The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

INTRO

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. There was peace today between Eastern Airlines and one of its unions, but there was more war between Walter Mondale and John Glenn. We'll be looking at both of those stories tonight, as well as the one concerning rumors and speculation about America's newest morning television hosth -- First Lady Nancy Reagan. Robin?

ROBERT MacNEIL: Overseas we look closely at the new threat to oil shipping in the Persian Gulf as international tensions flare over the long war between Iran and Iraq. There are developments in Lebanon, Japan and the Geneva arms talks. We cover those and we end with an unusual opportunity to hear what a group of Soviet children think about nuclear war.

LEHRER: There will be no strike, no shutdown of Eastern Airlines tonight. The financially troubled company and its union flight attendants reached a settlement in their contract dispute that had been raging for 19 months. Neither side would talk about the terms of the agreement, but one of the major points, apparently, was staffing on Eastern's flights to Latin America. The company had said it had international agreements binding it to hire foreign nationals on those flights. At any rate, a deal was made, and now it goes to the union's 5,800 flight attendant members for ratification.

Today's joy aside, Eastern still has a way to go before it's out of the financial woods. Last week the company and all of its unions agreed to abide by the recommendations of outside financial analysts on what should be done to save the company, which is the nation's largest airline. It has already lost $128.9 million this year, and Eastern President Borman has said bankruptcy lies ahead unless its costs, particularly labor costs, can be substantially trimmed. Robin? Iranian Gulf Threats

MacNEIL: Overseas, the scare that the Soviets were about to break off the Geneva talks on European missiles appears over for the immediate future. Yesterday, U.S. officials said the Soviets had threatened privately to break off the talks if the United States deployed Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe this December as scheduled. There was speculation that the Russians might walk out today, but they sat through a three-hour meeting and another is set for next Tuesday. In Hamburg, West Germany, Leonid Zamyatin, a close adviser to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, repeated the threat. He told a news conference that Moscow would break off the talks if NATO went ahead with the deployment in December. Today, in a Washington speech, Democratic presidential candidate John Glenn proposed that the U.S. postpone deployment of one type of missile, the ground-launched cruise.

Sen. JOHN GLENN, (D) Ohio: A cruise missile race would be a major setback for the cause of long-term arms control, and I believe we must take one last-ditch effort to keep it from occuring. To demonstrate our good faith, the United States should initiate a temporary -- and I would repeat and underline temporary -- moratorium on deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles, at least until the Soviets have a chance to finally accept or reject one last time a balanced and equitable agreement. If they refuse to negotiate immediately, we doubt their good faith, then we will have no choice but to reluctantly deploy our own cruise missiles along with the Pershing IIs.

MacNEIL: Senator Glenn said a moratorium on all cruise missiles in Europe would be an advantage because they are so hard to verify.

In Teheran today there were scenes reminiscent of the U.S. embassy crisis of four years ago. Hundreds of Iranian students marched on the French embassy shouting "Death to France." They were protesting the French sale of five super Etendard jet warplanes and Exocet missiles to Iraq, Iran's enemy in a three-year-old war. The Iranian government has threatened to retaliate by cutting off oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Musavi reiterated that today, saying, "We have time and again declared that should the Persian Gulf be made insecure for us, then it will become insecure for everyone. We stand by that policy." The students, who carried posters of the Ayatollah Khomeini, also attacked the dispatch of three U.S. warships with 2,000 Marines from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean, where they could be used to defend the Gulf. Today, Saudi Arabia's defense minister said his country would secure oil exports through the Gulf. Jim?

LEHRER: Any time there is a threat to close off shipping from the Persian Gulf the U.S. and its Japanese and Western European friends react, usually with carefully worded but vigorous vows to make sure it doesn't happen. That's why the U.S. aircraft carrier task force and a similar one from Britain are on station in the Indian Ocean. Why there is such concern is simple: 25% of the world's oil is produced by the Persian Gulf states. Tankers with crude oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar pass through the narrow Straits of Hormuz, with some eight million barrels of that oil a day. Japan gets 80 to 90 percent of its oil from the Gulf; Western European nations 50 to 60 percent of theirs. For a perspective on what's happening now from the Iraqi point of view, we have Shireen Hunter, deputy director of teh Middle East Projectr at the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies. She's an Iranian native and she has studied and written extensively on this Persian Gulf war.Why does Iraq need these French fighters?

SHIREEN T. HUNTER: The Iraqis, as you know, have been in a difficult situation for some time now, especially because of the economic squeeze that they are under. The closure of the pipeline from Iraq to Syria, which the Syrians have done as allies of Iran, and the Iranian damages done to the Iraqi oil export facilities in the Persian Gulf have put an extremely difficult financial squeeze. Up to now they have managed somehow because of the very large subsidies that the other oil exporting countries in the Persian Gulf, like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia have been giving to them. With the oil glut and declining oil revenues of the countries themselves it has become very difficult for them to sustain these large subsidies. So the Iraqis want to get out of this financial dam that they are in by ending the war.

LEHRER: And they figure the only way to end it is to use some fighter planes. How would they use them against Iran to end the war?

