The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MUDD: Good evening. I'm Roger Mudd in Washington.

MS. WARNER: And I'm Margaret Warner in New York. After the News Summary, we'll look at the Clinton Somalia policy as seen by our regional editors, and political analyst Mark Shields, joined tonight by Vin Weber. Then Charlayne Hunter-Gault talks to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt contemplates Michael Jordan's retirement. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MUDD: The bodies of two more U.S. soldiers have been retrieved in Somalia. They were identified as Army Sgt. Thomas Field, 25, of Lisbon, Maine, stationed at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, and Army Master Sergeant Gary Gordon, age 33 of Lincoln, Maine, stationed at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Both had been missing since a street battle with the forces of Warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Mogadishu last Sunday. The death toll from that battle is now 15. President Clinton today defended his decision to send more troops and armor to Somalia. At the White House this afternoon, reporters asked him about his six-month deadline for withdrawing the troops and whether the Somali warlord might simply wait for the U.S. to leave and then declare victory.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: It might happen, but keep in mind, we're going to wind up, we, by then, there should be an even larger U.N. force there, and that's our objective. We will have stayed -- in six months we will have been there well over a year longer than we ever committed to stay. So we will have given them well over a year longer, more personnel, and more efforts for this endeavor. We have obligations elsewhere, including this very important effort that we've invested a lot in Haiti to try to support that. So I just don't believe that we can be in a position of staying longer than that. I also think once we send a signal to them that we're not going to tolerate people messing with us or trying to hurt our people, or trying to interrupt the U.N. mission, that we have no interest in denying anybody access to playing a role in Somalia's political future. I think a mixed message has been sent out there in the last couple of months by people who are doing the right thing. Our people were doing the right thing. They're trying to keep our folks alive, trying to keep the peacekeeping mission going, trying to get the food out there, but we need to clearly state unambiguously that our job is not to decide who gets to play a role in post war Somalia, that we want the political process to work.

MR. MUDD: Mr. Clinton also talked about Defense Sec. Aspin's refusal last month to send the U.S. military more heavy armor in Somalia. His decision has caused several Republican members of Congress to call for his resignation, but Aspin has said he will not resign, and today the President defended him.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I asked Sec. Aspin why the extra armaments weren't sent to Somalia, and he said to me that when they were asked for it, there was [a] no consensus among the Joint Chiefs that it should be done, and he normally relied on their reaching a consensus recommendation on an issue like that, a military question, and secondly, that it was never suggested to him that they were needed for the kind of defensive purposes that it's been speculated that they're useful for during this last raid, that it was only for offensive purposes, and that it was his best judgment that we were trying to get the political track going again, and we didn't want to send a signal that we were trying to conduct more offense in Somalia. And he also said if anybody would have made the defensive argument, that would have been an entirely different thing. And, obviously, if he'd known then what he knows how, he'd have made a different decision.

MR. MUDD: Sec. Aspin said last night the U.S. wants to see political reconciliation in Somalia. He called for a transitional national council embracing all factions, and that would include Mohamed Aidid or members of his clan. Sec. of State Christopher elaborated on what the U.S. hopes to accomplish in Somalia by staying another six months. He spoke at the State Department.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Ideally, there will be early meetings of the various clans in Somalia, and they'll come to some resolution of their problems. At the same time, we hope other countries will be prepared to move in to peacekeeping, peacemaking operations, and we have been drawing the heavy burden of it. We think we've done heavy lifting to this point, and other countries ought to step forward to continue with that, but as the President said yesterday, we cannot guarantee a solution, we cannot ensure that there will be a solution, but we ought to stay there long enough to give a maximum opportunity for a solution and give peace and a good outcome a reasonable chance.

MS. WARNER: Four American soldiers are still missing from Sunday's fighting in Mogadishu. U.S. helicopters flew low over the city yesterday, broadcasting messages of encouragement to any who might have survived. Meanwhile, a Red Cross official met privately today with the American helicopter pilot captured during the battle. The Red Cross aide agreed to take a message from the airman to his family. A Red Cross spokesman said Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant had received medical attention but he gave few other details. More U.S. soldiers wounded in Somalia arrived for treatment today at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. We have a report narrated by Richard Vaughan of Worldwide Television News.

RICHARD VAUGHAN, WTN: Sixty-eight American soldiers wounded in Somalia have been admitted to this military hospital in Germany. Sgt. Richard Lamb is one who's lucky to be alive. He got a piece of shrapnel in the head during a 16-hour gun battle with Warlord Mohamed Aidid's men.

SGT. RICHARD LAMB, U.S. Army: You know, I guess it would be akin to, you know, landing in somebody's patrol base. Basically, everybody that was there was angry, and everybody that was there had a gun, and we were just in the eye of a hurricane.

MR. VAUGHAN: Fighting between Aidid's men and U.N. peacekeepers has brought terror to the streets of Mogadishu but elsewhere Aidid's control seems weak.

