The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, the revolution in Yugoslavia, we have reports from Belgrade, plus action from U.S. officials Lawrence Eagleburger, Wesley Clark, and Warren Zimmerman. Then, with excerpts, Mark Shields and Paul Gigot look at the vice presidential debate. And Betty Ann Bowser reports on the struggle over cleaner water. It all follows our summary of this news this Friday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Yugoslav President Milosevic conceded defeat today. He appeared on television and congratulated the man who beat him: Opposition leader Vojislav Kostunica. Mr. Milosevic said he planned to rest then return to politics. In Washington, President Clinton had already rejected that idea in part because Milosevic is an indicted war criminal.

PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think it would be a terrible mistake for him to remain active in the political life of the country. That is not what the people voted for. And I believe that we cannot ignore the action of the War Crimes Tribunal. I think we have to continue to support it. We have to deal with all the possible permutations in the days ahead, and we'll work with our allies as closely as we can to see what the right thing to do is.

JIM LEHRER: Also, in Belgrade today, Yugoslavia's highest court and the army's top general formally endorsed Kostunica's election victory. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. Palestinians and Israeli security forces fought each other again today. The conflicts were across the West Bank and Gaza, and in the old city of Jerusalem. We have a report from John Irvine of Independent Television News.

JOHN IRVINE: It began with stone throwing from the ancient walls. At first the Israelis kept their distance, trying to minimize confrontation. But eventually they went inside the old city. ( Shouting ) ( gun shot ) Running battles were fought in the alleyways that make up this historic place. ( Gun shot ) The Israeli soldiers appear to have been using more restraint today, firing muzzle-loaded rubber bullets. But from close range, such weapons can still be deadly. Jerusalem and who controls it is at the center of the conflict. For a time today the Palestinian flag flew, a direct challenge to Israeli sovereignty. There has been trouble elsewhere, but it's the fighting in the holy city that is of most significance. Today this was the Via Della Rosa, the path it's said Christ walked to his crucifixion. It is also called the Way of Sorrows.

JIM LEHRER: Nine Palestinians were killed in today's fighting, raising the death toll to 77 in nine days of violence. The two major vice presidential candidates returned to campaigning today, and each claimed victory in last night's debate. Republican Dick Cheney said he thought he had a very good night. In Shreveport, Louisiana, he said the face-off helped show that Democrats favor big government, while Republicans want to give Americans more choices.

DICK CHENEY: We tried to make the point last night and the governor and I will do this over and over again for the rest of this campaign, that there is a basic fundamental choice we're going to make as a nation on November 7. These are not minor differences. These are not sort of fuzzed up politics as usual. You can't tell one crowd from the other. The fact of the matter is that for eight years, the Clinton-Gore administration has not delivered on basic fundamental responsibilities of the President and the Vice President of the United States. They have failed.

JIM LEHRER: On the Democratic side, Senator Joe Lieberman joined Vice President Gore for a midday rally with senior citizens in Orlando, Florida. He said he liked the tone of the debate because it stuck to the issues. And he said when that happens, the Democratic ticket wins.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Al and I have said from the beginning we're taking a pledge, we're not going to involve ourselves in negative personal attacks. That's not what this campaign ought to be about. Right? And by and large, unlike before from our opponents, that's what the debate was about last night. And when we debate the issues, I think the American people see the difference.

JIM LEHRER: We'll have more on last night's debate later in the program tonight. The presidential candidates criticized each other today on Social Security and drug abuse. Vice President Gore again charged that Governor Bush would bankrupt Social Security with his plan to privatize part of the system. Bush was in Iowa and Illinois. He said teenage drug abuse had been neglected for eight years. And he unveiled a $2.7 billion plan to attack the problem. Unemployment fell to 3.9% last month, the Labor Department reported today. It equaled a 30-year low reached back in April. And the rate among blacks reached an all-time low of 7%. Congress today approved a $58 billion bill highway and mass transit bill. A provision requires states to adopt a blood-alcohol limit of .08%, to determine when a driver is drunk. Currently 18 states use that limit. The others must comply by 2004 or risk losing some of their federal highway funding. President Clinton is expected to sign the bill. That's it for the news summary tonight, now it's on to, the fall of Milosevic, Shields and Gigot, and cleaning up the water.

FOCUS - THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

JIM LEHRER: The drama in Yugoslavia, we begin with a report from John Draper of Independent Television News.

JOHN DRAPER: After the turbulence of the past 24 hours, solemnity descended on the square of the parliament building as Vojislav Kostunica received a blessing from as president-elect from the Serb orthodox church. In recognizing that Mr. Kostunica was the true winner of the elections, the church seriously undermined Slobodan Milosevic and helped bring about his downfall. Today he was seen from the first time since the uprising at a secret location in Serbia. He was meeting the Russian foreign minister who is here to try and broker a deal between Milosevic and the new government, though many Serbs would like to see Mr. Milosevic behind bars. Overnight the street parties continued as the Serb people proclaimed Mr. Kostunica the legitimate president. They devoured special editions of the newspapers. The papers were rushed out to the streets with news of what the people had achieved in such a remarkably short space of time. Mr. Kostunica made a triumphant late night address to his supporters telling them that they had liberated their country. The celebrations continued into early morning. Again it was the federal parliament building stormed by the crowds yesterday where they gathered. With no visible presence by the police and security forces, the streets of Belgrade belonged to the opposition. Some of them bore the trophies surrendered by the police who simply bent to the popular will. And among the debris, the discovery of what appeared to be rigged ballot papers. Hundreds of sheets of paper brought out of the parliament building had the official electoral seal and all casting votes in favor of Slobodan Milosevic. But amid the euphoria, there was the reality of the need to clear up after such a momentous 24 hours. The smoldering remains of the TV station was evidence of the fierce battle between police and demonstrators. The protesters vented their anger at a TV service which, for 13 years, was the mouth piece of Slobodan Milosevic.

