The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; October 19, 2007

There's a human. I'm Jim Lehrer. Today's news, a Pakistan update, shields and brooks, and John McCain, tonight on the news hour. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching.

Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching. Thank you for watching.

Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Friday, then the latest on the deadly attacks in Pakistan, the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, and another of our conversations with presidential candidates, tonight, Republican John McCain. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by. Now headquarters is wherever you are,

with AT&T data, video voice, and now wireless, all working together to create a new world of mobility. Welcome to the new AT&T, the world delivered. Pacific Life Chevron, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Wall Street had a big fall today as stocks went to their lowest levels in a month. lackluster earnings reports combined with concerns over rising oil prices caused the drop.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 367 points to close at 13,522. The Nasdaq fell 74 points to close at 2725. For the week, the Dow lost more than 4%, the Nasdaq nearly 3%. The losses hit Wall Street on the 20th anniversary of Black Monday, when the Dow suffered its worst single-day decline ever. And New York trading oil prices went above $90 a barrel for the first time. The price of crude eventually shed $0.87 to close at $88.60. Former Pakistan Prime Minister Boudot defied her attackers today. She vowed to continue her efforts to return Pakistan to civilian rule. She spoke in the aftermath of last night's twin suicide bombings in Karachi. They targeted Boudot's homecoming convoy after eight years in exile. Funerals began across the city today for the up to 136 people killed.

At least 250 others were wounded. Both Boudot and the government of Pakistan blamed Islamic militants. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. President Bush announced more sanctions against Myanmar today. The Southeast Asian country, also known as Burma, already had economic sanctions imposed last month. But today, the President insisted stronger measures were needed. After the military regime's violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators. Mr. Bush also called for more international pressure. I ask other countries to review their own laws and policies. Especially as Burma's closest neighbors, China, India, and others in the region. People of Burma are showing great courage in the face of immense repression. They are appealing for our help. We must not turn a deaf ear to their cries.

The latest round of sanctions will freeze the financial assets of more members of Myanmar's regime, and it will tighten regulations on U.S. exports to the country. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan called on Iraq's leaders today to shut down Kurdish rebel camps. They've been at the heart of a border dispute between the two countries. On Wednesday, Turkey's parliament approved a military operation inside northern Iraq against Kurdish fighters. They've attacked Turkey in the past. The President of the autonomous Kurdish region, Masud Barzani, today, urged direct talks with Turkey, but he vowed to fight any aggression. The Secretary of the U.S. Air Force confirmed today six nuclear warheads were flown across the United States in August. The B-52 flew from Minut Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. Secretary Nguyen called it an unacceptable mistake. A six-week investigation found fault with several officers who were relieved of duty. At the Pentagon today, the Air Force official in charge of the investigation explained how the breakdown in procedure happened.

The reason they didn't follow these procedures as we discovered is, again, due to their lack of attention to detail. It was due to the fact that they, for a variety of reasons, they were passive in terms of how they should have been following these checklist procedures, the fact that they did not apply the rigor, the same standards that we asked of all our airmen to follow through with certain tech order procedures in checklist. The U.S. military does not usually comment on incidents involving nuclear weapons, but the Air Force made a one-time exception to U.S. policy in this case. Children under the age of six should not take cold and cough medicines. That was the word today from an advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration. It recommended more research to see if the medicines actually work on children. A week ago, major manufacturers pulled a 14 different products for children up to age two. The recommendation is non-binding, but the FDA usually follows panel advice. Sam Brownback ended his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination today.

The Kansas Senator had struggled to raise money and gain recognition in the polls. In the third quarter, Brownback finished seventh out of nine Republican candidates in fundraising. He had less cash on hand than any of his rivals. Brownback made the announcement at the State Capitol in Topeka, Kansas. Today, I'm ending my candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for President. I do so with great love for my country, but the recognition that my yellow brick road, just came short of the White House this time. Brownback is expected to run for governor of Kansas in 2010 when his second term in the Senate expires. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now the tragedy in Pakistan. Shields and Brooks and Presidential candidate John McCain. Our coverage of the Pakistan story begins with this report for the Senate. Our coverage of the Pakistan story begins with this report from Karachi.

