The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Monday; then, the latest on three missing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, as reported by Edward Wong of the New York Times in Baghdad; a look at the Chrysler buy-out by a private equity firm; a NewsHour report on the colonial past of Jamestown, Virginia, on its 400th anniversary; and a Media Unit story on the flap over Ken Burns` PBS series on World War II.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Four thousand U.S. troops scoured part of Iraq today for three missing comrades. The three soldiers were in a convoy ambushed on Saturday. Four other Americans were killed.

The attack, and the search, centered on the city of Mahmoudiya, south of Baghdad. It`s part of the so-called "Triangle of Death," an area known as an al-Qaida stronghold. Today, Army Major General William Caldwell outlined a search that includes helicopters, dog teams, and intelligence units.

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM CALDWELL, U.S. Army: We are doing everything we can to find these brave and courageous soldiers. Everyone who wears this uniform in combat understands and lives by the soldiers` creed. One of its key tenants is, I will never leave a fallen comrade. We live by that creed.

JIM LEHRER: An al-Qaida group claimed it seized the Americans, and it warned the United States to stop the search. Elsewhere, four more U.S. troops and a Danish soldier were killed in separate attacks today. We`ll have more from Iraq right after this news summary.

DaimlerChrysler agreed today to sell most of Chrysler to a private equity firm in New York. Cerberus Capital Management will pay $7.4 billion for the German-owned company. It is the third-largest U.S. car maker. There was no immediate word on what happens to Chrysler`s 80,000 employees. We`ll have more on this story later in the program tonight.

The long-awaited trial of terror suspect Jose Padilla opened today in Miami. Federal prosecutors charged he was part of a group that helped al- Qaida and other terrorists. They dropped the original allegations that he planned to set off a low-level radioactive bomb in the United States. Padilla could get life in prison if convicted.

The Taliban insisted today it will not be stopped by the death of Mullah Dadullah, its top field commander. He was killed Saturday in southern Afghanistan`s Helmand province. U.S. forces led the operation. Today, the Taliban`s leader, Mullah Omar, issued a statement that said the commander`s death "won`t create problems." Instead, he said, "Attacks will go on."

Militants in Pakistan attacked a convoy of military officials today, killing a U.S. soldier. Three Americans were wounded. It happened in the northwest, near the Afghan border. The officials had been at a meeting about violence between Pakistani and Afghan forces.

Secretary of State Rice today defended a decision to talk to Iran about stabilizing Iraq. Word of the upcoming talks came Sunday. Rice said neighboring countries urged the move at a recent conference, so the timing was right. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey added this.

TOM CASEY, State Department Spokesman: We want to see whether the Iranians are willing to make any kind of change in their behavior. And, certainly, there`s been a complete gap between the rhetoric and their actions when it comes to Iraq.

But as they`ve given an opportunity and as they`ve, again, made these rhetorical commitments at the neighbors conference, we want to take this opportunity to follow up with them and see if there`s something positive that can be achieved from it.

JIM LEHRER: The talks are to take place in Baghdad with the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq. Officials from both countries indicated the meeting could come in the next few weeks.

The Palestinians` new coalition government was in turmoil today over fresh fighting between rival groups. Street battles between Hamas and Fatah continued for a second day in Gaza. So far, eight people have been killed, dozens wounded.

The Palestinians` top security official resigned today. He accused both sides of blocking his efforts to end the violence.

There was no relief today in the battle with a giant wildfire along the Georgia-Florida state line. The blaze has already spread across the Okefenokee swamp to cover more than 380 square miles. Today, winds picked up, and officials warned more people may have to leave their homes. Smoke from the fires forced more highways and schools in Florida to close.

Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will step down; the Associated Press cited that late today, citing top officials at the Justice Department. McNulty has been the department`s number two for the last 18 months, but he`s caught up in the furor over the fired U.S. attorneys. The A.P. said he will stay until fall or until the Senate confirms a successor.

President Bush today called for new rules on auto emissions by the end of his term. He ordered federal agencies to propose ways to cut gasoline usage and greenhouse gases. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the government does have authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other gases. And it criticized the administration for not acting earlier.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 20 points to close above 13,346. The Nasdaq fell more than 15 points to close at 2,546.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: an Iraq update; the Chrysler deal; Jamestown history; and a war movie debate.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The search for captured American soldiers in Iraq. Ray Suarez spoke earlier today with New York Times Baghdad reporter Edward Wong.

RAY SUAREZ: Ed, maybe we could begin with the latest from the U.S. military on their search for the missing service people.

EDWARD WONG, New York Times: Well, the U.S. military is saying that it`s putting a lot of resources into the search for the three missing men. They say that there are 4,000 troops involved in the search, that they`re sweeping through villages and towns that are south of Baghdad in this Euphrates River valley area.

And they`re using a lot of overhead resources. They`re putting out aircraft. They`re using surveillance drones, and they`re having a lot of helicopters fly over the area. It`s not an easy area to cover. There are a lot of palm groves in this area, in villages, as well as tributaries to the Euphrates River, and so they have a lot of work ahead of them.