Ms. HUNTER: Well, that is a more problematic issue, particularly because of the nature of the Super Etendards and the Exocet missiles. It's a matter of controversy whether they will be able to use them against Iranian oil terminal in Kharg Island, because the Etendard and Exocet combination is very deadly, as we saw in the Falklands war, against moving targets like the ships. There is some debate by the military experts, and some deny it outright, that they can be used effectively against fixed targets. But the Iraqis' main purpose would be to also reduce, if not eliminate, Iran's capacity to export oil so that they will be in the same financial problems that Iraq is, and therefore they will have incentive to come to some kind of negotiated settlement with Iraq.

LEHRER: Does that add up to something terribly realistic from your point of view? That this strategy could in fact -- a war strategy based on these fighters end up in peace?

Ms. HUNTER: Well, it's very difficult to say. Pfrtly I would say that because the rationality and the rational action has not been the characteristic, unfortunately, of either the Iranian government or the Iraqis, at least initially, when they embarked on this venture.Under normal conditions, one would imagine that since both sides will be losers, Iranians will be losers even if the Iraqis did not, you know, destroy the Kharg Island, it very well may be that this time the threat of attacking the tankers coming to the Kharg Island to lift the Iranian oil might prove a bit more potent than previous Iraqi threats, because then they did not have the means. It also well may mean that the insurance rates for tankers will go up so much that it wouldn't really make sense for them to go and lift Iranian oil from there.

LEHRER: In the simplest terms, the pressure is truly on Iraq for financial reasons more than any other to get this thing over one way or another?

Ms. HUNTER: Absolutely, because the Iranians, after the last offensive against Iraq failed, they were not successful in toppling Saddam Hussein, which is apparently the ultimate objective of the Ayatollah. They decided -- and also there were very wide, I would say, popular discontent and mounting popular discontent in Iran with the war strategy, which was based on human-wave tactics, and the casualties will reach a really very high level. So the Iranian authorities apparently decided that they were going to minimize their casualties and they are going to concentrate on an economic war of attrition. So that they will create, because of economic squeeze, such problems for Saddam that he will no longer be able to sustain his power.

LEHRER: Thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: We have the Iranian point of view now, Said Rajaie Khorassani is Iran's ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Ambassdor, first, what do you think of the idea that Iraq got these planes to end the war quickly?

SAID RAJAIE KHORASSANI: In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful, I thank you very much for bringing up this very intelligent question. I don't think that these planes could end the war. They might aggravate the situation, and it is only a might. I'm not quite certain that they will be very successful. But I don't think that that they can end the war. I understand that Iraqis are very desperate and they do everything that they think might end the war, particularly in their favor. But I'm not very optimistic. They have never been very successful in their predictions.

MacNEIL: Why is Iran so upset about these five planes going to Iraq?

Amb. KHORASSANI: We are not upset at all. We are just explaining the situation. We understand that Iraqis are trying to internationalize the war. We just want to inform those individual countries who constitute the elements of internationalization of the war, we want to inform them that this is a very dangerous job and they should not be a leverage in the hand of the Iraqis. That's all we want to say.

MacNEIL: Under what circumstances would your country carry out the threat to stop oil shipping out of the Gulf? Would Iraq have to attack with these planes, attack Kharg Island, your terminal, or something like that?

Amb. KHORASSANI: Even if they attack and their attack doesn't come to be very successful, we have no reason to close the Strait of Hormuz or to change the present security of the Persian Gulf in any way. We don't believe that any attempt from the Iraqi side would be necessarily successful. We have other means of meeting the -- any attack from Iraq, we think, in that area. Our air force and our navy is quite prepared for any attack, but in case they get any success which leads to the complete destruction of our installations in such a way that we cannot export our oil any longer, then that would be the end of exportation of oil from the Persian Gulf area.

MacNEIL: Period.

Amb. KHORASSANI: Period.

MacNEIL: Even if the United States or Saudi Arabia or somebody tried to keep the Gulf open?

Amb. KHORASSANI: We think that -- since that is a very important tract, we might have taken those also into consideration.

MacNEIL: In other words, you have taken into consideration that the United States might intervene --

Amb. KHORASSANI: That is correct.

MacNEIL: -- or as the Saudi defense minister said today, they might intervene.

Amb. KHORASSANI: That is very good, yes. That's quite clear. But they know it.

MacNEIL: They know it.

Amb. KHORASSANI: Yes.

MacNEIL: So are you saying that --

Amb. KHORASSANI: We also hope that others will not get involved in this argument. It is unwise because we are quite sure that we are determined to meet the challenge. Therefore the best thing for others is not to do exactly what Iraq wants them to do.

MacNEIL: From the Iranian point of view, is there any hope of a negotiated settlement right now to this war?

Amb. KHORASSANI: I'm not very optimistic at this stage.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: A final view of this now from William Olsen, a specialist on the Persian Gulf who is a regional security affairs analyst at the U.S. Army War College. Do you share the Ambassador's pessimism over a possibility of a negotiated settlement, Mr. Olsen?

WILLIAM OLSEN: I don't believe that there is much chance at present of a negotiated settlement, at least from the Iraqi point of view.The Iraqis, I think, are desperate for a negotiated settlement. The problem in this case is Iran. The goals of the two countries are incommensurate. Iraq wants a negotiated settlement and an end to the war. Iran, however, wants basically a change of regime in Iraq, and as long as this is the goal, Iraq cannot accept this, and therefore a negotiated settlement is not too likely in the near future.