JIM LEHRER: Lehrer: Now how it looks on the ground from Steven Erlanger of the "New York Times." He talked earlier today, by phone from Belgrade, with Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Steven Erlanger, welcome back to the program.

STEVEN ERLANGER: Thank you.

RAY SUAREZ: In the last couple of hours, word has come from Belgrade that Vojislav Kostunica has met with Slobodan Milosevic and the head of the army. What can you tell us?

STEVEN ERLANGER: That appears to be true. There is film of that meeting. Mr. Milosevic has clearly decided, faced with a revolution, that he has got to at least concede the election of the presidency to Mr. Kostunica. The constitutional court which, according to the news agency, before the revolution announced that the party election was going to be annulled, today announced that in fact, no, that wasn't true and Mr. Kostunica was indeed the winner. So clearly Slobodan Milosevic has decided he will concede on this point and try to reserve some sort of political life for himself as head of the socialist party of Serbia. At least, that's what he told the Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov today.

RAY SUAREZ: What was the significance of the visit of Igor Ivanov to Belgrade?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, first of all, I mean, it allows the Russians to try to salvage not a very clever diplomatic game before this revolution. The West isn't pushing Russia to help resolve this situation, but President Putin refused until today, really, to recognize Mr. Kostunica's victory. Mr. Ivanov came, asked, I think by the West, to help figure out what Milosevic wants and whether he can be pushed to leave. So if Mr. Ivanov came recognizing Mr. Kostunica's victory in the election, but not necessarily as president, then met with Mr. Milosevic and emerged to say that Mr. Milosevic wants to continue political life here. That seems a sort of odd unreality, given what's happened, but then that's where we are tonight.

RAY SUAREZ: And tell us what it's like on the streets of Belgrade.

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, it's very chaotic and very happy. You may be able to hear horns blowing behind me. It's become a kind of nightly party after a day-long party. People really are all over the place. Nobody is working. There is no police to be seen, frankly. Earlier during the day, people were wandering around looking at the results of the destruction of yesterday, the burned parliament building, the burned television station, and kind of looking at these instruments of power with a bit of shock almost, that they couldn't quite believe that they had accomplished what they'd done, but there is still an undercurrent of unease that Slobodan Milosevic will pull something else out of the hat, as he seems to be trying to do to preserve a political life for himself here, and so no one thinks this is finished.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, in the face of Slobodan Milosevic trying to figure out what's next for him, has this new Kostunica-led government started to act and look more like a government?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, you know, it's trying to constitute itself. I mean, understand the opposition won local cities, which it is beginning to rule, and it won a large number of seats in the federal parliament and it's now won the presidency. The presidency by itself is a fairly powerless office. So they're trying to constitute the federal parliament with difficulty because of Montenegro's boycott of the election. The majority in parliament is held by Mr. Milosevic's Montenegran allies. Now those Montenegran allies may decide to side with Mr. Kostunica and the opposition, which is what they hope, so they can form a majority in the central parliament, or they may stick with Milosevic, which would seem odd, but is possible.

RAY SUAREZ: Do you think the chaos that you've mentioned on the streets will start to calm down of its own accord? Will the bakeries have bread tomorrow? Will bus drivers be behind the wheel and people delivering the mail?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, some of that's already happening. The garbage men were out today. There's still a t of garbage. They've been on strike, but they've begun to sort of clear stuff ay. The firemen were certain working. Some things remain on strike, including the at mine at Haluvorah. I mean, it's just this feeling that it's not quite fished yet with Mr. Milosevic hanging on, and yet as a legalist, Mr. Kostunica is faced with a difficult choice. You know, I mean Milosevic is the head still of the largest single party in Serbia, and unless he decides to arrest him, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to play some sort of political role, even if he can't walk down the streets in safety.

RAY SUAREZ: And when you head back out on to the streets you'll find still a continuing party atmosphere, or is there a little bit of edge to this that still makes it scary, especially now that it's nighttime there?

STEVEN ERLANGER: Well, you know, people were very nervous last night because there was this fear that the army would somehow crack down, or the police, as people got very tired. Those fears disappeared with the dawn. The army made it clear it was staying in the barracks; that it would not act unless someone tacked the army. The police in Belgrade certainly had gone over to the opposition, and Serbia belongs

the opposition.

RAY SUAREZ: Steven Erlanger, thanks for joining us again.

STEVEN ERLANGER: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: It was after that interview was recorded this afternoon that President Milosevic actually went on television to concede defeat and to congratulate the winner.