The correspondent is Jonathan Ruggman of Independent Television News. A warning the story contains some graphic images. Can't age after midnight. The second of two explosions. Transforming Benizia Bouto's homecoming from Carnival to Catastrophe. More than 130 dead. Karachi's hospitals in chaos, full to overflowing. Police say they found the head of one suspected suicide bomber, who'd come within just a few feet of Mrs. Bouto and her bus, which was packed with almost her entire party's leadership. Benizia Bouto was evacuated unharmed, but by this morning the scene of last night's assassination attempt was still littered with human remains, 50 of her own guards among the dead. This armed compartment where she was working on a speech may have saved her life. At tonight's chaotic press conference,

she said that only three days ago, she'd sent President Musharraf the phone numbers of former security officials planning to kill her, that a foreign government had warned her of four separate plots, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Though rogue elements within the state may have deliberately plunged her convoy into darkness. While I'm not blaming the government for the suicide attacks on me, and while I'm not blaming the government for the assassination attacks on me at this stage, nonetheless we need to have an inquiry as to why the streetlights had been shut, that entire four hours the streetlights were shut. That hurt the next attack is going to be by placing certain people in the police department, near my house in Clifton, and near my house in Larkana, so that there can be an attack on my house and an attack on me. President Musharraf today sent her his condolences,

and she's not blaming him for what happened. But amid these funeral scenes, who knows whether they're joint plan for free elections in January, making her prime minister again, can now go ahead. Though as she told me of her determination to carry on, Mrs. Bouto's composure was astonishing. It was your decision to come back. The President warned you not to come back, perhaps it was naive. Well, I know that some people will think it was naive, but I think it was the right decision, because as I said, if you fight for something you believe in, of course you believe in, you have to be ready to pay the price, and the court I believe in is to save Pakistan by saving democracy and involving the people of Pakistan in the affairs of their nation. If I had not come down, then I come back. I think that would have been the wrong decision. Those who died in her place are filling hospital corridors here, where relatives search for those they've lost. This morgue is littered with soil sheets, the floors caked in blood.

So many thousands gathering around their returning heroine, home from exile, that any attack was bound to take a heavy toll. I'm glad she's here, said this man. She cares for the poor. The government should have protected her. And then he takes his 35-year-old son, who'd simply been selling ice when Mrs. Bouto passed by, away to an ambulance, just one of schools and schools, heading for burial today. And to Margaret Warren. For more on the latest developments in Pakistan, we go to Griff Whitty, Washington Post, Pakistan Bureau Chief. And Steve Call, New Yorker Magazine journalist and author, he's also president of the New America Foundation. Welcome both Griff and Steve. Griff, what is the latest on the investigation? What does the government, how much evidence forensic and otherwise do they really have to go on

in trying to determine who did this? Well, President Musharp has ordered an inquiry that will last 48 hours. He has said that he wants, within the next two days, an answer on his desk, as far as who has done this. But it will be difficult. Benazir Bouto is someone who has acquired a lot of enemies in this country. There are a host of extremist groups that wanted to hurt her and wanted to kill her. And it's going to be very difficult for the government to entangle exactly who it was who might have carried out this attack. Now, Steve, I know you were both at this press conference today. And she pointed the finger pretty directly at some specific groups, did she not, Steve? She named four overlapping networks, but didn't really name groups, per se. But she was pointing to networks of Islamist militants, some operating on Pakistani soil for many years, others, foreigners who have come in as refugees from Afghanistan after 9-11. And she also implicated rogue elements

of the Pakistani security services, services that have collaborated with some of these groups over the course of two decades. And Griff, she also made much of the fact in connection with that. She made much of the fact that the street lights went out as darkness fell. Now, is that suspicious in Karachi or are there, in fact, a lot of blackouts? There are blackouts, but it was quite suspicious. There was electricity in the homes that were along the route. And it was very interesting. I was in the convoy at dusk and during the daylight hours, it was quite easy to see who was around you. It was quite easy to see that you're surrounded by party workers or you're surrounded by politicians. As soon as night fell, the route for the procession went completely dark, and it became impossible to know who was around you. And Benazir Buto said yesterday that the party workers that heard top leadership noticed right away that this was going to be a problem

that it was going to be a major issue for her security. And that they tried to get in touch with government officials and that they were unable to get the government officials to turn the lights back on. So, Steve, go back to the point you were raising about people in the government. She also gave an interview that appeared today in Perry Match. What is her basic accusation about who it is still in government who might have been behind this? Well, there are two levels to it. First, she seems to have come in the possession of some specific information passed to her by a friendly government that she has not named about several former security officials who were actively plotting to kill her or harm her upon her return. And she says, quite remarkably, that she wrote a letter to President Musharraf about two days or three days before her return in which she named these officials and provided details about them. At the press conference that she was asked to identify them and she said she wouldn't do so as long as she was alive.