RAY SUAREZ: Along with that high-tech surveillance I guess goes the more old-fashioned, door-to-door searching?

EDWARD WONG: That`s right. There are some areas where they`ve been going to houses. We understand that they`ve been arresting groups of people, questioning them. It`s very intense at the moment.

Yesterday, we heard reports that they have surrounded the town of Yusufiya, which is fairly rife with insurgents, and that they were not letting people in or out of the town, and that they were going house-to- house there, searching for the abductees.

RAY SUAREZ: They`ve been technically designated, these men, as "whereabouts unknown." But is the military proceeding on the assumption that they were captured by the same insurgents that attacked their unit?

EDWARD WONG: That`s correct. That is the assumption right now. Of course, we don`t know whether the men are alive. The Islamic State of Iraq, the group that has claimed responsibility for the attack, says that - - or hints that these men are alive. It released a message today telling the military not to proceed with the searches and telling the military that they`ll never see these men again.

But the assumption is that the same group that carried out the attack on the vehicles, which we hear are Humvees, is the same group that took these men.

RAY SUAREZ: What`s known about the Islamic State of Iraq? Tell us more about the group.

EDWARD WONG: Well, the group is an umbrella group that includes al- Qaida in Mesopotamia, and the understanding is that it`s a mostly Iraqi group. There is a myth out there that says a lot of this violence is being perpetrated by foreigners, by people coming from outside Iraq, but all our sources tell us that it`s mostly Iraqis and that they`re carrying out this violence for different purposes. But most members of this group are believed to be very religious, very militant people.

RAY SUAREZ: Let`s go back to the weekend and the time of the attack. What was that American unit doing in that area near Mahmoudiya? And why were American forces there in such small numbers?

EDWARD WONG: We`ve seen and heard conflicting reports. There are some reports that say that they were moving, that they were part of a larger group that was moving, and that they were -- this particular vehicle was incapacitated by a roadside bomb, this vehicle and another one, and then that was when the ambush with gunfire occurred.

We don`t know exactly why these two vehicles were somehow left isolated from other soldiers. The military`s report says that soldiers in the area heard the explosion, so there were other people in the area, but they couldn`t get back to these two vehicles quickly enough.

And there`s one report that says that; that`s because there were other roadside bombs in the area. And the vehicles that were elsewhere had a tough time getting safely back to the two vehicles that were under attack.

There`s also an indication that the vehicles might not have been moving, that they might have been stationary, maybe doing what`s called over-watch, just trying to secure that spot and making sure that insurgents weren`t active there.

RAY SUAREZ: People who`ve been following the news of the war since the U.S. invasion of Iraq may realize that there have been very few stories involving Americans who have been taken prisoner by various Iraqi forces or insurgents. Has this been a common occurrence? And what`s happened in the past when American troops have been captured?

EDWARD WONG: It`s been a fairly rare occurrence. And, in the past, when troops have been captured, it`s usually ended fairly badly. In almost all cases, the troops have ended up dead. In many cases, the military has found their bodies again, afterwards at some point, and proclaimed them dead.

There`s at least one case I know of where the soldier is still classified as missing, because they have not found his body, even though there`s videotape that purportedly shows him being shot in the head.

Now, one of the last kidnappings took place earlier this winter in Karbala, when four American soldiers were kidnapped, and then they were later killed. And this was supposedly by a Shiite militia group.

Then, around a year ago, in the exact same area where these three latest soldiers were kidnapped, two American soldiers were kidnapped from their vehicle. And they quickly turned up dead. They were found a few days later, and their bodies had been mutilated and had been booby-trapped with explosives.

RAY SUAREZ: The American general who`s the spokesman for the forces, General Caldwell, said, "We will never stop looking for our soldiers until their status is definitively determined." Does that mean that 4,000 men, plus aerial assets, will be continuing this search for as long as it takes?

EDWARD WONG: I don`t think that they`ll be able to continue to deploy so many forces on a search for an extended period of time. It takes a lot of energy, a lot of resources to do this.

Plus, I think that those forces will be needed to carry forward with the security plans that the military is trying to put in place in different parts of Iraq. The Baghdad security plan is the central focus of the American military effort right now, and the Americans need as many troops as they can inside the city of Baghdad to try and carry out that plan.

RAY SUAREZ: Ed Wong joining us from Baghdad. Good to talk to you, Ed.

EDWARD WONG: Thanks, Ray.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Now, the Chrysler takeover. Margaret Warner has our story.

MARGARET WARNER: In 1998, the $36 billion merger between Germany`s Daimler-Benz and Detroit`s Chrysler looked like a dream corporate marriage.

JURGEN SCHREMPP, Chair, Daimler-Benz: Today, we are creating the world`s leading automotive company for the 21st century, DaimlerChrysler.

ROBERT EATON, Chair, Chrysler Corporation: We believe this is just the beginning. We are leading a new trend that we believe will change the future and the face of this industry.