Now, three perspectives on what's happened: Lawrence Eagleburger, was Secretary of State in the Bush administration. He also served as Ambassador to Yugoslavia in the 1970's. Retired Army General Wesley Clark, was NATO Supreme Allied Commander during the Kosovo bombing war, and Warren Zimmermann was the last U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia; he's author of a book about Yugoslavia's breakup called "Origins of a Catastrophe."

Secretary Eagleburger, is he finished?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Yeah, I think so. He may play some games. He may try to do some things, but yes, I think he's finished in terms of being able to run Serbia. He may be around for a while, which could cause some problems, but he's finished.

JIM LEHRER: Does it surprise you that he would in fact concede defeat?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: To a degree, yes. And I'll tell you why. Until today, I thought he would be very careful to find some place to go. He is, after all, an indicted war criminal. You heard President Clinton talk about that.

JIM LEHRER: So where could he go?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Well, I had thought Russia, Azerbaijan, you name it, Moldova, someplace. Maybe he has cut a deal that we don't know about, but I'm really a little bit surprised by this -- that apparently he has decided that things were so bad that he had to give up the office, even though he may not have any guarantee about his future. And if I were he, I would be very worried about the fact that six months from now the administration in Serbia may decide they want to turn him over. I don't care if they promise him today that they won't. He won't ever be able to leave Serbia without somebody wanting to pinch him. And so I think either he has cut some sort of a deal or he is just taking his chances.

JIM LEHRER: General Clark, had you a lot of dealings with Milosevic; how do you read what he has done and what he may have on his planning book at this point?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I say it's a strategic withdrawal, but he still would hope to be able to - to use a military analogy - counterattack at the appropriate time. I think the intervention of the Russians was important today. They not only persuaded Milosevic to go ahead and concede defeat apparently - but attempted to some way preserve his legitimacy in political life there. At least, that's the way it appears from the outside. And so I think Milosevic believes that he has some way to exercise some influence as head of the Socialist Party there, which is really the old Communist Party. Now one of the things that hasn't been receiving much attention is the fact that when we pressured Milosevic to privatize the economy in 1996, he essentially gave it away to his 200 closest friends and family members, and those people are still out there; so the new President will have to worry about not only taking over the government but what is going to happen with the economy. We're receiving reports already of people fleeing Yugoslavia with suitcases of dirty money, and if financial sanctions are lifted on Monday, that will all be done electronically; what little wealth remains in Yugoslavia could easily disappear.

JIM LEHRER: And those people...

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: There's always some challenges.

JIM LEHRER: Lehrer: Those people with the suitcases are supporters of Milosevic?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: I would assume they would be.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Ambassador Zimmerman, how do you interpret what Milosevic did? How do you interpret the fact that he conceded defeat today?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: I think it was the best option from his point of view that he could have used, Jim. He wouldn't be received abroad -- at least it would be dangerous if he went abroad that he would be turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal. So I think he decided to stay in Serbia to play the political game, the game of democracy. And that is bad news for Kostunica and for the future of democracy in Serbia, because Milosevic still has -- as Secretary Eagleburger and General Clark have said -- he still has a constituency of sorts in Serbia. A lot of people voted for him. He has at least a nominal majority in the parliament. We're not quite sure about the loyalties of the army and of the police. He may feel that he can play the democratic game in order to get back to power, then close off democracy again. He is a natural born dictator. He has no understanding and no commitment to democracy.

JIM LEHRER: What do you base that on?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: The whole history of the man. Ever since he was in law school, Belgrade University, he was an authoritarian. He is a man who wants power. He is a man who has defined himself by power - to get power and to hold power. And the difficulty he had in giving it up I think is a testament to his desire to hold on to it. He had to give it up in the end because I think he was told by the Russians, probably by the army, that he had to. But the fact he's prepared to fight on in a democratic mode is bad news.

JIM LEHRER: Bad news?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: I'm note sure of that because I think we missed one factor here. I think the vision of Ceaucescu and Mrs. Ceaucescu in Romania where the mobs dragged 'em out and shot 'em probably had to have some impact on Milosevic. And I think one of the critical factors in the last few days was, in fact, the thousands of people that got out in the streets and stayed there. So, I think that -- if anything told Milosevic it was time he leave, I think that, more than anything else, did, that plus the more or less neutrality of the police and the unwillingness of the army to act. Now he may or may not stay around. I think - I think it's at least questionable whether, when this all settles down he is able to carry on much political activity. But maybe he does -- but if he does, so what? The real problem Kostunica has, the new President has, and anybody who follows is that Milosevic has left the Serbian economy in such a shambles, that under the very best ofcircumstances everybody is going to pay a terrible price for a long time to try to rebuild that economy. And that can make it tough for the new President. And maybe Milosevic can play on that. But I'm inclined to think that he probably had it.

JIM LEHRER: General Clark, does the U.S. and the West have a responsibility to help the opposition put the country back together economically?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I think that there will be many, many offers to help do that. And I would hope that we would see immediately various missions going in from organizations like the European Union or contact group member nations to help survey what is actually happening in that economy. We need to go in and look at the finance ministry, look at the industries, see really where the ownership is, where the money is, where the products are, because as long as Milosevic is there with his own power structure in the SPS he is going to be draining those resources. I'm very concerned that we put western help in there as rapidly as possible, and in so doing will not only help the economy, but will limit the mischief making that Milosevic is capable of.

