The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

RAY SUAREZ: Good evening. I`m Ray Suarez. Jim Lehrer is away.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Thursday; then, a look at the Bush administration`s reversal on domestic wiretapping; an interview about Iraq policy with New York Senator Hillary Clinton; a wrap-up of the House Democrats` first 100 hours; a NewsHour report about how Iraq`s former electricity minister, a U.S. citizen, escaped from Baghdad; and remembering humorist Art Buchwald.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: The Iraqi government announced today it`s begun a crackdown on a powerful Shiite militia. A spokesman for Prime Minister al- Maliki said 400 fighters from the Mahdi Army were arrested on Tuesday.

And late today, militia commanders in Baghdad`s Sadr City said they were under siege by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The Mahdi Army is loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a major backer of the Maliki government.

The Iraqis also repeated calls today for more weapons and equipment for their forces. On Wednesday, the prime minister told foreign reporters there would have been fewer deaths if the U.S. had supplied guns and gear faster.

Maliki also criticized President Bush for his complaints about Saddam Hussein`s execution. But in Washington today, White House Spokesman Tony Snow said there is no rift with Maliki.

TONY SNOW, White House Press Secretary: He`s not in a fight with us, and that`s the important thing to realize. If you think about the operational level, it`s not a fight.

And the president in his dealings has worked very well with the prime minister, and the commanders on the ground and the commanders to be on the ground also have good working relationships with him and people working in his government. So, I mean, I understand the perception here, but, frankly, we`re making too much out of it.

RAY SUAREZ: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi came out today for a resolution against the troop build-up in Iraq. She said House Democrats will back the same, nonbinding resolution now pending in the Senate.

Across Iraq today, at least 32 people were killed in bombings and shootings. Another 27 bodies were found in Baghdad. In one attack, three bombs went off within minutes of each other in southern Baghdad. The explosions killed 10 Iraqis and wounded 30 at a vegetable market.

A U.S. Marine corporal pleaded guilty to kidnapping and murdering an Iraqi civilian last year. The plea was entered at Camp Pendleton in California. The Marine was accused of killing an Iraqi man in Hamdania, then trying to make it appear he was an insurgent planting a bomb. Three other Marines and a Navy corpsman have already admitted guilt to lesser charges.

The U.S. may have wasted 15 percent of the money it`s spent so far on rebuilding Iraq. Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen gave that estimate at a House hearing today. He blamed the poor security situation in Iraq.

So far, U.S. rebuilding aid amounts to nearly $22 billion, and the president plans to ask for another $1.2 billion.

Senators insisted on details today about a special court`s oversight of terror suspect surveillance. But Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he`s not sure the administration will disclose that information.

He announced yesterday the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will be asked to approve intercepting calls and e-mails. It had been done without warrants. We`ll have more on this story right after the news summary.

Pentagon officials today unveiled a draft manual for trials of detainees at Guantanamo. The guidelines allow the enemy combatants to be convicted using hearsay evidence and coerced testimony. But information obtained through outright torture, such as mutilation, would be prohibited.

At a briefing today, a top Pentagon lawyer defended the provisions.

DAN DELL`ORTO, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Defense: The procedures contained in this manual will ensure that alien unlawful enemy combatants who are suspected of war crimes and certain other offenses are prosecuted before regularly constituted courts, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.

RAY SUAREZ: Last fall, the Republican-led Congress approved a framework for the tribunals. It gives the president some leeway to decide which interrogation methods are allowed. Democrats have said they want to revisit that issue now that they run Congress.

Secretary of State Rice reported progress today between Israel and the Palestinians. She spoke in London on her way home from the Middle East. She said the two sides will start with small steps.

Toward that end, Israel announced it`s handing over $100 million in frozen funds to Palestinian President Abbas. It`s part of an effort to support him against the militant group Hamas.

A blast of winter weather refused to let go of the U.S. midsection today. At least 66 people in nine states have been killed since Friday. Today, ice-coated power lines kept thousands without power in Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. The weather also canceled hundreds of flights.

And across the Atlantic, hurricane-force winds ripped across northern Europe. Falling trees crushed hundred of cars, and 18 people were killed.

The House moved to pass a new energy bill today that cuts subsidies for the oil industry. It included $15 billion in fees, taxes and royalties on oil and gas companies; that money would go to promote renewable fuels.

But there was sharp disagreement on whether the bill, called H.R. 6, will help or hurt.

REP. PHIL ENGLISH (R), Pennsylvania: Well, H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on foreign oil, it will also force America`s working families to bear the brunt of increased energy costs. The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably be borne entirely by consumers, in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices.

REP. STENY HOYER (D), Maryland: The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well-established and well-off. I applaud it for being so. It does not need the American taxpayers` help to be successful or to make a dollar.

There is not an American who goes to the gas pump that doesn`t know that. Even President Bush, a former executive of an oil company, agrees that the industry does not need additional government subsidies when prices are this high.

RAY SUAREZ: The energy bill`s fate in the Senate was uncertain, but today it was the final high-priority issue that House Democrats promised to raise in the first 100 hours of business this session. We`ll have more on that first 100 hours later in the program tonight.