And in fact, she had written this letter as a kind of last will and testament about her suspicions. More broadly, she is observing something that many students of Pakistan could easily observe, which is that the country's history during the last 20 years is marked by violent conspiracies that have occasionally involved rogue or directed elements of the police, sometimes the intelligence services and less often the army in violent conspiracies involving Pakistani politics. And she has been involved on the receiving end of those conspiracies in the past. She's quick to suspect that they're present in this case this week. But Griff, after 9-11, Musharraf vowed to root out Taliban sympathetic and Islamist sympathizers in the security services of Pakistan to what degree had he succeeded to what degree had he persisted and succeeded in that? Well, certainly it depends very much on who you asked. I think that there are certainly President Musharraf

to say that he has cleaned house, that he now has an army that is completely loyal to the Pakistani state and that it has no sympathies with Taliban, with al-Qaeda. But I think that on the ground there's probably a much different circumstance and some instances. You have a situation in Western, Northwestern, Pakistan where the government is fighting a very unpopular war against the Taliban, against al-Qaeda and there are people on the ground there who are technically loyal to the government, but in reality, their sympathies might lean more heavily toward the insurgents. And so, Steve, going to the election now, the upcoming parliamentary election still scheduled for January, is there any talk that this may change the election schedule in any way? Well, there's a lot of speculation about what the impact will be on the election and whether this will affect the schedule, whether it will affect the campaigning, whether it will affect the thinking on the Supreme Court, as it makes a series of important decisions

about the legitimacy of President Musharraf's recent re-election. So the entire campaign has been thrown into some question, but Benazir Bouda today seemed to be on a mission to make clear that she intended to go ahead as planned, that she intended to seek the prime minister shift and to campaign vigorously for the values that she trumpeted upon her return. And I think the one observation that many people in Karachi were making today, listening to her, is that the era of PPP campaigning, which is such a vivid part of Pakistani history, these mass rallies held in this province and in the heartland of the Punjab, may not be as viable in this security environment as they were when she left for exile about nine years ago. So that's a challenge that her party faces, that was their strength in campaigning before and how they can carry it on in this security environment as a question they now face. Griff, what has been the reaction

of just ordinary Pakistanis to this? What's the climate they're like today? What are people saying? Well, I think people are actually quite shocked by this. Not so much shocked that there wasn't incident, but the scale of the deaths, the scale of the destruction is surprising to people, even at a time when Pakistanis, Pakistanis unfortunately are becoming somewhat immune to reaction to these kinds of attacks because they are happening with greater frequency. This was an attack certainly that was of a much larger scale than previous attacks. And the fact that the attackers were able to get so close to Benazir Bhutto's vehicle, I think it surprised a lot of people and quite frankly, it's really sad in people. Karachi was completely shut down today. The stores were all closed, shops were shuttered, and I think that people were still very much in the state of mourning in a state of shock over what has happened. And, Steve, I assume you've been talking

to people both in the Buddha and in the Musharraf government. What do they think this is going to do to this uneasy relationship already between Bhutto and Musharraf? Where they've made this sort of agreement for each of them to go forward on their own tracks, but clearly are critical of one another at the same time. That's right. This isn't a court that has always been fragile. It was long in the making. It was difficult in negotiations. And it was fragile before her arrival. The events of last night complicated, and measurably because they exacerbate the greatest problem in this agreement, which is mistrust between the two leaders who are responsible for carrying it out. Ben is her Buddha made clear today that she does not, she's not pointing to finger at President Musharraf directly, but she did point the finger at security services under his command. He in turn suspects that she is not a sincere partner that she's in it for herself,

and he undoubtedly is now going to worry about how to manage the pressure that she is putting upon him by demanding results in this investigation and demanding that head's role and so forth. So this problem of building trust, which looked significant before these events, now looks even more daunting. Well, fascinating times ahead, Steve Call of the New Yorker, and Griff Whitty of the Washington Post. Thank you both. And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, Ray Suarez is in charge. With me this week, Mark Shields, who joins us from New Hampshire and New York Times columnist David Brooks in his customary chair in Washington. Let me start with you, since you're on the road, Mark. Give us the latest on the primary calendar. What are they saying in New Hampshire about whether they can jump the New Year's Eve barrier and actually move into 2007?

Well, there's a lot of people talking, but there's only one person who's really speaking and he isn't saying a word. That's the Secretary of State, Billy Gardner, who has under the law the sole discretion and power of setting that date, and it has to be by law seven days before any state with a similar contest. And that's what's in question right now. Iowa has moved to the Iowa Republicans to the third of January. Both parties, I think it's fair to say, would like to have it up here on the eighth of January. But Secretary Gardner is really questioning whether that's going to be enough of an interval under the law and whether he's going to move it to early December. And if he does so, the campaigns, Ray, as you're going to understand, and the parties are just absolutely perplexed because the campaign decision is where you spend money, time, resources. And if you don't know when the election is, you don't know what to do. Christmas and concrete. Aren't you looking forward to it? Somebody said to me how about a negative commercial

