push that alternative, yourself. You're not in favor of that one either.

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No. I will be in favor. I don't believe that -- you see, we will not solve the problem of former Yugoslavia by a military means. We need negotiations. But if they decide, if the political will is there, let us try this, but you need a political will, and it may cost a lot, because we may need more than a hundred thousand troops on the ground. But I'm not in favor of this, because I believe that this could be -- may have been a solution through more negotiations.

MR. MAC NEIL: Why do you prefer your fourth option, which is regrouping the present force? As I understand it, removing some of the UN troops from the most exposed positions, where they're most vulnerable and perhaps reducing their number down the line, why do you prefer that option?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Because it will correspond to the new reality, and it will help us to maintain our humanitarian assistance.

MR. MAC NEIL: But will it not at the same time cause you to remove whatever UN protection there is from some areas of the civilian population who would immediately come under attack, presumably by the Bosnian Serbs?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: The troops will continue to be there, but they will not get involved in enforcement operation. They will be there as forces of inter-position. Unless there is an agreement to maintain a cease-fire, we will not be able to do anything on the ground, and since the 1st of May, the agreements have not been renewed.

MR. MAC NEIL: I don't see why that is not an argument for withdrawal altogether. You were against sending in a force back several years ago when it was -- because you said, the two sides have not agreed to a cease-fire, they're not interested in peace, therefore, it's wrong to send a peacekeeping force. Why after three years of fighting is that any different now?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: It is different now because we have reached a deadlock before certain agreements have been concluded. It means the 31 of December, we have concluded an agreement of a cease-fire. On the basis of this agreement we can build the presence of the United Nations troops, but if there is no agreement, what will be the role of the United Nations? We need an agreement, because what you are doing is a peacekeeping operation. Our role is to respect, to save -- to keep peace, to save this agreement. The new event is that both parties refused to sign a new agreement, a new cease-fire.

MR. MAC NEIL: So aren't you back in the United Nations -- as a peacekeeping operation, aren't you back where you might have been three years ago, four years ago, when there was no agreement, and, therefore, peacekeeping was impossible?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: In a certain way, yes. It means we are back to square one. And we have to take this in consideration.

MR. MAC NEIL: You talk a lot in your report about the, the damage to UN prestige that will happen if this is not resolved in a, in a satisfactory manner. Describe what you see as the potential damage to the United Nations in Bosnia.

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: The first damage is that we are paying -- all of our energy, all of our energy is related to what is going on in Bosnia at the expense of many other operations -- in Afghanistan, in Rwanda, in Burundi, in Haiti, in Salvador, in Guatemala. So this is one damage. But what is worse is the image of the United Nations. Public opinion sees the setback on the television every day, and they don't know that we are doing work in the field of development, in the field of communication, in the field of human rights, in the field of democratization, in the field of technical assistance, so it damages the image of the United Nations.

MR. MAC NEIL: You said several times in the past year that you would need more troops there in order to carry out the mandate the Security Council has given UNPROFOR. Up till now, the Security Council has refused to send more troops, or member countries have refused to contribute more troops. But as you've just said, some see the failure in Bosnia as a failure of the United Nations, itself. How do you answer that when people say -- a lot of Americans are saying, this just shows the United Nations is ineffectual?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: If there is a confusion, the United Nations is an instrument in the hand of the member states. It depends on the member states, so there is a confusion between the United States and the member states. In fact, the member states are the United Nations and the United Nation is the member states. So, in fact, it is a failure of the member states and in the same time of the United Nations.

MR. MAC NEIL: You say in a report that these are truly defining moments for the United Nations, and how it will reacts here will have "a decisive effect on its standing for years to come." Will shrinking the UN force and limiting its mandate in Bosnia now, as you are recommending, will that send out a positive signal for the -- for history and for the future of UN effectiveness?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: What I was saying that in the case you will have a new drama or a new catastrophe, what happened just a few days ago, then it will be more difficult in the future to obtain new blue helmet in other peacekeeping operation. On the contrary, if we limit the mandate of the United Nations, the blue helmet in Bosnia, then this may preserve the credibility of the United Nations, may save the lives of our troops and may allow us to obtain new blue helmet for new operation in the future.

MR. MAC NEIL: Even, even if the United Nations appears to be even less capable of protecting the civilians the safe areas were designed to protect.