SGT. RICHARD LAMB: There's three little provincial governments they've started to set up. They're already addressing clan issues. They're starting to talk about regional issues. They're over I think three to five thousand police in the area. They've brought in a bumper crop this year, so all the areas externally outside of Mogadishu are doing real well. The big focus now is to make the city safe, and I think that we're the guys to do it.

MS. WARNER: American troop reinforcements continued to arrive in Somalia. The President has ordered 5300 fresh troops to the region, boosting the U.S. total to more than 10,000. The aircraft carrier Lincoln and two amphibious ships are also on their way to Somalia. Sailors and airmen on board will back up troops on the ground. We'll have more on Somalia after the News Summary.

MR. MUDD: A Justice Department investigation has concluded that it was cult leader David Koresh and his followers who set the fire at the Branch Davidian Compound near Waco, Texas, last spring. The report said Koresh choreographed the deaths. The report also exonerated the Justice Department, Attorney General Reno, and the FBI of any wrongdoing. It said the FBI's teargas assault was not a factor in starting the blaze. Government investigators reported that some cult members shot or clubbed children in the compound and that one three-year-old had been stabbed to death. At least 50 adults and 25 children died in the fire. But the report was criticized by Congressman Don Edwards, a California Democrat and a former FBI agent. He said that it failed to identify mistakes by federal agents that could be repeated.

MS. WARNER: The nation's jobless rate held steady last month at 6.7 percent. The Labor Department said 156,000 jobs were created in the service sector but more than 20,000 were lost in the manufacturing and construction industry. Jane Alexander became head of the National Endowment for the Arts today. The 53- year-old actress will oversee the controversial agency which issues government grants to the arts. She was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice O'Connor this afternoon in Washington.

MR. MUDD: The United Nations lifted economic sanctions against South Africa today. Using a consensus resolution the General Assembly acted in response to South Africa's steps towards scrapping white minority rule. The resolution also urged all nations to end their own boycotts. Many, including the U.S., have already done so. In South Africa today, government troops shot and killed five people in a raid on the home of alleged black nationalist guerrillas. All of the victims were reported to be children or teen-agers. African National Congress Leader Nelson Mandela called it an act of pure terrorism but he said it would not derail the talks on ending white minority rule.

MS. WARNER: That's it for the News Summary. Just ahead, the editors on Somalia, Friday politics, Israel's foreign minister, and Air Jordan walks away. FOCUS - EDITOR'S VIEWS - SOMALIA POLICY

MR. MUDD: First tonight a look at how the President's Somalia policy is playing outside Washington, outside the beltway. We are joined tonight by our team of regional writers and newspaper editors, Gerald Warren of the San Diego Union-Tribune, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Cullum with the Dallas Morning News, Erwin Knoll of the Progressive Magazine and published in Madison, Wisconsin, and Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution. Cynthia, do you think the American people now understand why we are staying in Somalia?

MS. TUCKER: Well, I don't think that President Clinton laid out the goals quite as well as he might have, although I think he ultimately came to the right decision. I think it is appropriate for American troops to try to stay in for another six months and attempt to consolidate some of the gains that have been made in restoring order. But he didn't say that very clearly. He said we're going to stay and do the job. We're going to have the strength it takes to do the job, but, unfortunately, I think he left the impression with some Americans who are listening that we're going to try to stay and install a government in Somalia. That would certainly be the wrong thing to do, and I don't think that President Clinton meant that.

MR. MUDD: Erwin Knoll, was that your impression, that we're going to try to install a government?

MR. KNOLL: Well, it's certainly an impression that the President gave and that the administration spokesmen have given. I heard talk in recent days about our obligation to engage in nation building in Somalia. That's horrible. That's reminiscent of catastrophic blunders in policy twenty-five and thirty years ago. I think most of the people I've talked to these last few days don't understand why it's going to take us six more months to get out, why it's going to take doubling the American military force there in order to get out. I think people say if we are now ready to acknowledge that this was a mistake and was a blunder, it was something we did badly, why do we have to keep doing it for another half year?

MR. MUDD: Lee Cullum, do you think nation building is horrible, the idea of it is horrible?

MS. CULLUM: No, Roger, it's an idea that I have found very, very appealing, and I have come reluctantly and unhappily to the conclusion that it cannot work in Somalia. I was speaking this morning with a consultant in African issues, and he made the point, negotiation is simply not Gen. Aidid's gain. It is not the gain of warlords. Compromise is anathema to them. To think that you're going to get them to somehow consolidate their entries into a government is simply an illusion. It can't happen. I wish it could but I think that the only thing we can do now is to try to get the return of our troops who were held hostage, make certain that those missing in action are accounted for, and leave as soon as we possibly can.

MR. MUDD: Clarence Page, if, if rebuilding Somalia is not our job there, or is an impossible job there, then what is our job there?

