The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, a summary of today's news; two court reports, on the outburst of accused September 11 accomplice Zacarias Moussaoui, and on the arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on a death penalty case; some perspective on the first round of the presidential elections in France; a report from Oklahoma City on a coming together of terrorism victims; and a conversation with the author of "Lincoln's Greatest Speech."

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The man accused of conspiring with the September 11 hijackers demanded today to fire his lawyers. In Alexandria, Virginia, Zacarias Moussaoui told a federal judge his court- appointed attorneys were part of a plan to execute him. He said, "What they've done is a sophisticated version of the kiss of death." Instead, he demanded to defend himself, or be given a Muslim lawyer. The judge ordered a psychiatric exam for Moussaoui, and for now, she refused to fire his lawyers. We'll have more on this in a few minutes. In Pakistan today, four suspects went on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Daniel Pearl. The "Wall Street Journal" reporter disappeared in January, and was later confirmed dead. Today a witness testified he saw the chief suspect drive away with Pearl the day of the kidnapping. He and his co-defendants could get the death penalty. The trial is expected to take one week. The U.S. Supreme Court heard an Arizona case today that could overturn hundreds of death sentences in nine states. The issue is whether judges alone may decide whether to impose capital punishment. The Justices are expected to rule by summer. They also accepted a case from Tennessee today on whether to allow more appeals in capital cases. We'll have more on this later in the program. Israeli forces kept up the pressure today on Palestinian gunmen in Bethlehem and Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. The Israelis completed their withdrawal from most other West Bank towns on Sunday. We have a report from Bridgid Nzekwu of Independent Television News.

BRIDGID NZEKWU: The first tentative steps towards ending the siege at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Five Palestinians surrendered to Israeli troops after 20 days, but around 200 more remain trapped inside. Today, Yasser Arafat, also besieged in his Ramallah headquarters, met the U.S. Peace Envoy Richard Burns. Once again the Palestinian leader demanded a complete Israeli pullout from all West Bank cities and villages. Not far away in Ramallah, the violence continued. A crowd attempted to block ambulances after three suspected Palestinian informers were shot and wounded by masked militiamen. In the devastated Jenin refugee camp today, relief efforts concentrated on making it safe for inhabitants. United Nations workers scoured for unexploded mines and booby traps in buildings and alleyways.

JIM LEHRER: Five Palestinians and one Israeli soldier were killed in scattered shootings across the West Bank and Gaza. In the Philippines today, President Arroyo ordered a new crackdown on terrorism and tighter security. A series of bombings over the weekend killed 14 people and wounded 69 in the southern city of General Santos. Police blamed Muslim rebels, and arrested two suspects. U.S. troops are involved in counter-terrorism operations on a separate island. More U.S. forces began exercises today to the north. Political leaders from the left and right in France rushed to endorse President Jacques Chirac for reelection today. That's after far right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen finished a surprise second in Sunday's first-round election. He now faces Chirac in the May 5 runoff. Le Pen heads the anti-immigrant National Front Party. We'll have more on this story later in the program tonight. American Catholic Cardinals arrived in Rome today for two days of talks with Pope John Paul II. They'll discuss the priest sex abuse scandal in the United States. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington said the meetings were a crucial step for the Church.

CARDINAL THEODORE McCARRICK: The Holy Father, by calling us here, has demonstrated leadership, has demonstrated he is still in control, that he still wants to make sure that we, his Bishops and his people, really work together to get rid of a terrible thing. So I think that is number one. That's a sign. The fact that he has changed his schedule and he will be at part of the meeting is, I think, a very important sign. I see this as the Holy Father himself saying I want to be there. I want to listen. I want to talk.

JIM LEHRER: Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston has been at the heart of the scandal for transferring accused priests instead of dismissing them. Today's "Los Angeles Times" reported there would be a movement at the Vatican meeting to press for his resignation, but at least two Cardinals said they knew of no such effort. President Bush and former Vice President Gore engaged in a long-range debate today on environmental policy. The President made an Earth Day visit to the Adirondack Mountains in New York. He touted his initiative to reduce smog and acid rain, and he said the country had long since reached consensus on protecting the Earth.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We've come to understand the success of a generation is not defined by wealth alone. We want to be remembered for our material progress, no question about it. But we also want to be remembered for the respect we give to our natural world. This Earth Day finds us on the right path, gaining an appreciation for the world in our care.

JIM LEHRER: On Sunday, former Vice President Gore sharply criticized the President's environmental record in a "New York Times" column. It was his strongest attack on Mr. Bush since the 2000 campaign ended. Today a White House spokesman said the voters rejected Gore's positions in the campaign. Gore shot back in a speech at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

AL GORE: He won the election, and he is our President, but he ought to be a little bit more careful about claiming that a majority of the voters endorsed his policy payoffs to polluters who pressured him to break his promises to the public. (Applause)

JIM LEHRER: The President said today he wasn't paying attention to gore or his criticism. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Moussaoui outburst; a death penalty argument; the French elections; a sharing in Oklahoma City; and a speech by Abraham Lincoln.