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: I believe, no, that we will be more able to protect the safe areas and to protect the humanitarian assistance. One of the difficulties today that you are looked by one of the protagonists as his enemy. If we will reduce our presence and the reduction is not so much important, but if you will change our mandate, and it will be seen that the two protagonists, that you are a neutral force, neither in favor of "A" nor in favor of "B," a force of inter-position which is protecting the population and in the same times protecting the humanitarian assistance and not doing enforcement and not punishing "A" against "B."

MR. MAC NEIL: So that would be saying no more air strikes, for example, not calling in NATO air strikes to enforce the, the --

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: We will still need the possibility to have air support in the case of an attack in self-defense, because our rule is that in the case of the self-defense, we must choose other means, and one of the means is to use air support.

MR. MAC NEIL: If -- if you take that route, what is to prevent the Bosnian Serbs from continuing their attacks on Sarajevo, or taking away the weapons that the UN had impounded or confiscated before, in effect, doing what they like? Where would be the sanction against that?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No, the sanction then -- the Security Council will have to decide to take sanctions in this case, but the real problem is that we must know what are our objectives -- if our objective to do peace enforcement, then it will be answer to your question. We are not supposed to do peace enforcement. We have not the capability to enforce peace, so our objective must be just the peacekeeping operation.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is it fair to say this, or this over-dramatizing it, to say that you as the Secretary General are appealing to the Security Council to save the United Nations from a historic humiliation on its 50th anniversary?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No, I am not appealing. I am just trying to maintain the image of the United Nations and to think a long-term approach, because if we fail -- if you will have a new catastrophe in Yugoslavia, this may have a negative impact in future peacekeeping operations, and our responsibility or my responsibility is to preserve the United Nations for future confrontation. We may have ten other future confrontations, and what will be the situation if we will not be able to obtain peacekeeping forces? We have been able to obtain 6,000 troops for Haiti, just now; we have been able to obtain 6,000 blue helmets for Angola. If you will have tomorrow a real catastrophe, where hundred French soldiers or hundred British soldiers will be killed, or a repetition of the hostages, it will be very difficult in the next year and the next month in the case of a new situation, a new confrontation, to obtain the blue helmet. So I have to -- I must have a kind of long-term approach to preserve the image and the credibility of the United Nations for tomorrow.

MR. MAC NEIL: Is this moment in UN history in any way comparable to the crises that broke the League of Nations in the 1930's?

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: No, no comparison. The United Nations has tremendous credibility. We have been able to receive just two months ago in Copenhagen 118 heads of state and heads of government, all over the world; everybody wants to support the United Nations. The United Nation is very -- we have problems only in few cases, and this is my problem. We are successful in many other situations. Unfortunately, in Bosnia, we are not successful.

MR. MAC NEIL: Mr. Secretary General, thank you.

SEC. GENERAL BOUTROS-GHALI: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot and our regional editors and commentators. FOCUS - EDITORS' AND COLUMNISTS' VIEWS

MR. LEHRER: Now, how the events in Bosnia are playing here as seen by Shields & Gigot, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot, and by five of our panel of regional editors and columnists: Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution; Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News; Gerald Warren of the San Diego Union-Tribune; Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times; and Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman in Oklahoma City. Gerry Warren, is Bosnia seen as an American problem in San Diego?

GERALD WARREN, San Diego Union Tribune: [San Diego] I think San Diego reflects the rest of the country. They don't want American troops involved. They're still suffering from the Vietnam syndrome, and they worry about a quagmire. They refuse or are unable to see the U.S. interest in Bosnia. Now that does not reflect the feeling or the thoughts of the entire populace here, of course, but I think it's predominant.

MR. LEHRER: How do you read your folks in Atlanta, Cynthia? CYNTHIA TUCKER, Atlanta Constitution: [Atlanta] Much the same, Jim. I don't think that Georgians or Atlantans are eager to see U.S. troop involvement in Bosnia. I don't think that the President has laid out a case for even having sending ground troops in to provide cover, if UN troops try to move civilian population. Now, the Atlanta Constitution's editorial board happens to see that part of it differently. It seems to me the U.S. has an obligation to support the UN efforts if, in fact, they decide to send troops in to either rescue the hostages or to try to move some of the civilians to safer areas. But I don't think that will be a very popular mission at all, and if American troops encounter high casualties, it will get less and less popular.