in the middle of Jimmy Stewart's, it's a wonderful life on Christmas Eve. Is that going to be jarring? Yeah, I was up there yesterday, and New Hampshire. First of all, he's sort of a hero. He is defending New Hampshire. The people who are unhappy, though, are the restaurant tours and the hotel owners. They'd like it to go as long as possible, deep into January, because that way a lot of us are staying in the holiday ends in various parts of the state up there. But aren't party people and the campaigns at their wits end, David? Yeah, they are. The campaigns, it's a joke in every single meeting you go to, whenever the primary is, because they can't plan all the volunteers, they can't plan, they'll get out the votes. They can't do any sort of planning. And so they really want it set. It's probably not going to be set for a couple of weeks now. And so they are at their wits end. The problem is, as Mark indicated, it's at the front end and the back end. They want to come first, but they want to make sure nobody comes quickly thereafter so they can have a long news cycle where people are talking about New Hampshire. And I suspect they'll wind up at the eighth. It depends on a lot of things, but I suspect they'll wind up there. It just makes sense too much sense.

Ray, there's just two points that make. One is, the question is, does New Hampshire going to be first? They can be in December, but what New Hampshire has been in the past in the last 13 presidents elected, 11 of them won the New Hampshire primary before winning the White House. That's how influential it has been. So the relevance and influence of New Hampshire has been its position at the outset of the process with the first time that they come in a secret ballot. Iowa is wonderful, but that's a caucus. It's a different experience. This is a secret ballot where the polls and everything else and where, finally and ultimately, an underdog under-financed candidate without party overwhelming establishment support, much like John McCain in 1999 against George Bush was the overwhelming favorite. Can spring the upset? Jimmy Carter can come out of nowhere in 1976. That's what New Hampshire and Iowa offer. That big states don't. I would differ with that a little. I think this year, if you look where the candidates are traveling there

to a much more than a new hit. I agree. In part because the New Hampshire is not as close. Because Hillary Clinton has usually met Romney as a lead, and Iowa is really neck and neck in both parties. Now, it's fun to talk about the upcoming presidential race, but we still have a president. His name is George W. Bush, and he gave a news conference this week at which he said he is sprinting to the finish of his term and insisted on his own continued relevance even as record poll numbers came out for low favorability. What's going on? Well, it is certainly true that the country, by and large, has turned the page on George Bush and he's never going to recoup his losses, his popularity. Nonetheless, I would say he still has a lot of influence around here. In part because I think his campaign, his White House staff and the people who work for him are in higher quality than ever before. I wish they could start over with the team they have now than the one they had six, seven years ago. In part because he still has his power. If you look at the Iraq policy, it's his Iraq policy. If you look at the S. Chipvito, it's still his veto. If anything, the danger is, we turn the page too quickly on Bush

and actually don't talk about what he's doing and what's still happening in the government. The people in the White House do say people, it's become socially unacceptable to say anything good about us anymore and we do have some things we can talk about. The deficits have come down dramatically in the last two years, which is a real accomplishment. There's been a sharp decline in the number of casualties in Iraq and things like that. There is a point where we move beyond Bush much too quickly when he still has tremendous power, especially the people working with him. What mark is there a practical effect? Is it harder to be president if the latest Zagby poll has you at 24%. It is, Ray. And I think the president's power at this point is essentially a negative power, a power to veto, as David mentioned. I would argue that picking the S. Chip is the first student, children's health bill, that was going to come at 10 million working families, children. As your demonstration effort on showing your fiscal responsibility was not helpful to Republicans, and Republicans have quite candid about that,

and private, many even in public, like Pat Roberts of Kansas and Deborah Price of Ohio. But I do think that the closest thing I can compare where we are now in this country is to 1952. Then you had a president with equally, Harry Truman with equally bad poll numbers. You had a war that was unpopular, apparently unwinnable, and a stalemate with casualties still being inflicted on Americans. You had, as well, an administration with Washington, political Washington, with a stench or a role in any way of corruption. And you had that country ready for change after a period of that party holding power. And with no apparent logical successor, a consensus successor for the president to take over. And I really think that the one thing that Bright Spot for the Republicans is that the Democrats do not have a war hero like Dwight Eisenhower whom they can nominate in 2008.