MR. PAGE: Well, I think we need to clarify that, and President Clinton didn't really clarify it well enough. Our job is not nation building. Our job is first of all -- well, our mission has not changed. Our mission was always in two stages. The first mission was to feed the starving. We accomplished that mission. The second part was in coordination with the United Nations to stabilize Somalia so that people will not starve again, so that the instability that had disrupted food supplies and disrupted agriculture in that country and had turned into anarchy could be reversed. That process was going on until the Aidid attack on the Pakistanis on June 5th, which is very questionable now. President Clinton didn't talk about that. He didn't talk about how we got into this mess. I think we can really trace it back to that, whether Aidid was provoked or not. It's a complex issue that historians are going to deal with. I wish the media would deal with it more. And then you can deal with how we're going to reverse that, get Aidid back into the circle. It's not really true that you can't negotiate with warlords. The warlords did meet in Addis Ababa back in March. Aidid and the rest did meet. They came to an agreement to disarm. Whether they were going to honor that agreement all the way we don't know because that process was disrupted by the events of June 4th and 5th. What the Clinton administration is doing now is bringing Amb. Oakley back. They're getting off the military track, getting back to the diplomatic track where this belongs. They're, they're sending the feelers to Aidid. They're sending feelers back to the Italians, who we've said were completely benighted trying to negotiate with Aidid. Now we don't think they're so benighted anymore. I think we're getting back toward the right track. If we can just get things stabilized so the Somalis can build their own nation, that's what they want to do, they don't want us to pick their leaders for them, then we can pull out gracefully and let things take their course.

MR. MUDD: Are we, Gerald Warren, on the right track finally?

MR. WARREN: Well, we're on the right track. It puzzles me because the President and Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense said we have a political role with a military mission to support that political end. And that concerns me. Clarencehad the history right. We were supposed to stabilize the country so people then could be fed, and then our job would have been done. We'd have left.

MR. MUDD: But we did that, didn't we?

MR. WARREN: We did it. We turned it over to the U.N. and the U.N. did not protect their people the way we protected our people when we were there in force. Those Pakistanis should have been protected when they walked through these troubled streets in hostile areas. They weren't. And so they were shot, and then the U.N. turned against Aidid, and we condoned that at the time. We're not clean in that area.

MR. MUDD: Right.

MR. WARREN: So we're now closer to doing something we said we weren't going to do, which is the political role. I think it ought to be a military role to stabilize the country then turn it over again to the United Nations and say it's your job to keep the peace. We'll stabilize it for you. Now you keep this peace and let the Somalis vote.

MR. MUDD: Cynthia, the phrase you hear around Washington is, we can't cut and run, as your Senator down in Georgia used to stay years ago, Richard Russell, tuck tail and run, when he was talking about Vietnam. What's the matter with tuck tailing and run? If it was a mistake to be in there, if our mission is not clear, why shouldn't we get out right now?

MS. TUCKER: Well, as Clarence said earlier, I don't -- I think our mission is the same as it was, which was to try to stabilize the country, and I think when you say we shouldn't cut and run, there may, in fact, be some political purposes for that, but I think it's also important to remember what this mission was all about to begin with. It was about the Somali people who needed our help. And one of the reasons that you don't just turn and leave immediately is because they still need our help. I mean, despite what we see repeatedly on news footage in Mogadishu, much of the country is slowly returning to normal. If we leave immediately, there is a greater chance that chaos will return immediately. Now it is also true that chaos may return anyway, but I think we need to give the people in areas of Somalia where children are returning to school and where crops are being brought in and where local governments are trying to return to normal, we ought to give them a little more time to plant all the seeds for that. That's one of the reasons that you don't cut and run. Another reason I think President Clinton enunciated very clearly, you don't say to, to people abroad, especially to enemies and potential enemies, to terrorists, that the best way to change American policy is to threaten or kill, or hurt Americans, because I think that would get us into even more trouble than we're in now.

MR. MUDD: Do you agree with that, Erwin, that cutting and running would, in fact, cause a loss of faith -- face, a loss of U.S. credibility?

MR. KNOLL: No. I think if we are really concerned with preserving U.S. credibility in the world, we should refrain from getting into these potential catastrophes. I'd like to go back for a second to the beginning of this venture. This was not a surprise attack on the United States that required an instant response. People in Somalia were starving. They had been starving for many months. There was time to consult the Congress and the American people not by calling in a few committee chairmen for hurried meetings in the White House but for engaging in the democratic process for having a national discourse about what the appropriate response was, if any, to a situation of this kind. But time and time again, in these recent decades, we haven't done that. The President, any President, whether it was George Bush or Bill Clinton, any President, has felt that it was his prerogative to act on his own and present the American people and even the Congress with a decision already made. And as it turns out, those were often bad decisions, and Somalia is one of the bad decisions.

MR. MUDD: Lee Cullum, do you think our national interest is or was at stake in Somalia?