MR. LEHRER: Are there American obligations here, Lee?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Morning News: [Dallas] Jim, I don't think that people here in Dallas are seeing American obligations in terms of ground troops in Bosnia. There is certainly a feeling that we should not go into aid any kind of redeployment or reconfiguration, as the President said. The Dallas Morning News did say this morning that our troops should, indeed, keep their commitment to help UN forces leave Bosnia, to get out of there, get the troops out of there if they can. Otherwise, I do think that we will face an obligation to Bosnia in terms of refugees. If the UN forces leave and -- and it looks to me as if it may be time for them to leave, it looks that way to the Dallas News also, then I think there are going to be a lot of Bosnians who are going to want to leave also, and we're going to have to look carefully at the refugee crisis that will ensue, and, and that will be a moral obligation on the part of Americans and Europeans, I believe.

MR. LEHRER: Robert Scheer, do you see a moral dimension to this at all beyond obligations to our allies?

ROBERT SCHEER, Los Angeles Times: [Los Angeles] Well, I do in the original Clinton position that he would aid in an evacuation, and I suppose now in getting back the hostages I can see a moral dimension, but I certainly agree that the Vietnam example -- I don't call it the syndrome -- the lesson of Vietnam is that we should not get involved in a civil war, our national interests are not involved, and the President should avoid that at all costs.

MR. LEHRER: But Patrick, who defines our national interest? Whose job is it to define the national interest?

PATRICK McGUIGAN, Daily Oklahoman: [Oklahoma City] Well, I think our national interests are largely permanent. They're certainly linked to our closest allies, and the only part of this I see that there's a true American interest in trying to help traditional allies like the United Kingdom, France, certainly Canada, to a lesser extent Germany, in extricating themself from what, you know, perhaps was a mistake on their part in getting involved in the first place.

MR. LEHRER: What about the, the point that Boutros Boutros-Ghali just made to Robin about that the United Nations' future -- he didn't put it as succinctly as this -- but the United Nations' future may be on the line in Bosnia as well?

MR. McGUIGAN: I don't think people here are very concerned about that. You know, he talked about the peace process. This looks like a war process to me. I think it's very tragic. The one guy that's speaking with a great deal of clarity on this is Richard Lugar, and he's been making the case that either we need to get as many people out as safely and quickly as we can, or we need to go in with everything and make this count. I do not endorse that latter position, but at least it has some clarity to it.

MR. LEHRER: Bob Scheer, do you think there's a special obligation of the United Nations? Is the UN riding on this?

MR. SCHEER: I do think that we have an obligation to help the UN evacuate, and -- not redeploy, not get further involved, but to get out, having made its statement, having tried, yes, I do see an obligation, and I think we want to strengthen the UN, but I agree that it would be extremely dangerous to get Americans killed in a war that very few Americans see as in their national interest.

MR. LEHRER: Mark, is what we're hearing down the line, what you're hearing here in Washington as well?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Essentially, Jim, that over and over again you hear the President has not made the case, and you begin to question whether there's a case to be made. And I'd add to that that the irony is that Bill Clinton is in the position right now that the Republicans were in in 1992. His critics are free to sit outside and make all the suggestions in the world, arms embargoes, which President Clinton dropping -- of which President Clinton advocated in 1992 during the campaign of stepped up air raids. And they, the critics there are free of accountability and responsibility. I -- I guess the greatest irony to me is that there's been a success in the policy over there. The success is that it has limited the torture and the killing, and it has limited --

MR. LEHRER: Sec. Perry made that case on the program the other night.

MR. SHIELDS: Yes, he did. And I think it's an absolutely valid case. The irony is, Jim, it works against galvanizing public opinion for a national action at this point. If we had seen pictures and images of children being tortured, of the war expanding and civilians dying every night, then Americans might be more willing to consider --

MR. LEHRER: A handcuffed French soldier doesn't do it?

MR. SHIELDS: Doesn't do it. If anything, it's a metaphor almost for impotence.

MR. LEHRER: Paul.

PAUL GIGOT, Wall Street Journal: Well, I don't think the President has made the case. I think the worry that I hear on Capitol Hill right now is however that he seems to be committing us by degrees, by steps, this week moving to say we might actually use American ground troops in some kind of UN redeployment, all the while denying that he's doing it, so that he's slipping us into ever great commitment without making the argument that here is why we have to do this, here are American national interests, and I very much agree with Pat McGuigan, the truth teller in all of this, both parties, has been Richard Lugar, because he's --

MR. LEHRER: What has he said that is so, so stunning?