MARGARET WARNER: But today it`s the face of DaimlerChrysler that`s changing, as Daimler announced it is selling off money-losing Chrysler to a New York private equity firm, Cerberus Capital Management, for $7.4 billion. DaimlerChrysler chief executive Dieter Zetsche spoke to reporters in Stuttgart, Germany.

DIETER ZETSCHE, CEO, DaimlerChrysler: With this transaction, we have created the right conditions for a new start for Daimler and Chrysler.

MARGARET WARNER: Cerberus chairman John Snow, a former U.S. treasury secretary, said his firm is committed to returning Chrysler to profitability.

JOHN SNOW, Chair, Cerberus Capital Management: We think as you do that, at this particular point, at this particular point in Chrysler`s history, there may be opportunities in the private sector, the private world, the world of private investment, that create more room for growth and expansion, that allow management to focus with greater intensity on the day-to-day business of producing better cars.

MARGARET WARNER: Under the deal, Cerberus takes over 80 percent of Chrysler, as well as roughly $19 billion in pension and health care liabilities for Chrysler workers. Daimler will retain a 20 percent share in Chrysler.

Founded in 1925, Chrysler was long one of America`s big three automakers, along with General Motors and Ford. But despite its popular Dodge and Jeep brands, it lost $1.5 billion last year and slipped to fourth in U.S. sales, behind Toyota. In February, it announced a restructuring plan that will shed 13,000 jobs.

Cerberus, founded in 1992, today has $25 billion in private capital assets under management. It specializes in buying and turning around distressed companies. It currently owns some 50 of them, ranging from Air Canada to Formica Corporation. Last year, Cerberus bought GMAC, the financial arm of General Motors.

United Auto Worker union leaders had objected to selling Chrysler to a private equity firm, but over the weekend, the American UAW reversed course. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger spoke to reporters today in Detroit.

RON GETTELFINGER, President, UAW: You`re dealt a hand. Now we maintained -- and I would still maintain today -- that we would prefer that the Chrysler Group stay under the umbrella of Daimler, but that`s not going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: Gettelfinger said he hoped Cerberus would pump an infusion of capital into Chrysler and would honor labor agreements made with the union.

And for more about this deal and what it means for Chrysler`s future, I`m joined by two journalists who watch the worlds of finance and autos. Andrew Ross Sorkin covers mergers and acquisitions for the New York Times. He edits the paper`s financial news blog, "DealBook."

And Csaba Csere is editor-in-chief of Car and Driver magazine.

Welcome to you both.

Andrew Sorkin, how did the DaimlerChrysler merger-marriage come to this, with Chrysler worth so little and such a burden that Daimler just wanted to unload it?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, New York Times: Well, you know, it started with a great dream, but it was a dream that they couldn`t really turn into reality. And that was really pairing German engineering with the marketing prowess of an American icon.

But it never really worked, because the cultures clashed, and the savings, the synergies that people always talk about in the merger world never happened. They just could not cut those costs.

But more importantly, the pension costs that Chrysler ballooned in ways that I think no one really imagined in 1998. Today, the company has $18 billion in pension liabilities. And in many ways, DaimlerChrysler today is giving away Chrysler. In fact, they are paying, if you actually do the math and back it out, something like $650 million to Cerberus to take this off their hands and take this noose off their neck, if you will.

And I think, you know, while we can talk about automobiles and American icons, this deal has more to do with pension liabilities than it has to do with cars.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Csaba Csere, do you agree with that analysis? And how bad a shape is Chrysler in right now?

CSABA CSERE, Car and Driver Magazine: Well, I agree with a lot of that analysis, but it`s also worth looking back to what happened at the time of the merger.

Chrysler`s top management, that had done a very good job with the company in the `90s, essentially all left after Daimler took over the company. So there was a whole new management team that had a very difficult time getting going with the new company environment.

Also, Chrysler had kind of peaked right about at the time of the merger, and then their product cycle slowed down, sales slowed down. They were immediately under profit pressure.

And a similar thing was happening with Mercedes. Mercedes had expanded tremendously in the late `90s. They ran into some quality problems. And over there, there was also profitability pressure.

And I think the managements of the two companies, rather than concentrating on the synergies and making this merger work, were distracted by the problems in their own divisions. And that didn`t help make this succeed.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Andrew Sorkin, why would now a private equity firm, Cerberus, think that this is a good deal for them, that this is worth doing, and that they can actually make a difference in Chrysler when Daimler couldn`t?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Well, that is the $18 billion question, if you will. You know, when you look at what Cerberus can do as a private company, to the extent you believe it, they should be able to focus more on Chrysler than DaimlerChrysler as a huge bureaucracy ever could.

As was just discussed, there were so many different issues going on throughout DaimlerChrysler over the past decade, frankly, that I think there has never been the kind of focus that you need. And when you have this much money on the line, you can tell that Cerberus should be paying a lot of attention to this.