LEHRER: From your perspective, what do these things look like, taking them one at a time: the possibility of the use of these five French planes by the Iraqis -- how they would use them, what they're capable of doing with those -- and then the next step we'll get to is how the Iranians may respond, and could they in fact close down the Straits of Hormuz? Take the Iraqi thing first.

Mr. OLSEN: All right. The aspect of the Super Etendard from the Iraqi point of view is that it's a standoff weapon, which means the Iraqi pilots do not have to attack Iranian oil facilities or shipping directly. They can stand over the horizon and direct the missiles into their targets.

LEHRER: Like, say, 15 miles away or so?

Mr. OLSEN: Exactly. Fifteen miles away or so. And this is one of the things that is very attractive to the Iraqis.

LEHRER: That's attractive because of anti-aircraft fire and all that?

Mr. OLSEN: It means their pilots do not face anti-aircraft fire; it means that they can deliver the weapon without losing the aircraft. The other aspect of this for the Iraqis is a problem in that Kharg Island, where the Iranian main oil terminal is, is very large, and a great deal of redundancy is built into the facility, which would mean that the Exocet missile cannot do a great deal of damage to this or knock this facility out. But where it can come into effect is to attack shipping approaching Iranian ports, not only the oil facilities, but Iran's other ports in the Gulf. And to use this then to try to shut off access to the Iranian ports and thereby bring an economic blockade against Iran.

LEHRER: Does your reading of the situation cause you to believe that that's exactly what the Iraqis are going to do?

Mr. OLSEN: I believe that the Iraqis are trying to acquire this capability. I argued starting six months ago that this was the case. I believe that what the Iraqis would like to see happen is for the international community in some fashion to intervene to force Iran to negotiate, that their objective, in fact, is only in the last resort to use these weapons if all other means fail, that what they would like to see happen is for the United States and other Western powers to use their influence on Iran's trading partners to encourage Iran to the negotiating table to bring an end to the war.

LEHRER: Well, you heard what the Ambassador said. He said he wants everybody to stay out of this. Now, what about the Iranian threat which we just heard repeated, which is that if this kind of thing happens, if Iraq does try this and is successful, then nobody's tankers are going to come in and out of the Gulf. Is that realistic,and can the United States and Britain and the other Western powers keep it from happening?

Mr. OLSEN: Well, the nature of the Iranian response is part of the imponderables in the situation. There are a variety of things they can do. They can try to mine the Straits. They can try to use shore-based artillery or missiles to threaten ships. They can use their own ships to attack shipping in the Gulf, or they can use commandoes or sappers, or people to -- frogmen to attack ships. And the question then becomes, does Iran have the capability to follow through on its threat? As far as mining the Gulf is concerned, I do not believe Iran has a major capability to do that. And the other forms of threat are somewhat difficult to carry off. The missiles on shore or even on the islands that Iran has just inside the Gulf or artillery is not very accurate. And so it's problematic. The real threat is that the shipping companies and others will believe that the threat is credible and therefore will impose upon themselves an embargo --

LEHRER: Or, as Ms. Hunter mentioned, the insurance rates could go up so high --

Mr. OLSEN: The insurance rates could go up very high.

LEHRER: -- that you would in fact stop it because nobody would want to sail in there. All right, thank you. Robin?

MacNEIL: Mr. Ambassador, is that what you feel would happen before you would be forced to take physical action -- the insurance rate would go up so much that shipping would stop?

Amb. KHORASSANI: This is not what we have banked on. I don't think that this is the meaning of our position.It might go or might not go. But we never counted on it conceivably.

MacNEIL: Now, Mr. Olsen mentioned another possibility besides attacking Kharg Island. He mentioned that they might use the jets to attack individual Iranian ports or ships. Is that what you fear?

Amb. KHORASSANI: I think they have been doing it, and it's not anything new. If this is the intention or if this is going to be the intention, it's not any new parameter in the equation.

MacNEIL: Ms. Hunter, how likely do you think the Iraqis are actually to use these? How desperate are they and, will that desperation, if their diplomatic effort, which you and Mr. Olsen seem to agree on, doesn't work, how likely are they actually to use the jets?

Ms. HUNTER: I think that the Iraqis are really very desperate, but it seems to me that they nevertheless also see the dangers involved. It very well may be that they also may try to use the threat of using these Etendards and the Exocet to get at least a breathing space by forcing the other Arab countries, you know, namely in the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, to increase again their economic subsidies to the Iraqis, and indeed these countries, despite their own, you know, problems now, they might we willing to do just that. There are some other efforts and mediation -- for example, by France -- to try to persuade Syrians to reopen the pipeline, the Syrian pipeline, and if the Iraqis were capable of achieving that, that will mean 1 1/2 million barrels of Iraqi oil will be exported so they would not have the same need. But if all these things fail, given the fact that Iranians, I mean, want Saddam's head, I think that they very well may be tempted to use them.

MacNEIL: Is that in fact what Iran wants, Saddam's head, figuratively? I remember a year ago we did a program on this and you were saying at the time that Iran's demands then were his resignation or removal and very heavy war reparations. Are those still the demands?