MR. GIGOT: The first thing he said is that we do have some national interests here. He's actually willing to say we have an interest in stability in Europe, in a broader national order, and he was then willing to step up to the plate and say, these are the stakes, now here's the price, here are the costs, here's the degree to which America has to be involved and say to the President, look, instead of sliding us into a potential quagmire, without admitting it, either do one of two things: either deploy the forces needed to impress the Serbs and make an impact and succeed, or else let's get out.

MR. LEHRER: Cynthia Tucker, do you think it would matter to you and the folks in Atlanta if you heard a strong voice on this, a Lugar voice coming from the President or somebody else?

MS. TUCKER: Of course, it would make a difference, Jim. I think the President always has an ability if he's a strong leader and a convincing leader and communicates well to get the American people behind him. Now, this may be a difficult case to make. It is unfortunate that neither our allies in Western Europe nor the Bush administration, nor the Clinton administration saw any moral urgency in acting years ago when we might have been able to make a difference at less cost.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah.

MS. TUCKER: All of the options available to us now are poor options. But I think there is still the opportunity for President Clinton to come to the American people and say, we need to send ground troops in to cover a UN deployment. If we do not, we will see more United Nations troops taken hostages and more and more civilians killed. And we can't allow that to happen. But so far, the President has chosen not to make that case.

MR. LEHRER: Lee, just on a people level, are people talking about Bosnia in Dallas? Is this something -- is this considered a crisis? Is this considered a big deal, a serious matter?

MS. CULLUM: Yes. I think when you start talking about sending American troops abroad, where there's a war going on, it is considered serious, people are alert to it, they're aware of it, and they're worried about it. I do want to agree with Paul Gigot that we do have an interest in the stability of Europe, and for that reason, and I heard a retired Air Force man say this -- it's not original with me -- if all the troops do leave -- and it looks as if it might be the thing to do, they may have played out the string there, they will have to leave having drawn the line at the border of Macedonia and at the border of Kosovo and saying, beyond this, you may not go. I think that's critical.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Gerry, how do you feel about this, this interest, I mean, laying it out? Who -- what could be said that would change public opinion, or is there such a thing that could be said at this point?

MR. WARREN: I don't know that it can be said now. I think it may be too late. Boutros Boutros-Ghali said we're back at square one, but I don't think we really are. I think what has happened is that the UN is discredited, NATO is discredited, the leadership of the United States is discredited. I think the only thing that could change it is if the President -- and he's not about to do this -- but if the President went to the American people and said, Dick Lugar is right, we have massive interests in Europe, and we must stay there and we must pay our part of the price, therefore, we are going to do one of two things, and we're not going to wait for NATO to ask us this, we're going to go to NATO and be the leader. We're going to lift and strike. In other words, we're going to go in and take the hostages back and take our UN troops out and then start massive rearmament of the Bosnians and massive air strikes, or we are going to be a participant in a 100,000 man army, a multinational army under NATO control, going in there and becoming a peacemaker. Boutros-Ghali says we must be -- we are a peacekeeper. Well, that's wrong. There is no peace to keep over there.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Mark, is Gerry right, that that speech will never be made by the President?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know. I mean, I think the President is, is somebody with a great political sense and a great political ear, and he has to have heard the deafening silence of non-support that is received --

MR. LEHRER: The Democrats --

MR. SHIELDS: The Democrats -- Sen. Kennedy I think was the only person who even stepped up, and the other criticism has not been muted. I mean, people like Joe Liberman, the Senator from Connecticut, who's now the chairman of DLC, Democratic Leadership Council --

MR. LEHRER: He was on the program the other night.

MR. SHIELDS: On the program.

MR. LEHRER: And so was Lee Hamilton.

MR. SHIELDS: And he's been very tough, as Lee Hamilton, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Let me just say one thing on Gerry's comment -- while I don't disagree with his praise of Dick Lugar and, and as the Diogenes candidate of 1996, filling the role of Paul Tsongas of 1992, I will say this. The quickest way in the world to get American troops in there is to drop the arms embargo, because once you drop the arms embargo, then all bets are off and all the troops have to get out, all the peacekeeping, peacemaking, call them what you want, and at that point, America is committed to helping them get out, so then you're bringing Americans into a -- an armed exercise with real combat and real bullets.

MR. LEHRER: And then we have -- we also then, Paul, committed to arms, the Bosnians, once we've dropped the arms embargo, and what happens? How do you see that?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think if you -- if we do drop the arms embargo, we probably have to train and supply the arms or else get the Turks or some other proxy to go and arm and teach these people how to use what are not overly -- really sophisticated weapons but are more sophisticated than they're used to handling. Sure, that's right. I don't think there's any question about that.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. All right. Well, look, let's don't anybody go away, and now let's go on to some of the other political news of this week. President Clinton was on the road for two days on a campaign-style swing through Colorado and Montana. Margaret Warner reports from Billings, Montana.