MS. CULLUM: No, Roger, I can't say our national interest is at stake in Somalia, but I did favor the effort that was launched by President Bush to try to put an end to the starvation in Somalia. I think we saved a million lives. That's what President Clinton was saying, and it was worth the effort. I think it was the right thing to do. I do think things turned very, very sour in June. I don't know what provoked the attack on the Pakistanis, but it was a most unfortunate turn of events, and we've simply been unable to salvage the situation from that time on. So there's nothing more that we can do, but it was well worth the effort a year ago.

MR. MUDD: Clarence Page, do you think the U.S. is sorry that it ever got mixed up with the United Nations, the Boutros Boutros- Ghali manhunt for Gen. Aidid?

MR. PAGE: The U.N. is our baby. I'm wondering whether it was Boutros-Ghali's manhunt for Aidid or Adm. --

MR. MUDD: Howe?

MR. PAGE: -- Adm. Howe's manhunt. There's been a real question. Aidid's people will tell you that Adm. Howe and his chief adviser, well, one of his chief advisers, April Glaspey, the Saddam Hussein thing, both had been biased against Aidid from the beginning, whereas, Amb. Oakley when he was there was much more even-handed. You've got to be even-handed in dealing with all of these warlords. Whether that's all true or not I don't know but evidence does show that things did turn sour after Howe took over, and I think that's going to be something to investigate, but, no, the U.S. got involved not out of national interest but out of humanitarian interest. This mess began out of international interest because of 30 years of, of Somali being a ping pong in this tug of war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Pardon my mixed metaphor but now they're an orphan of the Cold War, if you will, and obviously, we've got a moral interest there to help clean up some of the mess that we started. We're being shot at with our own weapons over there. And this does send a signal around the world, but more important is in the long run this is the new world. We're trying to find some order in it. This is a learn as you go period right now for the United States.

MR. MUDD: Gerald, apropos what Clarence said, did we get in, were we panicked by public opinion's reaction to pictures of starving children?

MR. WARREN: The President gave an interview to George Condon of our bureau here, the Copy News Service Bureau the other day, and he commented on that. He said people forget that those pictures of the starving people in Somalia were what got us in last December, and I think he's right. And now's the pictures our dead being defiled by the Somalis --

MR. MUDD: That are going to get us out.

MR. WARREN: -- that are going to get us out. But we have to be very careful about that. I think this whole question of whether or not it was the U.N.'s fault or our fault, I need to count on something Clarence said. I've known John Howe for a very long time.

MR. MUDD: The admiral?

MR. WARREN: The admiral, who is there, and he's a very decent man and a good thinker. He was representing the U.N. When Oakley was there, he was representing the U.S. There is a big difference there, and I think maybe Oakley might be there longer than he thinks he's going to be there.

MR. MUDD: Well, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you all for sitting around the round table in the various cities. Thank you. Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Still ahead, political analysts Mark Shields and Vin Weber, the Israeli foreign minister, and essayist Roger Rosenblatt. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MS. WARNER: Next, some end of the week political analysis with syndicated columnist Mark Shields. Joining Mark tonight is Vin Weber, a former Republican Congressman from Minnesota. He's now the president of Empower America, a GOP think tank based in Washington. Welcome, Mark. Welcome, Vin. Nice to have you. Mark, let's start with you. I think as we've heard from the editors, Bill Clinton perhaps didn't make a completely convincing case last night for doubling U.S. forces in Somalia even though he set a deadline for getting out, and polls suggest the American public wants us out now. What's the political cost for Clinton for proceeding with this approach?

MR. SHIELDS: The political costs, Margaret, are really almost strikingly analogous to George Bush's problem. George Bush was a Cold War President. His credentials were in foreign policy. He'd been director of the CIA. He'd been ambassador to China and gone to the U.N., and he loved foreign policy. And the country wanted domestic problems addressed, and George Bush really wasn't qualified or conditioned for that response. Bill Clinton was elected on domestic issues, health, jobs, economic growth, sort of the unfulfilled agenda here at home, and now this post Cold War President, the first President since Franklin Roosevelt not to wear the military uniform, finds himself in a military situation where his commander in chief credentials are being tested. It's exactly where he doesn't want to be politically.

MS. WARNER: Ben, do you agree that that's the big danger here for President Clinton, that he's just going to be diverted from the issues that he was elected to take care of?

MR. WEBER: Yeah. I think this was a week in which the President accomplished only one very modest thing, and that is to narrowly avoid the collapse of his ability to conduct foreign policy. I know that sounds like overstatement, but as Mark pointed out, this President did not come to office with large foreign policy credentials. His credibility in the world community is already a little bit suspect because of that fact. Had the Congress or public opinion forced him out in an awkward way against his will, an obviously embarrassing way, it would have been very hard for Bill Clinton to reassert foreign policy leadership for the next few years. So he avoided that. But I would argue that not much else was accomplished by the President's statements in terms of redefining our mission or clarifying our mission. About all that he did was the minimum necessary to get Congress off his back. He set a timetable for withdrawal which doesn't really bear any relationship to anything except a domestic political necessity. And he did clarify the chain of command so that he assured the American people that we're no longer under U.N. command despite what the Security Council may think. That was important but in terms of why we're there it's still pretty fuzzy.