UPDATE - THE MOUSSAOUI CASE

JIM LEHRER: Zacarias Moussaoui's pretrial hearing: "New York Times" reporter Philip Shenon was in the federal courtroom in Alexandria, Virginia, today.

Philip, can you hear me there?

PHILIP SHENON: I can, indeed.

JIM LEHRER: Your earpiece fell out at a very inopportune time.

PHILIP SHENON: It happens.

JIM LEHRER: Can you hear me all right?

PHILIP SHENON: I can.

JIM LEHRER: All right. First, refresh us on Moussaoui, who he is, what he is specifically charged with having done.

PHILIP SHENON: Moussaoui is a Frenchman of Moroccan descent. He is described by the Justice Department as the man who was intended to be the 20th hijacker on September 11. He was apprehended on immigration charges a few weeks before September 11, and on the day of the attacks, he was in a jail cell in Minnesota.

JIM LEHRER: All right. Now, what was the purpose of this hearing today in Alexandria?

PHILIP SHENON: It was to be a reasonably routine hearing on the conditions of his imprisonment at a jail cell in Virginia. But as soon as he walked through the door, the courthouse today and took a seat, his hand shot up immediately. He was recognized by the judge to speak, and at that moment, he announced he wanted to fire his lawyers.

JIM LEHRER: Why did he -- what did he say the reason was? Why did he want to fire them?

PHILIP SHENON: He said they weren't acting in his best interest. He said they were conspiring against him with the government, with government prosecutors and with the judge to see him executed. He said he had requested from the beginning of this process, a Muslim lawyer, but that had been always denied him.

JIM LEHRER: Now, the lawyers he has -- tell us who they are and how they were selected.

PHILIP SHENON: The lawyers are a government public defender for the Eastern District of Virginia, a colleague from the same office who specializes in death penalty cases, and a private lawyer from the same area.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Moussaoui made, as I read the wires today, Moussaoui made the case that everybody involved then is an employee of the federal government.

PHILIP SHENON: Exactly. He said this was a large conspiracy that from the highest reaches of the Justice Department through the federal court system to his own attorneys paid by the government.

JIM LEHRER: Now, he said a lot more too, did he not, about the United States? Tell us what he said in addition to that.

PHILIP SHENON: Well, he was given a 50-minute platform to offer his views on his own defense situation and also on Islam and what he considers to be the corruption of the American criminal justice system. He took the opportunity to say he wanted to see the destruction of the United States, Israel, Russia, several other countries.

JIM LEHRER: What did he say about September 11 and any possible involvement in that?

PHILIP SHENON: Well, he didn't directly address September 11. But he did embrace what is the prosecution's view of him, which is that he is a Muslim extremist who supports Osama bin Laden's call for the destruction of the United States.

JIM LEHRER: But did he say "hey, I'm not guilty of the crimes that I've been charged with" or anything close to that?

PHILIP SHENON: He had quite a strong understanding of the American criminal justice system. He said he knew he was entitled to the presumption of innocence and he would fight for it. And he was prepared to fight for his life.

JIM LEHRER: Now, was this something he had written out, prepared and read from, or did it seem like a spontaneous, emotional thing, what? Describe it.

PHILIP SHENON: He had extensive notes. I believe he had a written statement as well.

JIM LEHRER: Now, what was his tone? What was his demeanor?

PHILIP SHENON: He was quite calm but clearly quite agitated and angry. He proved himself to be very intelligent and quite fluent with the English language.

JIM LEHRER: And how is he-- who was in the courtroom? I mean describe the scene. We've got some-- while you have been talking, we have been showing some drawings. But give us a feel who was here for the hearing.

PHILIP SHENON: Well, you had a crowd full of reporters for one thing. You had the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and many of his staff. You had this large defense team with the lawyers and the investigators. And keep in mind, as we all went in there, we expected this to be a reasonably routine hearing about the conditions of his imprisonment, the specifics of whether or not he had enough light in his jail cell or too much light, whether or not he was to be granted access to computers. But almost the minute he walked into that room, jaws dropped as that hand was thrust up to make a statement for the judge.

JIM LEHRER: Now on the specifics of his desire to get rid of his lawyers. What did his lawyers say about this?

PHILIP SHENON: His lawyers said they, to some extent, saw this coming. They had difficulty from the get-go establishing real trust with Mr. Moussaoui. They did argue that as this process goes mothered and if there is serious consideration to allowing Mr. Moussaoui to defend himself, he should be subjected to a psychiatric examination first.

JIM LEHRER: Now, what was the prosecution's position on this?

PHILIP SHENON: The prosecution didn't have much to say today. They said they wouldn't stand in the way of Mr. Moussaoui defending himself, although they did ask to see whatever psychiatric report is prepared before he is allowed to represent himself.

JIM LEHRER: And that's what the judge finally decided, right, didn't she? Tell us about the judge and what she finally said when this was all said and done today.

PHILIP SHENON: The judge set back and let Mr. Moussaoui speak his piece. As I say, this went on for almost 50 minutes. And she rather calmly told him that-- she suggested to him that he was making a big mistake; that he needed to think through whether or not he really wanted defend himself given the complexity of the criminal justice system. But she said that ultimately, unless a psychiatric tells him otherwise, she was likely to grant his wish to defend himself.