Meanwhile, oil traded below $50 a barrel today for the first time since May 2005. Crude ended the day just above the $50 mark, after shedding nearly $1.80. Oil is down 18 percent since the start of the year.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned Congress today not to keep putting off action on Social Security and Medicare. He said the two programs` growing costs will damage the economy, after baby boomers start retiring next year.

And he told Democratic Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota it`s too late to wait.

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D), North Dakota: How would you rate the urgency of the need for a response by the government?

BEN BERNANKE, Federal Reserve Chairman: Senator, one might look at these projections and say, well, these are about 2030 and 2040, and so we don`t really have to start worrying about it yet. But, in fact, the longer we wait, the more severe, the more draconian, the more difficult the adjustments are going to be. I think the right time to start is about 10 years ago.

RAY SUAREZ: In other economic news today, the Labor Department reported inflation eased in 2006. It said consumer prices increased just 2.5 percent, the best showing in three years.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nine points to close just below 12,568. The Nasdaq fell 36 points to close at 2,443.

The celebrated humorist Art Buchwald died last night in Washington of kidney failure. His career lampooning the Washington scene started during the Kennedy administration. Eventually, his column ran in more than 500 newspapers, and he won a Pulitzer Prize in 1982. Art Buchwald was 81 years old. We`ll have more on his life and death at the end of the program.

Between now and then: changing course on domestic surveillance; New York Senator Clinton; the House Democrats` big push; and one man`s journey out of Iraq.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: We begin tonight with the new rules for wiretapping, and the skeptical response from the Congress.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), Vermont: Attorney General, there was some interest in your testimony.

RAY SUAREZ: Today, Judiciary Committee senators demanded more details from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about the Bush administration`s change of course on its wiretapping of international communications with at least one domestic connection.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R), Pennsylvania: The United States and the administration have paid a heavy price for not acting sooner.

RAY SUAREZ: Warrants to eavesdrop now will be sought from the special court originally created to approve international wiretaps, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It`s called the FISA court.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), Wisconsin: That is a stunning and, I would say, long overdue change of direction.

RAY SUAREZ: In a letter yesterday to Judiciary Committee`s chairman, Democrat Patrick Leahy, and the committee`s ranking member, Republican Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales wrote, "Any electronic surveillance that was occurring will now be conducted subject to the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

Begun in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the program ran more than five years without court supervision. The administration said the inherent authority of the president to protect the nation made warrants unnecessary.

The president vigorously defended the eavesdropping in public.

GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States: It has been effective in disrupting the enemy while safeguarding our civil liberties. This program has targeted those with known links to al-Qaida.

RAY SUAREZ: But the program will no longer exist in its old form, run by the executive branch alone, according to the attorney general.

ALBERTO GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General: There will be no, quote, "terrorist surveillance program." All electronic surveillance, as defined under FISA, that will all be done under an order issued by a judge on the FISA court.

RAY SUAREZ: But the attorney general repeatedly said this administration didn`t believe it was required to get warrants from the FISA court.

ALBERTO GONZALES: We commenced down this road five years ago because of the belief that we could not do what we felt was necessary to protect this country under FISA. That is why the president relied upon his inherent authority under the Constitution.

RAY SUAREZ: New York Democrat Chuck Schumer had been a critic of the secret surveillance program.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D), New York: You don`t think you`re legally required to go to the FISA court, that is correct? Correct? Just please answer yes or no.

ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, we believe -- my belief is, is that the actions taken by the administration, by this president, were lawful in the past, but moving forward, our electronic surveillance collection is going to be conducted under FISA.

RAY SUAREZ: Schumer asked about the breadth of the warrants now sought from the court.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Are the new FISA orders directed at individuals, at entire groups of individuals, or even broader brush than that?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Senator, I am not at liberty to talk about those kinds of specifics because it would require me to get into operational details that I think I should not do in this session.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: I`m not asking you...

ALBERTO GONZALES: What I can tell you, Senator, is that they meet the legal requirements under FISA.

RAY SUAREZ: Other than that, the attorney general would give no further details on the surveillance warrants in open committee.

For more on the president`s terrorism surveillance program and what new court supervision might mean to it, we`re joined by Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, and David Rivkin, an attorney who served in the administrations of President Reagan and in the first President Bush.

Kate Martin, what reason did the Bush administration give to allow judicial oversight now, after five years, after insisting they didn`t need it?

KATE MARTIN, Center for National Security Studies: They didn`t give very much of a reason, other than it made sense. And their failure to give a reason raises a lot of suspicion.

I think that one obvious reason is that the attorney general was going to face severe criticism today for the first time from a Democratic Congress. I suspect, in addition, that they were facing difficulties with the phone companies who had been assisting them in violating the law in conducting warrantless surveillance.

And one way of addressing those concerns was to go get an order from the FISA court. But they didn`t explain why, after all this time, they finally went to the FISA court.

RAY SUAREZ: Why do you think they did it, David Rivkin?

DAVID RIVKIN, Attorney: Not for the same reasons. They`ve done it for a couple of reasons.

And, look, this whole exercise was not done out of some sense of machismo and desire to be unilateral. The FISA court`s operations post- September 11 were inadequate to cope with speed and agility with the surveillance needs. That`s why the president ordered it. It is lawful; it was lawful.

