The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

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

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Friday; then, the details of the new trade deal worked out by the White House and the Democrats; a debate over the guilty plea for the makers of the drug OxyContin; the latest on a jailed Iranian-American scholar; the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks; and a profile of a poet who writes verse for children.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. commander in northern Iraq warned today he needs more troops. Army Major General Benjamin Mixon said violence in his territory has been rising, especially in Diyala province. Many militants shifted operations there when a security crackdown began in Baghdad. Mixon said he has plans to add troops, but he also said the Iraqi government is a big part of the problem.

MAJ. GEN. BENJAMIN MIXON, U.S. Army: In a nutshell, it is the bureaucracy in Baghdad. The ministries move too slow to provide support to their security forces and also in the area of providing support to the governors.

It is getting better, but it`s way too slow. And we need to show the people of Iraq that their government can provide essential services and security to them, and that will be the most powerful weapon against this enemy.

JIM LEHRER: President Bush said yesterday he would consider setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but he insisted he would veto a war funding bill that House Democrats passed last night. It says funding could end after July if there`s not enough progress in Iraq.

Two suicide car bombings killed at least 23 Iraqis in Baghdad today. The attacks came as U.S. forces led raids against car-bombing networks in several cities.

The U.S. military also announced the loss of two more American soldiers on Thursday; 35 have died in Iraq this month.

The man expected to become prime minister of Britain acknowledged today there have been mistakes in Iraq. Gordon Brown opened his formal bid to succeed Tony Blair. He said on Iraq, "The emphasis will shift. We have got to concentrate more on political reconciliation, on economic development." Brown said he will travel to Iraq soon to survey the situation for himself.

U.S. officials in Afghanistan announced today they`ll investigate the deaths of at least 21 civilians. They were killed Tuesday in Helmand province. U.S. troops called in air strikes during a battle with Taliban fighters.

It`s the third such incident in recent months. President Karzai has warned his country can no longer tolerate so many civilian deaths.

Vice President Cheney issued a warning to Iran today. He said the U.S. and its allies remain united against letting Iran go nuclear. Mr. Cheney spoke on board the aircraft carrier USS Stennis in the Persian Gulf.

DICK CHENEY, Vice President of the United States: With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we`re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike. And we`ll keep the sea lanes open. We`ll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats, and we`ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.

JIM LEHRER: The vice president also made a stop in the United Arab Emirates during his tour of the region. The president of Iran is set to visit that country on Sunday.

The U.S. will ask several countries to amend current and pending trade agreements. The Bush administration and congressional Democrats agreed late Thursday on new guidelines. They call for U.S. trading partners to regulate child labor and safeguard the environment, among other things. The changes affect agreements with Panama, Peru, Colombia and South Korea. We`ll have more on the story right after this news summary.

Firefighters held back a major blaze today on Southern California`s famed Catalina Island. The blaze started yesterday and burned about 4,000 acres. Some 3,800 people were forced to evacuate the island on ferries.

In the South, wildfires left smoky haze across much of Florida and parts of southern Georgia. Roads had to be closed in some places.

In economic news today, food and gasoline costs pushed wholesale prices higher in April. The Labor Department reported producer prices were up 0.7 percent. But not counting food and energy, the so-called core rate was flat.

That was welcome new on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 111 points to close at 13,326. The Nasdaq rose 28 points to close at 2,562. For the week, the Dow gained 0.5; the Nasdaq fell a fraction of a percent.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: agreeing on trade; the OxyContin guilty pleas; the jailed Iranian-American; Shields and Brooks; and a children`s poet.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The Democrats and the president work out a deal on trade. Judy Woodruff has our story.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The compromise between the White House and Congress over free trade agreements came after months of stalled negotiations.

Under the new deal, when the U.S. enters into trade agreements with other countries, those countries must agree to: ban child labor and forced labor; guarantee rights to organized labor; and enforce existing national and international environmental law.

The pact also calls for expanded access to generic drugs for developing countries for public health emergencies. The new regulations would be applied to pending trade deals with Panama and Peru, which are involved in bilateral pacts with the U.S., as well as with South Korea and Colombia, where negotiations could prove more complicated.

Joining us to explain what is in this new agreement and its significance is Sherman Katz. He`s a senior associate in the trade, equity and development project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Sherman Katz, good to have you with us.

SHERMAN KATZ, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Pleasure to be here.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Just to help us all understand, put into layperson`s terms what exactly has been agreed to here by the Democrats and the administration.

SHERMAN KATZ: On labor, the Democrats have been pushing hard for some time that new trade agreements, free-trade agreements, should include the right for labor to bargain collectively, to organize, and a prohibition of forced labor and child labor.

Republicans have resisted this on the ground that this is going to interfere with trade. And so Congressman Rangel, Chairman Rangel of House Ways and Means, and Secretary Paulson, Treasury, and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab yesterday agreed that there is a set of principles that they can both accept to incorporate in U.S. trade agreements on that subject.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, those are the main features. There was also language in this agreement around pharmaceuticals, generic drugs.