MARGARET WARNER: President Clinton's visit to Montana this week, a year and a half before the 1996 election, had all the trappings of a campaign trip.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [on horseback] I love the view. I'm glad to be back.

MS. WARNER: Mr. Clinton wrapped himself in the mythic Montana, the Montana of big sky and vast, open range land, of small towns and big farms, of self-reliant folks knit together by neighborliness and common values. The President spent nearly a day and a half in and around the city of Billings in the center of the state. On his first night in town, 3500 people turned out in the sweltering heat to hear him speak at Montana State University.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: [Montana State University] Thank you for that wonderful, wonderful welcome. It is great to be back in Montana, and great to have that kind of reception. I know it's hot. [laughter in audience]

MS. WARNER: In this small city, a presidential visit generates plenty of excitement, but the President is in political trouble in Montana, a state he won in a three-way race in 1992, with 38 percent of the vote. His advisors admit he would lose a two-way race today. Montana's wealth is in its land used for ranching, mining, farming, and timbering. But much of that land is owned by the federal government. The Clinton administration tried early on to raise user fees and tighten restrictions on the use of that land. This move created a view among many in the mountain West that the President is waging war on the West and on the western way of life.

JIM GRANSBERY, Billings Gazette: The Clinton administration has managed to antagonize almost every natural resource group in the West.

MS. WARNER: Jim Gransbery is the agriculture and political writer for the Billings Gazette.

JIM GRANSBERY: This has been a way of life, okay, and he can change laws, but he can't change traditions.

MS. WARNER: The President came to Montana this week to try to repair this image, to try to make it clear that he's not waging war on the West. The White House also wanted to see whether the President's newly combative personal style might work for him in the Rocky Mountain states, as it seems to be elsewhere in the country.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Montana is a place where the family farm is alive and well. I think that's an important value in America.

MS. WARNER: At a wheat farm outside Billings yesterday, the President tried to assure Montana residents who work the land that the federal government isn't trying to fence them in.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: With more and more regulations from different agencies, it's getting tougher and tougher. I think -- I'd like to know your opinion. Do you think that we could be better stewards of the land than being dictated to by the government?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We're trying to move to a different regulatory system which would keep our commitment, our common commitment, to a clean environment, or to a safe work place but would give the people who have previously been overregulated far more freedom in deciding how to meet those objectives. And I think that's the right way to compromise this out.

MS. WARNER: Others were concerned that the federal government might abandon them inbudget-cutting times.

MAN IN AUDIENCE: If Congress doesn't appropriate the money for the enhancement export program, what are we do for competition?

SECOND MAN IN AUDIENCE: Mr. President, my concern is what a conservation reserve program -- do you feel that it will survive, and if it doesn't survive, is there anything in the future that may take the place of that?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: The answer to your question whether it'll survive or not depends upon -- in large measure upon you and the other people in agriculture throughout the country and on the decisions that we all have to make once we decide how much overall agriculture has to be cut.

MS. WARNER: The high point of the President's visit, as advertised by the White House, was to be a town hall forum last night at a television station in Billings. The station, KTVQ, chose 50 people to attend from among 400 who faxed in their questions. Montana has become a haven for anti-government protesters and far right militia groups, and the White House had expected some tough questions at the forum from militia members or their sympathizers. Instead, the questions came from a very different quarter.

CHRIS IMHOFF: Three of my eight fellow workers are leaning heavily towards the militia mentality. They're fed up with welfare and taxes and regulations. What is your administration doing to combat this negative climate of thought and to make citizens proud to be Americans again?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: We're working on all these things. The answer is not to join the militia and opt out. The answer is to come in here and opt in and be a vigorous voice of citizen responsibility.

CRYSTAL FRISKY: My question is: Ever since the Oklahoma City bombing, I've been very worried about my dad, who works at the Bureau of Land Management right across the street.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, I want to thank your father for serving his country by working for the federal government. If you want to disagree with the policy of the government, disagree with it, but do not condemn people who work for the government. That's the kind of mentality that produced Oklahoma City.

MS. WARNER: The President also took aim at Republicans, who have not stepped forward to criticize violent rhetoric on the far right.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It's very interesting to me to see that there are some public officials in our country who are only too happy to criticize the culture of violence being proposed -- promoted by the media in our country but are stone cold silent when these other folks are talking and making violence seem like it's okay.