Cerberus has been focusing on the auto market industry for the past year and a half, really believing that this may be the bottom. And when you look at the price that they`re paying, as I discussed before, they`re actually getting paid to buy this business. If they can just eke out a little bit of a profit, they will do very, very well.

But at the end of the day, probably, I think to make this work it`s going to end up being about cuts, cost savings, and that means job cuts. When you talk about LBOs or private equity firms, the dirty secret has always been that it requires job losses. And for this to work, that is probably what`s going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Andrew, just explain very briefly now -- Chrysler will now become a privately held company, is that right, no longer traded on the exchange?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Absolutely. It will become a privately held company. And one of the things that private equity says is a benefit is that private firms don`t have to report their quarterly earnings, so they don`t have to focus on a lot of these issues.

But at the same time, Chrysler is going to remain a very public company in the sense that there is a union that I`m sure is going to hold their feet to the fire. And it is an American icon, an American brand that people are going to pay a lot of attention to.

So it`s unclear whether they`re really going to get all of the benefits that they might otherwise have if they were truly a private company that nobody was paying attention to.

MARGARET WARNER: Csaba Csere, do you think the fact that Cerberus is a private equity firm gives them a lot more flexibility, the ability to maybe turn Chrysler around in a way that, if another auto-related normal, ordinary manufacturing company had taken over, couldn`t? And if so, how?

CSABA CSERE: Well, I tend to agree that the private equity company can maybe be a little more ruthless about cutting costs.

MARGARET WARNER: Why?

CSABA CSERE: For example -- well, there`s a huge union issue. The cost of health care and pensions are very, very high. And, in fact, you know, Chrysler has been doing better than Ford and GM. And in the last couple of years, the UAW has made some health care concessions to Ford and GM that they didn`t make for Chrysler, because Chrysler was financially better off.

Cerberus is going to push very hard for those sort of concessions now, and harder than Daimler could, because Daimler was also in the car business. Daimler had German unions, and they couldn`t push one union harder than another union. Cerberus is in a little bit better position to do that.

And they`re going to be looking at this very closely, because this is a contract year for the UAW. The contract is up later on this summer. And Chrysler and all the car companies are going to be looking for more flexible work rules, perhaps a bigger contribution to health care costs, and other things that will help put them on a financial footing.

MARGARET WARNER: But what is your understanding of what Cerberus` legal obligation is to the retiree portion of this, both retiree health and the pensions?

CSABA CSERE: I think they are totally obligated at this point to fulfill the terms of that contract, but one other option that a Cerberus might have and might be willing to execute, or at least threaten, is to put the company into bankruptcy, to allow those contracts to be renegotiated. That`s a very, very extreme step, but it`s a step that a Mercedes never would have taken, while a Cerberus could consider that.

MARGARET WARNER: Andrew Sorkin, John Snow today, the chairman of Cerberus Capital, kept saying at the press conference today, kept talking about a new model, and how the management of Chrysler would now be able to focus not just on quarterly returns, but on the bigger picture.

But how does that really translate? What kind of a decision could the management make now that they couldn`t make if they were worried about the quarterly bottom line?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Well, I think that there might be investments that you might make in the underlying business that, for example, could have hurt a particular quarter, because it would have made profits look even worse than they already are. There are kind of longer-term decisions that you can make as a private company, because you don`t have the analysts and the investors pummeling your stock, saying, "Why are you doing this now?"

So I think there are things that you can do as a private company. But let`s also remember, this is the same management team. Tom LaSorda, who currently runs Chrysler, is going to continue running this company. So it really is unclear what this new model is about. They have not done too much explaining, but, again, as a private company, they don`t necessarily have to.

MARGARET WARNER: Csaba Csere, is there buzz in the industry that this could ultimately lead to the demise of Chrysler? Is that way premature? I mean, is there any guarantee here that Chrysler will continue as a major automaker?

CSABA CSERE: Well, I don`t think there is ever any guarantees about anything, but I think it is very premature to think of Chrysler going away here.

Cerberus is saying all the right things. Chrysler, as large as their pension and health care liabilities are, is actually in better shape than Ford and GM in that regard. Chrysler`s market share loss in the last several years is smaller than either of its domestic competitors. And Chrysler has a lot of potential here, so I don`t think there`s any buzz there.

I think what people want to see is Cerberus in it for the long-term or not, because one difference in the car industry from a lot of other businesses is it is a very long-term business. If we decide to build a new car today, it`s going to be three to four years before that actually appears in a showroom. So the sort of quick turnaround and sell and flip a company in two or three years is just out of the question with a major car manufacturer.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Andrew Sorkin, 10 years ago, this I think would have been an inconceivable scenario, that a private equity firm, totally privately held, would be taking over a major auto manufacturer. How deeply are private equity firms now into major companies in America`s industrial and manufacturing sector?

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Well, I think that is probably, if you look at this as a watershed moment, that`s what it is, because you have private equity firms buying companies that were unimaginable, even five years ago, even two years ago, the idea that you could get into Detroit and deal with unions and deal in a very public environment with something private equity was not going near.