JIM LEHRER: And what is the next step in this? Take us through what happens next and then next.

PHILIP SHENON: Well, we have many things going on at once here. We'll have a flurry of activity over this question of Mr. Moussaoui defending himself. You'll have a psychiatric examination sometime in the near future -- rather we'll have a psychiatric examination if Mr. Moussaoui permits it. He suggested he may not permit it. At the same time we'll have lots of back and forth on the question of the death penalty. That is the big issue hanging over the case right now. The Justice Department through the United States Attorney's Office is seeking the death penalty and the defense lawyers who may or may not now be representing Mr. Moussaoui were prepared to argue against it.

JIM LEHRER: Didn't Mr. Moussaoui say he wanted the judge to try him, that he didn't want to have a jury trial?

PHILIP SHENON: Towards the end, he said that after some deliberation, he had decided that it would be best for him if he were tried by the judge and not by a jury. He didn't-- he suggested that the Justice Department would attempt to overwhelm the jury with information that would make it hard for them to do anything but convict him and sentence him to death. He suggested a judge would be able to understand the material in a way a jury could not.

JIM LEHRER: But the bottom line is, you're saying, Phil, there are many, many steps and a long way to go before each and every one of these things are resolved, right?

PHILIP SHENON: Tremendous distance here. There have been discussions of beginning this trial in the fall. I think that is increasingly unlikely, especially if Mr. Moussaoui, essentially has to begin from scratch to prepare his own defense.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Phil Shenon, thank you very much.

PHILIP SHENON: Thank you.

FOCUS - SUPREME COURT WATCH

JIM LEHRER: In other legal matters, there was a death penalty case at the U.S. Supreme Court today. Gwen Ifill has that.

GWEN IFILL: The Justices heard arguments in the case of a convicted murderer sentenced to death by a judge but not a jury. At issue: Should it be up to a judge to impose that ultimate penalty when new testimony is presented at sentencing that was not available to the jury? For more, we go inside the Supreme Court with NewsHour regular Jan Crawford Greenburg, court reporter for the "Chicago Tribune".

So Jan this was -- lay this out for us. This was the difference between a jury deciding the death penalty and a jury deciding the death penalty.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's right this. Case comes from Arizona and Arizona, like eight other states gives judges the discretion in imposing the maximum punishment, the death penalty. In this case, a jury convicted Timothy Stewart Ring of first-degree murder, felony murder, done in the commission of an armed robbery of an armored truck, that's a capital offense. So then it went to a sentencing hearing. And a judge looked at aggravating factors, mitigating factors and imposed the sentence of death. But this case, ultimately, as the Arizona Attorney General put it today, it's ultimately a question about the role of a jury.

GWEN IFILL: So were his lawyers arguing that there is a constitutional protection involved here?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, that's right. His attorneys today said that before the state can deliver the maximum punishment, a jury must first consider these facts, and they must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants like Timothy Ring, have that right guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The Constitution's sixth amendment which assures us a right to a jury trial.

GWEN IFILL: New facts in the case like what?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, at the sentencing hearing, one of the conspirators testified for the first time. The jury never heard him testify. He told the judge that Ring pulled the trigger - that he wanted people to brag on him about his shot. The judge taking that testimony into account, considered there to be aggravating factors. He considered the crime to be-brutal and depraved and conducted for financial reasons.

GWEN IFILL: All things that the jury never heard.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. Certainly things in terms of the testimony, facts the jury had not heard about and decided on beyond a reasonable doubt. And based on those aggravating factors, the judge sentenced ring to death.

GWEN IFILL: Today in the courtroom what did the state of Arizona argue?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, Arizona argued that these are sentencing factors; that they're not elements of the crime; that the jury decided its main duty, its constitutional duty. It decided that Ring was guilty of this capital offense. So these were things that a judge was entitled to review; that he was just kind of weighing aggravating factors and the mitigating factors, things that might lessen the punishment in making that decision and that's a role that judges are entitled to play.

GWEN IFILL: Now, it wasn't too long ago that the court approached this type of issue before and both sides seemed to be harkening back to the 2000 New Jersey case.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: That's a watershed case. The dissenters predicted it two years ago when this ruling came down and it has certainly been proven true. That case involved a New Jersey man named Charles Apprendi and you may hear the Apprendi case, the name of the man Charles Apprendi who was convicted of violating a New Jersey gun law. At his sentencing, the judge added on extra time to his sentence because the judge concluded he had violated the law because of racial bias in violation of New Jersey's hate crime statute. He argued, and the Supreme Court agreed, that a jury should have made that call; that a jury should have decided those key facts. And the Supreme Court in that 2000 ruling, that, you know, constitutional watershed landmark ruling, said that a jury must consider and decide facts beyond a reasonable doubt when it's enhancing the penalty in that way.