MS. WARNER: The President's handling of this issue played well with people who watched the event at Jake's Bar in downtown Billings.

CARTER STEWART: I think he did a very good job, and I think the whole country stands behind them.

MS. WARNER: Yet, the President has a long way to go to restore his popularity here.

TODD JOHANSEN: It's the type of state where big government is not as appreciated as in other parts of the world.

MS. WARNER: White House aides say they hope that the strengths of Bill Clinton, the campaigner, can overcome whatever doubts western voters have about his performance and policies as President.

MR. LEHRER: President Clinton's mention of some Republican public officials who criticize a culture of violence was a reference to Sen. Bob Dole. The Senate Majority Leader and Presidential candidate spoke about the entertainment industry this week. It was at a fund-raising dinner in Los Angeles.

SEN. ROBERT DOLE, Majority Leader: What to some is art, to our children is a world outside their limited experience. What to some is make believe to them is the real skinny on the adult world they are eager to experience, and kids know firsthand what they see in their families, their schools, their immediate communities. But our popular culture shaped their view of the real world, of the real world. And our children believe those paintings in celluloid are reflections of reality in America, but I fail, as you do, to recognize America in most of what we see. And it's my voice and the rising voices of millions of other Americans who share this view and represent more than this stodgy old attempt of one generation to steal the fun of another. A line has been crossed not just of taste but of human dignity and decency. It's crossed every time sexual violence is given a catchy tune. When teen suicide is set to an appealing beat, when Hollywood's dream factories turn out nightmares of depravity, you know what I mean, I mean natural born killers, true romance, films that revel in the mindless violence and loveless sex. I'm talking about groups like Cannibal Corps, Ghetto Boys, and Two Live Crew, about a culture, business that makes money from music, which extols the pleasure of raping torturing, and mutilating women, from songs about killing policemen and rejecting law. The mainstreaming of deviancy must come to an end but it will only stop when the leaders of the entertainment industry recognize and shoulder their responsibility. Let me be clear. Let me be very clear. I'm not suggesting our growing social problems are entirely Hollywood's fault. They are not. People are responsible for their actions. Movies and music do not make children into murderers. But a numbing exposure to graphic violence and immorality does steal away innocence, smothering our instinct for outrage, and I think we've reached a point where our popular culture threatens to undermine our character as a nation.

MR. LEHRER: Now back to Shields and Gigot plus five. Paul, is Sen. Dole on to something? Is that an issue that resonates?

MR. GIGOT: I think it resonates very deeply, Jim, and not just with Republican primary voters, who he's obviously preoccupied with these next few months. There is a deep concern about the coarsening of American culture. If you look at the exit polls from the '94 election, the culture, the sense of personal responsibility, the fraying social fabric was the driving force behind an awful lot of new Republican voters, first-time Republican voters, the people who gave the House and Senate a majority. I think that Sen. Dole is trying to tap into this. He's obviously playing for the voters who might have supported a Bill Bennett or a Dan Quayle or a Jack Kemp had they run. But I think, frankly, you're going to see this theme right throughout the general election as well. He's tapped into something deep and profound.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Yeah. I don't -- I don't disagree. I think that Bob Dole did several things for this, and I was reminded of Orville Faubus, who was governor of Arkansas. Three times Orville Faubus was challenged, Democratic primary, governor Arkansas, by a fellow named Jim Johnson, an arch segregationist who used to -- I mean, for total apartheid, and Orville Faubus was the populist, bi-racial candidate. Then comes Little Rock Central High School, and the federal troops come in, and Orville Faubus stands up, and he becomes the apostle, the embodiment of all states' rights. And Jim Johnson said, God damn, Orville hit the jackpot of my nickel. Well, I mean, Bob Dole'shitting the jackpot of Pat Buchanan's nickel and Dan Quayle's nickel. I mean, the 1992 convention which an awful lot of Republicans felt didn't work and hurt them and all the rest of it, I think you can tell how the nation has changed, how the center of the Republican Party has changed, and how the political debate has changed.

MR. LEHRER: So you agree, this isn't just an appeal that a -- a message that appeals to the far right of the Republican Party?