But, you know, if you go and look at what`s happening in the past year, TXU, the big energy company in Texas, is a takeover target that was just acquired. Harrah`s, the casino company, one of the most regulated businesses, frankly, in the country, in Nevada, the gaming licenses and everything else, also taken over. Sallie Mae, the financial services company that makes loans, another regulated business.

So private equity has already gone after the low-hanging fruit, and to continue trying to get these returns and use the money that they have in their coffers they have to go after bigger and bigger targets, and increasingly that means more public targets like this.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, Andrew Ross Sorkin and Csaba Csere, thank you both.

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: It was 400 years ago today that the first settlers set foot on Jamestown Island and thus established what was to become the first permanent English colony in America. Kwame Holman reports on the recent uncovering of Jamestown`s past.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the spring of 1607, 104 men employed by a private English company arrived on the banks of the James River in what is now Virginia. There, they established a settlement, but for generations most historians portrayed their effort as a failure. The settlement has not been nearly as celebrated, nor thought as important, as the colony at Plymouth Rock, founded by the Pilgrims 13 years later.

But now, a far fuller picture of how those in Jamestown actually lived, and succeeded and progressed, is emerging from the ground.

WILLIAM KELSO, Director of Archeology, Jamestown Rediscovery: Am I excited? You better believe it!

KWAME HOLMAN: Archaeologist William Kelso set out in 1994 to discover the settlers` original fort, long thought to have been consumed by the encroaching James River.

WILLIAM KELSO: In 1994, after putting together a plan and saying, "We`re going to find the fort, we`re going to find buildings, we`re going to find how it evolved through time, we`re going to find a better understanding of the relationships between the Virginia Indians and the Englishmen," all that has come to be.

KWAME HOLMAN: What did you find in the intervening years? And what story did it tell?

WILLIAM KELSO: Well, what we found is the construction of the fort, where this original settlement was placed. That began to tell me more about the people and the ability of the people that came here, because this turns out to be the very best defensive position they could have chosen in the entire James River basin, and that it was -- the fort was never captured by any enemy.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Kelso has concluded that the settlers were not as ill-prepared and -equipped as many historians say.

WILLIAM KELSO: Now what we`re finding archaeologically is that they were well-equipped. We`ve found over a million artifacts, all kinds of things. Different sorts of objects were sent here to help them succeed, and these things were being used.

They were trying industries. They were trying to make glass. They were trying to make pottery, iron. They`re doing iron. They have all the equipment to fish and hunt and to live off of the land.

KWAME HOLMAN: Kelso and his team say the more they`ve explored, the more complex and nuanced the story of Jamestown has become. It`s a story of adaptation to desperate conditions, that included years of drought, just as the settlement began; the death of three-quarters of the first settlers because of starvation, disease, conflict, and a supply ship that never reached them; the near-abandonment of the island settlement; and it`s eventual success through the cultivation of tobacco.

Talk about the science of the archaeology.

WILLIAM KELSO: Well, archaeology is a process that you can go back through time by looking at the way objects are deposited in the ground, "A" layer of objects across "B" layer of objects. You can go through time. And so we can actually see time passing by sorting out these different deposits that were found.

KWAME HOLMAN: Mary Anna Richardson is a member of the archaeology team.

MARY ANNA RICHARDSON, Archaeologist, Jamestown Rediscovery: Right behind me is just outside of an extension to the governor`s house from about 1617. And we found this deep depression, an area where we had our last layer of the agricultural plyzone (ph) sinking in a certain area.

So we followed that down, put in a 10-by-10 test into that area, and found a number of disturbances. So far, we`ve found two coins. One is an Irish penny dating to about 1601. And the latest penny that we found, or item that we found, was from 1613, a Harrington farthing, so that means that most of these deposits, trash deposits, would have been deposited after that date, we`re assuming at this point.

Also, numerous numbers of pottery shards, pieces of borderware, redware coming from England. Also, we`ve just recently discovered a deer antler in one portion of the trash deposit we`re working on presently and a borderware candlestick holder, which is pretty cool.

BLY STRAUBE, Senior Curator, Jamestown Rediscovery: This just came in. And it`s earthenware, but it really reveals a lot.

KWAME HOLMAN: Bly Straube is the dig`s senior curator.

BLY STRAUBE: What it is, is a standing candlestick. We know exactly where it was made. It was made on the border of Hampshire and Surrey Counties in England.

And what`s very interesting is that it`s a candlestick, because candles were extremely expensive in the early 17th century. So we know that this must have belonged to a gentleman. You know, the average person could not afford to have candles.

KWAME HOLMAN: Records show the local Powhatan Indians often cooperated with the settlers, in part to learn the settlers` metal-working skills. But as the number of settlers and their tobacco fields grew, the Powhatan tried to drive them out. But Bly Straube says it appears that, when the groups did cooperate, they did so closely.

BLY STRAUBE: Well, this table has sort of a collection of materials that relate to the Indians, and that`s one interesting thing we`ve been finding in our excavations, the presence of Indians in the fort. It looks like they are not just passing through, they`re not just there to trade, but that they`re actually living there. And this may not be just Indian men.