But it`s always preferable to go for a particular statutory framework that Congress provided, both with considerations of comity, also because you can use the information you derive from it in context of criminal trials.

But very importantly -- and this is (inaudible) that it`s done because of the results of November 11 -- since mid-2005, the administration has been negotiating, senior officials in the Department of Justice has been negotiating with the FISA court to try to come up with innovative solutions within the FISA framework. And those negotiations, which have gone over a year now, have finally borne fruit last week.

So 2005, not post-November 7 elections. And they came up with innovative solutions. It`s very important -- I`ve been told by several administration officials that the operational consequences of a new approach are the same as under the old approach.

What depresses me, though, is the people and the critics who have been saying for years now, "Go for FISA, go for FISA, work with the judges, that`s all we want, we`re not against surveillance," you heard them already rejiggering their criticism.

And I would bet you that next week the Democrats are going to be saying, "Well, it`s not good enough that FISA judges blessed it. We also want to look more into it." It`s very cynical, in my opinion.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, now that this has been done, and you heard Chuck Schumer trying to get the attorney general to talk about it, did they concede the legal point and agree with the majority on the Judiciary Committee that the executive branch doesn`t have the authority to do what it was doing?

DAVID RIVKIN: Absolutely not. Both the letter and all the briefings of the reporters indicate the administration`s position was and is that the president has plenary power as chief executive and commander-in-chief to engage in this surveillance, that he`s not required to go -- in this particular situation, this is battlefield intelligence gathering -- to go for the FISA context.

So they`ve not surrendered any constitutional authority. And, again, this is very ironic. For years they`ve been asked to take the step they`ve taken. As soon as they`ve taken the step, everybody in Washington, including a lot of media, immediately try to figure out who lost, who gained.

Why don`t we just give them the benefit of the doubt and say, look, you work things out, we proceed in a way that protects the American people, and, yet, you can get judicial supervision, which is what the critics wanted all along? What`s not to like?

RAY SUAREZ: What`s not to like?

KATE MARTIN: Well, there`s a lot of information that the administration has refused to disclose, including telling Congress or the press or the public what the order is really about and whether or not it even meets the usual understanding of a warrant.

And that`s important, because the attorney general said yesterday and today that what they did was get a creative, innovative order from the court and that it wouldn`t have been possible to do so under a, quote, "strict interpretation of the FISA." This from an administration that, of course, campaigned against judges who don`t believe in a strict construction of the law.

But the question it raises is, do we have a warrant where the judge is making an individualized determination that the person who`s going to be listened to is suspected of being a terrorist? Or do we have something else, where they`re listening to lots of people and the judge isn`t making individualized determination?

We don`t know the answer to that question, and they were asked that question five times yesterday during that press briefing, refused to answer it. They refused to answer today.

And the whole -- and Representative Wilson said that her understanding -- a Republican -- was that it was quite likely that they did not have an individualized warrant. And then you have the question that you also raised about the president`s claim of inherent authority, which is, "And if the court turns us down next time, we will go back to doing it without a warrant."

RAY SUAREZ: Well, could they go back to doing it the way they insist they still have the legal authority to do?

DAVID RIVKIN: Of course they can. But let me just emphasize one thing, because according to Kate there`s something sinister about not disclosing those details. Let`s be clear.

From the inception of FISA, details like that, highly classified details of applications to secure, actually called orders, the same as warrants, (inaudible) duration, never been disclosed. In fact, the Democrats have criticized the president for not going for a FISA regime, almost ritualistically kept saying, "This is safe, this is secure, there are no leaks, judges do not leak."

And yet, all of a sudden, I hear Kate and others suggesting that the failure to describe in a public hearing -- mind you, not in a traditional classified hearing to intelligence committees -- but in a open hearing to disclose what those orders are is somehow aberrational. That cannot be true.

RAY SUAREZ: Just to clarify, the judge in the case has said -- the judge who`s supervising the FISA court now -- has said that she would accede to Congress`s request and give them documents that they want to see, but it`s up to the Justice Department. And the attorney general says...

(CROSSTALK)

KATE MARTIN: And the attorney general said he wouldn`t agree to show it to Congress even in a classified setting yet. And there are two separate questions.

No one`s asking, who are the individuals who are going to be listened to? The question is, the Justice Department made some -- in their words -- creative and innovative legal arguments about how you interpret FISA. Those arguments ought to be made public, and they don`t have any classified details in them.

DAVID RIVKIN: No, but those arguments cannot be made public, with all due respect, Kate, because these are not pure legal arguments. The nature of those arguments would show exactly how we`re processing different types...

(CROSSTALK)

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me follow up about that, because Kate Martin suggests that just to say what the machinery, what the mechanics are wouldn`t involve talking about specific suspects, specific cases, and operational details.

DAVID RIVKIN: But it would reveal, with all due respect, the nature of legal arguments, which reveal our conceptual approaches to surveillance, the search patterns (inaudible).

With all due respect, it`s very ironic. For years, the critics have been saying, "We trust Article III judges, independent judiciary to validate the judgment of the executive branch." Now all of a sudden it`s not good enough.