Amb. KHORASSANI: I think the main objective behind all these demands is the implementation of justice. We think that we have suffered a great deal, and we think that those people responsible for all that suffering must be brought to justice. And we cannot sign another peace contract, another agreement with the same man who has already violated one, very blatantly.

MacNEIL: So you're saying Saddam must go?

Amb. KHORASSANI: -- and therefore -- if it means Saddam must go, I think, well, people can understand it. That's quite clear. What we want is justice. What we want is the restoration of justice, the restoration of the right of the people of Iran and also the punishment of the aggressor. That's all. Now, if it requires the removal of Saddam Hussein, well, it is --

MacNEIL: Ms. Hunter, I believe -- excuse me. I believe there are other pressures domestically on Saddam Hussein. How likely is he to go?

Ms. HUNTER: Well, there are certainly pressures on Saddam Hussein, particularly deriving from this economic problem, because one of the reasons he had managed to keep himself in power was that for a long time he pursued a policy of both guns and butter, and therefore the domestic discontent was kept fairly low. And there is also that the casualty rates are of course mounting, and there is even some rumbling amongst maybe within the [unintelligible] itself or some of the Arab countries, that perhaps if Saddam could be removed without however having an Iranian-type Islamic revolution, there might be some possibility of agreement. But Saddam nevertheless so far has a strong hold on all the important governmental institutions, like the security and the army, that so far have not defected. So I don't think that it would be so easy to unseat Saddam.

MacNEIL: Is Iran willing, and planning on a war of attrition, as was said earlier? Can you afford to -- and can you just afford to wait Saddam out?

Amb. KHORASSANI: We have no other choice than defending our territory and our territorial integrity. We are still under the Iraqi occupation in some areas. And we have to keep on defending our country regardless of the consequences.

MacNEIL: Mr. Olsen, from your contacts in Washington, how seriously is this threat being taken there in official circles? I mean, do people in the Pentagon and so on really think that this is likely to blow up into open hostilities or closing the Gulf, or is it all a game of bluff, between the Iraqis getting the French planes and the Iranians threatening on the other side? How's it viewed?

Mr. OLSEN: I think it's safe to say that there is a great deal of concern over the potential that the war is going to expand in the Gulf, and it is being taken, I think, very seriously. The problem arises in knowing exactly what to do or being able to do anything in the situation since our means of power in the area, as you know, are somewhat limited.

MacNEIL: Ms. Hunter, would you agree with that, that the situation is quite serious and could flare into a much wider hostilities in the Gulf?

Ms. HUNTER: Well, definitely the danger is there. There is no doubt about it. And, for example, you know, United States, on basis of the Carter doctrine, which was reinforced by President Reagan, is committed to keep -- to defend the Persian Gulf, and then there is of course the security of Saudi Arabia. So the potential for danger is there. But how this can be defended and what are the practical means, I think that Bill Olsen was right, that the options are not really clear. But there certainly is a danger of the conflict becoming more expanded.

MacNEIL: And you would agree with that? Iran is not bluffing?

Amb. KHORASSANI: I don't know. We are not bluffing, but we also think that others are not so unwise to become a leverage in the hand of President Saddam Hussein [unintelligible].

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. Ambassador, Ms. Hunter and Mr. Olsen, thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: In other foreign news of the day there was more bloodshed in Lebanon. In the northern city of Tripoli 47 people were reported killed and 70 wounded in heavy street fighting. The combatants were communist groups and conservative Moslems, according to the state-run radio in Beirut. Also, in the Shuf Mountains near Beirut, Lebanese army troops and Moslem militiamen exchanged fire. Six Lebanese soldiers were reported wounded, two seriously. The firing was near the mountain town of Suk al Gharb, scene of that heavy pre-ceasefire fighting last month.

In Japan, former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka was found guilty of taking more than $2 million in bribes. A large crowd gathered outside the court to hear the outcome of the long trial. Here is a report from William Horsley of the BBC.

WILLIAM HORSLEY, BBC [voice-over]: The verdict came soon. Guilty. The sentence: four years in jail. But this ruling is not the end of the story. Out again on bail, Mr. Tanaka is determined not to be brought down. His supporters, including senior politicians, are rallying around at his luxurious home in Tokyo to discuss future strategy. More than three-quarters of Japanese people think Tanaka should now bow out of politics for good. Many angry citizens took to the streets to say so. Mr. Tanaka, known as the kingmaker and as the shadow shogun, is down but not yet out.

LEHRER: And in Burma, police captured a third Korean said to be part of a terrorist team which set off the explosion Sunday outside Rangoon. Twenty people died in that bombing, including four members of the South Korean cabinet. South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan was only minutes away when the bomb went off. The South Korean goverhment said the three men arrested so far are North Koreans, a fact not yet confirmed officially by Burmese authorities. But Australian intelligence sources were quoted today saying a fiveman team of North Korean agents were brought to Rangoon last month aboard a cargo ship. Today North Korea's Communist government denied it had anything to do with Sunday's attack. It described the charges as preposterous and ridiculous. Robin?

MacNEIL: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his touring commission arrived in El Salvador in their fact-finding mission to six countries in Central America. Kissinger told Salvadoran President Alvaro Mangana that human rights must be respected even while the government fights against left-wing guerrillas. Kissinger said, however, that El Salvador has made some progress in human rights and stands, as he put it, "in the front line in the struggle for greater justice and democracy."

