The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, the nation's unemployment rate went up to 5.3 percent, West German Chancellor Kohl and President Bush tried unsuccessfully to resolve a difference over missiles, and the U.S. space probe Magellan is on its way to the planet Venus. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: After the News Summary, we go first to the U.S. West German missile rift. We'll hear from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former arms control negotiator Paul Nitze. Then on to the Oliver North verdict. We get a flavor of public reaction and editorial views from Ed Baumeister of the Trenton Times, Lee Cullum of the Dallas Times Herald, and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. Next the political week with our regulars David Gergen and Mark Shields. And finally, Judy Woodruff has a rare News Maker interview with FBI Director William Sessions. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The unemployment rate has gone back up. The Labor Department said today it jumped .3 percent in April to a 5.3 percent rate. It is the highest it has been since January, and caused many analysts to say it was confirmation of a slowdown in the economy. The 5.0 rate in March was the lowest it has been in 15 years. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: President Bush and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl failed to resolve their differences over short range missiles today. Instead, the President responded to a telephone call from the Chancellor by reiterating his firm opposition to early talks with the Soviets over the missiles. The issue is threatening to disrupt the upcoming NATO summit in Brussels. Meanwhile, President Bush is said to be planning a visit to Hungary and Poland in July. The purpose of the trip is to show U.S. support for economic and political reform in those two countries.

MR. LEHRER: All is well with Space Shuttle Atlantis. Its four man, one woman crew conducted several scientific experiments and took some pictures today following its successful launch yesterday afternoon. The mission's principal purpose was accomplished last night with the firing off of the unmanned Magellan space probe to the planet Venus. NASA officials said Magellan was on course and operating beautifully at its cruising speed of 6500 miles an hour. It is due to reach Venus in August 1990. Atlantis and its crew will return to earth Monday at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Embattled House Speaker Jim Wright renewed his offensive today against a widening investigation into his lucrative oil drilling venture. As the House ethics panel questioned witnesses for the third straight day, Wright spoke before a Law Day audience in Texas and blamed his problems on political opponents. He said investigators hired by the Ethics Committee had spent almost $2 billion in taxpayers' money probing his affairs, looking for things to criticize. Wright is expected to testify before the Ethics Committee later this month.

MR. LEHRER: The FBI was ordered today to change the way it promotes people. A federal judge in El Paso, Texas, issued the order. Judge Lucias Bunton said the Bureau's system was unsystematic and excessively subjective. His order said it must be made fair and reviewable. Judge Bunton's order was a follow-up to his trial finding last September that the FBI had discriminated against Hispanic agents in promotions, discipline and assignments.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In the South Central part of the nation today, at least six people have been killed and some twenty others injured as tornadoes roared through the region at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour. An estimated six tornadoes left showers and thunderstorms battering parts of Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi. In North Central Texas, the storms uprooted trees and caused extensive flooding.

MR. LEHRER: Another high ranking official of Iran issued another call for murder today. We have a report narrated by Roderick Pratt of Worldwide Television News.

RODERICK PRATT: This year's Jerusalem Day has provoked the most violent, anti-Western speech ever from Iran's Parliamentary Spokesman Hashami Rofsanjani. As millions of Iranians listened, he called on Palestinians to kill Americans and other Westerners in return for attacks by Israel in the occupied territories. He said the Israelis wouldn't continue their attacks if for every Palestinian martyred, five Britons, Americans or Frenchmen were killed. He's urged Palestinians to blow up factories in Western countries and hijack planes. Previously a moderate, Rofsanjani has even criticized PLO Leader Yasser Arafat for renouncing terrorists and recognizing Israel's right to exist. Two million Muslims took to the streets of Iran for the tenth year in a row to call for Jerusalem to be returned to the Muslim fold. In Lebanon, Muslims in the Southern suburb of Beirut forgot the shelling of their own city to join the Ayatollah Khomeini's call for Solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Flags drawn on the pavements representing Britain, the United States, and Israel became a focus of anger, even for the children of the war torn city. Rofsanjani's call has already been condemned by Britain.

MR. LEHRER: The United States joined in that condemnation. In Washington, State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler said the U.S. would hold Iran responsible for any attacks made on Americans.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Also in Washington, Pres. Bush today named a 14 member team of observers to monitor Panama's elections this Sunday, but Gen. Manuel Noriega's Government said the bipartisan group would not be welcomed. The U.S. has said it would not recognize the outcome of the election if it was rigged by Noriega supporters. That's our News Summary. Still ahead, the U.S./West German rift over missiles, public and editorial opinion over the North verdict, Gergen & Shields on politics and FBI Director William Sessions. FOCUS - NATO - MISSILES AWAY?

MR. LEHRER: We begin tonight with a big name debate about some little missiles. The big names are Paul Nitze and Henry Kissinger. The little missiles are in West Germany. West German Chancellor Kohl and some in the NATO alliance want negotiations with the Soviets about eliminating them. Pres. Bush and others in the alliance want no talks until the missiles are modernized. The two leaders talked by phone today for 20 minutes. In an attempt to resolve their differences, they talked in vein. Mr. Nitze agrees with Chancellor Kohl, Mr. Kissinger with Pres. Bush. They follow this brief set-up by Correspondent Charles Krause.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There are only 88 Lance missiles assigned to NATO and their range is only 66 miles. But they're getting old and the Bush administration says they should be replaced. The Lance missiles are all based in Western Europe. They would likely be the first nuclear weapons used if ever there were a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The Warsaw Pact has about 1400 equivalent missiles in Eastern Europe. When the U.S. and the Soviet Union signed the treaty eliminating medium range nuclear missiles, the Reagan administration said short range Lance missiles were still an essential part of defense in Europe. But some experts in the U.S. and Europe predicted at the time there would be pressure to get rid of the short range missiles too. That pressure is now most intense in West Germany. The Government of Chancellor Helmut Kohl is dealing with public opinion that wants to respond favorably to Mikhail Gorbachev's offers to cut Warsaw Pact forces, including his offer to eliminate all short range missiles from Europe. For his own political reasons, Kohl forced NATO partners to postpone a decision to build a replacement for the lands until West German elections scheduled for next year. Now the Chancellor is saying NATO should start negotiating with the Soviets to eliminate all short range missiles. On Wednesday, Pres. Bush told Norway's Prime Minister that negotiations would be a serious mistake. That same day Defense Sec. Richard Cheney spelled out the administration's reasoning to Congress.