JIM LEHRER: But, General, what do you say to those who say wait a minute, the West ought to stay back a little bit because the Yugoslavians, the only people they like less than Milosevic may be the Americans, or the other way around.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think that these are matters that the diplomats can resolve. And obviously no one is going to go in there unless they're invited in. But I think Mr. Kostunica is going to be anxious to receive assistance and recognition in the West.

JIM LEHRER: Let me ask Ambassador Zimmerman, what can you tell us about the opposition and its ability to take this country now, in as bad shape that it's in, and make it whole?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: Well, they're very well prepared. They're almost all intellectuals. Most of them have academic backgrounds. Almost none of them has run anything.

JIM LEHRER: Have they not been in past governments?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: Not at all. Zero. So it's going to be very hard for them. And plus the economic problems, plus the problem of corruption, plus the fact that Serbia is a total economic basket case. They're going to have a lot of problems, and they're going to need a lot of help. And I would go even farther than General Clark and say not only should we move in with massive assistance and early assistance, it has to be very visible because there is euphoria on the streets of Belgrade now. That's not going to last forever.

JIM LEHRER: You don't think -

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: People are going to start blaming Kostunica for a bad situation that he inherited from Milosevic.

JIM LEHRER: Lehrer: Do you think the people from Serbia will accept help from the United States -

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: I have no doubt at all, no doubt at all.

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Let me just say, Jim, they will accept help from the United States, believe me. That is not an issue. The issue to some degree on our part, I think, has to be I hope that our Western European friends and allies have finally come to the conclusion that Yugoslavia is in Europe, and that therefore the fundamental responsibilities for providing assistance, not that we shouldn't provide assistance, but that the fundamental responsibilities ought to rest with our West European friends who for too long thought of Yugoslavia as our responsibility not theirs.

JIM LEHRER: General Clark, Ambassador Zimmermann used the term "basket case" you spoke in economic terms. Give us a feel for what that means. How bad is the economic situation in specific terms?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, the per capita income is probably 10% of what it was a decade ago. It's gone down dramatically. There's high inflation. People have used up their life savings and their meager resources just to stay alive there. The key state industries have been maintained. There is still a functioning health system to some degree. Apparently the electric power industry was put back in some kind of shape after the bombing. There is still a communications industry there. But all of these functions have been controlled by Milosevic and his cronies. He has also controlled the police and regulated the black market economy that's been supporting so many of the activities there. So he's got lots of funds. And at every level there will be problems trying to put a normal economy together. People have got to learn how to do normal commerce. They've got to not cheat. They've got to not use bribes. This is a long-term process to correct the deformation of the economy, which Milosevic has caused; and it's one of the reasons why one of the first orders of business has to be to get a grip on what the actual situation is there. Now, Jim, if I could just say another thing that hasn't been discussed yet, is the role of the armed forces. General Pavkovic was appointed for his political loyalty.

JIM LEHRER: Now he's the head of the army, right?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: That's right. And he has congratulated the President as the new commander and chief of the armed forces. But he is related by marriage to Milosevic's wife, and he was appointed for purposes of loyalty. This is a Communist Party system in which the armed forces are politicized....

JIM LEHRER: Is he a professional... would you consider him a professional army man.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: He came up through the ranks but he got his real boost and sudden acceleration and promotions due to politics.

JIM LEHRER: Okay.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: This is a danker to democracy.

JIM LEHRER: A danger, do you agree, Ambassador Zimmermann -

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: Absolutely.

JIM LEHRER: -- that die has not yet been cast?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: Has not been cast. The army is funny because the top generals are all Milosevic appointees and may or may not be loyal to him. We don't know yet. But the enlisted men are draftees; they're a part of Yugoslavia, they're members of the Yugoslav population. They're Yugoslav people, and presumably they have the same feelings as the Yugoslav population in general. So, the army is a real question mark. And I think you can't forget this special police force that Milosevic created - sixty or seventy or eighty thousand people very well armed who are loyal and have been loyal to him.

JIM LEHRER: And they're still functioning, right, as far as we know?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: They're still functioning as far as we know. Where are they going to turn?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: Jim, I am both more optimistic and more pessimistic, I think, than the other two gentlemen here. First of all I think Kostunica's biggest single problem is the economy. And I think Ambassador Zimmermann is right. He can be blamed here six months from now when things have not turned well. So I think that's a big problem. I am inclined to believe that Milosevic is now, and I hope I'm right, much less of a problem than I think the General and Ambassador seem to indicate. Yes the military is a bit of a problem, but I really do think that what's happened in the course of the last week has demonstrated such an antagonism toward Milosevic-and bythe way that's a real turnaround. We should never forget that for a very long time Milosevic was the most popular politician in Serbia.