And that may be their last best hope. David, given the state of play, an election day 13 months away, what can George Bush do to either help with those Republicans seeking re-election to the House and Senate, Republican governors looking to hold their seats, and the presidential aspirants of his own party. It could stop vetoing us, Chip. That would be a nice start. I mean, for him, and I think his administration for a year on out is foreign policy. And the primarily, it's a better rock. And if, you know, I was not a big fan of the surge, nonetheless, when you take a look at the civilian casualties, which I think are down to like 77%, U.S. military deaths are down, the stories that Al Qaeda and Iraq are being decimated. You know, you wouldn't want to say you've turned a corner because we've been through that before. Nonetheless, there's some possibility that things are not deteriorating the way they were. They're stabilizing, maybe even getting a little better in Iraq, and that's just primary job. And whether it's for the good of the country, for the good of the party, I don't know, but that's what he's going to be focusing on,

and whatever else happens. And he's going to be president. You know, we've been talking about Pakistan today. There are a lot of people in Washington who are in a panic about what might happen in Pakistan. And he will be president if something happens in Pakistan, and he will have to deal with it popular or not. Well, Mark, briefly, what do you think about Bush's, the president's, possibilities for neutralizing the harm the war can do to his own party's candidates? The election's not today. The numbers are very bad today, but if things go well for the next year? I don't know how things go. I agree with David on the statistics, but remember, Ray, the purpose of this surge was to establish the political climate that enabled reconciliation and secured the blessings of liberty and orderly government for the Iraqi people. I think we're still, that's removed. I do think that there's a chance that the Iraqi war will not be as much of a political liability for President Bush's successor in the Republican Party

in 2008, because I think there's a good chance by the summer spring of 2008 that there'll be American troops coming home. And I think the number there will be reduced. And I think with that reduction, it will become less of a political albatross for Republicans. David, this week saw the confirmation hearings for Attorney General, Designate Mukazi. What did you make of them? Well, he's an example of what I think of has been a good trend in the Bush administration. A lot of the Texas cronies, a lot of the people who were incompetent are being replaced by professionals. And I think that's true that the Treasury Department, the Defense Department, I think it's now true of the Attorney General. I think we saw a man who is much more honest, much more comfortable, much more a master of the issues, and who is a strong defender of executive privilege. So I think he's someone, everyone respects, he's going to be confirmed, but he is still a conservative. And he's conservative on the two issues that I think matter quite a lot to this administration. The first is executive privilege, defending from the legislative encroachments.

And the second is the issue of national security, which is where most of the controversy was, to the extent there was controversy on the issue of torture and the FISA. So he didn't tell senators on the panel what they wanted to hear? No, he did not. He told them what the administration wanted to hear, which I suspect is why he was picked, because he actually believes it. But nonetheless, he's not a liberal, he's not a change in course ideologically, but he is a significant step up in terms of competence and a guy you could actually trust. Mark? Well, first of all, I want to bail David out from offending the lone star of state. The Secretary of Defense is a Texan. The new Secretary of Defense, he replaced a man from Illinois, Mr. Ronzfeld. So it wasn't all Texans who routed out of town. But I do think he makes a good point. That Mr. McCasey looks a lot better, I think, than maybe he would have from the beginning by the fact that he's not Alberto Gonzalez. And there was a sense, I must have a relief. It seemed in the Senate hearing room. I remain amazed at his inability or unwillingness

to condemn waterboarding. I mean, I don't know how many more people who've been through it. It takes. I mean, whether it's how many joint chiefs of staff, how many combat generals to say that it was Colin Powell, John Vessy, or Hugh Shelton. How many it takes to say this is a, not helpful and b, it is hurtful to what America is. But I think he will be confirmed. And he was given, David, a lot of opportunities to come out against waterboarding and use the formation, use the way of answering the question that I think left some senators unsatisfied, but you feel he had to answer that. I think he had to first, let me pick up, thank Mark for saving me for the Texans. I'm going to Dallas next week. I hope to return from there in the ghost of Tom Landry. I salute. No, I think on the torture issue, he can't go down procedure by procedure

saying yes, no, yes, no, at a public hearing. He just can't do it. So his private views may be something. His views of what the law allows may be something. But you can't have a White House official or any federal official doing that in public view procedure because once you talk about one procedure, you got to talk about everything. And so I think he did the right thing. I hope they do make waterboarding. They do make it unacceptable. But I think he had to do what he did, not the hearing. Well, David, Mark, have a great weekend, Gents. Thank you, Ray. Now another of our conversations with candidates for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominations who are running in the primaries. Tonight, the candidate is Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. I spoke with him earlier today. Senator McCain, welcome. You still very much want to be president of the United States,

is that right? That's correct. I still have the fire in the belly and we've been having a lot of fun lately. You've been at this for several years now. You've had your ups in your down. What drives you? What is it? What is it? It makes you so determined to be president. I can't define it too accurately for you, except to say that I love this country. I think it's the noblest of all things one can do is to serve a cause greater than yourself. I am the most fortunate person you will ever interview. There's very few reasons for me to be on this earth and I don't not say that I was intended to be president of the United States, but I do say that I'm fortunate enough that to serve this country and its cause is what I think that I am here for and that's what I feel that is my duty in life and I can do it in a variety of ways