We had an Article III judge acting in good faith, looking at the administration`s argument. Look, we as lawyers go to court and make arguments, sometimes innovative, sometimes traditional. Basically, if a court buys that argument, that typically is good enough. Now, all of a sudden, that`s not good enough.

(CROSSTALK)

RAY SUAREZ: Quick response. Quick response.

KATE MARTIN: We have one judge. We are entitled to know whether or not they argued that they don`t need individualized probable cause determinations made by a FISA court judge. And we don`t have an answer to that question. That doesn`t reveal any secret, and we`re entitled to an answer to that question.

RAY SUAREZ: Before we go, let me get two quick thoughts from you. This was on track to get further judicial review. Will it get any, or is it rendered moot by the change in administration policy?

KATE MARTIN: Part of those cases, it`s not rendered moot, because they challenge other programs, data-mining programs which are not addressed and not affected by the attorney general`s...

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID RIVKIN: Most of the cases would be mooted but not all, but, quite frankly, the administration was going to win all of those cases, beside just by that one loss in Detroit at the district court level. This is not about hazards of litigation.

RAY SUAREZ: David Rivkin, Kate Martin, thank you both.

DAVID RIVKIN: Good to be with you.

KATE MARTIN: Thank you.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Still to come: the House Democrats` 100 hours; a former minister escapes from Baghdad; and goodbye, Art Buchwald.

RAY SUAREZ: But, first, our Iraq conversation with New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton. She recently returned from Iraq, where she met with senior U.S. and Iraqi officials. Gwen Ifill spoke with her in her Capitol Hill office earlier today.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Clinton, welcome.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), New York: Thank you very much.

GWEN IFILL: There has been so much debate over the Iraq war in recent days. The president characterized it as expedited failure, the choices, versus slow failure, what had been happening before. And now there is all this action and reaction on the Hill.

You were there over this past weekend. Would you tribe the war as perhaps already lost?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: You know, Gwen, I think that certainly our strategy has not succeeded, and I don`t think there`s any doubt about that anywhere, including in the White House.

The question is, what do we do now going forward? And the president`s proposal to add 21,500 troops in an escalation of the combat situation is not going to work.

In the absence of a comprehensive approach that tries to put some pressure on the Maliki government to do the kinds of actions, to create some political resolution, to deal with the oil revenues, to reverse the de-Baathification, all of that has to be done, and so far there have been no consequences extracted from this government.

They get open-ended commitments from the Bush administration. You know, for more than a year-and-a-half, I`ve been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops, bringing them home as quickly as possible, but based on a comprehensive strategy that looked at the diplomatic, political, and economic challenges and, frankly, exert some leverage on the Iraqis who have to take these actions if any possible salvage can be made of this situation.

GWEN IFILL: You talk about exerting leverage on the Iraqis. You met with Premier al-Maliki this weekend when you were there, and he gave an interview yesterday in which he said, "Hey, if the Americans give us enough troops and give us enough armor, then we will be able to be done with them in three or six months, or at least we`ll be able to take charge."

Based on the kind of conversation you had with him, do you think that`s possible?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it certainly is what a number of members of his government, particularly the Shia representatives, want. They want the United States to get out of the way so they can try to exert what they view as their greater power, using their allies within the militias that are controlled by members of the parliament and the government, even unleashing the death squads, and, frankly, using elements of the Iraqi security forces who would be in favor of a sectarian outcome.

I returned from this visit -- my third -- and said, "Look, we have to cap the number of American troops, make it very clear we`re not putting more American troops into this sectarian war."

We, instead, are going to set forth one last time the actions we expect from the Maliki government and, instead of cutting funding for American troops, which I do not support, because still to this day we don`t have all of the equipment, the armored Humvees and the rest that our troops need, instead of cutting funding to American troops, cut the funding to the Iraqi forces and to the security forces, often private contractors that we pay for to protect the members of this government.

We have to do something to get their attention, in order to force them to deal with the political, and the economic, and the diplomatic pieces of the puzzle that confronts us.

GWEN IFILL: But whether it`s cutting support for the Iraqi forces or whether it`s setting a cap on a number of U.S. troops in country, aren`t you basically saying, "U.S., get out of the way"?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think that that should be the point that we make, because they -- if you listen to what Prime Minister Maliki said, as you recounted, they want us to equip and provide the resources and firepower to the Iraqi forces.

I say no. That will be a mistake, because that will certainly produce a reaction from regional powers that are not going to sit idly by and see the sectarian forces, represented by the various Shia factions, be able -- with our help -- to go after the Sunnis.

They will feel compelled to up their support for the Sunni insurgents in order to defend themselves. So I think we have to make it clear to the Maliki government, we do not have a blank check with an open commitment here.

GWEN IFILL: You and the president don`t agree on much when it comes to the war in Iraq, but you both seem to agree there should not be a deadline, a timetable set. Why not?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think the timetable still remains problematic. You know, make no mistake about it: I`m for getting our forces home as soon as possible.

But I do believe we have vital national security interests in Iraq. You know, al-Anbar province is the hotbed for the Sunni insurgency and for al-Qaida in Iraq. They weren`t there before; they`re there now. And we do have an interest in preventing them from basically having a foothold, similar to what the al-Qaida and Taliban forces had under Taliban protection in Afghanistan.