JIM LEHRER: As reflected in votes?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: In votes and the way he was embraced by the people and he could not have continued on in those early years, particularly, if it weren't that he was popular. You were there, Ambassador and I have been there off and on. The liking for -- the love in some cases of the hard-line nationalist Serbs for Milosevic was great. Serbian nationalism is going to be another problem. Kostunica is himself, I think, something of a Serb nationalist. He is not going to roll over and play dead for all of the outside influences that are going to try to talk to him about how Serbia needs to deal with Kosovo, et cetera. Those are all going to continue to be problems. In that sense, I think the new administration has problems. I am inclined to believe that Milosevic himself is less of a problem now and is not likely to be this - but and again - the General mentioned this, the cronies. They can be a very serious problem. Number one, a number of them are very unpleasant people who should be classified as war criminals as well. They've gone around killing people for a very long time. Now how are they going to be dealt with by the new Serbian government, and how is the international community going to deal with the fact that these people are running around Yugoslavia with blood on their hands? Milosevic's biggest single problem I think, is the question of whether somebody insist he be tried as a war criminal and somebody gets him one way or the other and takes him off to the Hague.

JIM LEHRER: Before we go, beginning with you, General Clark, and I realize you're an interested witness here, but should the American people say hey, look, this is a good result from the NATO bombing?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, I think the NATO bombing contributed to this in an important way because it brought home to the Serb people the consequences of Milosevic and his leadership. It was the fourth war in a decade, and the chickens came home to roost there in Belgrade and elsewhere in scene. I think the bombing deepened the contradictions in the Serb society. Milosevic said he wanted to be a Democrat and yet he was more are repressive. He said he wanted to build the economy. He destroyed it and he said he wanted to create a greater Serbia and it was disintegrating around him. So I think the deepening of those contradictions hastened Milosevic's departure from power. In that sense, I think that the bombing served a purpose in that regard, even though that wasn't the intent of the bombing.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about that, Mr. Ambassador?

WARREN ZIMMERMANN: I agree. Milosevic fought four wars. The West prevented him from winning the Bosnian war in the way he wanted to and it certainly prevented him from winning the Kosovo war; it defeated him in Kosovo. General Clark, by the way, in my mind was the great hero of that war. Had Milosevic won all four of those wars, I'm not at all sure he would have lost this election. So I think it's actually -- the West played an enormously important role.

JIM LEHRER: Secretary Eagleburger?

LAWRENCE EAGLEBURGER: I look like the grump here tonight but I don't know that I think the bombing... well, in a way, it made a difference yes...in the sense that it did prevent Milosevic from winning in Kosovo. In that sense, yes, he didn't win and that I think has cost him something politically. In terms of bringing home to Milosevic, on the other hand, the lessons of that war, I'm not at all sure it did that. I do think, however, in the sense that he lost, it did make a difference. I think Milosevic might well have been in the same trouble today with or without the bombing assuming that the Kosovo things have gone against him.

JIM LEHRER: All right. We'll leave it there. Thank you all three very much.

FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, and cleaning up the water. Margaret Warner will talk to Mark and Paul.

MARGARET WARNER: And with me are syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot.

Mark, you just heard Jim's last question to his panel about what this said about the Kosovo bombing. Do you think that the developments in Yugoslavia are going to have any political bounce in this campaign?

MARK SHIELDS: For the administration, they were a exposure factor. There was a potential downside. I think that's obviously been neutralized. They can take some credit. I think General Clark and the kind words Ambassador Zimmermann had for him and his leadership supported John McCain and a lot of other Republicans, but it certainly did not turn out the way most severe critics did, that this was going to drive Milosevic into the arms of his people, make him an icon in there in perpetuity as a thorn for U.S. policy and NATO policy. So I think in that sense it was a neutral plus for Gore.

MARGARET WARNER: Paul.

PAUL GIGOT: I think it's a plus because it's good news it happened but George Bush supported the bombing, too.

MARK SHIELDS: He was not in the leadership role or exposed in the same way. John McCain was certainly.

PAUL GIGOT: He was in the Congress but Governor Bush did it. But I think it would have helped more if Al Gore hadn't made a mistake in the debate on Tuesday, and that was in slapping down George Bush when he brought up Russia as somebody who should intervene, we could turn to, to help us, to help move Milosevic out of power. Well, it turns out that President Clinton three weeks ago was writing to Putin in Russia saying can you intervene and talked to him on the phone just last Saturday in fact, testimony that came out in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. So as Dick Cheney was able to reply in the debate last night, Governor Bush was right, and that helps him I think on one issue of foreign policy and minimizes the advantage this has for Gore.

MARK SHIELDS: That's a little bit of a... I think it's a little bit of a reach but it's a reach. That's all right.

PAUL GIGOT: It's fact.

MARK SHIELDS: That's fine.

MARGARET WARNER: The Gore folks are saying, are they not, that Bush was missing the nuance here, which was that the Russians, as even Larry Eagleburger said, aren't being terribly helpful necessarily.

MARK SHIELDS: That's exactly right; that was the Gore response that the Russians were not being helpful and that's what the calls were about, and the idea that they were going to be our best buddies was perhaps a little naive.

MARGARET WARNER: Well, let's look a little more at last night's vice presidential debate. And we asked each of you to pick out a revealing moment. Mark, you picked one from Bernie Shaw's question about whether America's military had declined under the Clinton-Gore administration. Let's look at some excerpts from that and the exchange that followed.