RICHARD CHENEY, Secretary of Defense: Once you start negotiations on short range nuclear forces, if you can't resist the political pressure to get into the negotiations, how do you resist the political pressure that it's clearly going to be there to accept the first Soviet offer, which is going to be not fifty but probably zero?

MR. KRAUSE: But Senate Armed Services Chairman Sam Nunn supports negotiations under certain circumstances.

SEN. SAM NUNN, [D] Georgia: I suggest a three trite policy. Basically, the Germans agree to modernize; we agree to negotiate without going to zero; and third, we make it clear there will be no agreement with the Soviets on this whole subject until such time as we know the outcome of the conventional arms control.

MR. KRAUSE: What's clear is that the Lance dispute which began in Europe has now crossed the Atlantic to the United States.

MR. LEHRER: And now to our debate and to two men who have played key roles in NATO and nuclear issues over the years. Paul Nitze has served in nearly every post war administration. He retired earlier this week from his post as ambassador at large and special adviser to the President, and the secretary of state on arms control matters. It was his interview in the New York Times critical of the Bush position on the short range missiles that moved that issue to the front burner in Washington. Henry Kissinger was secretary of state during the Nixon and Ford administrations. He now heads up an international consulting form in New York. He joins us from Kent, Connecticut. Amb. Nitze, why should there be negotiations?

AMB. PAUL NITZE, Former Arms Negotiator: I think it is politically impossible for any German Government to agree to two propositions concurrently. One is that they agree to modernizing the Lance missile or similar missiles of short range from zero to three hundred miles in range, and concurrently, to agree that there should be negotiations. Certainly, German public opinion is such that that is an impossible combination for anybody to support in Germany. It won't move in Germany. Therefore, you've got to make up your mind which is the most important for us. Frankly, I think it's so important that Germany continues to develop in which it can be a cooperative and useful member of NATO that's of vast importance, and we have to pay some attention to what the political situation in Germany is and try to be helpful to an evolution of German public opinion which is on the side of Germany continuing to play a useful role in NATO and thereby be able to collaborate with us.

MR. LEHRER: And we can do that, in your opinion, without jeopardizing NATO security?

AMB. NITZE: I believe we can. I think the first thing that we would do is talk to the Germans and see whether or not they would back up in resisting and saying now and joining us and saying, as Kohl has said, that he is not for a triple zero, he is not for the total elimination, the total unilateral elimination of the short range missiles. What he wants us to do is to negotiate for equal ceilings with the Soviet Union and I see no reason why we shouldn't negotiate for equal ceilings.

MR. LEHRER: You expressed this opinion to the Bush administration before you left office, did you not?

AMB. NITZE: I did, indeed.

MR. LEHRER: And what reaction did you get?

AMB. NITZE: At that time no firm reaction.

MR. LEHRER: I see.

AMB. NITZE: But eventually they came to a conclusion different than that.

MR. LEHRER: You were quoted in the New York Times as saying that one of the reasons you believe they reacted negatively was because there were so many new appointees in the Bush administration with links to Henry Kissinger. What did you mean?

AMB. PAUL NITZE, Former Arms Negotiator: Well, I meant exactly that, because Mr. Kissinger's position has long been against even the INF results. He has maintained that they would be better if there were concurrent progress in the elimination or at least the balancing of the conventional forces. And undoubtedly that is true, but the question at issue is how long is that going to take you to get a balance of the conventional forces? I don't think it's going to happen overnight.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Kissinger, do you take credit for this "no negotiate" position of the Bush administration?

HENRY KISSINGER, Former Secretary of State: Absolutely not. I support that position very strongly, but it is a decision to which they came by themselves and not under any aegis of mine. My view has been repeatedly stated. I did, indeed, believe that the INF agreement was a mistake, because it removed those weapons from Germany and from Europe by which an attack on Europe could be answered by retaliation on the territory of the attacker. And it left only those weapons in which the victim's territory became the chief target of nuclear retaliation. That created, indeed, a very difficult situation for the German Government. I would not have minded at all a 50 percent reduction of the strategic forces in Europe. Secondly, it is quite true that I believe that the conventional arms control and nuclear arms control ought to be in some balance to each other. It makes absolutely no sense that the threat to the security of Europe, which has been the Soviet conventional strength plus the geographic proximity to which our response in part was the nuclear deterrent that all the arms control negotiations should be focused on nuclear weapons and that no progress whatever has yet been on conventional arms control. It is also an evasion to say that one can have a negotiation on these short range weapons but have a ceiling that is higher than zero. We have 88 short range weapons in Germany. What level is better than 88? Is 52, 36? Inevitably, when one sees negotiations start, they will tend toward zero. And the pressure, the same domestic pressure that is now being used to justify the beginning of negotiations will lead almost inexorably to zero. Then we will be in the position in which the conventional arms are essentially not under control, every significant nuclear arm in Europe has been either eliminated or sharply reduced. On top of it, there will be a 50 percent reduction in our strategic forces and it is psychologically an unbalanced negotiation and for that reason the Bush administration is absolutely correct, in my view, in insisting that first we've not done a substantial amount of nuclear arms control and there should now be major process in conventional arms control before we go into negotiations on the short range weapons.