GWEN IFILL: But Sandra Day O'Connor, our favorite justice to watch, wrote the dissent in that case, right?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: She did. It was an unusual split. It was 5-4 ruling. When we have a five/four ruling, we think the five more conservative journalists and four more liberal justices. This was written by John Paul Stephens, this Apprendi case, obviously one of the Court's most liberal Justices, he was joined by two other liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and two conservatives, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, a very unusual line-up. O'Connor, like you said, wrote the dissent. She predicted all of this chaos that has since ensued.

GWEN IFILL: Is going to come back. So if this were overturned, if this law, if this Arizona law were overturned, what is the potential effect?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, like I said, I mean, Arizona is just one of nine states that has these sentencing schemes that give judges is kind of discretion. So those laws could immediately be called into question and the death sentences of some 800 inmates on Death Row in those states could be called into question.

GWEN IFILL: So theoretically hundreds of cases - not the actual convictions being overturned but the sentencing being overturned.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Absolutely. And of course, when you are talking about the death sentence, that's so critical.

GWEN IFILL: Now the Court keeps picking up or agreeing to hear death penalty cases this session. There was one we've talked about before on this program involving the death penalty for the mentally disabled.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right, a very emotional case.

GWEN IFILL: There is one they took up today involving a felon who said he wasn't represented properly by his attorneys and the one we are talking about this afternoon. Is there a pattern that is developing here?

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Well, the Court has several death penalty cases this term, and it's certainly something you notice when they come out. I don't see a trend yet. I mean there are different issues. The Atkin case involving a mentally disabled person presents a different constitutional question. And one of the lawyers I spoke with, in fact the lawyers who is representing the man whose case the Court agreed to hear next term, the Court announced that today, said he doesn't see a trend yet either - that the Court always pays close attention to these cases because they're so critically important.

GWEN IFILL: We have heard, however, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice O'Connor express -- verbally express doubts about the application of the death penalty this year.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Right. Particularly as it would apply to the ineffective assistance of counsel. There have been a couple of cases involving that and certainly there will be more next term. So that is certainly an issue to watch, whether or not particularly poor people on Death Row are being adequately represented at trial.

GWEN IFILL: Before the end of this term, we're going to see something happen on the death penalty from this court.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG: Absolutely. Yes. And I think the one that will be really interesting to watch is going to be the Atkins case involving whether or not states can execute people who are mentally disabled.

GWEN IFILL: Jan, thank you very much.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the French elections; Oklahoma City and New York City; and Lincoln's Greatest Speech.

FOCUS - ELECTION SHOCK

JIM LEHRER: That surprise in France: We begin with this report narrated by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: The second place showing of far right candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in yesterday's elections has rocked France. Clashes erupted early today in Paris between police and anti-Le Pen demonstrators. There were street demonstrations in several French cities to protest Le Pen's unexpected success at the polls. As head of the National Front Party, the 73-year-old Le Pen has blamed immigrants, especially those from North Africa, for France's rising crime and unemployment rates. A perennial candidate, this was Le Pen's fourth bid for the presidency. His message over the years has been consistent.

JEAN-MARIE LE PEN, National Front Party, France (Translated): I think the phenomenon of immigration threatens the balance of our society and even its existence.

KWAME HOLMAN: In the past, Le Pen has made overtly racist and anti-Semitic remarks. He once called the holocaust a detail in history. Last night Le Pen attributed his victory to the French people's deep concern over crime and government corruption.

JEAN-MARIE LE PEN (Translated): Don't be afraid to dream, you the small ones, the excluded ones. Don't let people trap you in the older visions of the left-wing and the right ring wing: You who are born the last 20 years, all the mistakes and embezzle of the politicians; you the farmers with miserable pensions facing bankruptcy and your own disappearance. You who are also the first victims of insecurity in the suburbs, towns and villages. - I call for the French people, no matter their race, religion or their social conditions, to rally for this historical chance of national recovery.

KWAME HOLMAN: Incumbent President Jacques Chirac garnered the most votes yesterday. Elected President in 1995, Chirac has campaigned under a cloud of corruption charges stemming from his 18 years as mayor of Paris. Last night, Chirac urged French citizens to reject Le Pen in their upcoming face-off.

PRESIDENT JACQUES CHIRAC, Rally for the Republic Party, France (Translated): I call all the French people to unite to defend human rights and guarantee the national cohesion to assert the unity of the republic and restore the authority of the state. Tonight, my dear compatriots, France needs you. I need you. I wish in thecoming days everyone will show responsibility, tolerance and respect. Long live the republic, long live France.

KWAME HOLMAN: Until yesterday, socialist Prime Minister Leonelle Jospin was expected to be Chirac's competitor in the election but instead, Jospin last night found himself giving a concession speech and announcing his political retirement.

PRIME MINISTER LIONEL JOSPIN, Socialist Party, France (Translated): I take full responsibility for this failure, and I have decided to withdraw myself from the political scene after the end of the presidential election. Until then, I will naturally continue to be the head of the government. I express my regrets and my thanks to all who have voted for me, and I salute the French people for whom I have served my best during these five years.