SHERMAN KATZ: Correct. The problem always for policymakers on patents versus generic drugs is, how much should we reward people who`ve invented drugs? And how much interest do we need to give to poor people who need to have access to drugs?

And the Democrats have insisted that trade agreements should expand the opportunity for people in poor countries to have access to generic drugs earlier.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There was also environmental language in here.

SHERMAN KATZ: Correct. Now we have provisions in trade agreements, we will have in FTAs, concerning seven extremely important international agreements on the environment -- one on endangered species, another on the ozone, another on wetlands -- in which we say, in these principles, nothing in this trade agreement that we`re doing will interfere with these major agreements.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, assuming this agreement, which is between the leadership of the Congress and the president, the trade representative, assuming it`s agreed, what is the impact going to be on the ordinary American consumer?

SHERMAN KATZ: Well, it`s an interesting question. It remains to be seen whether, by giving an opportunity for workers abroad to organize, this raises their wages and, therefore, makes goods that come into the country from abroad a little less damaging or threatening to American industry.

It`s been the contention of labor that, when goods come from countries that have no unions or child labor, of course it`s tough for Americans to compete. And so the AFL-CIO and other unions have been saying, "We need to give these workers abroad the right to organize, because we think, a, that`s going to make them more profitable and better consumers of U.S. goods and services, but, b, it also might mean that we can compete more effectively, because their wages will move up a little bit and not be so much lower than ours."

JUDY WOODRUFF: So impact on the worker, the American worker, is a significant piece of this, as well?

SHERMAN KATZ: That`s the hoped-for result. We will have to see, as this works its way through, but, in general, I think it`s -- there`s a strong feeling that we need to do a better job of distributing the benefits of globalization broadly, and this is going to do that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In the media today, Sherman Katz, they were describing this as a major achievement. This is something that had been argued about, fought over for not just months, but years. How big a deal is this?

SHERMAN KATZ: I think it`s very big. It`s required the White House to move its constituency, the business community, off of the business communities` insistence that including labor and environmental principles could kill the goose that`s laid the golden egg, that is, all the profits from trade.

And it`s also required Chairman Rangel and the Democratic Party to move away from the idea that we should blow the whistle and stop liberalization of trade. The idea is that this is a process that can be better managed, and that`s what Sandy Levin, the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, and Charlie Rangel have been saying. And so far, it appears that they`ve persuaded the leadership, at least, and we hope the caucuses, as well, to go along with this idea.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And why has this happened now? After years of arguing, why now?

SHERMAN KATZ: Well, the United States is engaged in global trade negotiations under what`s called the Doha Round. Doha is the capital of Qatar. And this is where, two months after 9/11, the 150 members of the World Trade Organization declared that trade barriers should be lower and that we should pay particular attention to developing countries.

The subtext unspoken was that terrorism comes in part from unemployed young people and we need to do a better job of bringing them into the global deal. And the president of the United States wants to negotiate in this global trade round with the assurance to our trade partners that he will get a yes-or-no vote from Congress.

This is so-called fast-track authority. That authority will expire June 30th. From time to time, the Congress gives the president this authority for limited periods.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Why is that authority so important to this president and other presidents?

SHERMAN KATZ: Because the Congress of the United States looks out very carefully for the individual interest of its constituencies. And when trade agreements come along, the tendency always is for Congress to say, "Well, we`ve got to change this to protect the beef industry or the lumber or the oil industry," but under this fast-track authority, Congress agrees, "We`ll only vote yes or no."

And that makes it easier for other countries to negotiate with us, understanding that the opportunity for change of the deal is more limited.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So this agreement that was announced yesterday, you`re saying, opens the door to that taking place in a few months?

SHERMAN KATZ: We hope so. It doesn`t necessarily follow, because one has to keep in mind that these provisions on labor and environment are not now part of the global trade negotiation, but they have established much more trust between Congress and the administration that we can work together on global trade problems. And the hope is that this will pave the way toward Congress agreeing to a further extension of fast track.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Quickly, any losers in all this?

SHERMAN KATZ: I really don`t think so. I`m not a Pollyanna, but I think, by and large, there are many winners. I think the pharmaceutical industry may look carefully at what`s going to happen in their area, but I think, by and large, it`s a win-win.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Sherman Katz, good to have you with us, thank you.

SHERMAN KATZ: Thank you very much.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And now, punishing the makers of the drug OxyContin. Ray Suarez begins with some background.

RAY SUAREZ: OxyContin, the powerful narcotic pain relief medication, has generated billions of dollars in sales since it was introduced to the market in 1996. Doctors prescribed the drug to millions suffering chronic pain.

Yesterday, the government announced both fines and a plea agreement against the drug`s manufacturer, Purdue Pharma. Under the plea deal, Purdue will pay $634 million in fines and other payments for misbranding their product. Prosecutors say the company described OxyContin as less addictive, thus less likely to be abused.