and one of them is to be president of the United States and I want to emphasize, Jim, I don't think there's any inevitability or any set plan out there, but I do believe that I can serve the country best as president of the United States. But if I do not succeed, I'm telling you, I will still have the great privilege of serving in the United States Senate and serving this nation. But when you get up every day, running for president of the United States, are you motivated by something that you think only you could bring to this job? Something that you could accomplish and only you could accomplish? No, I think that there's others and I think that this nation has been blessed with great leaders. I do believe I can do it best. I think that my background, my experience, my knowledge, my vision, and my understanding of the transcendent challenge of the 21st century, which is a struggle against radical Islamic extremism, qualifies me for the consideration of the voters, but I'm sure that there are others

that would serve as good presidents of the United States. The polls show overwhelmingly now, Senator, that the American people do not believe the direction of the country, the direction the country is now following is the right one. First of all, do you agree with that? Oh, sure. I think that we have led corruption and in spending out of control spending partisanship to cause the American people to be as dissatisfied as they've ever been in the many years that I have held public office. They are bases fed up with the spending. The American people do not believe we are working their interests that we're working for the special interests. And when you see former members of Congress in federal prison, they're right. We Republicans let spending get completely out of control. We Republicans didn't handle Katrina well. We Republicans for nearly four years pursued a strategy that of rumsfeld's that would do must a failure.

And I'm glad the president decided on the new strategy. I'm glad that we're on the right track in Iraq. I'm glad that he's saying that he's going to veto these spending bills now. But we dried up our enthusiastic base and we got to regain their confidence in the confidence of the American people. And you feel you can do that? You can do all these things you just outlined? I am confident that I am qualified to attempt it. I think that my background and my knowledge lends themselves to some credibility with them. And I think that I can talk directly to the American people and motivate them again. It's not the first time in history that America has been on a downer in the 1970s. We obviously had great difficulties in lack of trust in government. And every one of us role model, Ronald Reagan came on the scene and inspired America, restored our military, and won the Cold War.

I think America's best days are ahead of us, but I don't underestimate the challenges that we face. And I think Americans will respond to straight talk. You mentioned trust. You mentioned Katrina. And the idea that the American people really don't trust the people running the government to get things done efficiently and effectively. You've been a United States senator. What are your qualifications to actually run the government to make it work, go from here to there? I guess my qualifications begin with my knowledge and my background and my experience to take on the major issue as I told you that that of radical Islamic extremism. I have a history of working across the aisle. I've been able to get things done in Washington. I've also fought hard against waste and unnecessary spending, particularly in defense. I and others, but I led in a fight against a tanker, that the tanker aircraft, that the Air Force and Boeing and some corrupt people that later went to jail, tried to voice off on the American people.

I saved the taxpayer two billion dollars. And I'll continue to do that. I understand this defense procurement process, why it has to be fixed, why it's completely out of control. I'll veto every pork barrel spending bill that comes across my desk and I'll make these people famous. And I will give them a vision for the future of this nation and how America's greatest days are really ahead of us. And when you look at young people working in America today, when you look at the men and women in the military, I can authenticate that assertion. What would you say to somebody say, well, wait a minute, Senator? The United States Senator means participating in debate and making speeches and all of that, but it doesn't involve actually running something. Well, I've been engaged in most of the national, major national security decisions that have been made. I was once commanding officer, the largest squadron in the United States Navy of over a thousand people. I didn't manage him, I led him. And I know how to lead,

and I know what serving the country is in the military. I understand our national security challenges, and I have been engaged in those major decisions as well. And I'm the only one of all these people that are running on the Republican side that condemned the Rumsfeld strategy. I was criticized severely for being disloyal and advocated the strategy that is now succeeding. The question is, is the American people's patients run out as we are succeeding the way that it ran out in the war in which I fought? You called it the Rumsfeld strategy, wasn't it the Bush strategy? Was it President of the United States? Was it Vice President Dick Cheney also involved? They are the generals, everybody else involved? You called it the Rumsfeld strategy, wasn't it? Well, frankly, it was the President's responsibility and the Vice President's responsibility. In behalf of these generals, there were a number of generals that disagreed and those generals were, quote, Shin-Sikid, they were thrown out and retired.

Shin-Sikid was the general. Shin-Sikid was the general. He said, we needed 300,000 troops over there if we were going to succeed. And there were military people who not only went along with this strategy, but strongly supported it before the Armed Services Committee. But we all know, civilian responsibility is a essence of democracy and policies are made by civilians and implemented by military. So, yes, the President followed the wrong strategy, but it was Rumsfeld who was who orchestrated it. And our problems were exacerbated by the statement such as mission accomplished, few dead enders, last throes, stuff happens, which led the expectation of the American people to be very different from what was actually happening on the ground. I saw what was happening on the ground. I came back after first visit to Iraq early on and said, we've got to fix this. I met with Rumsfeld and said, it's got to be changed.