KWAME HOLMAN: With the vote count all but complete, Chirac has 19.7%, the lowest margin for a major party political candidate since 1958. Le Pen took 17%; Jospin 16%. There were an unprecedented 16 candidates on the ballot yesterday and a record 28% of the electorate stayed home. The runoff election, where voters will choose between Le Pen and Chirac, will be held May 5.

JIM LEHRER: To Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: To help explain what French commentators are calling a "political earthquake," we turn to Jacqueline Grapin, president of the European Institute in Washington. She's a former writer and editor for the French newspapers "Le Monde" and "Le Figaro." And Jim Hoagland, foreign affairs columnist for the "Washington Post." He reported from France in the late 80's, and continues to travel there frequently. Welcome to you both, Jacqueline, Grapin, how did this happen?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: Well, this is a shock, but this is not a tragedy. It is a shock because the left, which represents 43% of the electorate, is not represented in the second round of the election. But it's not a tragedy because two weeks from now, Mr. Le Pen will be out. How did it happen? It's a product of both protest vote and the electoral system, the constitutional system. The French election is very different from the American election. It's very democratic. Everybody basically can be a candidate provided you have 500 signatures from mayors of cities of any size. And everybody can vote. Usually there are agreements between candidates and you have only a limited number of candidates on the left and on the right. This time, many candidates on the left and on the right were not very satisfied with their leaders, and you had sixteen candidates -- basically eight from the left, six from the right, and the two from the far right. And as a result, the left diluted their votes, spread their votes, and to the surprise of everyone, it was the far right candidate who came out. But two weeks from now in the second round, Mr. Chirac will be elected with a very large majority.

MARGARET WARNER: And, Jim Hoagland, voters knew this was just a preliminary round, so it is sort of a free vote?

JIM HOAGLAND: It's a vote in which the French like to say that they express their biases, their feelings, regards than their calculations or even their interests. They get a free shot at their politicians. And I would underline what Jacqueline Grapin just said. This is a vote that expresses very strong dissatisfaction with the two leading politicians who were expected to go into the second round. It's also a vote, I think, that expresses a good bit of fear and of insecurity. This was the theme that Chirac used in his campaign and Le Pen very effectively used in trying to demonize largely Arab,some African immigrants in France and make them responsible for all of France' problems. And he got away with it.

MARGARET WARNER: Would you agree that fear motivated some of the vote?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: Certainly it was on top of it. There are too many issues. One is security and crime and the other one is unemployment. And on both grounds, the French are unsatisfied by the government they have had for five years. The American public should remember that the president is from one party, which is conservative, and the prime minister was from one party, which is from the left. So because of this so-called cohabitation, it was very difficult for them to take any efficient action in the last five years.

MARGARET WARNER: Jim, last night and again-- particularly last night but also today, Le Pen made a lot of anti-European Union comments. Last night he talked about victims of industries that had been-or workers in industries that had been ruined by what he called euro globalization. Talk about that factor.

JIM HOAGLAND: Well, this is the other part of the fear. It is fear of France's place in a very dramatically changing world; of economic competition that will change a traditional way of life in France. Le Pen understands that and is able to speak the language of the people who feel threatened. As in so many things in France, this is a matter of language. He could speak to the voters in a way that the jargon-filled speeches of many of the other candidates who talked about European construction and the Euro and things that are really abstract. He spoke about their everyday frustrations. You heard in that piece that you just played, really something almost approached poetry in political terms as he spoke to-- as he tried to assemble a coalition of the fearful.

MARGARET WARNER: How strong is the anti-EU, anti-globalization feeling, do you think, in France right now?

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: I think it is limited. After all, Jean-Marie Le Pen only had 17% of the vote. And overall, the left, which used to be a very anti-European has been European and most of the conservative - various conservative parties are pro-European. So it is very much across the board. I don't think there is no risk that France will turn its back to Europe. There is absolutely no risk.

MARGARET WARNER: No risk?

JIM HOAGLAND: I think in the terms that Jacqueline has described it, that's true. But I think you also have to look at some broader factors here. This definitely does add to the legitimacy, if you will, of the neo-Fascist movement in Europe. Le Pen, unlike neo-Fascists interests in Italy and in Austria, will not have a supporting role in the government when this is over. He will be defeated and defeated badly by Jacques Chirac, but he has pushed the bar up higher in terms of allowing a certain level of participation and voter satisfaction with programs that are frankly racist and neo-Fascist. That's a danger -- not so much for French policy. Jacqueline is right there, but for European politics as a whole.

MARGARET WARNER: Should Americans be alarmed by this? This happened not only in France but we have seen it in Austria and Italy, the Netherlands, elsewhere in Europe this, kind of very far right party, some would say neo-Fascist parties.

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: There are various elements to that. One is that five years ago 13 out of the 15 European governments were socialists. Europe was picked basically. And now like in any trend in history, you know, it comes to an end and there is a change in the government. Australia has changed. Italy has changed, Portugal has changed; Denmark has changed. Now we have this turn in France. We'll see actually, we will see whatever the vote is because it may be an irony that the vote from yesterday may bring back a socialist majority in the parliament and we will be back to square one with cohabitation again. So it is not absolutely sure that this is going to turn the way people expect it. But then have you the Dutch elections and you have the German elections. Overall, I would say Europe is going to be two years from now, three years from now, probably more conservative than it was three years ago.