MS. WARNER: Well, Vin, do you think he laid out a credible exit strategy?

MR. WEBER: I'm afraid not. I really -- again, I think all he did was clarified who's actually running our soldiers over there. We know when we're going to try to get out but there's no reason to believe that circumstances will be more amenable to our leaving then than they are today. There's no reason to believe that we may not be targets between now and then. About all he's done is prevent Sen. Byrd at least in the very short term from offering an amendment to force him to pull out.

MS. WARNER: Mark, a poll taken last night by ABC News shows that by a four to one margin, the American public doesn't believe the March 31 deadline's going to hold either. Can Clinton afford to let that deadline slip as it approaches?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, it looks, Margaret, like the President tried to split the difference. I mean, with those urging him to get out immediately, those urging him to fulfill the mission, and it appeared that he was trying to take advice from both sides, and ends up with a plan that really for all practical purposes is almost unenforceable. And I think that becomes a problem for him. I was struck, looking at Sen. John Kerrey of Massachusetts, of course, who as a young Yale graduate, himself, and a naval veteran, combat veteran of Vietnam, led the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In a very poignant moment when he testified in the Senate as a young man, John Kerrey asked, "Who will be the last American by Vietnamese policy to die for a mistake?" And I think, I think the President did, in fact, take some advice that was given to him by elected officials, which was to bulk up our presence there. I mean, quite contrary to the request made last, last August of the Secretary of Defense, which he did not respond to, to give some numbers and to set a date, but I don't see it as a long-term winning policy.

MS. WARNER: Vin, the administration is calling the downed airman, Will Durant, a prisoner of war, but I noticed today on the news that the folks in his hometown of Burley, New Hampshire, are tying yellow ribbons around trees. Do you think he could turn into a sort of hostage issue for Clinton?

MR. WEBER: Yes, I think that he could. The pictures of him were so vivid, and that, of course, is one of the problems that any President has now in conducting a military intervention is all these things previously we only read about are now viewable every night while you're watching dinner, and that's not very palatable. Yes, I think that he clearly can become an issue and a problem, and increase pressure on the President to beat the March 31st deadline that he set for himself. Furthermore, let me just make another point there. We think that Sen. Byrd and others are not going to push the issue of immediate withdrawal. That is not to say that they're going to accept the March 31st date that the President set. Sen. Byrd has an opportunity next Wednesday to amend the Defense Appropriations Bill as he could have this week had Sen. Mitchell not pulled the President's fat out of the fire. He may put December 31st in for all we know, and if there are more prisoners of war taken for any reason, that'll only increase public demand for earlier withdrawal.

MS. WARNER: Mark, what's your assessment of what could happen on the Hill here? Do you think they're going to pull the rug out from the President?

MR. SHIELDS: No. I think the President basically yesterday stopped the hemorrhaging. I think we must review what happened this week. It was a disastrous event. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State went up to the Hill, spoke to caucus members of both parties, and they left, and I'd say the uniform reaction was they were appalled. Les Aspin came in, and it was almost like he was conducting one of his seminars, the Secretary of Defense, as he used to do when he was House Armed Services Committee. But what do you think our options are? This is just after America has sustained the pain, the agony, the surprise, the shock of Americans killed and wounded in combat in record numbers, and there seemed to be no policy. So he was really -- Vin touched on it earlier -- the President was facing a runaway situation both in public opinion and politically. I think he stopped that yesterday. I think coming to his -- rallying to his support, Sen. Dole and Sen. Mitchell and Dick Gephardt and Tom Foley, the leaders of the Congress, I think for the time being that the Sen. Byrd threat, even though Sen. Byrd is an enormously influential legislator, is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and former Majority Leader. I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that for six more months we are mired in a situation that's going to divert attention, energy, and effort, as Bill Clinton's trying to fight for domestic programs.

MS. WARNER: Vin, let me turn to another big story this week which was here at home, that Congressman Bob Michel is going to retire; he's not going to run again next year. He said that one reason he was getting out is that he felt that more and more the House Republicans, people coming to the House, were just interested in what he said was trashing the institution. You're a former Congressman. Is he right?

MR. WEBER: Well, you have to remember that the House Republicans have been in the minority since 1954, so they have relatively little stake in maintaining the institution. I do think seriously that there, that Bob Michel is, is right to a degree. There has been over time increasing polarization in Congress, in the House of Representatives specifically, a majority of House Republicans clearly favor a high degree of concentration, or confrontation with the Democrat majority. I don't agree with people who say that the next leader who is sure to be Newt Gingrich is simply going to throw grenades and light up the fires and burn down the Congress. I think he is going to, to help mold House Republicans into a more effective policy promoting organization but clearly, there's not going to be the collegiality that there was under Bob Michel, who thought that one of his main jobs was to get along with the Democrat majority.