JOHN BROWNLEE, U.S. Attorney, Virginia: Despite knowing that OxyContin contained high concentrations of oxycodone, had an abuse potential similar to that of morphine, and was at least as addictive as other pain medications on the market, Purdue, beginning in January of 1996, with the intent to defraud and mislead, marketed and promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion, and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications.

RAY SUAREZ: Three current and former Purdue execs pleaded guilty to misdemeanors. Together they will pay almost $35 million of their own money in fines. Of the $600 million Purdue will pay, $130 million will be used to resolve civil suits brought by patients who say they became addicted to the drug.

Over the years, OxyContin has legitimately helped many patients cope with pain, but its criminal abuse has been widespread. The drug has been connected with hundreds of deaths and arrests.

Now, two views of the penalties and plea deal in this case. John Brownlee is the U.S. attorney for the western district of Virginia. He was the government`s lead prosecutor. And Dr. Sidney Wolfe is the director of Public Citizen`s Health Research Group, an advocacy group concerned with oversight and the labeling of drugs. We invited Purdue Pharma to participate, and they declined.

Mr. Brownlee, let`s start with you. In your announcement yesterday, you discussed the crime rates, the teenage drug addiction and deaths, and said the results of Purdue`s crimes were staggering.

JOHN BROWNLEE, U.S. Attorney, Virginia: Yes, sir.

RAY SUAREZ: Does the penalty meted out for three misdemeanor pleas match what you saw as a staggering toll?

JOHN BROWNLEE: Well, I believe that it does. And I think we need to look at the agreement in whole.

First of all, the most significant thing in my opinion that this plea does is it holds the company accountable for its criminal acts. This plea agreement covers a time period between 1996 and 2001, so we go back over 10 years where they began the criminal activity. And we are able to build a case to hold them accountable for conduct, again, a long time ago.

We have found the truth in bringing this case and demanding that this company plead guilty to the felony misbranding of OxyContin. So I think getting to the truth, finding the truth is significant.

I think there was a perception, a wrong perception, that somehow the OxyContin epidemic was our fault, that people who lived in southwest Virginia or other rural communities, that we were to blame for this OxyContin epidemic. And with this plea agreement, with this conviction, the truth has been told.

And it was, in fact, the company`s fault, the company`s responsibility. By misbranding this drug, with the intent to defraud and mislead, they are responsible.

We`ve also extracted $600 million from them. In addition, we`ve also demanded that the top three executives, the CEO, the general counsel, and the former chief medical officer plead guilty to misbranding OxyContin.

I think, if you look even in the New York Times today, Barry Meier`s article, he talks about the fact that that`s a rare move on behalf of these kinds of case. And I think that`s true.

Typically, in a corporate kind of plea, the corporation does the plea, and the executives don`t have to go to court. But in our case, they had to come to court in Abingdon, Virginia, yesterday, stand before a federal judge, and say that they are guilty. And we think that that, plus the fines, is significant.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Dr. Wolfe, you just heard John Brownlee describe Purdue Pharma as suitably held accountable. Do you think so?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE, Public Citizen`s Health Research Group: Well, if you believe that corporations are faceless, I think that`s right. And I have no dispute with the investigation that was done.

The question is, the definition of a felony, which would be subject to jail, as opposed to just fines, as occurred in this case, is, did they intend to defraud or mislead? And I think that the papers that were produced yesterday clearly show that somebody in the company intended to defraud and mislead.

The fact is -- and I have no reason to doubt U.S. Attorney Brownlee -- that, for those three people, they did not come up with that evidence. But someone in the company, it wasn`t robots, designed this program to mislead doctors into thinking that this drug was much safer than it was and get them to prescribe it preferentially over other drugs.

So I guess one of my questions is, why wasn`t anyone criminally prosecuted under a felony charge wherein they could go to jail? We have all sorts of people in this country languishing in jail, including people that sold OxyContin. So much of it was prescribed, thanks to the criminal activities of the company, that it`s all around, so there are people in jail for a 100, 200, 300 pills.

We estimate that this company sold hundreds of millions of dollars of pills, according to one of the last pages in this document that was released yesterday. They made over $2.5 billion in profit.

So two questions: Why hasn`t anyone gone to jail? Even if those three didn`t have evidence for going to jail, who are the other people in the company that actually intended to do this? And, secondly, why wasn`t the fine much higher? Why was it just a fraction of the profits they made just off of this drug?

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let`s take that first question. John Brownlee, why were there no felony charges? Why did no one go to jail?

JOHN BROWNLEE: Right, I think you have to -- I think that Dr. Wolfe and I may be kind of like ships passing in the night. He looks at -- and if you listen to his statement carefully -- he poses rhetorical questions, but he also says he believes, he thinks.

As a prosecutor, as the United States attorney, my obligations are much higher. When I look at a case, I have to ask myself, do I have evidence that`s admissible in a court of law that I can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous verdict, that, in fact, a particular individual, not just someone, but a particular individual, violated the law?