MR. LEHRER: Amb. Nitze.

AMB. NITZE: The question of conventional arms reductions in a balanced conventional scene has been before us for a long period of time. We have been negotiating this for what, 16 years. And it is quite clear that the way in which one has to negotiate on conventional arms balance is through NATO, through the members of NATO, through, you know, fifteen, sixteen nations negotiating with the Soviet Bloc. And multilateral negotiation is extremely difficult to do with any degree of expedition. It's extremely hard. That's why it's taken us, why we've made no progress for all these years, but I know of no other way of going forward with this. It is conceivable that Mr. Gorbachev -- you say I fall over backwards and I'm prepared to make these vast reductions in conventional forces because the balance in conventional forces is so much in favor of the Soviet Union it's been worrying us for years.

MR. LEHRER: That's Mr. Kissinger's point.

MR. KISSINGER: But the problem doesn't become any easier if we, of course, the conventional arms negotiation is a difficult negotiation.

AMB. NITZE: It's going to take time.

MR. KISSINGER: But if we do all the negotiating in the nuclear field, we continue to stigmatize and de-legitimize the weapons by which we've established the balance to the conventional superiority of the Soviets plus their geographic proximity and we will leave the conventional superiority untouched with the argument that it's a very difficult negotiation. And it seems to me that it is absolutely reasonable of the administration to say we have made, we are negotiating a 50 percent reduction of strategic forces. We've taken out all our strategic or practically all our strategic weapons from Europe. Now there has to be some progress in the conventional field before we take the residue of the tactical nuclear weapons out of Europe.

MR. LEHRER: What's wrong with that, Mr. Ambassador, other than it being difficult to do?

AMB. NITZE: In the first place, we have been negotiating on conventional forces. Nobody proposes that we not do that. We're doing it with the ut most urgency. I've been involved in this. We've done everything we could think of to stimulate and accelerate the negotiation on conventional forces. The question at issue is should one delay in doing something that would save the German political scene and that would, if we could succeed, vastly improve the situation of NATO militarily.

MR. KISSINGER: It is the responsibility of political leaders to tell the people the truth and to tell them their necessities. There is no stopping point between eighty-eight and zero that makes any sense. So either --

AMB. NITZE: There was no --

MR. KISSINGER: -- we are saying there should be a senseless negotiation in order to be some sort of a drug for a short-term political problem that the German government has -- and the German Chancellor is a close personal friend of mine for whom I have tremendous sympathy, but if he has to take the program of his opposition in order to get re-elected, then we have a really serious situation in Germany. It makes no sense to negotiate about these very few weapons are there just to be able to say that one is helping a short-term political problem. It ought to be possible within the NATO alliance to come to some definition of security that honest people can explain to their public and to redefine the relationship between Western Europe and the United States, between Western Germany and Europe, all of which are important issues. But I do not think we can play this game of saying ABA short range nuclear missiles are the key to nuclear stability.

MR. LEHRER: In your opinion, Amb. Nitze, what would the negative result of the United States sticking with its position that it has right now?

AMB. NITZE: As I said earlier, I think the combination of these two propositions, that [A] we not negotiate and [B] that we ask the Germans to approve of the modernization of these 88 missiles is politically impossible for any government in Germany. I don't think any government --

MR. LEHRER But what is the fallout of that to the NATO alliance and the relationship of the United States to our position in Europe?

AMB. NITZE: Because if Germany goes in the way in which, for instance, Mr. Genture wants it to go --

MR. LEHRER: He's the foreign minister of West Germany.

AMB. NITZE: That's right -- and does not support those who believe that it is most important for Germany to maintain a position of responsibility within NATO so that it can work with NATO and therefore with the United States. If those people are defeated, I think what will happen is that the scene in West Germany will be dominated by the SPD and by the Greens.

MR. LEHRER: The SPD, which is more liberal or to the left?

AMB. NITZE: Very much to the left.

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

AMB. NITZE: And I don't see how you could put together a coalition which would be able to resist that.

MR. LEHRER: So from your perspective, this is a political issue more than it is an arms control issue?

AMB. NITZE: It is both political and military.

MR. KISSINGER: But in fairness, it must be pointed out that the Bush administration has already put off the issue of modernization. The Bush administration is not pressing the Germans to modernize now. What the Bush administration is resisting is the negotiation on the short range weapons whose practical consequence will be to tend towards zero and on purely domestic political grounds in Germany. I recognize that Chancellor Kohl, who I repeat is a personal friend of mine, is in difficulties and it gives me great sorrow that he's in difficulties, but I do not believe in the long run that it will, in fact, help him if we adopt the program of his opponents.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask --

MR. KISSINGER: I believe it helps him more if we say we take the security of Europe so seriously that we will not engage in a sham negotiation at the pretense that is a number less than 88 that is more secure and that will, however, inevitably go to zero.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask you both --

AMB. NITZE: Could I respond to that? In the first place, I think that Henry has grossly misrepresented my position. After all, what I've said is that I think we should first get agreement from the Germans that they will support us in a negotiation for equal ceilings. I said nothing about 88 missiles. In fact, I've said earlier on other occasions that it ought to be for a figure of say two to three hundred missiles on both sides, that it should be equal ceilings. And today we don't have equal ceilings. When Henry says, we've got some great asset here in these short range missiles, it's really no asset at all that we've got there now. It is important to get down to equal ceilings. If one gets down to equal ceilings, then I think one has a much better opportunity to build support in Germany for the modernization of those remaining what we would have the right to; that's the important thing.