KWAME HOLMAN: Jamestown`s most famous and most often-fictionalized feature is the friendship between Pocahontas -- the young daughter of Powhatan, the powerful Indian chief -- and settler John Smith. Pocahontas later would marry John Rolfe, the man credited with cultivating a desirable strain of tobacco that enriched the colony.

BLY STRAUBE: The Indian women kind of -- it`s interesting -- may reinforce the statement we have, the historical statement from the ambassador, Spanish ambassador in London, writing to the king of Spain. And he`s talking about 40 or 50 marriages between the English and the Indians.

But historians have pretty much dismissed it, because it`s the only reference to that kind of thing. But with the archaeology, we kind of see that might be happening. Indian pottery, for instance, the Indian women were the potters. They were the cultivators of food and the preparers of food, and we`re seeing that the colonists are actually cooking in these pots and eating from them.

We`re also finding interesting things, like this is a projectile point that`s made out of English flint. So they`re taking the English stones the English are bringing as ballast. They also use the flint to strike their lights and so forth, used in their guns, and they`re making points out of it. We also have points made out of the English copper.

And this is very cool; I like this a lot. I don`t know if you can see this. All these little beads are made out of mussel shell and typical of what Indians would make, but we also found the stone tool that this Indian was using to drill the hole in the center. And you can see the edges are very rough. He hasn`t quite finished off the edges. So this is something in process, and someone is sitting there in the floor doing this.

KWAME HOLMAN: Jamestown also laid the seeds of the southern slavery system, when the first 20 Africans arrived, probably as indentured servants, in 1620. And the settlers would decide to govern themselves by establishing America`s first representative body. It met in the fort`s church a year before the Pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower.

For the Kelso archaeological team, individual mysteries remain: What is the meaning of the loaded musket found at the bottom of a well? And what were the circumstances of the death of the man shot with a musket ball that likely severed an artery in his leg?

WILLIAM KELSO: It seemed like it was an early burial that goes back to the original time. There`s a lot of different ways of dying here, and one of them is it could be from -- your own people could shoot you.

And why? Well, there`s stress. You know, they were starving to death. There`s fighting over food. I`m sure there was a time when the whole civil unrest just kind of took over. And that`s just another window to say, well, here`s another problem we hadn`t thought of before, just like the drought, you know, each other, or friendly fire.

Then I thought, well, then I talked to some people that know how to do -- work with muskets of the time and all, and they say that they`re very dangerous and you could wind up either shooting yourself or someone shoot you, and it`s self-inflicted. Well, we found out it was not self- inflicted, because we could do this ballistics test, and it had to be shot from a distance. So that brought up.

Then, I read in the 1620s that there were duels amongst -- you know, there was still that thing going on. And in looking at the wound, it could be that this person was shot standing sideways, looking, you know -- could have had the gun (inaudible) and that then there is a record of a duel in 1620s.

See, that`s again -- we were beginning to find out that (inaudible) may not be as old as we thought. Or 1607, but 1620s, there`s a record of a duel, and a man dies of a gunshot wound to the leg. I thought, "Well, there`s that, too."

The story is so complex, that archaeology brings up these topics, and then you try to explain what you find, and then you ask questions I don`t think any people have asked before, and so you learn.

KWAME HOLMAN: But for Kelso, the results already have created a more realistic view of the beginnings of America, even if it isn`t always pretty.

WILLIAM KELSO: I think a lot of people want a sugar-coated history. You know, you take away the warts, and you just show that, you know -- but we say this is warts and all. This is seeing, believing. This is probably a more realistic story of the beginning of this country that we`re still living the legacies of that went on here. So let`s hear it straight.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, the digging goes on, and the story may well change some more as new discoveries are made. And who knows what new mysteries will be uncovered?

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a fight over history on film. Jeffrey Brown has our Media Unit report.

JEFFREY BROWN: Award-winning documentarian Ken Burns is renowned for his epic PBS films on American history and culture...

DOCUMENTARY NARRATOR: Little Round Top was completely undefended...

JEFFREY BROWN: ... including the landmark "Civil War" series, "Baseball," and "Jazz." But his latest work, called "The War," a seven- part series on World War II that`s scheduled to air on PBS later this year, has sparked controversy over what was left out.

The film focuses on four towns and the experiences of individuals within those communities.

DOCUMENTARY SUBJECT: Just things that happened at that time I`ll never forget.

JEFFREY BROWN: But a number of critics and advocacy groups -- including the American GI Forum, a Latino veterans` organization -- raised concerns that the series overlooked the contributions of Latinos to the war effort, and pressed both Burns and PBS to make changes.

They also say this is not the first time Burns has excluded Latino contributions in the topics he`s covered. In mid-March, Burns addressed the critique of "The War" on NPR`s "Fresh Air."