MARGARET WARNER: Implications for the United States?

JIM HOAGLAND: I think there are implications for politics throughout the world. I think we are entering a period that the French first round of the presidential election reflects very accurately. And it is a period of confrontation, of polarization and political attitudes. Part of it comes out of September 11. The terrorist attacks on the United States, the American reaction to those, the fact you've had such violence in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians -- it's creating, I think, a mood among voters of insecurity, almost of trauma in international politics. And I think you see some of that in these results and you'll see it in other results as the year goes along.

MARGARET WARNER: And is there some anti-Americanism in this?

JIM HOAGLAND: I didn't see any specific American role in Le Pen's showing. Le Pen is considered, I think, in many places, as was referred to in your introductory piece, he is remembered for having referred to the Holocaust as a detail of history. He is considered to be anti-Semitic in classical terms. In fact, he appealed to Jewish voters in this by play on their fears of Arabs. I didn't pick up in the campaign anything above the normal level, fascination with, jealousy of things American by the French.

MARGARET WARNER: And Jacqueline Grapin also there is definitely an anti-globalization thread here, a sort of resentment of this new world economic order, of which the United States is certainly a major proponent.

JACQUELINE GRAPIN: There is an entire globalization movement in France but it is mostly a movement from the left rather than from the right. This Le Pen movement comes from, as Jim said, this feeling of insecurity, not coming only from terrorism, but also from local, immediate very simple crime in villages and cities -- more than globalization. Globalization plays an important in the division of the left where have you those people that feel that reforms don't go fast enough and those people who think they go too fast. So that is a factor that explains why there were so many candidates on the left.

MARGARET WARNER: Final question, Jim Hoagland, would you say this is also a message to the two main parties that they need some fresher faces? This was a rerun of the election much '95.

JIM HOAGLAND: That's right. The French like to get to know their politicians before they vote for them. Chirac won the presidency on his third time, Francois Mitterrand did that before, Le Pen now is running I guess for the fourth time. So there is a certain known factor that they like but I think it has been overdone in France now. It was very much as if Jimmy Carter was running against Lyndon Johnson in this campaign with Chirac, a lovable rogue being the Lyndon Johnson and Jospin being Jimmy Carter. Le Pen turned out to be George Wallace with a lot more appeal than Wallace ever had.

MARGARET WARNER: Thank you both very much.

FOCUS - SHARED SORROWS

JIM LEHRER: Now, making connections between two horrific acts of terrorism in this country. Betty Ann Bowser reports from Oklahoma City.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Every year on the anniversary are of the Oklahoma City bombing, people come together to remember. But this year it was more than just another anniversary.

LINDA LAMPERT, Oklahoma National Memorial Foundation: For us in Oklahoma City, it has been seven years. But for others, it has just been seven months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the downed flight in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We offer our hearts, and we share our experience.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Cynthia McDay and Constance Favorite both know the pain of losing a child. Favorite's only daughter, Lakesha Levy, died seven years ago in the bombing. She is remembered with one of the 168 chairs at the Oklahoma City National Memorial. McDay lost her only daughter, Tonyel, on September 11 in the World Trade Center. Favorite went to New York City to work with World Trade Center families after the 9/11 attacks. She was introduced to McDay by a mutual friend. Since then, they have talked almost every day.

CYNTHIA McDAY, Mother of WTC Victim: What it is is love that is fortified in the midst of pain.

WOMAN: Mm-hmm.

CYNTHIA McDAY: We have shared pain. But then to be able to share love and to be empathetic and to show someone I care. I'll be here for you. That's so unique.

WOMAN: That's right. Oh, yeah.

CYNTHIA McDAY: That's so unique. I've spoke with others that I just met, you know, in a hug, and, "I'm here for you." I don't even know them, but they're here for me and they're...

WOMAN: That's the good thing.

CYNTHIA McDAY: That's so... you know, that's what you need. You need support. You need someone to tell you that. You need someone to show you that. And it's been a blessing. It has been a blessing to receive that. And we understand experience here.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: There were others with that shared experience: Firefighters from New York who had been rescue workers in Oklahoma City and rescue workers at ground zero.

WOMAN: Ashley Meagan Eckels. Catherine Louise Cregan.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Kathleen Treanor was also an Oklahomans who went to New York after 9/11 to comfort grieving families. She lost her daughter, Ashley, and her husband's parents in the bombing. Treanor says she understood what people were feeling when they went to see ground zero for the first time, so she went with them.

KATHLEEN TREANOR, Mother of Oklahoma City Victim: There was one lady in particular that said, you know, "I think I'm going crazy." And I said, "Well let me guess. Everywhere you look, every voice you hear, every car you see, you see your husband. And you stop, you try to chase them down, and then you realize it's not him. And it's gut wrenching because it's not, and you fully expect it to be him and every time you turn around and it's not." And she looked at me and she said, "oh, my God, I'm doing that." And I said, "Well, I know you're doing that because I still do it to this day."