MR. KISSINGER: The easiest way to get to equal ceilings is for the Soviets to cut down to our ceiling. Then we will be at equal ceilings and then we can discuss how to go further. Eighty-eight doesn't give you a very big margin.

AMB. NITZE: It's better than the current --

MR. LEHRER: Gentlemen, I had a great last question to ask you both but I'm not going to have time to ask it and I'll ask it next time. Thank you both very much for being with us tonight.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Still ahead, North verdict reactions, Gergen & Shields prognostications, and FBI Director William Sessions. NEWS MAKER

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We go now to a News Maker interview with Judge William Sessions, Director of the FBI. Since his appointment by President Reagan in 1987, he's had to deal with charges of official Bureau discrimination and racial harassment. Today a judge in El Paso, Texas, ordered the FBI to make changes in a personnel system he called "unsystematic and excessively subjective." The order concludes a lawsuit brought by 310 Hispanic agents who charge the Bureau with discrimination. Earlier this week, Sessions talked with Judy Woodruff about the charges of discrimination as well as the FBI's increased role in the war against drugs and terrorism.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is the FBI still an old boy network that finds it hard to welcome in people of different races?

WILLIAM SESSIONS, FBI Director: Oh, I would think quite the contrary. It is not that kind of organization. It was my absolute insistence from the beginning that we not be an organization that was tagged or was described as being racist or discriminatory. We cannot be perceived that way and we are not that way. And the steps that have been taken from the beginning, if we were to enumerate them, we could sit here for an hour and a half to talk about the changes in the patterns both in the hiring and in the promotion policies and in the career development programs and in the language programs, all the things that we could look at and readjust and try to make absolutely certain that we could not either be perceived as being discriminatory or racist and that we were, in fact, clear in our procedures that encourage minorities to come to the FBI, be part of the FBI and participate fully. We are not racist and we are not discriminatory and we will take whatever methods that we need to take to make sure we're not perceived that way.

MS. WOODRUFF: I know you've tried to reassure members of Congress of that. You have gone before them and testified. And yet, I have continued to hear comment, criticism, whatever you want to call it, that the Bureau still to this date has not taken any action to discipline those agents, in some cases agents in supervisory positions, who are involved in the original complaint from the black agent, Donald Rashan.

MR. SESSIONS: Well, I think you're aware that part of the process was an EEO complaint that was processed through to completion and actually gave the judge's decision as to what should be done. And those matters have been completed and those matters, as a matter of fact, have been dropped from Mr. Rashan's lawsuit. I really can't go beyond that to discuss it, because it is in litigation, but the principal thing to know is that we will, in fact, do those things that are necessary to be sure that there is not racist or discriminatory conduct within the Bureau. Of those persons who are part of the litigation now, I'm confident will be if there is found to be discrimination or racist acts that the court will deal with those appropriately and that the Bureau would then appropriately deal with it once those determinations are made.

MS. WOODRUFF: President Bush talked in his inaugural address about the war on drugs. He said, let's end this scourge. And we now have the drug czar, William Bennett, saying -- he's talking tough, he's saying, we're going to go after this problem. He's targeted Washington D.C. Among other things, they're going to put more federal agents in Washington. How wise do you think it is to use the resources of the FBI on the problems in a city like this?

MR. SESSIONS: Well, it will fit precisely within our own obligation. We will enhance our effort in Washington to be of assistance, for instance, to the metropolitan police department, to enhance our work on the gun cases, the laboratory work on those, to be able to handle in our laboratory additional drug-related forensic material. We will also, of course, enhance our fugitive program, which is also very important to us, to be sure that we've given it the special effort in connection with those problems that they're experiencing with fugitives in D.C. So I think it will fit in very well. It is obviously part of our national drug strategy to be able to attack major drug trafficking organizations, but at the same time to be able to aid and assist in the Washington type problem I think is significant.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, I'm asking for that reason, because just less than two months ago you said at a news conference that you didn't think the FBI should target, would be targeting Washington, because this wasn't dominated by the major drug trafficking organizations, that this was a street level sort of operation here. How do you square that with what Mr. Bennett's talking about?

WILLIAM SESSIONS, FBI Director: I don't feel it's inconsistent at all. For instance, the fact that there may not be what we term one of the major four hundred and fifty drug trafficking organizations here, the fact that there may be a number of smaller organizations dealing in crack, cocaine and heroine and cocaine does not mean that it's inconsistent with our national drug strategy. Our national drug strategy is very direct and very well defined. And it is to attack major drug trafficking organizations dealing in heroin and cocaine, both of which are here, using long- term investigations and the kinds of techniques that the Bureau uses best, and that is our exclusive responsibility under the national drug strategy other than to share intelligence and to work with the Drug Enforcement Administration directly, they being the lead agency, and work directly with them in the sharing of intelligence and in using the databases that we share together.

MS. WOODRUFF: You've been in law enforcement all your grown life. You've been a judge; you've seen people put people put in jail for crimes, for drug crimes. Can law enforcement get rid of the drug problem this country has?