We spent five years looking through millions of documents. And these people who did this case, the professional prosecutors, Assistant United States Attorney Randy Ramseyer, Rick Mountcastle, Barbara Wells, Sharon Burnham, investigators from the IRS, like Phil Barnett (ph) and others, they spent years culling through millions of documents, looking for the evidence.

And what they did is they were able to piece together a corporate culture that allowed this product to be misbranded with the intent to defraud and mislead.

So I certainly hear the doctor`s comments and, in many ways, agree with him. But, of course, as a prosecutor, as a United States attorney, I am bound by the evidence that we have. I think this case was thoroughly investigated.

But I just -- I think it`s important to look at the positive things that come from a case like this. The fact that we are able to convict the company, tell the truth, take $600 million from them, in addition convict the executives, and take almost $35 million from them is, in my opinion, significant.

RAY SUAREZ: Just to be sure I understand you, sir, are you saying that, given the evidence you had, you were not sure that you could have made felony charges stick in this case?

JOHN BROWNLEE: Well, we look at this evidence carefully and only proceed forward when we believe we have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous verdict.

And so all things, once we looked at this case and the professional prosecutors who did it, as well, we believe that, by convicting the company and convicting the individuals, and taking almost $635 million, plus instituting an independent monitor inside the company that will make sure this doesn`t happen again, is significant. And certainly, in our district, and I think the response we`ve received just in the last day has been pretty remarkable.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, Dr. Wolfe, that independent monitor appointment, the promise to change the literature that accompanies the drug, are these positive steps, in your view, in trying to prevent the abuse, the future abuse of OxyContin?

DR. SIDNEY WOLFE: Those are clearly positive steps. I mean, it`s though the company itself, if you look at it as a company, has been addicted to making money off of this drug. And they are now in some remedial treatment for their addiction to selling this drug. And so having them fund an outside independent group to come in there I think is a great idea.

But just going back to this other point, which is, the papers that were released yesterday state explicitly that the company intended to defraud and mislead people. And it even describes the categories of employees who did this.

And so the question I`m raising, let`s assume that U.S. Attorney Brownlee is right about the top three people, but they actually identified categories of people who were involved in this intending to defraud and mislead. Some of them were salespeople; some of them were sales managers. I believe that going after those people might have also pointed the way more to the top.

I don`t know that at all, but what I do know is that their admission is that somebody in this company -- it was not -- I mean, for sure, the corporate culture is horrible, a company that is willing to essentially act as a white-collar drug trafficker, and have hundreds of millions of pills going out there under false pretenses, no doubt it`s a bad corporate culture.

But they had people in there, and there`s no evidence here -- let`s say you tried to convict the top people of felonies. But I believe that there must be people in here, you identify by category, who perpetrated these felonies and should go to jail.

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you very much.

JOHN BROWNLEE: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: A scholar in an Iran jail. Margaret Warner has that story.

MARGARET WARNER: Haleh Esfandiari is a prominent Iranian-American scholar whose private visit to Iran has turned into a nightmare.

The 67-year-old director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington went to Tehran last December to visit her ailing 93-year-old mother. On December 30th, en route to the airport to return home, her taxi was stopped by three masked men wielding knives. They confiscated both her Iranian and U.S. passports.

Esfandiari returned to a family residence in Tehran. And for the next six weeks, authorities brought her in repeatedly to interrogate her about Wilson Center activities.

Then, on Tuesday, she was arrested and jailed in Tehran`s notorious Evin prison, run by Iran`s intelligence services. No charges have been announced.

Esfandiari is married to Shaul Bakhash, a Middle East historian at George Mason University in Virginia. He told the Los Angeles Times today, "It`s all very frightening."

For more, we`re joined by former Congressman Lee Hamilton, president of the Wilson Center, and Karim Sadjadpour, associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He`s a dual Iranian and U.S. citizen.

Welcome to you both.

Lee Hamilton, what is the latest on her condition and the circumstances of her confinement?

LEE HAMILTON, President, The Wilson Center: The latest word we have is that her mother tried to visit her on two occasions at the prison. She was turned away. Then she went a third time, and she was able to talk with her daughter, Haleh, but not see her.

The second time that she talked to her daughter, she said that Haleh`s voice seemed a little stronger. We`re mildly encouraged by that. But we are, of course, deeply distressed by her detention.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, according to your Web site, during the six-week interrogation phase, the first one, she was in touch with your staff frequently. What did you learn about what the Iranians were after during that interrogation?

LEE HAMILTON: The Iranians thought she had been engaged in subversive activities to undermine the Iranian state. They thought she was part of a plot to do that.

We sent all kinds of materials to the Iranian government. Haleh is a genuine scholar, and a very distinguished one. She has not had any role of any kind against the Iranian government.

She stands for openness of dialogue, advanced research. Her great interest has been the status of women, not only in Iran, but in the region. And we were just terribly perplexed and frustrated that Haleh was detained, interrogated for 50 or 60 hours, intimidated, harassed, and that kept going on day after day.