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The shared experience of 9/11 has also brought controversy back into the lives of people like Treanor, victims of terrorism, but trying to move on with life. She's just finished writing a book about her experiences after the bombing. She and husband Mike also have a daughter, Cassidy, now three. Some of the victims of the 9/11 terrorism will get hundreds of thousands of dollars from the federal government in compensation because of legislation passed to discourage families from suing the airlines involved.

KATHLEEN TREANOR: Congress enacted this Victims Compensation Act, which I think was a very kind thing for them to do, but they specifically excluded the families of Oklahoma. What that said to me was that the families of Oklahoma are not worth as much as the families of New York and Washington, DC.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Treanor and other bombing victims are about to launch a national campaign to put pressure on Congress to do something to compensate them for their losses. Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating supports their effort.

GOV. FRANK KEATING, Oklahoma: In Oklahoma City, these people got nothing, not a cent. And for some of them to really be in agony financially, having taken, you know, a terrible financial hit, lost a lot of momentum in their lives in addition to family members. If something can be done for them, I think that's equitable and fair.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Not only are some Oklahoma City families angry about the compensation package, many are also upset with Washington for constructing a new federal building just two blocks from the place where their friends and relatives died. When it's finished, it will look out onto the reflecting pool of the memorial and the 168 chairs. Most of the hundreds of federal government employees who survived the bombing have been told they will have to work in the new building. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will be the largest tenant in the new building, with 110 employees. Fifty-five of them were working on the seventh and eighth floors of the Murrah Building when the bomb went off, and many of them have protested the location and design of the building. HUD supervisor Calvin Moser lost 35 co-workers in the bombing. Like many HUD employees who survived, Moser thinks having to look out his office window every day and see the memorial will be too painful.

CALVIN MOSER, Oklahoma City Bombing Survivor: I really don't feel like it's proper as long as there are employees that will be employed in our office that survived this bombing to retraumatize those folks, to require that they go into that building and work. I don't see how they can. There's some people that may be able to perform. I don't think there will be anybody that will be able to perform at their 100% quality because of the trauma.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: How about you? Will you be able to perform?

CALVIN MOSER: It will be difficult.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk Humphreys has been caught in the crossfire of the controversy. For nearly seven years, downtown has been an economic wasteland. Under Humphreys' tenure, new construction is taking place. But the mayor says a new federal building isn't just about economic development.

MAYOR KIRK HUMPHREYS, Oklahoma City: I think the location is appropriate. I know that's controversial to some, but I think it's important that we do make the statement that terrorists are not going to deter us from living and going on with our lives. I'll tell you what. We're at war now, and we're at war against people fighting it trying to invoke fear in us. And we can't just leave barren every place they attack. That's what they want.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Economic recovery in Oklahoma City is under way. Thousands of visitors come downtown to the national memorial each year. Human recovery is not so easily measured, but for now, there is a shared experience that helps ease the pain.

CONVERSATION

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, a conversation about a new book, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: The book is "Lincoln's Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural." The author is Ronald White, Dean and Professor of American Religious History at San Francisco Theological Seminary. Just to refresh your memory, the setting is the U.S. Capital, March 4, 1865. After four bloody years, the Civil War is coming to an end. Abraham Lincoln, the war President, is looking forward to being a President of peace and to reintegrate the country. Why don't we begin by hearing a little bit of what you call Lincoln's Greatest Speech?

RONALD WHITE: Let's read the last paragraph. "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and to cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

RAY SUAREZ: Now, when you're standing at the foot of Daniel Chester French's monumental sculpture of Lincoln and the Lincoln Memorial, if you look to your left there is what might be considered Lincoln's best known speech, the Gettysburg Address, and on the right, in the walls of the monument are what you just read. Why do you consider it his greatest speech?

RONALD WHITE: Well, Lincoln thought it was his greatest speech. Lee received a congratulatory letter, and 11 days after his speech he replied, "I believe it's my best effort." But then he added these words, "but it's not immediately popular." I think it's his best effort because I think it sums up for him what was the meaning of the Civil War. He brings surprisingly for many to the speech some theological as well as political thinking, and casts it in religious language that makes it quite singular and unique. And then the words that we just read I think call out the best of us to move beyond division and bloodshed to compassion and reconciliation. This is Lincoln at his best.

RAY SUAREZ: You use the text of the speech almost to give us an intellectual biography of Abraham Lincoln, sort of taking it paragraph by paragraph, and walking us through the text. Did you get any surprises out of the activity of pulling it apart yourself?

RONALD WHITE: Well, I did. I... C.S. Lewis once said, "That which separates ourselves from previous generations is rhetoric." And Lincoln... we don't use the word rhetoric, but Lincoln was an artist with words. And I found myself amazed at his ability to construct, to put together words, words of many levels of meaning.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, that's the funny thing about an inaugural. I mean, you're standing there in usually crummy weather, or often crummy weather, and in this case it was a very bad day.

RONALD WHITE: Yes.

RAY SUAREZ: And this was before satellites and microphones and loud speakers. Most people would have read this speech rather than heard it, wouldn't you?