We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- South Pomfret, Vermont]

MacNEIL: There were elections in a number of places yesterday.In Boston a black candidate emerged at the top of the poll for mayor. He is Melvin King, former state representative, who put together what he calls a rainbow coalition of minorities and whites. In November he will face a runoff with white city councilor Raymond Flynn. If King wins, he would be Boston's first black mayor.

Birmingham, Alabama's first black mayor, Richard Arrington, won a second term, with almost total support fromblack voters.

In Washington state a field of 31 candidates was narrowed to two to contest the Senate seat of the late Henry Jackson. They are Republican Dan Evans, who now holds the seat by appointment, and Democrat Mike Lowry, a sitting congressman. Their November battle will be crucial in what many consider an uphill effort for the Republicans to retain control of the U.S. Senate, and Lowry said he would tie Evans to President Reagan's policies.Jim? Mondale-Glenn Tiff

LEHRER: And, speaking of politics, something totally unexpected has happened. The seven-man race for the 1984 Democratic presidential nomination has taken a turn for the interesting. The number-one frontrunner, Walter Mondale, and the number-two frontrunner, John Glenn, are exchanging direct attacks. Judy Woodruff is here to tell us about it. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The fireworks were actually sparked about a week and a half ago, Jim, when Mondale brought up Glenn's vote for the Reagan economic program in 1981. A few days later, Glenn accused Mondale of catering to the so-called special interests -- big labor, teachers and so forth who have recently endorsed Mondale.

[voice-over] Mondale struck back. A Democrat who is against special interests, he said, should have voted against the Reagan budget cuts two years ago.

WALTER MONDALE, former Vice President: Children who need school lunches, dependents of widows wanting to go on to college, students needing student loans, women's and infants' -- children's feeding programs. There has never been such a comprehensive onslaught against social justice in modern times than that which followed from the adoption of Reaganomics. I opposed Reaganomics, and when we ask who's for special interests and who's for public interest and who has the courage to stand up and say no when the public needs it, test us all by how we stood on Reaganomics.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Now it was Glenn's turn, and it came as he was campaigning in Florida two days ago.

Sen. GLENN [October 10]: I think when he makes comments about me like that I think Fritz really knows better than that. In making a charge like that is a little bit like the first mate on the Titanic criticizing someone for going for a lifeboat. I didn't favor Reaganomics, and he knows that. But the vote in '81 was not for Reaganomics. What it was, it was against the economic policies that were in place, economic policies that were not working.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Glenn said Mondale shared the blame for what he called the failed and disastrous economic policies of former President Carter. Mondale's immediate response was to say Democrats will be shocked to know Glenn is basing his campaign on Reaganomics. And today, campaigning in New Jersey, Mondale defended the Carter economic program.

Mr. MONDALE: In early '81, as oil prices were dropping, several good things were happening. Employment was rising; unemployment was dropping.The deficits were coming down; the economy was growing. The inflation rate was beginning to drop off. In other words, with the drop in oil prices things were working out again.Then when Reaganomics went in place these deep deficits just put the United States economy into a tailspin, a deep recession, and all the things that I've discussed occurred. And he voted for that, which is of the record. But I can't understand why he wants to seek the presidency and the nomination of the Democratic Party on the basis that he stood with President Reagan and put in place these disastrous economic policies.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: In a session with reporters today in Washington Glenn suggested the squabble hadn't been his idea.

Sen. GLENN: Well, I don't know that I have -- I didn't set out to define my difference with Walter Mondale. What I did -- what I have done and will continue -- what I have done is respond to what I felt were a changed campaign tactic on their part, a tactic to start attacking on single votes or on a more personal basis. I'm sorry we've gone that route because I really would like to concentrate on the areas where I really am different from the vision of Ronald Reagan and the future that we see for this country.

WOODRUFF: So where do we go from here, you're probably asking. Well, as hard as it is to believe, both campaigns say they assume this is the end of it unless the other guy picks it up again, the Mondale people saying they don't consider the former vice president's association with Jimmy Carter a liability, the Glern people saying if Mondale wants to make the race a referendum on Glenn's vote for Reaganomics, they will make it a referendum on why Reaganomics came into being. Well, it's too early to know if either candidate is going to benefit as a result of all this. Some Democrats are saying that it's healthy to have the issues being more sharply defined for the first time in the campaign. But other Washington political experts believe the only candidate who is certain to be helped by all this fighting among the Democrats is Ronald Reagan. One top Reagan political strategist told me today that he's filing away all the Glenn and the Mondale quotes of the past few days to use as ammunition against the Democrats next year when the campaign gets serious. Jim?

LEHRER: Thank you, Judy, and don't go away, because in a business where so-called firsts and breakthroughs are important, ABC's "Good Morning America" pulled off a big one this morning. It became the first news talk show, morning, noon or nighttime, ever to have the wife of the President of the United States as a co-host. But First Lady Nancy Reagan's appearance is more than a television scoop story, and we go back to Judy for it. Judy?

WOODRUFF: I'm an expert on everything tonight.

LEHRER: Right, absolutely. Nancy Reagan's Health

WOODRUFF: What prompted this morning's appearance, and other television appearances that the First Lady is going to be making in the next month, was something that has become her favorite cause -- drug abuse prevention.