MR. SESSIONS: Well, I think you're very perceptive. It is obvious that it is a supply and demand equation we're looking at and demand drives supply and the people who have that supply will do whatever they need to do to meet the demand that, it seems to me, indicates that we must attack not only in the law enforcement area but we must also deal with demand. And fortunately, I think many of the responsible fingers in America are trying to enhance the demand reduction side of the equation. The Bureau participates in that. We, for instance, have designated demand reduction coordinators in all 58 field offices, stressing, trying to aid the communities and those sides of the equation that are looking at trying to reduce the need in the drive for drugs.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the emphasis right now in Washington seems to be on locking people up and throwing away the key, I mean, on arresting more of these people and getting them off the streets.

MR. SESSIONS: Well, of course, the Attorney General, and Attorney General Thornburgh has talked about this, it is a law enforcement effort and I think that's appropriate and I think it's important and I am confident that Director Bennett will, in fact, come up with a plan that will deal with the demand side as well and deal with it to bring a cohesive type of response throughout the country to deal with the demand side, to build for ourselves a will not to have ourselves as a drug driven society and I'm confident that he will succeed in that.

MS. WOODRUFF: Even though that's not the emphasis right now?

MR. SESSIONS: It may not be the emphasis right now, but obviously everybody recognizes that the demand side needs a great deal of attention, that law enforcement alone, even though it's more successful than ever, and there is no question about that, cannot be expected to deal with the ever increasing demand which drives the supply side.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you feel, just quickly that there is adequate consultation among those of you at high levels of the administration? I mean, there's been some feeling that Director Bennett sort of came in and imposed his plan and didn't really check with others before it was put into effect.

MR. SESSIONS: Oh, I haven't felt slighted at all. I had my opportunity to come, sit with him, talk with him about the national drug strategy of the Bureau, how it fits in with the Drug Enforcement Administration, what our capabilities are, and I felt very well served by that.

MS. WOODRUFF: All right. Let me ask you just a couple of questions about your own position as Director. It's been reported that you've had some differences with Attorney General Thornburgh over your leadership of the Bureau. Are those reports true?

MR. SESSIONS: I would take it that what the Attorney General has told me privately and what he said publicly is that it's hyperbole and that we have, in fact, a long continuing relationship of both respect and friendship, and I have no question at all about my stance with the Attorney General. It seems to me that it's very important that I be responsive to his leadership and that I try to do that and doing that, it means that you have to have very strong coordination. And I have no sense at all of disaffection or of a problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: The reason I ask is again a series of newspaper report; as recently this past weekend, the Washington Post had a story --

MR. SESSIONS: I saw it.

MS. WOODRUFF: -- and among other things quoted people at the Justice Department as saying you were a weak director who spent too much time traveling or on public appearances and ceding day to day management of the Bureau to other people. How do you respond when you read something like that?

MR. SESSIONS: Well, first of all, probably I don't respond at all. I think they're entitled to their opinion and I think it's very appropriate that they be observant and I'm pleased that they are. The leadership in the Bureau is a very strong type of leadership. Each of the executive assistant directors is charged with a very definite responsibility and they're expected to carry it, carry it energetically, carry it competently and fully, whether the director is here or not. The second thing is in order to be able to come to know the Bureau, you cannot do it sitting here in Washington. You have to get out to those field offices, you need to know them, you need to talk to them, and what I've always tried to do is to couple those trips with opportunities also to see the public and to make speaking arrangements where I was invited to do it, so that we accomplish two tasks, first of all, helping the public understand the Bureau, second of all helping me understand the Bureau out there in the field. So I feel no problem there. It just seems that there is an extremely heavy burden of travel. There are international responsibilities. For instance, next week the Attorney General and I will be going to the Trevy Conference. We will go to the Italian-American --

MS. WOODRUFF: Trevy is the conference of the European Economic Community members where the Ministers of Justice and the Minister of Interior come together twice a year to talk about terrorism problems and to try to deal with the problem. We have a bilateral relationship where we're able to go in, sit and talk with the ministers of the Troika which rules the European Community effort and to discuss those terrorism problems with them. So those responsibilities don't go away. INTERPOL does not go away. The responsibility to deal internationally with those people in the intelligence community does not go away. You have to do it, you need to do it and you want to do it. And I think we gain strength from that even though the perception might be, ah, the Director's out of town again, and I feel very comfortable with it.

MS. WOODRUFF: The reason I asked about that also your relationship with the Attorney General are some reports that earlier this year he was at one point so unhappy with you that he reportedly helped arrange to have a federal appeals court judgeship offered to you to lure you away from this job at the FBI.

MR. SESSIONS: Well, you'll have to discuss that with him. I have read the report, that is, that they were going to offer me a position on the Fifth Circuit, which is a very illustrious circuit, and of course no person who has come from the trial bench would think differently, but I know nothing of that and you'll need to discuss that with him.

MS. WOODRUFF: Were you ever offered that sort of thing?

MR. SESSIONS: No, ma'am.

MS. WOODRUFF: Would you consider such a thing if it were offered?

MR. SESSIONS: Oh, it's a moot point.

MS. WOODRUFF: What are your intentions insofar as serving out the full 10 years that you would as Director?

MR. SESSIONS: If you were around at the time when I was talking with Sen. Biden under oath at the hearing when I was confirmed, they wanted to go into that in great detail. They wanted to be sure that I understood that this was a non-political appointment. And in fact, they intended for the person who was confirmed to serve the full 10 years, and I told them that I would carry out my obligation.

MS. WOODRUFF: Again, the reason that I come to this whole area of questioning is that it's known that there frequently is tension between the Attorney General and the FBI Director over the FBI Director's independence. How independent can you still be and still be loyal to respond, to answer to the Attorney General?