RONALD WHITE: They would have read it, but I argue that Lincoln wrote for the ear whereas most people today write for the eye. He always read out loud to the consternation of his law partner, Willie Herndon. And I suggest that he understood the meaning and the sound of words, and therefore the various devices that he uses-- for example, alliteration, where you repeat the sound of a consonant over and over again-- brings real symmetry to his speech.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you have an example of that?

RONALD WHITE: I do. In the second paragraph he says, "While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted all together to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it, seeking todissolve the union, to divide effects by negotiation, both parties deprecated war. Eight times he uses the consonant "D." And then towards the end he says, "Fervently do we pray, fondly do we hope"-- again, the use of alliteration. He was fond of that. He did it in the first inaugural, also.

RAY SUAREZ: So poetry, lovely, evocative language, but something of a tipping of his hand to show his mind at the end the war looking forward to reconstruction.

RONALD WHITE: Yes, I struggled to find what are the antecedents of this speech. Most of his other speeches you can find them in previous public speeches. But I suggest that the antecedents here are in letters to individuals, interviews, and then in an unknown meditation he wrote for himself-- it was only found after his death-- where he really does reveal himself, more of his emotion and his spirit than he usually did in his speeches.

RAY SUAREZ: Did he understand or did he write this thinking that this was an important summing up, a pivotal moment in the life of the country and his life as President, so that he needed to sort of distill a lot of these ideas into one declaration?

RONALD WHITE: I believe he did, but we would make a mistake, and it's understandable, if we see this only as at the end of his life. In 41 days he was dead. I believe this was the platform for the next four years. And gamblers in the street were betting he would be elected for yet another four years. So this was his hope and vision for the future, although that future was never fulfilled by himself.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, you do spend some time in the book speculating on what a second Lincoln Administration would have meant to, for instance, the work of reconstruction, the work of national reconciliation. How do you think it would have been different?

RONALD WHITE: Well, Lincoln had a wonderful capacity to understand the best intentions of those with whom we disagree. In this case, it was the South. So this speech is already tipping his hands to giving them their best due. And I believe if there's one word that would describe Lincoln, it would be magnanimous. He wanted to reach out to those who had been, so to speak, our enemies. Now, not taking anything away from how difficult this might have been, but yet I think he had a sense of how the nation could come together in reconciliation.

RAY SUAREZ: A lot has been written speculatively about Lincoln's religious life. A lot of attention paid to the fact that he wasn't regularly churched, not brought up within the walls of a particular denomination. But you place him squarely in a denomination, under the influence of specific preachers and teachers of the time. This is a real departure from what previous people have written about Lincoln's religious life.

RONALD WHITE: It is. And I did not start there, but as I sought again to ask the question, "what are the antecedents, what are the sources for this speech?" I came especially to discover that the minister here at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, Phineas Densmore Gurley, was a forgotten resource. And I was able to place Lincoln at several of Gurley's sermons where we have the complete text of the sermon, and ask, what was he preaching? And I'm suggesting that Lincoln's gravitation to the meaning of providence, we can see much of this in the preaching that Lincoln heard.

RAY SUAREZ: And really it's less of a mystery what his mind was religiously...

RONALD WHITE: It's less of a mysterious. I have... when I teach at UCLA, my students would say I'm spiritual but not religious. Well, perhaps Lincoln was theological but not religious. For whatever reasons, he did not identify himself as a member of a denomination, but he did attend two Presbyterian churches where he heard a rather consistent, thoughtful approach to the theme of providence.

RAY SUAREZ: Now here's this speech that you've written this wonderful illumination on, hung a great deal of importance, a great deal of store by and to deliver it took how long?

RONALD WHITE: It took six to seven minutes. Lincoln spoke very slowly, 105 to 110 words per minute.

RAY SUAREZ: Yet he gets a lot of work done.

RONALD WHITE: Some people have said to me, well, I guess we have a new plug for shorter speeches.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, inaugurals are more like an hour.

RONALD WHITE: Traditionally long. Lincoln's first inaugural was 35 minutes.

RAY SUAREZ: What would you want people to keep in mind when they revisit this? Because probably people will start figuring out at home if they've got a copy. What do you want them to pay attention to?

RONALD WHITE: Well, first I suggest they read it or say it out loud, to listen to the words -- then to see the speech whole. You asked me and I was glad to comply to read the last paragraph. That's usually the only words that are printed in the American history textbook. But Lincoln saw this speech whole. And I suggest the last paragraph has an unvoiced sort of "therefore"-- "this is what we therefore are to do." But if we don't understand the indicative, the first three paragraphs, we will not be able to appreciate the imperative, what we are to do. And then just linger over the beauty of these words. Let those words kind of percolate in our spirits.

RAY SUAREZ: "Lincoln's Greatest Speech." Ronald white, thanks a lot.

RONALD WHITE: Thank you.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day: The man accused of conspiring with the September 11 hijackers demanded today to fire his lawyers. Zacarias Moussaoui charged they were part of a plot to execute him. And in Pakistan, four suspects went on trial for the kidnapping and murder of "Wall Street Journal" reporter Daniel Pearl. We'll see you on-line, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.