I do think we have an interest in protecting the Kurds and providing some, you know, security for them. I think we have an interest in preventing Iran from crossing the border, for, you know, making it very difficult for us to function more broadly in the region.

So when people talk about deadlines and taking all the American troops out, I understand completely that, if you look at the carnage that happens every single day, if you analyze the, frankly, resistance to cooperation that we`ve seen in this government, it would be easy to say, "Forget it, let them fight it out."

But we still have to be careful, because we are now facing dangers from Iraq that we didn`t face before that we have to figure out how to contain.

GWEN IFILL: You don`t make the liberals in your party very happy when you stop short of calling for withdrawal. How do you speak to them about that?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: In a very forthright way. You know, I represent 19 million people, all of whom have an opinion.

But we are in a very dangerous part of the world, and we face ongoing dangers from those who are out, you know, to kill Americans and undermine our allies and friends. So what I want to do, if I could wave a magic wand, would be to have this administration follow a number of the recommendations from the Iraqi Study Group.

A year-and-a-half ago, the Democrats, under the leadership of Carl Levin and Jack Reed, put forth a detailed proposal about the other factors besides military that needed to be taken into account.

And, once again, under bipartisan leadership, we have a resolution that we hope will lead to a majority vote in the Senate disapproving the president`s policy. But if you read the entire proposal, it has a lot of wisdom about what we should be doing right now.

GWEN IFILL: There are those who say that your evolution on the war has been, number one, behind the public curve of opinion and, number two, right in line with your thinking on presidential aspirations. Is that so?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, obviously, I don`t believe so. What I`ve tried to do as a consistent critic of what they have done in Iraq is to search for common ground.

I mean, I know very well the extensive authority any president has. And certainly this president has pushed it to the limits and even beyond. I think it`s fair to say that he`s already deploying the troops that he has called for in his new policy of escalation.

GWEN IFILL: So why would a troop cap work, if that`s true?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Because eventually we`ll be able to get there. You know, it takes years sometimes, unfortunately, to change public opinion, which now has changed. The election was very clear about that.

But it also takes time to change and put political pressure on presidents. And this particular president is especially dug-in on his policies.

So I think that what we`re putting forth now -- and, frankly, what I supported a year-and-a-half ago on phased redeployment was what we should have been doing then. But that required engaging with the neighbors in the area, and we have a president who won`t talk to bad people.

I don`t understand that policy. I find it shortsighted and contrary to America`s interests at home and abroad. But that`s where he is. We`ve called for that.

I certainly have advocated for a different course from very near the beginning of this action. I`m going to continue to advocate for a different course, but that`s what elections are for.

GWEN IFILL: Well, and speaking of elections, 2008 looms. And I wonder to the degree to which you feel pressure, when you talk about the political pressure being brought to bear on this debate, whether you feel pressure from other aspiring Democrats, like John Edwards and Barack Obama, who right after you released your proposal yesterday released an identical one?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, my view on this is, I have to do what I believe is right and what I think is responsible. Others will do what they choose to do.

But I think that we`re in a very dangerous situation. And we have empowered Iran. We have put the Sunni regimes in the area in a very difficult position. We see what`s happened with the rise of Hezbollah and Hamas.

I don`t think that, you know, rhetoric or political positioning is what is needed. I think that we have to work our way through this. I just met with a group of Iraqi war veterans in my office, about 10 of them, each of whom told me why they have come to a position of opposing this escalation and their own experiences in combat in Iraq.

And they understand the complexity of this. They, like me, want to stop this escalation, in order to get this president`s attention to begin to do some things that he`s refused to do up until now.

GWEN IFILL: The next election has a lot to do with the speed and the path of this debate. Do you think that there`s any connection at all between 2008 aspirations, you or anyone else, and where this debate is going to go about Iraq?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I`ll leave that to others to assess, because I have been, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, you know, deeply involved in trying to fix what has been a disastrous policy.

At the end of the day, the American people are going to be faced with some very tough judgments, because, at the current course this president is pursuing, I`m afraid that the next president will inherit this situation, with all of its complexity and all of its heartbreak.

And I believe that it`s important that we try to forge a bipartisan consensus here in the Senate, disapproving this escalation as the very first step we take, and then move forward, using the appropriations process and the authorization process, which is kind of, you know, congressional speak for trying to put some limits and force some changes on the administration.

And let`s not kid ourselves. I think this administration is also focused on Iran. And I think we need to send a very strong message that an administration with its track record of failure, of arrogance, of refusal to listen and learn from the disastrous steps that have, unfortunately, been taken should not be rushing off and putting American servicemembers in harm`s way and possibly widening the conflict.

So there`s a lot that we have to worry about.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Clinton, thank you very much for joining us.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you, Gwen.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Now, the House Democrats` first 100 hours, and what comes next. Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER: Today`s easy passage of the energy bill capped off a whirlwind two weeks for House Democrats. This afternoon, House Leader Nancy Pelosi celebrated their accomplishments.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), Speaker of the House: We have demonstrated that the Congress of the United States is not a place where good ideas and the optimism of the American people go to die. It is a place where issues that have relevance to the everyday lives of America`s working families will receive the respect and the change that they desire.