Then it stopped. We were hopeful that she would be released, but they took her to prison.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you surprised this would happen, Karim Sadjadpour?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: We were all very surprised. I think there were certain red lines we all thought the Iranian regime wouldn`t be cross, that someone with a U.S. passport wouldn`t be imprisoned, a 80-year-old grandmother, a woman wouldn`t be imprisoned.

But I think, during the Ahmadinejad era, a lot of the progress that we thought had been made during the Khatami era -- Khatami, the reformist president -- has since been reversed. So it`s a great cause for concern for all of us.

MARGARET WARNER: And now this theme that Lee Hamilton says came through during the interrogation, that somehow she`s part of a guard to try to undermine the regime, this is not an uncommon refrain, is it?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: And especially these days in the broader context of the antagonistic relationship between the U.S. and Iran. And I think Tehran feels right now, by doing this, maybe it`s sending a stern message to Washington that, if you want to embark on democracy promotion efforts in Iran, there`s going to be repercussions.

But I think this is a typical, characteristic Iranian behavior of undermining themselves, because Haleh, as Congressman Hamilton said, was really a bridge between the two countries, a voice of dialogue and reform. And by eliminating voices like Haleh`s, you simply amplify voices in Washington who are calling for a more hard-line approach to Tehran.

MARGARET WARNER: But now, when you talk about democracy promotion, you`re referring to the Bush administration`s project?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Absolutely. I mean, Haleh herself was not someone who -- she`s not an activist. She`s very much an analyst, a scholar. But I think the government in Tehran is trying to send a message to the Bush administration that -- lay off his democracy promotion efforts, because there`s going to be repercussions.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, there was this article published, Lee Hamilton, in a hard-line -- there have been no public charges. There was an article in a hard-line Iranian newspaper. And the headline was, "Zionist Agent Arrested in Iran." Tell us what those charges and what that`s about?

LEE HAMILTON: Well, first of all, it`s important to note we do not know what the government charges are. They`ve not been revealed.

Secondly, it`s my understanding that this is kind of a, as you described it, a hard-line fundamentalist newspaper. And they said that Haleh was a Zionist, that she was engaged in subversive activities, that the government was seeking from her a confession.

All of this, of course, from our standpoint is just simply outrageous. Haleh is not in any way involved in any of those things. And we want her out. That`s our position; it`s a very simple one.

Immediately what we want is to get someone in there who can tell us that she`s being treated decently, that she has the medicines and the clothing that she needs, during this very, very difficult period of confinement.

MARGARET WARNER: How intense is this crackdown that`s going on right now on intellectuals, both those who come into the country and those in the country?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: It`s fairly intense right now, for all of us who work on these issues of U.S.-Iran relations or domestic Iranian politics. And, again, in the past, there was a certain comfort level that people had that, if you`re a dual national, you wouldn`t be targeted, or if you were someone who had written about having dialogue or rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran...

MARGARET WARNER: Which she has.

KARIM SADJADPOUR: ... which she has, your work would be appreciated and you wouldn`t be targeted. But in this current government in Tehran, with President Ahmadinejad at the helm, it`s just utter chaos at the moment.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what are you all -- what is the Wilson Center doing, what is the U.S. government doing to try to secure her release? The State Department did make a statement calling for her release, but what are you doing behind the scenes?

LEE HAMILTON: We`re contacting everybody we know to contact. We`re asking several governments to use their good offices to contact the Iranian government and let her out. I wrote to the president some weeks ago.

MARGARET WARNER: President Ahmadinejad?

LEE HAMILTON: I did. I`ve had no reply. I will sign a letter very soon to the speaker of the Iranian parliament.

I have literally been on the phone with scores of people asking them to do whatever they can do. The problem here is, you don`t know what lever to pull. You don`t know who has the authority. We have no relations with Iran. We have to work through the Swiss government. They`ve been very helpful and cooperative, but you don`t really know what will work here.

So I tell everybody just do what you think you can. Let`s elevate this. Let`s put the public pressure on Iran and let the Iranian government know that they have made here a huge mistake that will hurt them for many, many weeks and months to come.

MARGARET WARNER: So Karim Sadjadpour, what does the track record in such cases tell us about what actually works, if anything?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, there was one incident last year of a prominent Iranian intellectual who was imprisoned, Ramin Jahanbegloo. And when he was first imprisoned, the regime warned his family, "Don`t go public with this, because it`s only going to exacerbate his case."

But what we saw was that, after six weeks of remaining silent, there was no progress and, in fact, the regime really did respond to the public criticism and the public campaign. So I think, in Haleh`s case, likewise, for four or five months, everyone tried to take a very calm, subtle approach. It didn`t bear fruit, and I think now is the time to really make clear to the regime in Tehran that this is utterly unacceptable.

MARGARET WARNER: But in the meantime, would your advice be to any dual-national Iranian-American, Iranian-Canadian, that if you`re at all involved in public affairs, even in the most benign way, you shouldn`t go to Iran?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: I think so. And I think it`s very unfortunate that people like Haleh, who in the past had played a great role as a bridge between the two countries, who are trying to bring about dialogue instead of confrontation, the Iranian government, instead of trying to cover these people or sing their praises, are intimidating, alienating and imprisoning them.