MS. WARNER: Mark, do you agree with Vin that that will be the impact if Newt Gingrich becomes the next House Republican leader?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think, I think Newt Gingrich, obviously responsibility and leadership does, does fall differently on different shoulders. I think he'll be less of a grenade thrower as a Republican leader in the House. He has to worry about 175 members. But I think, Margaret, what we're seeing in the Congress is really a product not simply of the frustration that Vin just spoke of. Republicans had three presidential landslides in the decade of the '80s. They took over the control of the Senate from 1980 to 1986, but they never really got above their high water mark of 192 seats in the House in 1981. Now they're at 175. You can argue that either policy, accommodation, confrontation, really hasn't worked. Bob Michel was a man, a rather remarkable man, not simply a combat veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, but a man who never forgot his roots. I mean, he is from Peoria. He never went Washington. He -- I remember at election night 1982 when the Republicans were losing 26 seats in the House, Tip O'Neill, the Speaker of the House, kept asking, how's Bob Micheldoing in Peoria, and in large part because of the affection, respect, and the joy of working with him. There's no doubt about it. But I think, I think it will be a different House. The Republicans have figured now that accommodation didn't work, that maybe confrontation will, but what we have had, a trashing of the institution, when people run against Congress saying how much they hate Congress, can you imagine somebody applying for a job in banking or in teaching saying, gee, I just hate education, or I think finance is full of moral lepers and ethical eunuchs? There's something rather perverse about that.

MS. WARNER: Well, gentlemen, I'm sure we'll get a chance to discuss Gingrich and the House Republican leadership again. I'm afraid that's all the time we have. Thanks so much. NEWSMAKER

MR. MUDD: Next tonight, a Newsmaker interview with the Foreign Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres. It's the fourth in a series of interviews Charlayne Hunter-Gault has done with Middle Eastern leaders following the Israeli-PLO Accord. She talked with Mr. Peres in Jerusalem earlier today.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Foreign Minister Peres, thank you for joining us.

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Thank you very much.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Mr. Foreign Minister, if I could begin with the aftermath of the accord, the first angry demonstrations among Palestinians has been down in Gaza over the Israeli security crackdown in the region. What can you tell us about the reasons for that?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: For the time being we are the only force around to police the situation against criminals, and terrorists, and so on. Rather soon there will be a Palestinian police force, and they will handle in the future the whole story because, you know, basically one nation cannot dominate another people, cannot police another people. And the other reasons why we have suggested to the Palestinians self-government is because we feel that it is for them to elect their leaders and to arrest their criminals.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But why this crackdown at this time, particularly during this very certain period where there is suspicion and mistrust on both sides, and this has always been a real source fight in Gaza and the other areas? Why was it so important to initiate this kind of a crackdown at this moment?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Because they're trying to assassinate the peace process, and we have to prevent them from doing so. If we shall not do it, they may kill more Palestinians and Israelis.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: A recent poll showed that 65 percent of the people in Gaza are in favor of the peace accord, not supporting the pledge of Hamas and other radical groups to sabotage the accord. How concerned are you that this kind of crackdown at this time might cause the support in the area to backfire against Israel?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: You know, there is a very nice African proverb that says that even if you put a tiny little stone in a basket full of eggs you must be careful. It is true that generally there is a great support for the peace process both on the Palestinian side and on our side. May I say something which is not generally being said. It goes better than we have thought but still there are islands of opposition, of terror that we have to handle carefully so they will not break innocent eggs in the basket.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, do you and the PLO -- although the PLO has condemned this crackdown, as you know -- do you have some community of understanding about how opposition and violent opposition will be handled in this transitional period? I mean, in other words, the criticism that we've heard against the government from the PLO, is that something you all have kind of a tacit understanding about?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: The problem is that we have suggested to the Palestinians to nominate their people that will be in charge of economy, of security, of law, et cetera. But they have encountered some difficulties because they have said they could not nominate their people before the meeting of their executive council which will take place only on the 10th of this month. So we are ready to hand over in a paradoxical way, even before they're ready to take it over, and I hope this will happen soon.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How much confidence do you have in the PLO's ability to handle it's radical flank?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: I think they have no choice. Let me say the Palestinian people are an intelligent people. They have a lot of intelligent leaders, representatives who are capable to run their own affairs. I don't believe they need us. The only problem is they don't have the precedent or the experience to do so. But there is no replacement for time in order to get experience, and before too long, I believe they will be able to run their own affairs.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So in the meantime, will the Israelis continue to hunt down radical opponents of the accord, or people wanted for violent activities in the occupied territories?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Let me be very clear. We are not going to hunt anybody because he opposes the peace or because he opposes the PLO. We shall try to prevent people who oppose from using arms. It is the criminal one or a test of violence, not a test of ideas and not a test of expression.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is this one of the inevitable frustrations of a government having to deal with a group that's been a liberation movement for so many years?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Not totally. I imagine that there will be some complications because for the PLO to go over from a political and in a way terroristic movement into a responsible self- government is quite a change, and, you know, governments are based on precedents not less than on laws. And when you don't have the precedent, it's very hard to govern. My own mentor, the great Van Gorian always used to say all experts are experts for things that did happen. You don't have experts for things that may happen. So here when it comes to things that may happen, we have to be very pragmatic, very determined, and I believe in a way very generous.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What's your reaction to Arab leaders like President Hafez Al-Assad of Syria who accuse Israel of non- seriousness in this peace process?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: You know, nowadays we question ourselves but we don't question others. If I were President Assad, I would ask myself, why did I wait 15 years after Sadat to come in the negotiations? Actually, what did Syria gain in those postponed time, in those 15 years? What did anybody gain but more victims, and more suffering and more waste of money. I think the time has come for President Assad not only to expose the general and philosophical views about a situation, but sit down seriously in modern ways and say, I'm ready to have peace, and for that reason I'm ready to meet with the Israelis on a level, the president with the prime minister, the foreign minister with the foreign minister, as it was with Egypt, and then to come to talk on the real issues.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is Syria the key, and if Syria withholds its endorsement and active participation in the process, what does that mean in terms of the ideal of a comprehensive peace?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Syria is not the key, but Syria is a part of the peace process.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But if Syria is not involved, can this thing go forward? I mean, won't Syria hold the other Arabs back?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Yes, it will go forward.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Without --