MR. SHIELDS: No. It works, Jim. It works both retail and wholesale. I mean, it works -- yes, it does work. To those -- as Paul calls them, the cultural conservatives in the Republican Party -- but it also works with people who are just disgusted, I mean, who have to watch this stuff. I mean, there's no way you can listen to those lyrics and the other thing that Dole did, you got to give him credit. I'm always quick to criticize Paul's conservative friends for taking on the most vulnerable political targets. I mean, it's the -- it's the poor mother on welfare, it's the food stamp recipient, he took on a $15 billion a year corporation, a major American corporation.

MR. LEHRER: Time Warner.

MR. SHIELDS: Time Warner, named names, took names, kicked fanny, did the whole thing. I mean, that was -- I just think the thing worked, plus he did it in Pete Wilson's backyard, when Pete Wilson has milked the --

MR. LEHRER: The governor of California.

MR. SHIELDS: The governor of California. And he did it when Phil Gramm is still recovering, having put a check in for a soft core porn flick. I just think it worked greatly.

MR. LEHRER: But, Paul, what about -- come on, scapegoating -- I mean, it's an easy hit, you know, to blame Hollywood, even though we ran in the full context of what -- the full text of what Sen. Dole said, he said, look, I'm not blaming Hollywood for everything -- that's what everybody remembers?

MR. GIGOT: I think the speech would have been helped had he mentioned a G. Gordon Liddy, frankly. I mean, Pat Buchanan has, has criticized G. Gordon Liddy for some of the things. I think that would have helped the credibility of the speech -- there's no question about it. But what this speech was -- if you really listened to it -- it was very nuanced. It was very different than the Pat Buchanan speech of 1992, where he said, you know, we're going to have a culture war, we're going to take back -- this had much more the feel of a Bill Bennett, with a lot of distinctions made, sort of a lot of moral authority, but not condemning, not too accusatory. I think it struck the right note.

MR. LEHRER: Bob Scheer, how are the notes playing among the Hollywood folks?

MR. SCHEER: Well, people here generally know these charges were absurd. First of all, most people know they were on not the good old days and the good old days in movie making, segregated society was defended, gays were in the closet, the Holocaust and other controversial subjects could not be mentioned. War was treated as fun or as one-sided, green beret type movies. So I think first of all this broad brush dismissal of Hollywood ignores the really positive excellent movies and other works that are done. Just to do a reality check this morning, I went out and rented "True Lies," which is a movie that Sen. Dole recommended as family fun, and it has a Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger, in it. This is a movie in which the man only comes to love his wife when she's turned into a whore, and when she's forced to form a striptease in front of him, when the government power is abused to kidnap her. And along the way, many buildings, civilians are blown up, mostly Arabs, so it's not supposed to matter. So we've run into the problem any time we talk about who's going to set the taste, who's going to do the sensory, is it going to be Rupert Murdoch, who's a big friend of the Republicans, and doing a lot of work for Murdoch in Congress now, yet Murdoch's Fox TV has done more to coarsen television? Where are we -- where's the board of censors going to be found? I'm very distrustful. I resent the idea of taking this issue into the election campaign. I resent your commentators talking about it not in terms of the First Amendment or artistic integrity, or the well being of Americans but rather as an effective campaign ploy. Maybe it was, but it's a demagogic ploy, and it ought to be attacked.

MR. LEHRER: A demagogic ploy, Gerry Warren, that ought to be attacked?

MR. WARREN: Well, there's some of that, sure. It was an easy hit for Sen. Dole, and a late hit but a very effective one. He's climbing from hot issue to hot issue. He's hitting hot button after hot button. And he's on to something here. I don't personally agree with him because he does not apply the same logic that he does against the Hollywood movie makers to the gun owners and the gun sellers, to the NRA. I wish he would do that. You know, films don't -- don't make people bad and guns don't kill, I guess. So why not have the same standard? I think Bob Dole is, is going to make a lot of hay with this among certain, certain voters. I just think that this whole discussion avoids the, the necessary discussion and debate and leadership that's necessary to talk about the culture and what underlies this whole problem.

MR. LEHRER: Pat, how do you feel about it?

MR. McGUIGAN: Well, you know, I'm kind of distressed by what Bob had to say because if you actually look at the text of Dole's speech, I think you'd have to agree with both Paul Gigot and Mark Shields that it was a very carefully nuance speech. This was not demagogy in the way you would normally define that. I thought he made some very important cultural points, at the same time explicitly stating his sensitivity to our freedoms, and that we'd be able to retain those freedoms but maybe bring some responsibility to bear in the exercise of them.

MR. LEHRER: Cynthia.