MARGARET WARNER: Karim Sadjadpour, Lee Hamilton, thank you both.

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, the saga of Iraq funding legislation continues. President Bush now says he will accept benchmarks. Is that a big deal?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: It is a big deal, Jim, I mean, in the sense that here we are, in the fifth year of a war. I`m reminded of the great wisdom of the late Arthur Schlesinger, they`re all wars that are popular for the first 30 days, and the shelf life of this one is long since past.

And we`re now -- apparently, the Congress and the president are going to somehow get together and define what success and failure and victory and defeat are. And it`s a commentary in that sense. It is a move on the president`s part.

JIM LEHRER: He`s never accepted that. And my reading of it was he had never said, "I will accept benchmarks." Am I right about that, David?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: Well, he`s certainly talked about benchmarks. It`s the linkage to cutting off funding that I think...

MARK SHIELDS: Right, but now we`re going to agree on what benchmarks are. I mean, that`s rather remarkable in the fifth year of a war, I mean, to do that.

I think it is significant of the president. I think it`s a reflection. The story this week was not the House Democrats passing what they passed or even what`s going to happen in the conference between the House and the Senate on it, eventually before Memorial Day.

The real story, Jim, is -- it sounds like an oxymoron -- the revolt of the moderates. I mean, the Republicans...

JIM LEHRER: Yes, we`ll get to that in a minute. But I just want to see what you think, David, about how big a shift is this of the president? And is it likely to lead to anything?

DAVID BROOKS: I don`t think it`s a tremendous shift. It`s a shift. It`s a desire to show flexibility, but he has talked about the benchmarks. In fact, he`s talked about the same benchmarks on the de-Baathification, the oil law, and all that. He just hasn`t linked them to cutting off funding.

And I think the better way to see is sort of as a climate, an atmospheric pressure building against what Bush is doing. But I think it`s a very gradual building, especially on the Republican side. And I think what we`re likely to see is -- really, until September. I think most Republicans in the House, Senate, have given the president until September. And then, in their mind, that`s decision time.

And then the second thing that is clearly building, I think in the White House and also in the Congress, is a move toward the Baker-Hamilton report. We just saw Lee Hamilton on the last segment, but their report, talking to Iran, doing a lot of that stuff in the region.

There`s much more support in the White House, and there`s always been a lot of support on Capitol Hill. And I think there`s a move also gradual in that direction, as well.

JIM LEHRER: I noticed that Senator Lamar Alexander from -- yes, I was just going to say that Senator Lamar Alexander, conservative senator from Tennessee, has said, once this is all said and done, he`s going to introduce a bill that would, in fact, would adopt the Hamilton-Baker report as legislation, in fact.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, probably, for the administration`s sake, six month too late, I mean, if they had embraced. I think it`s bigger than David thinks it is, because, Jim...

JIM LEHRER: You mean what the president has done?

MARK SHIELDS: What the president has done, because the restiveness and the restlessness in the Republican ranks, it takes this form. They`re not worried -- there are people obviously, maybe 110, 120 Republicans, who couldn`t lose irrespective of what happened in the country, the economy, internationally. But they don`t want to face a next Congress...

JIM LEHRER: Couldn`t lose re-election.

MARK SHIELDS: Couldn`t lose re-election, but they don`t want to face re-election, Jim, with a corporal`s guard of 140 members in the House of Representatives.

The best statement that was made, I think, that said more than anything else all week was made by Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, who said the Republicans would like to avoid another election on Iraq.

I mean, he was very blunt and very candid that they feel they lost their majority because of it in 2006. They cannot go into an election in 2008, they can`t wait beyond September of 2007 to change their position and to change the administration, because they look -- they change in 2008, it`s going to look shameless and hypocritical.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, but that atmosphere has been there for three years. They didn`t want to face the last election with Iraq, but President Bush drew them to it. So I don`t think there`s been a gradual change.

The other thing that`s happened is the Republicans keep getting pushed back into the White House by the Democrats. What the House passed, for example, this week, which was...

JIM LEHRER: Funding through July.

DAVID BROOKS: ... funding through July, the Republicans think that`s just terrible policy. Roy Blunt told me today, he said, "If you say we`re going"...

JIM LEHRER: He`s one of the leaders of the House, right.

DAVID BROOKS: He`s a House Republican. And he said, you know, if we give like a two-month window, that just gives the insurgents an incentive to kill as many people as they can over the next two months and as a way to chase us out. We`ve got to have one constant stream of policy.

So they don`t want to be casting these votes. But the Democrats have pushed them back to the White House by adopting what is a pretty partisan way of approaching this issue.

MARK SHIELDS: The funding, because the president has, until this week, resisted any benchmarks, any cooperation, any collegiality, this is the first sign that there`s any partnership between the Congress and the executive.

Jim, John Boehner, who is Roy Blunt`s senior in the Republican leadership, said in the debate on the floor three weeks ago, every blood, ounce of American blood spilt since the revolution will be wasted, will be lost if, in fact, we do not win in Iraq.