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Without Syria, because, you see, the Egyptians made peace without them. So when it came to war, they never fought separately. The Palestinians have made an agreement without them. The Jordanians are continuing. As far as we are concerned, we would like to have a comprehensive peace comprising the Syrians as well. We wouldn't like to leave any wound unhealed on the body of the Middle East. I do think it's unhealthy, but it's not a condition, it's not a link, and it's not a key. It is a necessity for the Syrians as well as for us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Is there any flexibility that you can see in your mind's eye on either side in terms of Syria, Syria saying it won't negotiate until Israel pulls completely out of the Golan, Israel says it wants full diplomatic relations, free flow of movement on borders, economic exchanges? Where in your mind's eye do you see the point at which you might begin some compromise?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Really, I believe Israel is very flexible, as we were with the Egyptians, the Palestinians, the Jordanians. But you cannot start a negotiation by responding fully to whatever the Syrians are asking and then to negotiate. If you will do so, you will not have any so to speak leverage to negotiate at all. Suppose Israel will retreat from the Golan Heights and then the Syrians will say, we got ours, and thank you very much. Now, Israel unveils a public opinion, don't forget that we passed an agreement with the Palestinians by a majority of a single vote in the parliament. Nobody in our parliament, or in our country, can understand [a] Why do the Syrians refuse to meet? If you want peace, why don't you meet; [b] Why aren't they clear about the nature of peace? They say peace without embassies, peace without open borders, peace without trade, as they have said they want to distinguish between peace and the results of peace. So tell them look, if this is a distinction, we shall distinguish between withdrawal and the results of withdrawal. Withdrawal will become the rusty nail. Then nobody, and that's No. 3, will understand why don't the Syrians agree to sit down and have a look what are the security affirmatives for a withdrawal from the Golan Heights.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Crown Prince Hasan has said that to lift the Arab boycott of Israel, from Israel at this point would be economic suicide. What is your reaction when you have one, at least this Arab country, more or less cooperating with the process and yet this kind of public proclamation?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: You know, when I have to make a choice between a declaration and a decision, decisions come first. We have met at the White House under the presidency of the now head President Mr. Clinton, the conference and myself. We have agreed publicly to form a committee of six members comprising two Americans, two Jordanians, two Israelis, and the purpose of it is to develop economic cooperation. So the language is the language but the decisions are the decisions. And we took it very seriously, and I think it's a breakthrough.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the Crown Prince has said that there will only be a lifting of the boycott when there is reciprocity. President Assad has said only when Israel has withdrawn from all the occupied land. Are you saying you see some flexibility in this?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: You know, the Lord made us live under reciprocity. We have the same river flowing in-between our two countries. It is a river not a knife that cuts the two countries. It is a river that unites us. We have the same sea, the same Red Sea, that we want to keep pure and clean as a touristic attraction. We have a tremendous treasure which is a joint venture, and that is the Dead Sea. We have together the same desert, so we have not just the same father Abraham but we have a map that calls for full cooperation, and we are going to cooperate fully.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: There are many obstacles, as you say, and as everybody agrees, but one of the most serious ones appears to be the issue of Jerusalem. I understand there have been some discussions. President Assad has said that there were secret meetings between Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin, is that true on Jerusalem?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: On Jerusalem there were no secret meetings, and there are no secret positions.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right.