KEN BURNS, Documentary Filmmaker: We knew going in we weren`t going to be able to tell the whole story. We were looking for universal human experience of battle, of what was it like to be in that war, and not try to cover every group. We left out lots of people in many, many different kinds of groups, because we weren`t looking at it in the way.

JEFFREY BROWN: That explanation did little to quell passions. And after a meeting in mid-April between Burns, Latino representatives and PBS, Hector Galan, a noted Latino filmmaker, was enlisted to assist burns in producing new material on the efforts of the 500,000 people of Latino descent who fought in the war. But Burns and PBS rejected a central demand of the advocacy groups, that the film be re-edited to include the new material.

Several days later, two members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Joe Baca of California and Ciro Rodriguez of Texas, wrote to PBS President Paula Kerger, "The only appropriate course of action is that the documentary fully incorporate within the body of the documentary the integral role of Hispanics."

Latino groups also went to corporate sponsors General Motors and Anheuser-Busch with their concerns.

Then late last week came a statement that Burns` company, Florentine Films, and several Latino groups had reached a new understanding that, quote, "recognizes legitimate Latino concerns about Ken Burns` upcoming documentary series and equally recognizes that the artistic decisions of what appears in his film are his and his alone to make."

The statement said that, quote, "The narratives and voices of Hispanic World War II veterans will be incorporated" into the film, but no details were provided on how that would be done.

And more on all this now from Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Latino and Latina World War II Oral History Project at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the founders of the Defend the Honor Campaign, formed to create greater awareness about the World War II Hispanic community.

And Nancy Buirski, CEO, founder and artistic director of the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival, an annual event in Durham, North Carolina. Ken Burns is a board member of the festival, but Ms. Buirski is not representing him or his production company.

We did ask Ken Burns to join us, but he and other associates declined.

Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, let`s start with, what is the main issue here for you?

MAGGIE RIVAS-RODRIGUEZ, University of Texas, Austin: The main issue is the inclusion of Latinos into the nation`s historical narrative. Over and over again, Latinos are excluded in any kind of general history accounts of our country.

And some people have regarded it as a paragraph approach to Latino contributions, and that`s simply unacceptable at a time when the Latino population is growing. We have figures that over half of the schoolchildren in California are Hispanic.

It`s important for all Americans, but in particular it`s important for Hispanic children to be able to watch television and understand that the contributions of the Latino people have been many, and we`ve been here for a very long time. And that`s the important thing.

The other part of this issue is that it`s so hard for us to understand how, in six and a half years of producing this work, neither Mr. Burns nor anyone at PBS thought about Latinos. It`s unconscionable to us how anybody -- and we`re not talking just about the Latino experience, but even just a Latino to be included into this documentary.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Nancy Buirski, as someone who works with documentary filmmakers, what`s the main issue for you?

NANCY BUIRSKI, CEO, Full Frame Documentary Film Festival: You know, I think this is a great opportunity to think about what documentary really should deliver to society, what role it plays, and what we expect from it.

I think that there are many people who look at documentary as a historic record, and I know that most documentary filmmakers don`t feel that`s the case. They usually approach their work with a point of view; some of them approach it more scholarly than others. And I do think that that`s one reason that the Latinos have looked at Ken Burns` work, because his work does tend to be more historically sweeping and more scholarly.

But Ken -- and I`m not actually speaking for him, but it`s just my observation of his work -- is every bit as artistic as some of the more experimental films that we look at. It may have at its foundation a good deal of history, but it`s also a personal film, an artistic film, and it has a point of view.

JEFFREY BROWN: You have seen -- staying with you -- you have seen part of this film, not all, as I understand it. What do you see it representing here? What is he trying to do?

NANCY BUIRSKI: Well, I took away from it a very personal, a very human look at people who go to war and the towns that surround these people. He`s basically focused on a handful of soldiers and the people in his life, in their lives, and how they`re impacted by a war as violent and as massive as the Second World War.

He follows a number of stories, almost in a novelistic way. And why he chose not to include Latinos in this particular rendition, I really can`t say, but I do understand his need to follow the story once he grabbed onto something and wanted to see it through.

JEFFREY BROWN: So how do you respond to that, Professor Rivas- Rodriguez, about the individual vision that he`s creating versus a larger history?

MAGGIE RIVAS-RODRIGUEZ: I think that he has every right to create a documentary that`s based on his personal vision. The one exception here is that it is going to be broadcast on PBS, and PBS does have a public trust.

No one else is going to have an opportunity to produce a documentary about World War II that`s 14-and-a-half hours long. That`s just not going to happen. No documentarian is going to have that opportunity. So when you do have this opportunity, you really have to make the most of it and, to that extent, include the stories that really affected all of Americans, because that is how people are looking at this.

They do -- and I agree with Nancy. I do think that, you know, he may look at it as his personal vision. But I think that, out here, people that are not students of documentaries, what they`re looking at is they really do see this as history.