MR. SESSIONS: Well, we have an Attorney General who has a long history and a very knowledgeable and deep understanding of what the Department of Justice is and what its components are. And he knows that we are the elite investigative agency that has the responsibility for action of reporting directly to him in connection with the carrying out of our responsibility here as a Bureau. So I feel no stress here and I feel no necessity of pulling away from in carrying out of my responsibility. I have my very definite ideas of how that should be carried out and I think the Attorney General in all of the elements that he is concerned about wants people who drive an agent independently and who go about their work without coming to his doorstep to thrust problems upon. He wants that so he wants a degree of independence and yet there needs to be a cordial, continuing, strong relationship and understanding and an ability to talk about problems and to try to deal with them, and as he has said on occasion, for instance, to deal with one voice in the Department of Justice in many matters, that does not keep us from independently pursuing our obligations.

MS. WOODRUFF: So do you feel you have the independence you need to do the job?

MR. SESSIONS: I think so.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mr. Director, we appreciate your being with us.

MR. SESSIONS: Oh, it's been a pleasure. FOCUS - VOICE OF THE PEOPLE

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Next tonight the fallout from the Oliver North verdict. The former National Security aide was found guilty yesterday of three charges brought by the Iran-Contra special prosecutor. We begin with a sampling of public opinion.

SPOKESMAN: I don't think the man should have been found guilty. I think if anyone should have been found guilty, it should have been the higher ups along with him. That's my opinion of him. He wasn't in it by himself, and I think Bush and Reagan both knew about it and if he's guilty, so are they?

RESIDENT: I think he got off light.

REPORTER: Explain.

RESIDENT: I think he was a loose canon. I think he did a lot of things on his own without authorization.

CONSUMER: I think they used him as a scapegoat. He should not have been anyone being on trial. They should have gotten his boss, President, all of them.

CONSUMER: If the President told him to do it and it was illegal, then I think it is irrelevant whether the President told him or not. I was happy to see him found guilty.

CONSUMER: Them taking his benefits away really stinks too because he's got a wife and kids. He did his service for 20 years and I think what they're all doing to him is railroading him. It's all politics. He was the little guy on the totem pole and somebody's got to eat it and they're trying to make him eat it.

CONSUMER: I don't think he should have been charged. There's too many other people involved and not just him and why single him out.

CONSUMER: I think he should have been vindicated on all counts.

REPORTER: Why?

CONSUMER: I think he was essentially acting under orders or felt that he was.

RESIDENT: I don't think he was the fall guy. I think that he rather relished what he was doing and I think must of his ego had a great play in the doings that Ollie did.

PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO RESIDENT: He's innocent and he has been railroaded, more or less. He was being told to do whatever he did because, you know, ain't many people just go out like a policeman and override his chief and do whatever hell he wants to do, you know.

COLORADO RESIDENT: I think he's gone to a lot of expense to try to cover up what he did so he obviously knew he was doing something wrong, so I think he should pay for what he did. I don't think he should be put in a labor camp for 20 years but he should be punished.

MAN ON THE STREET: The war they're fighting, you know, it's not like Vietnam, but it's a war they're fighting, and I think Ronald Reagan didn't give exact orders, Ollie North was doing what Ronald Reagan expected him to do.

REPORTER: Do you think he should go to jail?

RESIDENT: Certainly.

REPORTER: Why?

RESIDENT: When you start to go about their affairs of conflict, he was thinking about his own benefit; that's my opinion.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: For more reaction from other parts of the country, we now go to Chicago and columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune. In Dallas, from public television station KERA, we have Lee Cullum, the editorial page editor of the Dallas Times Herald, and here in the studio in New York is Ed Baumeister, Managing Editor of the Trenton Times in New Jersey. And first to you, Ed, how is the North verdict playing in your part of the woods?

ED BAUMEISTER, Trenton Times: The same way it's playing in those clips that you showed. We went on the street, into the shopping malls, into the union halls. You hear the same language, took the wrap, railroaded, scapegoat. What was interesting about it was --

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's the predominant one?

MR. BAUMEISTER: That's the predominant one. There are people who say he was guilty. We had about the same mix you did. What's interesting is how strong still is the impression he generated now, what, 21 months ago on national television.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are people seeing him as a loose canon or hero?

MR. BAUMEISTER: The people who support him see him as a hero.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Lee Cullum in Dallas, how's it playing down your way?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Times Herald: Well, Charlayne, in Dallas, I think that people tend to feel that justice has been done, although it's been very expensive justice, millions of dollars spent to prove three counts out of twelve.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Are people resentful of that?

MS. CULLUM: A little bit I think, yes, I think they are. And I've heard it said that the prosecutor got half a loaf of half a loaf. The charges were diminished out of the consideration for national security and then the jury seemed to take into account that North was not acting alone. So he's taken the fall for others, I think that's the feeling here in Dallas, but the feeling that he should take the fall and others perhaps should too.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And the image of North that persists, loose canon or hero?

MS. CULLUM: Oh, I think even Tom Landry, one of his great supporters, is not calling him an American hero anymore, but he does feel that he was improperly tried, because he was acting under great duress under orders from others.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Clarence Page in Chicago, what's the word out there?

CLARENCE PAGE, Chicago Tribune: The impression I get around here was that North was neither a loose canon or exactly a hero, but more of a patsy. At the time of North's great performance on the televised Senate hearings, certainly there was a strong sense out in the heartland that Ollie North was a hero. You saw the posters, the T-shirts, the bumper stickers. You don't see those so much anymore, and Ollie North isn't able to be the big crowd draw on the lecture circuit that he was before. But there's one thing I find that seems to be consistent among the liberals and conservatives is the idea that he wasn't acting alone and that President Reagan and George Bush have some more explaining to do that hasn't come out.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me get to that point in a minute. Back to the question about the fairness of the verdict, what's the word out there among the people you hear from?