So, but I do give the President credit for change in the strategy, for changing secretaries of defense, for changing military leaders and we are now succeeding. And it is success and there's a long, hard path ahead, but it's been, there's been a significant change since we have adapted this new tactic, actually, what it is. Well, it explains Senator Y, one general, the trace, there have been, SCADs of generals ahead of time before. It was another, as you say, secretary of defense, they're still the same president, still the same vice president. Suddenly everything is working. It's over to you because of one man, it's general. I think that his leadership is important. Every conflict that we've been in, a leader has been emerged when we've succeeded, but I think it's the overall concept. It's no longer you go in and kill people and come back the old search and destroy. You go out there, you secure the area, you give the people an environment

and you stay and you give them an environment of security so that the process can move forward. Am I disappointed in the Maliki government? Of course. I'm disappointed that the national police are still corrupt, of course, but we have seen a dramatic change in just the last seven or eight months since this new strategy or tactic has been employed and, of course, it requires great generals. The combination, I think, of General Petraeus, and General Odierno is a great combination. And now the question is, we'll be able to see the political progress and will we be able to then begin to withdraw down more numbers from the conflict as the Iraqi military takes over. Do you believe it was correct, Senator, for this 2008 presidential election, whether you end up ultimately as one of the nominees or not, the election itself, the campaign itself, one of the major issues should be

how this whole Iraq thing got to be where it was. Not where it's going from here on out, but how it got this play. That's all responsible for our record. And there's no doubt that the approval ratings of the President and Congress are related to our failure in Iraq. You can't paint it any other way. But Americans understand also that mistakes are always made in wars. Look at the wars in which you were fought. And if we can succeed, I think that overall that will be helpful to our cause. But there's no doubt it is hurt, but I'll tell you what's hurt more than anything else with our Republican base, and that's the bridge to know where. The out of control spending, which has led to corruption, Americans are sad and frustrated by the war. Our base is angry because we betrayed them on spending, because the President didn't exercise his veto power, because members of Congress convinced the President that they needed these pork barrel projects in order to get reelected. Well, they didn't get reelected and they're not getting, I hope,

that someday they will make sure they don't get their pork barrel projects. So President Bush definitely, in your opinion, deserves these low approval ratings? Oh, I don't say that because I think that's up to the American people. But I say that we Republicans, the administration with the compliant and eager partners in the House and Senate, Republicans, let spending get completely out of control. We presided over the largest increase in government since the great society. I mean, that's not Republicans. The bridge to know where Jim, in every political campaign alive, there's a tipping point. I paid for this microphone, there's the bridge to know where. I talked to our Republican faithful. I mentioned it. They all know what it was. They all know. They all know. And that tipped them, so that in the 2006 election, they just said, I'm taking a hike. I'm taking a hike. Now, they didn't become Democrats, but we lost the enthusiasm of our Republican base and we lost trust and confidence.

So when we tried to reform immigration and we said that we would fix the border, secure the borders, they didn't believe us. They didn't believe us. You got to regain that trust and confidence and by the way, you got to secure the borders as well. Could you talk about federal spending? Let's face it, there's been a war on going on for four and a half, and beans and beans of donors have been spent on that war. Yes, sir. It wasn't all just bridges to know where it was a war. No, but it's symbolic. It's symptomatic. The president of Congress just passed a public works bill that has $21 billion worth of public works projects and they successfully beat back amendments to prioritize them or have a cost-benefit analysis. So now what do the appropriators do? They pick and choose which ones of these $21 billion projects that they won't pass. In all due respect, the senator from New York put in a large appropriations year mark for a museum in New York state

for the concert at Woodstock. A cultural event that I know that a lot of Americans want to spend their tax dollars to commemorate. And that may be viewed as a cheap shot, but the fact is that we've got to make tough decisions. We've got to make tough decisions and those decisions have to do with stop the unnecessary and wasteful spending. Look, why should we contract with a major defense contractor for a small ship that's supposed to cost $160 million, it costs $400 million and they cancel it and nobody's held responsible. There's $400 million down the drain. We're not talking about small amounts of money here. Senator, a lot of people say this is all very important, but in making a decision who should be the next president of the United States, it's really going to revolve around leadership and about character about the ability to react on the unexpected, et cetera.

Give us your qualifications in those areas. Well, I've been tested. I've been tested in difficult decisions. I have a record of standing up against the special interests. I have a record of understanding and being involved in the major national security issues of our time. And I believe in honest government and I have practiced that and I know how to work across the aisle with the other party. I've been working with a lot of the individuals and the leadership and the democratic party from many, many years. I know how to work with them and preserve my fundamental conservative credentials and principles as well. I would examine my record. I would ask people to do that, but also listen to my vision and my commitment to the future of this country and its security. And if you accept that the struggle against radical Islamic extremism is the transcendent challenge of our time.