MARGARET WARNER: Adopted in the first 100 legislative hours were the items Democrats promised in their "Six for `06" campaign agenda.

They voted to: beef up cargo security and enact other recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; raise the federal minimum wage; loosen restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research; require the government to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices; reduce interest rates on federal student loans; and cut subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies. Earlier, the House adopted changes in its ethics and lobbying rules, as well.

For a look now at where this agenda is headed, I`m joined by Daphne Retter, who covers the Hill for Congressional Quarterly.

And, Daphne, welcome.

DAPHNE RETTER, Congressional Quarterly: Thanks for having me.

MARGARET WARNER: So they passed these six bills. Did they actually deliver on the substance of what was promised? Did they get through the measures undiluted?

DAPHNE RETTER: Sure, they did exactly what they said they were going to do. They passed the bills they wanted to pass, and they did it without changing them at all, which is exactly what has the Republicans very, very upset.

Because at the same time that they were saying, "We`re going to get all these things done as soon as we get in," they were also saying, "We`re going to change the tone of Congress, and it`s going to be a nicer place to be, and we`re going to work together and not focus on strategy to fight each other."

And, of course, once they got there, if they were going to deliver on both, that wasn`t that possible. So to get it through fast, the Republicans didn`t really get a say.

MARGARET WARNER: They didn`t get to propose amendments, all of that?

DAPHNE RETTER: Right.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the Democrats seem to have held together, held their majority together on all these bills, but the Republicans had a harder time, right?

DAPHNE RETTER: That is right. And it`s going to be a problem throughout. Because in the House, majority rules.

I mean, essentially there are exceptions and there are procedural things, but without exceptions, Democrats are going to be able to get almost anything they want. So, in some ways, when Republicans look at their own options and what their own goals are, if they want some successes, they`re going to have to buy into what the Democrats say.

MARGARET WARNER: Is that what was behind -- I mean, there were quite significant Republican defections on some of the bills. In other words, they voted with the Democrats.

DAPHNE RETTER: That`s true. I mean, the Republicans are going to pick -- they`re going to have to -- you`ll see the leadership, as time goes on, pick certain bills, and say, "Here`s one where we just have to stick together if we`re going to matter around here."

In order to do that, they`re going to have to let their guys go on other bills, because these folks have to explain back home why they didn`t support stem cell research, for example, which is an extremely popular proposal with voters and one that made a difference in the elections, people think.

MARGARET WARNER: So now the prospects in the Senate. Tell us about that. Let`s start with -- are there any of these bills that look like they`ll have a pretty easy time in the Senate?

DAPHNE RETTER: Sure. Versions of all of these bills will -- may have an easy time in the Senate. They`ll probably have similar names and look completely different, and then you`ll conference them.

So a minimum wage bill, for example, is likely to go through next week in the Senate. But it will -- in order to get through the Senate -- because it`s much closer division -- it will include tax breaks for businesses that you have to sweeten things in the Senate to get them through.

It takes 60 votes, not 50, to get most bills through. And the Democrats don`t have 60 votes. And so they`re going to be compromising.

And they`re also a lot slower, and as these bills kind of go through, they can either die out or they`re going to find themselves getting changed quite a bit. So getting through the House was actually the easy part.

MARGARET WARNER: And what about the Medicare prescription drug bill requiring the government to actually negotiate with the drug companies over prices? What prospects does that have in the Senate?

DAPHNE RETTER: Like the other bills, parts of that bill have prospects in the Senate. Last I heard, I believe Max Baucus said that there were parts that he was going to go with, and I think he said he was going to make it optional rather than forcing negotiations with the government, give Medicare the choice to try to negotiate with prescription drug companies.

And so they`re going to tend to sort of dilute things a little bit, soften things a little bit, so that Republicans will get on board with it.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, what about presidential veto? He`s threatened at least to veto stem cell research, correct?

DAPHNE RETTER: And also the Medicare bill.

MARGARET WARNER: And did the House -- does the House have the votes to override the veto?

DAPHNE RETTER: No, they don`t think so. Stem cell -- you know, that is a bill that waivers. You know, you get a couple, and then you lose a couple, because this is -- it`s a bill that-- it`s a policy that is closely related to the abortion debate, and emotions run high. And every time you get somebody, you lose somebody.

So it`s unclear. But it looks like they do not have -- they cannot overturn a veto. So far, President Bush has been very delicate about his choices on where to veto; in fact, he`s only used his veto pen one time.

MARGARET WARNER: On stem cell.

DAPHNE RETTER: On stem cell. And he`ll use it again on the same one, and they probably won`t be able to defeat it. And the same may be true of the Medicare bill.

MARGARET WARNER: Finally, ethics and lobbying reform. The House, that was the very first thing they did, House Democrats. Now, what`s happened in the Senate? It doesn`t really affect the House, but it`s still interesting.

DAPHNE RETTER: It`s interesting. And the way that the Senate is doing it, it probably will affect the House, which may be unnecessary. And this is actually going down -- right now, there are a lot of negotiations that are happening.

But the House, what they did was they changed their own rules, majority rules, and now their rules are changed. That`s how fast that happened.