DICK CHENEY: The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars and to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war inthe first place. I think that the administration has in fact in this area failed in a major responsibility. We've seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time, we've seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world, as troops have been sent hither and yon. So we're... we're over committed and we're under resourced.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: I want to assure the American people that the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most powerful force in the world, and that Al Gore and I will do whatever it takes to keep them that way. It's not right, and it's not good for our military to run them down, essentially, in the midst of a partisan political debate. The fact is that you've got to judge the military by what the military leaders say. And Secretary Bill Cohen, a good Republican, General Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both will tell you that the American military is ready to meet any threat we may face in the world today.

MARGARET WARNER: So what did you find so revealing about that?

MARK SHIELDS: I found revealing if a 22nd century graduate student in anthropology was trying to reconstruct American politics in the early 21st century, he would say weren't the Democrats the party that were sort of isolationists and soft on defense historically traditionally and the transformation. Joe Lieberman went on to boast that the Gore-Lieberman expenditures on defense would be twice as large an increase over those proposed by Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney. And Dick Cheney was in the position of sort of running down the U.S. military, which Democrats had in the past, and the rebuttal was don't bring that up. You know, stops at water's edge which of course had been the historical Republican response any time there was a suggestion that the American military was doing something it shouldn't do or foreign policy was not right, especially during Vietnam. And I just found the total role reversal rather remarkable.

PAUL GIGOT: This is an issue that Bush and Cheney love to have debated, particularly with a former defense secretary there. It's the one issue of all the issues when you look at who has the most credibility, Gore or Bush, this is one of George Bush's best issues. They also have the facts on their side. I mean, I looked at the budget numbers myself today and, you know, from '93 to '97 they were going down rapidly. And the reason they bumped up in the last couple of years is pressure from the Congress and Bill Clinton and Al Gore made a virtue of necessity. And now they're taking credit for some of the increases. But I don't think... I think if voters are given a choice, who is going to increase defense spending more, I think it's going to be the Republicans are going to win that issue.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let's look at one that Paul chose. It again went to Cheney first and it came at the end of the debate.

BERNARD SHAW: Have you noticed a contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent on positions and issues since he was nominated?

DICK CHENEY: I do have a couple of concerns where I liked the old Joe Lieberman better than I do the new Joe Lieberman. Let me see if I can put it in those terms. Joe established, I thought, an outstanding record in his work on this whole question of violence in the media and the kinds of materials that were being peddled to our children, and many of us on the Republican side admired him for that. My concern would be, frankly, that you haven't been as consistent as you had been in the past; that a lot of your good friends, like Bill Bennett and others of us who'd admired your firmness of purpose over the years, have felt that you're not quite the crusader for that cause that you once were.

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: Al Gore and I have felt for a long time, first as parents, and then only second as public officials, that we cannot let America's parents stand alone in this competition that they feel they're in with Hollywood to raise their own kids and give their kids the faith and the values that they want to give them. And I've been a consistent crusader on that behalf. Al Gore and I agree on most everything. We disagree on some things. And he said to me from the beginning, be yourself, that's why I chose you, don't change a single position you have. And I have not changed a single position since Al Gore nominated me to be his vice president.

MARGARET WARNER: So, Paul, what did you make of that.?

PAUL GIGOT: Well, I thought it was fascinating that he chose... Cheney invited to talk about any of the contradictions chose that one and I think in part he did because the Republicans understand that the Gore-Lieberman assault, if you will, the attack on Hollywood, was pretty smart politics, diminishes some of their deficit on the moral values questions. And they were trying to expose hypocrisy of this and also to compound that, get to the credibility issue, which is one of their... the issues they really want to drive, particularly after Tuesday's debate against Al Gore. And this was a way... he didn't do it against Al Gore. It would have been more effective if he had brought up Al Gore, but he did at least get it by indirection with Joe Lieberman.

MARGARET WARNER: Who do you think got the better of that exchange?

MARK SHIELDS: I'm not sure. I mean, I thought Lieberman was more vulnerable to the criticism but I thought he handled it very well. I thought there was a believability about him. It's interesting that that format, which the Bush people fought so strongly for, really mitigates against turning to your opponent and saying, let me tell you, you are a moral leper and ethical eunuch. Even Dick Cheney, who was far more fiery and combative today back on the trail in Shreveport where nobody is watching, last night I thought....

MARGARET WARNER: Except the faithful.

MARK SHIELDS: ...except the faithful and listening. And I just thought in that sense that Joe Lieberman walked away unmarked and unscarred.

MARGARET WARNER: But it clearly was a deliberate strategy on both their parts not to be confrontational. Why.

PAUL GIGOT: Because... I've asked this question directly of several Bush strategists and their answer is that the swing voters really don't want to you just say that, you no I, that these guys are jerks and that's why we want it. You have got to link it to issues. You have to tell the people what you're going to do. And then maybe you can slip in some criticism, some contrast. But the public mood does not want that kind of politics. They say that again and again.

MARGARET WARNER: Let's turn to the thing that... it's a news topic but related topic that you raised, which is what Cheney said in Shreveport, because he was much more combative today accusing Gore of being essentially dishonest and he went back to the military business and he said either Al Gore doesn't know what is going on or he does and he's decided not to tell you or not to the truth about it. And there have been all these editorials also about Gore's embellishments and exaggerations. One, is the criticism justified, Mark, and, two, is it a problem for him?