[voice-over] She got up at 5 o'clock this morning in order to join David Hartman, the host of ABC's "Good Morning America" for a show devoted entirely to drug and alcohol abuse.

DAVID HARTMAN, ABC's Good Morning America: How, when, why did you first get involved with this and figure it was so important to focus on?

NANCY REAGAN, First Lady: I think it was when we were in Sacramento in the '60s when this whole thing seemed to have started, and I couldn't help but be aware of what was going on, and we began to get calls from friends who had children who were going through terrible, terrible experiences. And as time went on, the trouble seemed to get worse and my concern mounted.

WOODRUFF [voice-over]: Her appearance comes after several weeks of speculation over the state of her health, speculation that started with the October issue of Life magazine, which revealed that she had lost 10 pounds since moving to Washington. White House aides blamed it on what they call job tensions and worry -- worry over the attempt on her husband's life in 1981; the assassinationsof several world leaders; the death of her father and the ill health of her mother. The speculation took on political overtones when a bad cold caused Mrs. Reagan to cancel some planned activities. The question was raised, if there wasn't something more seriously wrong with her that might make her husband decide not to run for re-election.

[in studio] And here to answer questions about that, and about the First Lady's stepped-up public appearances on behalf of fighting drug abuse, is Sheila Tate, who is press secretary to Mrs. Reagan, and Donnie Radcliffe, who is a reporter who covers Mrs. Reagan for The Washington Post. Thank you both for being with us. Ms. Tate, about all these television appearances. She did a -- as a matter of fact she did an appearance on a prime-time TV show a couple of months ago, too. Why has she decided to increase her public activities on behalf of this?

SHEILA TATE: Well, I don't think she's necessarily increasing her public activities. I think she's more visible because the opportunities we've had recently are television. And it's a result of building on two years of very hard work on her part.

WOODRUFF: On the drug abuse theme?

Ms. TATE: Strictly on durg abuse.

WOODRUFF: Well, now, when she first came to Washington I think she left the impression with a lot of people that she didn't want to limit herself to one or two particular causes, that she wanted to stay more general than that. Why did she change her mind?

Ms. TATE: Oh, no, I don't -- the first day I met her, which was a month before the inaguration, she told me she wanted to limit herself to two causes -- foster grandparents, which is a cause she's been involved in for, I think, 16 or 17 years now, and she wanted to find a way to get involved in the drug abuse issue. So all along that's all she's really wanted to focus on.

WOODRUFF: Have you seen her role change then?

Ms. TATE: Well, I've seen it build and evolve, which I think probably is what happens to every first lady.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Radcliffe, what about you? You've been covering Nancy Reagan since she first arrived in Washington.Have you seen her role change in any way?

DONNIE RADCLIFFE: Yes, I think she's -- it's evolved into something substantive. When you consider that when she first started out I don't think that she really had it well-defined. I think she had an interest in drugs, and in an interview that I had with her before the inauguration she expressed that interest, but not in any well-defined way, and I think it was only later that it became apparent that it was something that she could probably do.

WOODRUFF: Why did you sense she made the change or changed her view of it?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: I think it probably was public perception of her. I'm afraid that in the beginning she gave the impression that her interests were primarily with -- had to do with the White House and the redecoration of it, and perhaps it was just a matter of not knowing how to go about doing that in a more quiet way and bringing the other interest into greater focus.

WOODRUFF: Would you agree with that, Ms. Tate?

Ms. TATE: Well, only to the degree that it was not visible. She spent the first six or eight months, really, doing her homework because she insisted she wanted to be effective if she was going to be involved in the issue. And it's a huge, complicated issue. An executive recently said to us, "You know, if somebody asked a PR agency, what should a first lady get involved in, they'd say, 'Roses, opera,'" and I don't know if enough people know what courage it takes for a first lady to get into a controversial issue that has all kinds of pitfalls. We took time to do homework and to find her natural constituency, which is parents and kids, and take it right to them. And I think the six or eight months that she took -- at her insistence that it be done right -- I think it was well worth it, and today was a good testimony to that.

WOODRUFF: So you would disagree, really, with what Ms. Radcliffe was saying?

Ms. TATE: Well, only in that --

WOODRUFF: -- perceptions of her interest in other, more social --

Ms. TATE: Well, I was able to see what was happening behind the scenes, and it would be harder for a reporter to see that.

WOODRUFF: What about all this speculation about her weight loss? Is she in good health? We know that she had some cancerous growths removed from her face, I guess it was last year.

Ms. TATE: Yes, one. She had one; skin cancer. Yes, she's in fine health. I'm not sure her press secretary is going to survive this onslaught of speculation, but she's doing fine.

WOODRUFF: What about the weight loss, though? Is she --

Ms. TATE: Well, the weight loss was gradual over a two-year period. I mean, it's not -- it didn't happen last month. It's simply that she has confirmed that she did indeed lose it, and then had the colossal bad timing to catch a cold. And, by the way, we were discussing this, but in New York, where we were today, everyone we met had a cold. I think it's the Nancy Reagan fashionable cold now.