PRIME MINISTER PERES: We said clearly that Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel undivided. It took such a tremendous effort to get rid of the wall in Berlin, we are not going to build a wall in Jerusalem.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But one of the things that King Hussein suggested when I spoke to him earlier in the week was that the city of Jerusalem should be open with equal access to all the monotheistic religions in the region. This is not something you could accept or live with?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Yes. We would accept 100 percent that Jerusalem should be open to all believers. There is no contradiction between having Jerusalem united politically as the capital of Israel and open religiously to every person that has a God in his heart.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That is not the vision of the PLO. How much of a problem do you expect this issue to be?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: We didn't understand -- we didn't undertake upon ourselves to answer all the desires of the PLO as the PLO cannot answer all the desires of ours.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But if the desire is for peace and this looms large on the horizon as the major obstacle --

PRIME MINISTER PERES: The conflict stems from the fact that there are two contradictory desires. Jerusalem is first in our heart, first in our history, first in our land.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And no compromise?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: It was never an Arab capital, and the Jewish people have never had any capital but Jerusalem, and when the Muslims are praying, they are going to Mecca. When they Jews are praying, they are going to Jerusalem.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You are about to be named to a major role in the next phase of the peace accords. What do you expect that role to be? What is your vision for where you want to take it, and what are your expectations for the Arafat meeting on Wednesday?

PRIME MINISTER PERES: What I am sure is that Mr. Rabin, myself, and the government want to implement the agreement not only completely in the spirit and the letter of the agreement, we would like to see the Palestinian self-government becoming a success also from a Palestinian point of view. We think the better the Palestinians will feel, the better a neighbor we shall have. And we are going to continue to work hard until we shall make the Middle East look like Asia, like Africa, sort of like Europe, like the United States, a real economic success, a real social negotiating place, and a place where politically it is peaceful and hopeful.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you.

PRIME MINISTER PERES: Thank you. ESSAY - JUST DID IT

MS. WARNER: Finally tonight, essayist and New York Knicks fan Roger Rosenblatt contemplates another of the week's big stories, Michael Jordan's retirement from professional basketball.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: So sad, so very sad. Michael Jordan is retiring from professional basketball, the game's best player gone, the game's best offensive player gone, the game's best defensive player gone, the game's best leaper, best ball handler, best glowerer, best scolder, best brooder, best fumer, best everything gone, gone, gone. No more will tens of thousands sit forward in their seats and hold their breath as Michael walks on air toward the basket. No more will we see him land with a stomp after any an in-your-face or in anybody's face and give that defiant stare that says eat me if you dare. No more will we see into his mind as he comes up court absolutely knowing he will score, and who on earth was going to stop him? Whoever was going to stop him? Except himself, of course. How sad it was to hear him tell the world the thrill was gone, and so was he.

MICHAEL JORDAN: I've heard a lot of different speculations about my reasons for not playing but I've always stressed to people that have known me and the media that has followed me that when I lose the sense of motivation and the sense to prove something as a basketball player, it's time for me to move away from the game of basketball.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: So sad, so very sad that in my grief all I can manage to say is "Hurrah, hurrah, hurrah for the Knicks, the Sons, the Cavaliers, the Knicks, the Pistons, the Hawks, the Trail Blazers, the Hornets, the Knicks, and did I mention the Knicks? Oh, I know I ought to be more mournful, more respectful. One owes that to the game. But think what the game will be like for a team say the Knicks with Jordan out of the way, blissfully out of the way! I give you that scene in game two of the Eastern playoffs last season. John Starks, the Knicks' shooting guard, has the ball at the end of the fourth quarter. He plunges toward the basket, taking Michael Jordan and the rest of the Chicago Bulls along with him. Starks jams the ball through. He scores. The Knicks win. The Knicks win! And that is all they win. That was that. After Starks made his move, he moved no more. After that, you know who took over the series, leaving Starks and the rest of the Knicks in the dust! Think of the game without Jordan. No dust. Think what his retirement will mean to say basketball. Now, let me remind you I have no personal interest in this. And it's not as if the nation is losing, Michael. We will always have Michael. In sneakers ads and breakfast cereal ads.

MICHAEL JORDAN: [ad] Better eat your Wheaties.

ROGER ROSENBLATT: And Gatorade ads. They all add up. He won't go broke. And, of course, we will always have him on videotape. Doesn't he look lovely on tape? The old great games of Michael. Let's play them back and back, over and over, because they are over! They're in the past. His presence will be in the past, while in the present there will be his absence, the glorious, beautiful absence of Michael. Michael will be not there for say the Knicks as they try yet again for the championship that was withheld from them last year by one man, one extraordinary man, the very best basketball player in the world, the best there ever was. How we will miss him! I'm Roger Rosenblatt. RECAP

MR. MUDD: Again, the major stories of this Friday, the bodies of two more U.S. soldierswere recovered in Somalia, bringing the toll from Sunday's fighting to at least 15. Tonight there were reports of rifle fire and explosions in Mogadishu for the first time in several days. A government report cleared the FBI and the Justice Department today of wrongdoing in last spring's fiery end to the standoff at the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas, and the nation's jobless rate held steady last month at 6.7 percent. Good night, Margaret.

MS. WARNER: Good night, Roger. That's the NewsHour for tonight. I'm Margaret Warner. We'll see you on Monday. Thanks, and good night.