MARK SHIELDS: I'm not sure it's a problem for him, but certainly there's enough opportunities to name him and identify him as an exaggerator. I mean, he did it at the convention when he talked about his sister's death from lung cancer and his sworn commitment.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking back in '92.

MARK SHIELDS: Sworn commitment to take on big tobacco, which was late blooming after his 1988 campaign where he courted and wooed tobacco farmers. And there is videotape of that. Professor Robert Smuell of Notre Dame in the New York Times today said that he is on the cusp, the danger of stereotype setting in -- that he is an exaggerator. I think it has been very good on the Bush people's part; they want to bring it back. That has been their theme. I mean, it's been Cheney's; it's been the campaign's and everybody you talk to in Austin, that's what they are pushing. What is most intriguing is that overlooked is Governor Bush's exaggeration, I mean, who is guilty as well. I mean, as Paul and I covered him boasting and bragging about the patients' bill of rights legislation in Texas and how Texas was in the forefront; this was legislation that was passed that he opposed and was passed without his signature and then he goes around and makes it - talking about making necessity a virtue -- he made it into a value. And on Tuesday night he said Al Gore has outspent us. Well, the Center for Responsible Politics says it's by a 2-1 margin -- $121 million to $60 million that Bush has outspent Gore this year. So - but there's no question -- the focus is on Gore and it doesn't help.

PAUL GIGOT: Gore may have won the debate on points - in debating points; he lost the after debate. And it's hurt him this week. And the reason he's lost it is because of the exaggerations. I mean, I think that there are two stereotypes working in this campaign. One is that Bush has been -- he is not experienced enough for the job and maybe just a little bit too light. I think he outperformed that stereotype, not totally erased it but outperformed it Tuesday somewhat. Al Gore played into his stereotype, which is that he has a problem telling the truth.

MARGARET WARNER: He had two or three just in the debate.

PAUL GIGOT: Starting with the open question - the first question - did you ever question Governor Bush's experience? Well, the networks quickly got the tapes and said "I'm questioning his experience". It was right there --

MARGARET WARNER: He said I've never questioned his experience.

PAUL GIGOT: That's right. And he did it two or three times, and that fits into what I think is becoming, and this is dangerous for Gore, a stereotype that defines him.

MARGARET WARNER: I find that when you talk to the Gore folks, they say it's no problem; it's just the press. Do you think they're right about that?

MARK SHIELDS: No, I don't think they're right about it. The thing that's most distressing about it -- usually when a candidate exaggerates, prevaricates, lies, however you want to put it - it's something that's very self-serving; you know, that I was tops in my class and I was an all American half back. Then you find out he sat on the bench and barely got out of school. And what turns out here is he is telling lies he doesn't have to or exaggerating where he doesn't have to. I mean, he made 19 trips with James Lee Witt. I don't think there's a lot swing voters -

MARGARET WARNER: The head of FEMA -

MARK SHIELDS: The head of FEMA-did he really make those trips with James Lee Witt - and if he's that close to James Lee Witt, I'm going to vote for him; James Lee Witt is a wonderful public servant - don't get me wrong - but, I mean, you know, why -- so then he sat looking for exaggerations - okay -- and maybe that was just a slip. It wasn't a major... it wasn't something big, but I would say this: Paul's formulation is right, that the Gore people, the Gore voters believe George Bush is the tool of the rich and a 40 watt bulb. The Bush voters believe Al Gore is a weasel who will say anything and do anything to become President. It's within his control to stop the exaggeration. The question is it was in Governor Bush's control to be smarter and to be smart and informed as Bill Clinton.

MARGARET WARNER: It's in my control to end this and I have to. Thank you both.

FINALLY - UNSAFE?

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the science and the price of safe drinking water, Betty Ann Bowser reports.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Amy Turner and a group of clean water advocates went door to door all summer telling people about the dangers of arsenic in drinking water.

SPOKESPERSON: Hi.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: They also wanted to educate residents in Oakland County, Michigan, about a new standard the federal government wants to set for what is safe.

AMY TURNER: And so it's the EPA that gets to make this decision. And they need public comment about how many parts per billion of arsenic is allowed to be in drinking water. We obviously think as low as possible. Is that something you agree with?

WOMAN: Yes. I didn't realize we had arsenic in our water.

AMY TURNER: Sure enough. Especially for people on well water.

BETTY ANN BOWSER:: The current federal government standard for arsenic in drinking water is 50 parts per billion; that's about the equivalent of 50 drops in a swimming pool of water. But last year the prestigious National Academy of Sciences said that was too much and warned that 34 million Americans are drinking tap water with unacceptable arsenic levels. Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to lower the legally accepted levels drastically to five parts per billion. Dr. Michael Harbut is an expert on environmentally caused illnesses. He has a number of patients in his Southfield, Michigan practice who suffer from disorders caused by arsenic. He's also just completed a study he says clearly shows the dangers of arsenic in drinking water.