WOODRUFF: It's contagious. What about that, Ms. Radcliffe? What is your impression from where you sit as a reporter who spends a lot of time covering her?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: Well, I think she probably -- I don't doubt a bit that she lost weight. I don't think that of any of first ladies I've covered, and that started with Pat Nixon, that one of them has left office weighing the same she did when she went into office, or when her husband went into office. They've all been lighter, and I think it has to do with the demands on their time. Also, it's a very exciting situation to be in; they're rarely alone, and when you're alone you're inclined to eat, sometimes, and so I think it's --

WOODRUFF: You think it's perfectly normal, is what you're saying?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: I do.

WOODRUFF: Ms. Tate, one other thing. There was a White House official who was quoted not too long ago as saying that she was depressed.

Ms. TATE: Well, I took strong exception to that. I mean, that's a pretty strong word. I think they simply meant that she had gone through a grieving process, which I suppose is a form of depression, but that was much too strong a word. She's an emotional person. She's often said she wears her heart on her sleeve, and she tends to tear up at delays in traffic, you know? But as far as being depressed, it's not -- she's in wonderful spirits.

WOODRUFF: Were there any White House aides telling you, Ms. Radcliffe, that they thought she was depressed? What do you make of one part of the White House saying she was and Sheila Tate here saying she's not?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: Well, there has to be something beyond Mrs. Reagan's health as we see it, and perhaps one would have to read political undertones there. Perhaps how she -- her health doubtless will affect the President's decision on whether or not to run, and perhaps there is an inclination to pave the way for him if he decides that he doesn't want to run, and this is an easy out.

WOODRUFF: Does she want him to run again?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: Can I speculate a little bit on that?

WOODRUFF: Please do.

Ms. TATE: My feeling is that Nancy Reagan caught a cold and the press corps caught pneumonia. And I'm serious. I think there is such jitters out there -- "Will he or won't he?" -- that everything becomes -- gets tied to that. And it's apples and oranges in my mind.

WOODRUFF: Does she want him to run, and does her -- how much weight does her opinion carry in that decision?

Ms. TATE: One hundred four pounds. She is very good at keeping her own counsel in this city of leaks. I do not know. I believe he will run again, but it's not based on any conversation I've had with her.

WOODRUFF: What about you, Ms. Radcliffe? Do you think that she enjoys what she's doing and wants him to run again for re-election?

Ms. RADCLIFFE: I think she loves the White House and well she should, and I can't imagine why she would want to leave for any other reason than his health, perhaps.

WOODRUFF: If she didn't want him to run, do you think he wouldn't?

Ms. TATE: It's not that simple, and I can't imagine her saying to her husband, "I don't want you to run." I mean, that's -- their marriage isn't based on that kind of a relationship.

WOODRUFF: What do you mean?

Ms. TATE: Well, she wouldn't dictate to him like that. She's always been a supporter, and as someone once said, if he were a shoe salesman, she'd be out there hyping, promoting shoes. That's the way she is, and she'll do what he wants to do.

WOODRUFF: Okay. Thank you, Donnie Radcliffe and Sheila Tate, for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Another Washington note: The New York Times said recently that nothing in Washington seems exempt from shorthand. It referred to the abbreviation POTUS for President of the United States, and SCOTUS, for the Supreme Court of the United States. Unfortunately, the Times referred to SCOTUS justices as the nine men. Today they got a letter expressing surprise from Sandra Day O'Connor, referring to herself as FWOTSC, for First Woman on the Supreme Court. The Times meekly apologized to all, POTUS, SCOTUS and FWOTSC. We'll be back in a moment.

[Video postcard -- Rochester, Vermont]

LEHRER: The war in cable television news ended today with a surrender. SNC, the Satellite News Channel, has agreed to sell out to CNN, the Cable News Network, owned by Ted Turner, for $25 million. SNC will go out of business, with CNN service being provided to current SNC customers. SNC was owned jointly by ABC and Westinghouse and was set up in June, 1982 as a competitor to Turner's CNN. The competition had been heated in more than one way. Last spring Turner sued SNC's owners, charging unfair attempts to monopolize cable news, and ABC and Westinghouse countersued, charging similar things against CNN and Turner. Today's sale announcement said both suits will be dropped when the sale becomes official October 27th. Robin? Soviet Children Talk about Nuclear War

MacNEIL: Our final story tonight is something unusual. Since the nuclear freeze movement began, we've heard a lot of what American children think about nuclear war. This summer a group of American psychiatrists decided to find out what Soviet children think. They were part of a team sponsored by the Harvard Medical School and Internatinal Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. As part of the project they interviewed some 60 Soviet children between the ages of 11 and 15. The children came from all over the Soviet Union, and were attending state-run summer camps. The children were not told the questions beforehand. Soviet TV crews recorded the interviews, but the Americans used their own interpreter and did their own videotape editing. Here are excerpts.

AMERICAN INTERVIEWER: At what age have you learned about these effects? About?

BORIS, age 13, Minsk [through interpreter]: I found out about it first when I was seven years old when I saw the television show "Vremya." It was on the 6th of August commemorating the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they showed the atomic bombardment of the city.

IRINA, age 13, Estonia [through interpreter]: I was eight years old and in second grade, and I saw the program "International Panorama." In one of the sections of the program I learned about the existence of nuclear weapons. After that I began to read newspapers, and I became convinced about the consequences of nuclear weapons.