And these stories, these documentaries, the DVDs, the books that are based on it, are going to go into public schools around the country. And Latinos continue to be left out of the historical narrative. So this is just going to build on that widespread ignorance about Latino contributions to our country.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, staying with you, so, given that, what do you want to see happen? Should the film, even though it`s been completed, should it be re-opened, re-cut? And who would make the final decisions about what goes into the final product?

MAGGIE RIVAS-RODRIGUEZ: I think, according to the PBS guiding principles and the roles and responsibilities that I`ve seen up on the Web site, PBS does have a responsibility, before it accepts and distributes any documentary, any content, it has to be satisfied that that documentary fulfills all of the obligations, the guidelines that they have.

So PBS really does have a responsibility to look at it for itself. And, you know, I`ve talked to PBS officials, and I know that their hearts are in the right place. I do think they want to do the right thing. And I would have to say that PBS has to be satisfied that those considerations are being met.

We will be more than happy to. We would be more than happy to, and I speak really simply on behalf of the people that are involved in our little group, Defend the Honor, which is a grassroots group of people from all over the country. And I don`t speak for any other Latino organization. But we would be very happy to offer whatever resources and help to Ken Burns and to PBS. And we`ve extended that hand for a long time.

So we`re hoping that they will accept it and that we`ll be, you know, able to help them out in whatever way, so that this is something that, on September 23rd, when it does air, that it`s something that we can all feel really good about.

JEFFREY BROWN: And, Nancy Buirski, is there ever a time to re-open, re-cut a film? And same question that I asked the professor: Who makes the final decision on the final product?

NANCY BUIRSKI: You know, there are many ways of going about making a documentary. And throughout the process, people are usually showing it to others, accepting notes, making changes, and very often changing at various stages.

Apparently, Ken had already locked this film, from what I understand. In spite of that, he seems to have decided to add some material.

I think, Maggie, you probably have heard that there`s been a resolution to this, and he is going to go in and bring some of the Latino subjects into the film.

But I think there are a lot of ways to approach when people are omitted and groups feel aggrieved, and one way is to let that film air, and then create discussion and conversation about it. I think it`s a great way, actually, to draw attention to groups that have been omitted or overlooked.

And I think that, you know, frankly, this controversy has certainly brought a lot of attention to the Latinos who have been overlooked. And I dare say that it`s not going to happen very often, again, in films that are attempting to be sweeping and historic.

But I think that there is a problem in going back to a film once it`s been locked, because the careful calibration of editing, and cinematography, and score, and narration is quite delicate, actually. And not only do I commend the Latinos for drawing attention to having been overlooked in this film, but I also commend Ken Burns for agreeing to go back and add material, because I know how difficult that is for a person who`s carved out and crafted what he or she may believe is an artistic work.

JEFFREY BROWN: Are you concerned about the pressures that were brought from politicians and, at least reportedly, from some on some of the sponsors?

NANCY BUIRSKI: I am, actually, because I think it`s a slippery slope. I believe that there are a lot of documentary filmmakers today who are concerned and watching this controversy very carefully, because it`s going to be a little nervous-making, as they go forward with their own work, trying to figure out who might be either looking at it, looking over their shoulders, or coming back after the film is locked and insisting that they make some changes.

I don`t think any of us want that to happen in a civil society. I think we want a good deal of artistic freedom. I think we`ve all fought very hard for that, and we don`t want to see that go away.

I also believe that the whole issue of artistic freedom, of creative license in making documentaries is a critical one for our society. And I would hate to see that argument overshadow the very valid argument that Latinos have about how often they`re represented in historical works.

JEFFREY BROWN: And we just have a minute, but, Professor Rivas- Rodriguez, what happens next? If he does go back and re-cuts the film, are you watching carefully to see the final product? Is there a chance that this fight continues?

MAGGIE RIVAS-RODRIGUEZ: Well, I`m hoping that we might have a preview before it airs in September, and I do think that it really has exposed some weaknesses in lots of different systems.

But what one weakness that I have seen is that I really do not understand how PBS, in six-and-a-half years, didn`t raise a flag on this. It seems very difficult to understand.

And the other part of it is that Ken Burns received public funding from the National Endowment from the Humanities and several other foundations, and I write grant proposals all the time. And I would like to understand, are we all held to the same standards? Are all of the standards equally applicable to all of us?

Because I know that, when I write a grant proposal, I have to justify why I`m looking at this particular population of people, so I think that we need to look at that.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, we`ll have to leave it there. Maggie Rivas-Rodriguez, Nancy Buirski, thank you both very much.

MAGGIE RIVAS-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

NANCY BUIRSKI: You`re welcome.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day.

Four thousand U.S. troops scoured an area south of Baghdad for three missing comrades. An al-Qaida group said it seized the three in an ambush on Saturday.

DaimlerChrysler agreed to sell most of Chrysler to a private equity firm in New York for $7.4 billion.

And Paul McNulty resigned as deputy attorney general. His letter of resignation did not mention the furor over firing U.S. attorneys.

A reminder: You can download audio versions of our reports and listen to them on your computer, iPod, or other MP3 player. To do so, just visit the Online NewsHour at PBS.org.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.