DR. MICHAEL HARBUT, Physician: Arsenic causes cancer, arsenic causes heart disease, arsenic causes stroke, arsenic causes diabetes, arsenic causes neurologic abnormalities and an entire host of diseases which are known to be among of the most common causes of chronic disease and death in the United States.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Because arsenic testing is only required in some localities, nobody knows for sure how much there is. But Michigan is one of a handful of states where arsenic has been found to naturally occur in the ground. It gets into drinking water when it seeps into the water supply, particularly in communities that rely on well water. Almost 40% of Michigan's tap water comes from wells. Thousands of people like Rene Crouch, who live in rural areas, and have no other source. For about eight years while Crouch and her family drank unfiltered well water, they suffered from a series of mysterious chronic illnesses. Tests later confirmed high levels of arsenic in their drinking water. Melissa Crouch is Rene's 20-year-old daughter.

MELISSA CROUCH: I remember we were all sick all the time and you try to find a reason for why you're sick. I did this, I ate that or, you know, it was everybody.

RENE CROUCH: The kids, Melissa and Steven always said their stomach hurt. It just always hurt it was not anything we could associate with anything. And this gradually kept getting worse and worse and worse over time. We figure it took us about eight years before we finally realized what was happening.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the Crouch's family doctor said they had been suffering from arsenic poisoning. And when they stopped drinking well water, the illnesses disappeared. Since then, Crouch and State Representative Ruth Johnson have been trying to get Oakland County officials to tell all residents how much arsenic is in their water.

RUTH JOHNSON, Michigan State Representative: As it is now, this is a state record. It came in at 435. And then we have someone in Highland at 290...300 parts actually...299.8...

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Johnson says only 4,000 wells out of nearly 200,000 have been tested in her district.

RUTH JOHNSON: So the question is when do you let people have the information? When do you give to it them to let them make their own decision? And that's what's been withheld in my own opinion. If you want to drink arsenic in your water, that's fine with me, but you should know about it; you should know what the risks and then make an informed decision, rather than having someone make the decision for you. And that's what we've had here and that's why we've had so many people get sick without knowing.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But officials like Oakland County Health and Human Services Director Tom Gordon says it's not the county government's job to disclose arsenic levels.

TOM GORDON, Oakland County Health and Human Services: For private wells, individual on site wells, it does not matter whether it's 50 parts per billion or three parts per billion. It's still up to the individual homeowner to fix their well.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: And Gordon says the county is informing residents of the risks of arsenic in well water with a map that's available on the Internet, in schools and in libraries. But it shows only areas where the water contains more than 50 parts per billion. Representative Johnson says her constituents are getting sick at much lower levels. Gordon says he's comfortable with the current standard unless and until the EPA changes it.

TOM GORDON: Would I have problems drinking at that level? No. Because the evidence I've seen, the documentation I've seen from people who know far more about arsenic in drinking water than I do indicates it would take a prolonged period of time for most people to see any effects if they see any effects.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But the EPA's top water quality official defends the agency's proposed standard of five parts per billion.

CHARLES FOX, EPA: Virtually all of the science that I'm aware of suggests that arsenic is a very significant threat to public health and that we need to significantly reduce the standard. Five parts per billion will be protective of the American public. This is a very significant public health issue and I think we need to be safe in protecting public health.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Not everyone thinks the standard should be set so low at five parts per billion. Studies done in countries like Bangladesh have been conducted on water with extremely high arsenic levels. None have been done on large American populations. And the state of Michigan's top water quality official thinks there is insufficient data justify a standard as low as five.

FLINT WATT, Michigan State Water Official: I don't think the data shows conclusively that three, five, ten or twenty parts per billion causes cancer. What we're doing is we're taking data from studies at much higher levels than that that we do know shows cancer and we're extrapolating that data trying to find an area where it's low enough where it won't cause. But I don't think anybody has got any real certainty at what that level is.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Whatever new standard is set, the EPA has made it clear it will be way below the current 50 parts per billion. That's going to have major economic impact, especially on small towns that depend on well water.

SPOKESMAN: This is one of our two wells that the city has.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Brown City, Michigan is going to have to spend twice its annual one million budget to put in a new water system whatever the new EPA standard is. Clint Holmes is city manager.

CLINT HOLMES: In order to pay for this, we'll have to go ahead and get a municipal bond or a revenue bond and pay for it over a period of 30 years, which is going to result in a significant tax increase for local residents.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: It isn't just small towns that will be affected. The cities of Scottsdale, Phoenix, and Albuquerque may have to spend millions to make their water systems comply with any new EPA standard. And Tom Curtis of the American Water Works Association says that's just the tip of the iceberg.

TOM CURTIS: At the low end of the range of options, the cost could be about $14 billion nationwide or about $1 1/2 billion every year. The question is: are people going to get health protection that's commensurate with that cost? We want the standard to be set at a level that protects public health. It clearly needs to be made stronger than it is now, but there's a lot of uncertainty about how much benefit people will get from the higher bills they're going to pay.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Curtis says in some communities customers will see their water bills double regardless where the new standard is set.

JIM LEHRER: The EPA had been expected to issue a new regulation by January, but congressional opponents seeking to block the tougher standard are now pushing for a delay.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: And again, the major stories of this Friday, Yugoslav President Milosevic conceded defeat, but he said he wants to remain in politics. And Israelis and Palestinians fought again across the West Bank, Gaza, and in the old city of Jerusalem. Nine more Palestinians were killed. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening, have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night.