OK, that`s about as straightforward as you can get. He`s now saying, if the things haven`t improved profoundly by September, members are going to demand a Plan B. In other words, they`re laying the groundwork. They`re getting ready, and they`re just warning the president that his time is short.

JIM LEHRER: David, starting with you, when we go back -- both of you began immediately talking about this in political terms, the Republicans this, the Democrats this, this, that. And I, in the last two or three interviews I have done with members of Congress, members of the Senate, members of the House, the divisions are always on party lines on Iraq now.

I mean, there are some who are now talking privately about various things, but the fact of the matter is, this is a partisan issue. Republicans have one view, supporting the president; Democrats have another view, to pull out, period, right?

DAVID BROOKS: Right. Well, I don`t think that was necessary. As I said, for two or three years, Republicans -- I would say most Republicans have wanted to be out of Iraq. They`re tired of the issue. They really have no hope. I have had many House Republicans tell me, "They want to have a civil war, there`s nothing we can do to stop them." And that`s the private belief.

And I think if the Democrats, when they took the majority, had said, "Hey, we`re just going to cast it off, and what should we do about Iraq?" they would have had a very fluid situation, maybe a majority of Republicans toward some sort of moderate position. But that`s now how the debate evolved, mostly because of the psychology of the House.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, the Democrats look at it, they say 70 percent of the people of the country are with us. I mean, this week, we saw the Gallup poll, where people want a timetable for withdraw, irrespective of what`s happening on the ground, a healthy, substantial majority of people.

So they feel they`re on the right side, that the House of Representatives is representing the American will here, and that the Republicans, the one group in the country, are loyal, intense, militant Republicans who still support the president. And that`s their argument.

DAVID BROOKS: The polls are mixed on how we should de-fund and how we should withdraw. There, it`s more mixed.

There`s one other fact here, and have I always hesitated to say this, but I think it`s true, so I might as well say it. There are a couple score of people on Capitol Hill who really know this issue. There are a lot of people who really don`t know this issue. They know the polls.

And when you have an interview with a lot of people, you can`t tell the depth of their knowledge about Iraq. And I`ve asked other people, "Do they really know Iraq?" The people who do -- and we can point to the senators on both sides here.

We know Carl Levin knows Iraq. We know Jack Reed knows Iraq. We know Joe Biden knows Iraq. We know Chuck Hagel knows Iraq. We know Cornyn. We know there are certainly people who really know this issue. John McCain knows Iraq.

A lot of people just read the polls, and they`re sort of getting about Iraq. And so one of the reasons I think it plays so politically is because people don`t know the policy. They know the politics of it.

JIM LEHRER: You see that that way?

MARK SHIELDS: I think people, as far as the sophisticated history, I mean, probably nobody in Congress had any grasp approaching that of Tony Zinni, the former CENTCOM commander and four-star Marine general, prior to, and up to, and throughout the war.

I think some people have schooled themselves in it. I think people are -- I mean, I think people know that this is -- I think they understand this is a disaster, how it became a disaster. It`s a military disaster, an economic disaster, a diplomatic disaster. By no measurement is the United States better off today because of this war.

JIM LEHRER: But you don`t find it unusual that something as complicated and as important as this, you could just draw a line, every major vote, it`s Republicans vote one way, Democrats vote another. It doesn`t matter if it`s the House or Senate or how much anybody knows.

MARK SHIELDS: And I think that all the restlessness and all the restiveness is on the Republican side. The Republicans want to leave their position.

I mean, that`s -- I mean, do I find it -- I don`t find it surprising, Jim, when the president, you know, decided to choose re-election. I think history will go back to September 11th and say, "George W. Bush, indelibly counseled by Karl Rove made a fateful and fatal decision."

He could have governed at that point forward as a center-right Eisenhower figure, by bringing two or three Democrats into his administration and going forward, and not pushing tax cuts, and not pushing -- he decided to rule the country and lead the country solely with Republican votes. That`s what they are...

DAVID BROOKS: But there`s a psychology here that I think Nancy Pelosi and Reid have been consciously partisan. They knew they were sacrificing stuff by being partisan. Bush has certainly been partisan.

But the bottom line is -- and I think is sort of what you`re suggesting -- is that, if you took people with a blind vote, not a party vote, and said, "Do you support the Baker-Hamilton commission?" Eighty percent of the Congress would support it. "Do you support the Biden plan, some sort of partition?" Eighty percent would support that.

You would have that support if people were voting their conscience, but it`s the psychology of the institution which is preventing it.

MARK SHIELDS: And not to be partisan, but Democrats embraced Baker- Hamilton. The Democrats praised Baker-Hamilton. They urged the president. The president was the one and the administration was the one that...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: But that`s not how they`re framing it. They`re framing it, "Should we get out by July? Should we get out in whatever, in some odd days?" That is the kind of approach that is guaranteed to be partisan.