MS. TUCKER: Well, I find myself in full agreement with Gerry Warren, interestingly enough. I agreed with much that Bob Dole had to say. Who doesn't? Just about the only people who are criticizing the speech are Hollywood movie makers. Most parents I know are very concerned about the movies their children watch the rap music they listened to. A lot of what comes out of Hollywood is trash. That's easy to say. But I thought it was President Clinton hit the nail right on the head when he talked about Republicans who attacked the movies but who are willing to repeal the ban on assault weapons. So far, no single movie that I know of and no single rap song that I know of has killed anybody. And so it's easy to stand up and attack the movies. That's an easy hit. But where is Bob Dole when it comes to attacking the real carriers of violence in this society?

MR. LEHRER: Lee.

MS. TUCKER: Well, I agree with what Cynthia is saying. I agree with what Gerry Warren said. I don't like the idea of repealing the ban on assault weapons, and I wish Sen. Dole would rethink that. But I do think he's making a sound point about movies and about the records. Even Henry Luce, III, who serves on the board of Time- Warner came out and said he finds them deeply offensive. And I do think we have to give some thought to the culture. Popular culture I know is dicey. I know it can trivialize, and that's regrettable but not terrible. It can coarsen the culture, as Paul Gigot said, and that may be have to be accepted as an inevitability in a free society, but when it corrupts the culture, that's unacceptable. And while I don't a censor, I believe in the First Amendment, I do think that Bill Bennett and Dolores Tucker and Tipper Gore when she was on this issue were doing a good thing in using their right to free speech to speak against it.

MR. LEHRER: Bob Scheer, you mentioned the First Amendment. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't criticize them, the people who make movies?

MR. SCHEER: No. They can criticize anything they want, but I think they should be consistent and logical. Here's a man who criticized movies that he'd never seen, criticized music that he'd never heard, and for example, praised a movie like "True Lies," which he had not seen --

MR. LEHRER: I was just thinking of -- you raised it as a First Amendment issue, and I was just trying to get at what you meant by that.

MR. SCHEER: First of all, the First Amendment is not -- there's a spirit to the First Amendment and basic to that spirit is a suspicion of someone else making a decision over what you're going to see, and that pressure can come on pressure in advertisers, it can come on pressure on industry, and so forth. I would turn the question around and say, where are these concerned parents? An offensive movie, offensive to me, that celebrated violence and rape like "True Lies" was -- made $144 million. There's a lot of parents went to it, there's a lot of parents let their kids go to that movie. Who's watching Fox? Who's watching Beavis and Butthead? So there are plenty of parents that are making this decision. I think the Republicans are at war with consumer sovereignty and capitalism. These are market-driven industries, and if people don't like 'em, they should not purchase them.

MR. LEHRER: What about that point, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: I think the speech made a very important distinction on precisely that point. It said you have a right to sell whatever you want, and Americans have a right to buy whatever they want. That's capitalism. We live with the excesses of that, however, don't deny us and particularly people who are in public life to say, to chain you. He used the word shame you, to say, look, is this the way you wanted to spend your lives? I mean, people have the responsibility -- it's not a question of censorship or interfering with capitalism. It's a question of corporate responsibility. That's a fair point to raise.

MR. LEHRER: And that's the point you made, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: It is. I mean, I think the question is: Do you put profit before principle, and Bill Bennett and C. Dolores Tucker, who hasn't been mentioned here tonight, who is a former Democratic National League of Women --

MR. LEHRER: Lee mentioned her.

MR. SHIELDS: I'm sorry. Lee did. I apologize, but who basically has been overlooked in the whole discussion.

MR. LEHRER: You're right.

MR. SHIELDS: She was national committee woman from Pennsylvania, she's head of the National Black Political Caucus, women's caucus, and she -- she and Bill Bennett confronted the Time-Warner folks at their meeting and they just said, they asked one question: Is anybody at Time-Warner embarrassed by these lyrics? I mean, I think that's an absolutely legitimate question. And for Bob Dole to raise it is absolutely legitimate.

MR. LEHRER: And we have to leave it there. Thank you all very much. RECAP

MR. MAC NEIL: Again, the major stories of this Friday, a U.S. F- 16 fighter jet was shot down by Serb gunners over Northern Bosnia. The Serbs reportedly released 120 of the UN peacekeepers they were holding. But they also detained another 33 UN soldiers. In this country, the unemployment rate fell .1 of a percent in May to 5.7 percent. One hundred and one thousand known farm jobs were lost. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you on Monday night. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.