MR. PAGE: Lee Cullum is right. It was an awfully expensive to get three counts out, but look at the message that comes out in three counts. Basically it boils down to a gratuity, which really was a thirteen/fourteen thousand dollar security fence to protect his family, not much of a gratuity by the standards of a Chicago bribe certainly. And there was his shredding which was done in the course of protecting what Ollie North apparently thought was a sincere cause to save the Contras. Now you can get on to a more complicated debate about subverting the Constitution and all that, but did Ollie North really mean to do wrong? I don't think that jury thought so. I think they thought maybe naive, maybe gullible, not a hero, but not exactly a loose canon as much as a patsy for higher ups.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What are people thinking should happen to him now? You know he faces a maximum of 10 years in jail and a fine of $750,000 and there's been the question of a pardon raised.

MR. PAGE: Right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What are people saying should happen?

MR. PAGE: Well, you know a year ago only people like Henry Hyde, the very conservative and eloquent Congressman, were calling for a pardon. Now I'm hearing more liberal people call for a pardon, because they're wondering what is an appropriate punishment for a guy like this. Should you take away his pension? No, maybe not, as one of the people in your on-the-street interview said, why should his family suffer for this, and he was acting in what he thought was the call of duty. I think a lot of people now are saying, gee, that could have happened to me in that kind of a tight squeeze. So I think maybe people now feel like if George Bush did pardon Ollie North, he might get away with it more easily than President Ford did in pardoning Nixon.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is that the way people think about it down in Texas, Lee?

MS. CULLUM: No, they don't, Charlayne, not at all. I find even those who seem to be kindly disposed towards Oliver North don't want Bush to pardon North because I suspect, they don't say this, but I suspect they don't want Bush to spend himself in that way.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Ed.

MR. BAUMEISTER: There was an interesting reaction from the assistant manager of one of the malls we went to. He said, at best they'll make him pay a fine, make him take down the fence and tell him don't do it again. There's a wide expectation that he won't serve the maximum or anywhere near it or pay the maximum fine.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Lee, the pardon aside, let me just go back to you one sec, do they think he should go to jail?

LEE CULLUM, Dallas Times Herald: I don't hear people clamoring for Ollie North to go to jail but nor do I hear for them clamoring for him not to. I think there's an acceptance of the verdict and acceptance of the consequences and an assumption that the consequences will not be too severe.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Last time on this program Sen. Hatch was saying that he thought that people just wanted to get this thing behind them now and yet there were things that come up in the trial that in some way connect North to Bush. Is this connected in the public's mind, or do they too want to now just not go down that road and get it over with?

MR. BAUMEISTER: People who are sort of supporters of North and people who are not alike figure that this thing still goes up and, of course, they'll get the opportunity to see whether or not I suppose at the Poindexter trial, they still look forward to a complete account, which they feel they don't have yet.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So they're not ready to just put it behind them?

MR. BAUMEISTER: Not yet.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about in Dallas, Lee?

MS. CULLUM: Oh, yes, they're ready to put it behind them down here because this is Bush country and I don't think they want to see their President damaged. The Republican supporters don't and the Bush supporters don't so they'd like to see it go away.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But what about the other trials that are coming up?

MS. CULLUM: The other trials are coming up inevitably. I think everybody accepts that but I don't think they're looking forward to them with any relish.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about out there in Chicago, Clarence Page?

MR. PAGE: I don't recall anybody saying it's time to put it behind us. I think justice has been served but only in small portions. We've only begun to really go up the trail here and see who is really accountable for this and answer those really important questions, what do we do when this situation comes up again.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Out there in Chicago is Bush now in the public mind connected with North as far as you can determine?

MR. PAGE: Surveys I've seen, and there haven't been a whole lot, but there is a sense that George Bush knew more than he is saying. These are coming from people who still voted for George Bush anyway, even when he believed that going into the voting booth. There's a question if he and Reagan did know more than they are saying, was it justified or not, and I certainly don't see a broad sense of outrage among people who otherwise support President Bush, so I think that perhaps what people are looking for is a little more candor.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A little more candor?

MR. PAGE: Right.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But they're not looking for that in Dallas, huh, Lee Cullum?

MS. CULLUM: More candor?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yes.

MS. CULLUM: Oh, I think that they've had about all the candor that they need. No. They look ahead to the other trials, but I think there are other things on people's minds here in Texas. I think that the problems here are more severe than they seemed two years ago, when Ollie North was on television charming everybody.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Well, Lee Cullum in Dallas and Clarence Page in Chicago, and Ed Baumeister here in New York, we'll be seeing you again. Thank you for being with us this time. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: It is Friday, so we move on now finally to our weekly analysis from Gergen & Shields. That's David Gergen, Editor at Large of U.S. News & World Report, Mark Shields, Syndicated Columnist for the Washington Post; he joins us tonight from WGBH in Boston. David, is there any splatter from this North verdict on President Bush from the Washington point of view?

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: No direct splatter, but as much as the White House would like to put this whole issue behind them, it's not going to go away quickly. We have the pressure that's going to build on George Bush for a pardon and that's a no win situation for him. We have Congressional Committees gearing up now to investigate why weren't documents turned over more thoroughly in the early part of this, and we have the very strong likelihood now of the trial regarding John Poindexter, all of which is going to keep this in the news, it's going to keep questions coming at George Bush.

MR. LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Mark, the splatter question?

MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: I think the splatter is definitely there, Jim. I think, furthermore, it isn't quite as clear cut for the President to pardon Col. North as it was, for example, for President Ford to pardon President Nixon, in this case because George Bush has been alleged to have been at least knowing some of these events, not having been an active participant, but having at least some understanding of what was going on and what Ollie North was up to. That was never alleged, of course, against Gerry Ford. But the second part is that the pressure for the pardon is building and building strong from the right, from the conservative base of the Republican Party, from people like Henry Hyde, the Congressman from Illinois and Sen. Orrin Hatch and Paul Weyrich, of course, who submarined the nomination of John Tower to be Secretary of Defense, was quoted yesterday as saying George Bush will be in big trouble with the conservatives if this man, Oliver North, goes to jail.

MR. LEHRER: But of course the pressure is not that severe because the appeals process still has a place to run. When the time comes to where they start hauling Oliver North off to jail, that's when the heat will really get there.

MR. SHIELDS: Exactly.

MR. GERGEN: That's correct.

MR. LEHRER: If we ever get to that point.

MR. GERGEN: Yes, if we ever get to that point.

MR. LEHRER: There's got to be sentences, there's got to be a lot of things.

MR. GERGEN: Right. But I must say I think that there's a second part of this and that's whether George Bush is...you know, the press was raising the question yesterday and he responded to it at the press conference, or at least briefly to the press, and said that with regard to his trip to Honduras there was no quid pro quo.

MR. LEHRER: Explain that real quickly.

MR. GERGEN: The question was whether he was part of an effort to have Honduras give aid to the Contras in exchange for American help to Honduras. In other words, was there quid pro quo? There were documents in this pile --

MR. LEHRER: As a way to circumvent --

MR. GERGEN: When Congress cut off American aid to the Contras, there is clear evidence that the Reagan administration sought third country help for the Contras as a way to circumvent it. Now George Bush says there's no evidence that he was involved in the quid pro quo and I think he's right. There is no evidence to support that. And, in fact, the people that had been involved in a meeting when he went to Honduras said he had not talked quid pro quo. Even if he did talk quid pro quo, it's not evident that it was illegal. But having said all that, there are suspicions still and George Bush still needs a vehicle by which to get information out and dispel the suspicions.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's go on to some other political things quickly. Jesse Jackson running for Mayor of Washington, that was a big story this week, at least here in Washington. Mark, is that for real? Does that sound real to you?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, to the Democrats, the reaction of national Democrats, the size, the smiles, the cheers could have registered on the seismograph at Georgetown University they're so thrilled, the uniformity of their reaction that somehow be saved the problem of Jesse Jackson in 1992. I honestly do not know if Jesse Jackson is going to run, but there's no question that he would have the overwhelming universal support of Democratic politicians if he chose to do so.

MR. LEHRER: Would it be good for Jesse Jackson, David, to run?

MR. GERGEN: Well, I think you have to look at it the other way. If he runs in '92 and loses again, he really is out of national politics.

MR. LEHRER: Runs for President.

MR. GERGEN: If he runs for President. On the other hand, if he runs for the Mayor of D.C. and wins and gains some administrative experience, he would be out of the '92 race, but he's still such a young man, he's 47 years old, he could come back in '96 or later with his credentials bolstered. I would make the argument it would also be good for D.C. I happen to think that the man would be a terrific symbol to young blacks here in this city. He would reach out and I think he would also get more help from the Republican administration -- the Bush administration than Marion Barry would, because the Bush administration would see let's get together with Jesse Jackson because it's a good outreach effort on our part, so I happen to think he could be a terrific Mayor.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't know what kind of a Mayor he would be. Certainly the credential of having been an executive worked for Jimmy Carter as Governor of Georgia when he ran for President in '76, and it worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 to diminish the perception of him as sort of the ideological right wing leader of the conservative party in the United States in 1980. So that the idea of a successful executive conveys to people that this person is pragmatic and sensible even though he might have a philosophical outlook that is different from my own. In Jackson's case, Peter Hart, the pollster, pointed out something that I think was rather revealing, if he's not in the race in 1992, it means that Democratic Presidential candidates will be seeking the votes of black voters themselves, all right, rather than operating as both Michael Dukakis did in 1988 and Walter Monday did in 1984, of appearing to negotiate for black support with Jesse Jackson as sort of a super shop steward of American politics which really was not helpful to their candidacies at all.

MR. GERGEN: I agree with that, but the Peter Hart argument suggests that it would bring the Democratic Party to the left. My sense of it is, in fact, it would be just the opposite. The Democratic Party would be more likely to put up a moderate to conservative candidate, certainly a moderate, because I think when Jackson has been in the race, he has drawn the Dukakises and others leftward in their rhetoric during the primaries. I think it's hurt them in the general election. Mark, you may agree with that. I'm not sure.

MR. LEHRER: Mark.

MR. SHIELDS: Peter does not maintain that it would move the party ideological. He sees the dynamic being entirely different from that, but at least that perception to the general electorate would not be that of a candidate hat in hand, Dukakis or Mondale in 1992, that type, going to Jesse Jackson for his imprimatur, his blessing, before they could then seek the support of black voters.

MR. SHIELDS: Mark, David, I have eight more things to talk about but we'll wait till next week. Thank you both again for being with us. RECAP

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Again, the major stories of this Friday, unemployment went up .3 percent in April to a 5.3 rate. Analysts saw it as a sign of a slowing economy, and Pres. Bush and West German Chancellor Kohl talked on the phone for 20 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve their differences over short range missiles in Europe. Good night, Jim.

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