MARK SHIELDS: The only way you can force a decision is with the purse strings of Congress. I mean, the president, up until this week, I mean, benchmarks, he hasn`t even wanted to discuss them.

JIM LEHRER: Quick two other subjects before we go. Tony Blair, what words would you express today, tonight about Tony Blair?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he`s a lot better politician than the British are giving him credit for. I thought he was the last liberal interventionist.

He gave a great speech in 1999, where he said, we`re in a global world. A lot of this stuff about nation-states, that`s going by the wayside because we`re so joined by economics, by the threat of disease. And we`ve got to think anew about how we handle this world. We`ve got to create a global community.

And his support for the war in Iraq was part of that, to create a global community where nations and terrorist forces that seemed to upset the idea of a global community where we could all trade and live together, he thought that was a logical extension of that, that we have to intervene in other countries. And that cause, liberal internationalism, is now hurt because of what`s happened in Iraq.

JIM LEHRER: Tony Blair?

MARK SHIELDS: A talented political figure, towering talents, compared to Bill Clinton, similar in talents. The tragedy is Bill Clinton`s downfall was because of personal reckless behavior; his was a matter of policy and judgment, which, you know, unfortunately, with sorrow, the achievement in Northern Ireland is monumental and historic. And he deserves great credit, as does Clinton and does George Mitchell.

And the man who put global warming and poverty on the national agenda, I mean, a lot of good, but Iraq, the four-letter word, remains.

JIM LEHRER: And I had another subject, but I`m not going to tell you what it is, because we don`t have time. Thank you both very much.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, finally tonight, another in our ongoing poetry series. Jack Prelutsky was recently named the first children`s poet laureate by the Poetry Foundation. It helps fund the NewsHour`s poetry coverage, by the way. Prelutsky has written more than 40 books of verse, the latest being "Good Sports."

JACK PRELUTSKY, Poet: I`m building a bridge of bananas. It`s pretty, but not very strong.

Hello, I`m Jack Prelutsky, and I write poetry for children. I`ve been a cabdriver, and a furniture mover, and a piano mover. And I pick fruit. I`ve put watch bands on watches. I`ve been a janitor, lots of things. But now I`m mostly a children`s poet.

There`s a surprising amount of children`s poetry around, and there`s been a renaissance in about the last 30 or 40 years. There are more and better children`s poets writing today than ever.

When I was a kid, I was not crazy about poetry. I had a teacher who, in retrospect, I realize didn`t care for poetry herself. The syllabus said she had to recite a poem for her captives once a week, kind of the literary equivalent of liver. I wanted to hear poetry about kids like myself, about food fights in the cafeteria...

"Do not catapult the carrots"...

... from outer space and sports.

"I had to slide into the plate. It was my only chance. Though, if I hadn`t slid, then I would not have lost my pants."

Of all the poems in "Scranimals," probably the nastiest, meanest of all is the radish shark.

"In the middle of the ocean, in the deep, deep dark, dwells a monstrous apparition, the detested radish shark. It`s an underwater nightmare that you hope you never meet, for it eats what it wants, and it always wants to eat.

Its appalling bulbous body is astonishingly red, and its fangs are sharp and gleaming in its huge and horrid head. And the only thought it harbors in its small, but frightful mind, is to catch you and to bite you on your belly and behind."

"It is ruthless. It is brutal. It swims swiftly; it swims far. So it`s guaranteed to find you almost anywhere you are. If the radish shark is near you, pray the beast is fast asleep in the middle of the ocean, in the dark, dark deep."

I never condescend the kids. I never use five-cent words where fifty- dollar words will do the trick better. So I do use words like mucilaginous and gelatinous, because they love those words. Most kids are not going to know what "gelatinously" means, but it sounds just right. And maybe they`ll look it up, and maybe they`ll ask their teacher.

"I wonder why dad is so thoroughly mad."

I believe I do think differently than most people. I have trouble writing a shopping list, a laundry list, but I can make anything rhyme.

... "unless it`s the bee still afloat in the sea, or his underwear pinned to the wall."

I try to recapture the feelings that I had when I was 10 years old, and everything worked right, and I was safe and secure, and I had good friends. You know, to a poet, to any writer, but especially to a poet, the sounds of words are just as important as the meanings of words.

Now here come those I words. Three of them are very difficult. You may have to ask your teacher.

Kids are not stupid. They`re just short. Kids learn stuff much quicker than we do. They`re just like we are, I mean, just their bones haven`t completely formed yet, but their brains are wide open.

"Rat for lunch, rat for lunch, yum, delicious, munch, munch, munch. One by one or by the bunch, rat, oh, rat, oh, rat for lunch."

JIM LEHRER: For more poetry by Jack Prelutsky and an extended interview, please go to our Web site at PBS.org.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And, again, the major developments of this day.

The U.S. commander in northern Iraq called for more troops. Army Major General Benjamin Mixon also criticized the Iraqi government for not doing enough.

And Vice President Cheney warned the U.S. and its allies will not let Iran develop nuclear weapons.

"Washington Week" can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations. We`ll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.