OLEG, age 14, Yakutsk [through interpreter]: When I was little my parents told me about it, that nuclear war is a disastrous horror, and if it begins there won't be anything left on this earth.

AMERICAN: If there were a nuclear war, what would happen?

OKSANA, age 11, Moscow [through interpreter]: The atomic bombs were dropped a fairly long time ago, but children are still being born with the effects of radiation.

SERGEI, age 13, Moscow [through interpreter]: Many casualties. Many, many casualties. And they will principally be people who want peace -- children, old people, men. Men are stronger, of course, than children, and many, many people will perish.

ELENA, age 13, Moscow [through interpreter]: And if a war like that starts, it will be absolutely terrible. Nobody will be needed, not teachers, not doctors. Everything around will die.

AMERICAN: Do any of you ever think that there might be a nuclear war in your lifetimes?

BORIS [through interpreter]: Yes, that's a horrible thought, and we hope that never happens. The consequences are terrible.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL [through interpreter]: We don't like to believe things like that.

UNIDENTIFIED GIRL [through interpreter]: The Soviet Union struggles for peace. We can't let war happen because it affects too many innocent people.

IRINA [through interpreter]: War will never happen because the Soviet Union and America will come to terms.

OLEG [through interpreter]: If all humanity gathers together, they can curtail a nuclear war, and that's why I don't think it'll happen, not in our lifetime or after our lifetime.

KIRA, age 14, Minsk [through interpreter]: Nuclear war is very possible. It could start from any simple accident -- if an American computer or our computer made a mistake -- and there would be war accidentally.

AMERICAN: Would it be possible to survive this nuclear war?

KATYA, age 14, Moscow [through interpreter]: What can I say? If American rockets can reach us in half an hour, there won't be even time to hide or defend oneself.

AMERICAN: Do people believe that you could hide underground or in a shelter and then it would be okay?

LARISA, age 13, Sverdlov [through interpreter, with responses of several children]: No. The air would be destroyed. The atmosphere would be destroyed. It would be impossible to live. And when you come out of the bomb shelter after that kind of catastrophe, in the city there wouldn't be anything left alive. And how can that be? You'd have to start life all over again.

SERGEI [through interpreter]: You couldn't survive a nuclear strike. The nuclear radioactivity remains for a very long time, and even if a person goes underground, no matterhow much he wants to live, he woudln't.

AMERICAN: How does this question we're talking about make you feel inside yourselves?

VOVO, age 12, Moldavia [through interpreter]: I feel pain because when I watched a film about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how people suffered from the radiation, how they died.

BORIS, age 13, Moldavia [through interpreter]: We can't imagine life without our parents, friends, brothers and sisters, relatives.

LARISA [through interpreter]: To think about it is bad enough, but to imagine it is even worse.

SVETA, age 13, Riazan [through interpreter]: It's hard to picture living by yourself without friends or parents.

SVETA, age 11, Georgievskoye [through interpreter]: When I watch films or listen to the radio I can imagine immediately how bombs will fall on my village and sometimes at night I cover myself with the blankets because I'm afraid.

OKSANA [through interpreter]: If war starts we might all be without parents.

AMERICAN: And you all feel that there are things that children can do to help prevent a nuclear war?

IRINA [through interpreter]: Yes, of course, because children will live longer. They will live. They are the ones that have to live and grow and collect information.

OLEG [through interpreter]: Everyone thinks about their children, and we can help them by struggling against nuclear war, by sending letters, designing banners. These are the things we can contritbute to the struggle against nuclear war, and they will understand that their children don't want war either.

AMERICAN: Is there anything that you would like to say to the American people or to American young people like yourselves?

ELENA [through interpreter]: I would like to wish American children -- I'd like to wish that they struggle and fight against nuclear war, and that they don't believe that it will happen. And if in some event it does happen, that we will try very hard to stop it. And a very warm welcome from Soviet children.

VALERY, age 14, Moscow [through interpreter]: I don't want them to believe the bad things that are said about the Soviet Union. We're the same type of people as they.

ANDREI, age 15, Moscow [through interpreter]: We also want peace, and this film could help very much by telling them much more about the Soviet Union than they already know.

OLGA [through interpreter]: The American people are exactly like we are, exactly the same. The children are the same, and they don't want war either.

IRINA [through interpreter]: We'd like to tell the children of America and the children of the world, we say hello to them.

MacNEIL: The views of some Soviet children talking to American doctors from the group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. Jim?

LEHRER: One late item before we recap the main stories of the day: Continental Airlines filed a $50-million lawsuit against the union representing its pilots. The union went on strike earlier this month after Continental reorganized under the bankruptcy laws.The pilots charge Continental broke its contract. In its suit Continental said the pilots union strike violated antitrust laws.

There was another airline labor story today with a different tone. A settlement between Eastern Airlines and its flight attendants means there will be no strike tonight.

In other news, heavy fighting in Tripoli, Lebanon has killed 47 people.

The former prime minister of Japan received a four-year prison term for taking bribes.

There was a new Soviet threat toshut down arms control talks if those U.S. missiles are deployed in Europe this December.

And a nervous West watches and worries over possible escalation of the three-year war between Iran and Iraq.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Jim. That's our NewsHour for tonight. We'll be back tomorrow. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.