I have no doubt that my qualifications and my vision is far superior than to my competitors who are all good people. You mentioned the senator from New York. Senator Hillary Clinton. There are many Republicans who say now beating Hillary Clinton is the number one quality, the ability to beat Hillary Clinton is the number one qualification for a Republican nominee in 2008. Is that how you see it? No, but I noticed recent polls that show that I'm the closest to or tied or a little behind of any of the other candidates. I'm sure that that's a factor because we always want to win. But I think the average voter is going to judge me and the other candidates on their vision, their qualifications and their confidence that we will lead who will lead in difficult times. But of course it's a factor with a lot of the, you know, with our rank and file. But the average American is going to say, who's the one I want to lead? You agree with some of the average Americans

increasingly say they don't care whether people are Republicans or Democrats anymore. They just want people to function and get the government operating. Do you agree with those folks? Or does party still matter to you very much? Parties matter to me very much, but parties have to stick to their principles and their ideals and practice them. When we say we're the party of physical conservatives and then we go out and spend money like drunken sailors, then of course then the people say, wait a minute, I can't identify with that. What we're seeing because of dissatisfaction with both parties is a dramatic increase in independent voters. But we can bring those people home. We can bring them home by practicing. I believe Jim that America is a right of center nation. Fundamentally the Republican Party is a right of center party. I believe the Democrats are a left of center party. I mean I think that's just when you look at the various philosophical positions that both parties have taken. So I think that we are more in tune if we do the things we espouse and practice our principles.

For instance, you and the other major can't Republican candidates decline to participate in forums and debates that were specifically designed for minorities, racial minorities, Latinos and African Americans. Is the message there that the Republican race is just among white people? Let me just say I was the one who accepted the innovation debate and will continue to do so. I did not accept that to have a smiley debate because we had another obligation and I offered to, if we could arrange that debate at another date. I'm proud of my record in relationship with Hispanic community. I got 70% of the Hispanic vote in my last reelection. Am I worried about the Hispanic voter as far as the future of the Republican party is concerned? Absolutely. They should be naturally our voter. They're pro-life, small business, patriotic, less regulation, pro-family, et cetera. And yet, we are not gaining. We are losing significantly.

Much of it is credit. President Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. That dropped at 26% in 2006. So we've got to work cut out for us. As far as African American voters are concerned, I'm proud that I was heavily engaged in the fight in Arizona. It mean one of the last states to give official recognition to the birthday of Martin Luther King. So, but do we have our work cut out for us as a Republican party? Absolutely. There's also been discussion finally, sanitaro battle. Which of you candidates is the real Republican? Are you the real Republican in the race? I think that there are real Republicans. I just disagreed with Governor Romney's assertion that he was the quote, the real Republican in the Republican wing when he said he didn't want to go back to the Reagan Bush years. He started Liberal Democrat for President of the United States. He gave financial support to a candidate in New Hampshire who was a Democrat and virtually had different positions on virtually every issue when he was in a liberal state.

So, I disagree with that. I think it's fair to point out differences. I don't make personal attacks. I think that there's a clear difference between Governor Romney's record and mine and I think that's a big part of the decision-making process. You've got to win the respect of the voter and the way you do that is show your respect for them. And that's a clear depiction of your record. And then, I think you qualify for their consideration and that's when they begin to judge you on your vision and how comfortable they are putting their confidence in you as Commander-in-Chief and as President. Senator McCain, thank you. Thanks, Jim. For more on sanitaro McCain, you can visit our Vote 2008 website at pbs.org. All of our candidate interviews and campaign updates are also available there. And again, the major developments of this day

stocks on Wall Street plunged to their lowest level in a month with the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping 367 points. Former Pakistan Prime Minister Buto defined her attackers. She vowed to continue her efforts to return Pakistan to civilian rule. The death toll in yesterday's twin bombings rose to 136. And federal health advisors warned children under the age of six should not take cold and cough medicines. They recommended more research. Washington, we can be seeing later this evening on most PBS stations. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by. Every day, it seems. Talk of oil, energy, the environment. Where are the answers?

Right now, we're producing clean, renewable geothermal energy. Generating enough energy to power seven million homes. Imagine that. An oil company as part of the solution. This is the power of human energy. The new AT&T. Pacific Life And the National Science Foundation, supporting education and research across all fields of science and engineering. And with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

Thank you. To purchase video of the news hour with Jim Lara, call 1-866-678-News. We are PBS.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Friday. Then the latest on the deadly attacks in Pakistan. A weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks. And another of our conversations with presidential candidates. Tonight, Republican John McCain.

Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by. Now headquarters is wherever you are.