The Senate decided to add in provisions that would change laws. And so now the whole thing will have to go through the House and conference, and then go to the president, when they could have separated that.

They could have said, "We`re going to do a resolution that only applies for our own rules, and then we`re going to try to go for the statutory stuff later or at the same time and see how that goes." Since it`s all one thing, you know, anywhere it gets kinked up in the system, it could die.

MARGARET WARNER: But with the House rules that they did pass, just the pure rules, those changes, those would stand?

DAPHNE RETTER: Yes, yes. I mean, and so what the Senate could do is just do exactly what the House did, and they chose not to. But right now, it`s a very tenuous situation, because Republicans and some Democrats want to add or want the opportunity to talk about an amendment that would allow the president to take out pieces of future budgets.

MARGARET WARNER: Line-item veto.

DAPHNE RETTER: Yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, Daphne Retter, Congressional Quarterly, thank you.

DAPHNE RETTER: Thank you.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Now, the story of an escape from an Iraqi prison. NewsHour correspondent Elizabeth Brackett of WTTW-Chicago reports.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT, NewsHour Correspondent: Aiham Alsammarae walked through the crowds at O`Hare Airport`s international terminal this week, tired after a 13-hour flight from Amman, Jordan.

Last month, Alsammarae, the former minister of electricity in Iraq, escaped from an Iraqi police station in Baghdad`s Green Zone, where he had been held for nearly six months after being convicted of corruption, a charge he says was politically motivated.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE, Former Minister of Electricity, Iraq: When I came back to see my home and see my family and realize that I am coming back to life again, really, this is like when they say this is my sweet home.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Iraqi-born, Alsammarae came to Chicago in 1976 to get his PhD in engineering. In 1979, he learned Saddam Hussein had executed three members of his family. So he stayed in the U.S., became a citizen, and built a successful electrical engineering company.

But he remained committed to overthrowing Hussein, as he told me in this prewar 2002 interview.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: If it doesn`t have a regime change, we will never have a democracy in Iraq. Saddam Hussein believe in one thing, is control everything in his hands.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: After Hussein`s fall, the Americans asked Alsammarae to become the minister of electricity in the new interim government. He says he brought Iraq`s electricity back to prewar levels.

In 2005, he helped form a secular party to win seats in the new parliament, but was soundly trounced.

Last August, the current Iraqi government charged Alsammarae with misappropriating millions of Iraqi dollars when he was minister of electricity. Alsammarae, a secular Sunni, says the charges by the Shia- dominated government against himself and other former secular ministers are political.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: Because we are seculars, they want to clean us out. They want to kick us out from the country. Everybody like me, when they indict him, he will never go back.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Alsammarae, who was back in Chicago when he learned of the charges, was the only minister to return to Iraq to defend himself. But in October, he was convicted on one count of misspending $200,000 to purchase an emergency generator without the proper authorization.

On December 11th, his conviction was overturned by the Iraqi Supreme Court, which ordered his release. But instead of releasing him, his Iraqi guards threatened to take him outside of the Green Zone for processing.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: The guy in charge of the police station, he said he has to take me outside the Green Zone for fingerprints. I said, "This is impossible. I cannot go outside the Green Zone, because easy I will get killed. Somebody will kidnap me." The situation is controlled by militias, OK? So they will kidnap me and in no time, and I will be killed.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Fearing for his life, Alsammarae acted on a well- planned-out escape route.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: I called my friends, and the friends, they come. They brought the car close to the police station, and I walk out to the car, and I move out from the Green Zone. From the Green Zone, we change cars many times. And after that, we reached the airport, Iraqi international airport, and I just flew over the private jet to Amman. Simple. Two-hours-and-a-half, I`d be in Amman.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Although his Iraqi passport was confiscated in jail, he managed to hide a second one and then renew his American passport in Jordan.

Though Alsammarae is a U.S. citizen, he says the American embassy in Baghdad was not involved in any way in his escape. Those who helped him, he says, were mostly Iraqi friends and supporters, including the owner of the private jet.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: I was nervous all the way until I reach Amman, because you never know what`s going to happen. Something is wrong can be done in any second.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Iraqi officials were stunned at how easily Alsammarae was able to escape from the heavily fortified Green Zone. A spokesman for the al-Maliki government said five additional corruption charges remain against Alsammarae and "the government will do whatever it can to bring him back."

Alsammarae calls the charges false and says he made the right decision to escape and return home to his family and his electrical engineering consulting business in suburban Chicago.

Even as he began to settle in at home, he continued to worry about the escalating violence in Iraq. He sees the solution as more political than military.

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: We have to make some arrangements inside the congress of Iraq right now to bring the seculars back around the country. Religious people, they cannot run the country. If they are Shia or Sunni, they cannot run it. We need a people of both religions to run the country.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: He is considered a fugitive by the current Iraq government, but Alsammarae says at some point he will return to Iraq. Why?

AIHAM ALSAMMARAE: Well, we work very hard to see Saddam Hussein leaving. And I worked since 1980. I have to do it. This is in my blood. I don`t think I can give up and give all that we worked for to those guys.

If you are a politician, you will take a risk certain times, and you have to take it. And if I got killed, probably you will say, "He lost it," but looks like I succeeded, and I`m still alive and I got my papers with me. So...

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: For now, Alsammarae will spend his time trying to pull his business and his life back together.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Finally tonight, a farewell to Art Buchwald. Last spring, Jeffrey Brown had a chance to talk to the humorist and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist about life, laughs and illness. Here`s part of that conversation.

JEFFREY BROWN: Through more than five decades, Art Buchwald wrote some 8,000 columns, read by hundreds of thousands of readers, beginning in 1948 in Paris, where he lived and documented the highlife for the European edition of the New York Herald-Tribune, hobnobbed with an array of celebrities and, through humor, explained Americans and the French to one another.

Back in Washington, beginning in the `60s, he turned his sharp wit on the foibles of politicians of all stripes. At its height, his column appeared in 550 newspapers worldwide and won Buchwald a Pulitzer Prize for outstanding commentary in 1982.

In the `90s, Buchwald published two memoirs, one on his Paris years, another on his early life and the trauma of never knowing his mother, who was institutionalized in a psychiatric facility soon after Buchwald`s birth.

He and his sisters would grow up in a series of foster homes, before he left high school to join the Marines and serve in the Pacific during World War II.

ART BUCHWALD, Humorist and Columnist: I discovered at a very early age, because I was a foster child and everything, that I could make kids laugh, so I got all of my love from the crowds. And I`ve been doing that all my life.

JEFFREY BROWN: And so what did humor come to mean for you? What did it let you do?

ART BUCHWALD: I don`t explain it as what it means to me; all I know is that I can be funny. And I`ve found out they pay for it, and that`s when it really got good, when I started on the Herald-Tribune, and they were paying me for making people laugh.

JEFFREY BROWN: When you came back to Washington and you`re writing about politics and all the foibles of Washington, it`s great fun to go back and see that you wrote about Republicans, Democrats, Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Carter. You`re bipartisan, huh?

ART BUCHWALD: Well, I had a line in my talk which said, "I`m not a Democrat or a Republican; I`m just against who`s ever in power." And they asked me about Nixon, and I said, "I worshipped the very quicksand he walks on."

(LAUGHTER)

JEFFREY BROWN: So they all provided material for you, huh?

ART BUCHWALD: I`m still here. I`ve been doing it for 55 years. So, yes, they provided me with material. To this day, this president has been very good to me.

We can party now. We`ve got the place until 5:00.

JEFFREY BROWN: Buchwald couldn`t help but enjoy life and make others laugh even as he neared his own death. Last February, suffering from kidney failure, he decided to forgo dialysis that could possibly prolong his life at what he considered too burdensome a cost. He entered the Washington Home and Community Hospices for what were expected to be his final days.

FRIEND OF BUCHWALD: This is the moment.

ART BUCHWALD: Oh, boy.

JEFFREY BROWN: He was feted by friends and dignitaries, such as the French ambassador. Then, to the surprise of everyone, including his doctors, he lived on for almost a year, and left the hospice, wrote many more columns and even a final book.

ART BUCHWALD: My mantra now is, "Death is on hold."

JEFFREY BROWN: Death is on hold?

ART BUCHWALD: Yes. And here I am doing a show with you, and I`m supposed to be dead.

JEFFREY BROWN: You don`t mind at all talking about these things, living and dying, do you?

ART BUCHWALD: I don`t, for several reasons. One is that, as I say, people don`t like to talk about death. In fact, they don`t mention it.

And if someone talks about it on television or radio, it makes it OK for them to talk about it. But we can`t avoid the fact that we`re all going to go.

The question isn`t: Where are you going? It`s: What are you doing here in the first place?

JEFFREY BROWN: You know, a lot of people, of course, are uncomfortable talking about dying, partly because they`re just afraid.

ART BUCHWALD: Yes, fear.

JEFFREY BROWN: Are you afraid of dying?

ART BUCHWALD: No, apparently, I`m not.

JEFFREY BROWN: You`re not?

ART BUCHWALD: Apparently, I`m not. I don`t know what`s coming. I`m not predicting anything, but it`s an interesting thing.

But in the last month, when I decided to make my choice, it`s been the happiest years of all.

JEFFREY BROWN: And as you have a chance to say good-bye to people, what do you want them, friends and your readers, to remember about you?

ART BUCHWALD: Well, I guess being the person I am, I want them to remember me for laughter, that I made them laugh. And I also want them to remember me, that I was a good guy. I mean, that`s part of the fantasy. And we have -- my children and I have already planned my memorial service.

JEFFREY BROWN: You have it all planned?

ART BUCHWALD: Yes, so it`s going to be a beautiful ceremony, and it could be a very hot ticket.

RAY SUAREZ: Art Buchwald died last night at his son`s home in Washington. He was 81.

(BREAK)

RAY SUAREZ: Again, the major developments of this day.

The Iraqi government said U.S. and Iraqi forces have begun a crackdown on a powerful Shiite militia.

And senators demanded details about a special court`s oversight of terror suspect surveillance.

We`ll see you online and again here tomorrow evening, with Mark Shields and David Brooks, among others. I`m Ray Suarez. Thanks for joining us. Good night.