The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, Pres. Bush gave Iraq until noon tomorrow to begin leaving Kuwait. He also accused Baghdad of starting a scorched earth policy within Kuwait. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: All of the NewsHour tonight will be devoted to the U.S. ultimatum to Iraq. We have a News Maker Interview with Defense Sec. Dick Cheney, reaction from a group of UN ambassadors, Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerrey, Congressman Les Aspin, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, plus analysis by David Gergen & Mark Shields. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Pres. Bush delivered an ultimatum today. He said Iraq must begin withdrawing its forces from Kuwait by noon Eastern Time tomorrow or face a ground war. Television cameras were on the President as he worked on the final details in the Oval Office. He then went outside to the White House Rose Garden to deliver it.

PRES. BUSH: Within the last 24 hours alone, we have heard a defiant, uncompromising address by Saddam Hussein followed less than 10 hours later by a statement in Moscow that on the face of it appears more reasonable. I say on the face of it, because the statement promised unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait only to set forth a number of conditions, and needless to say, any conditions would be unacceptable to the international coalition and would not be in compliance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 660's demand for immediate and unconditional withdrawal. Most important, the coalition will give Saddam Hussein until noon Saturday to do what he must do, begin his immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait. We must hear publicly and authoritatively his acceptance of these terms. The statement to be released, as you will see, does just this and informs Saddam Hussein that he risks subjecting the Iraqi people to further hardship unless the Iraqi government complies fully with the terms of the statement.

MR. LEHRER: Later, White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater laid out the specific terms, a complete Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait within seven days, from Kuwait City within 48 hours, release of all prisoners of war and the remains of allied dead within 48 hours, removal of all Iraqi booby traps and mines, an end to all Iraqi combat flights, and exclusive allied control of Kuwaiti air space, finally an end to all destructive actions against Kuwait and release of all the tame Kuwaitis. Fitzwater said the coalition forces would not attack retreating Iraqi troops, but he said the war continues according to plan. Also today Pres. Bush accused Saddam Hussein of ordering a "scorched earth" policy against Kuwait. He said Iraqi forces were wantonly setting fires to destroy Kuwait's oil facilities. Pentagon officials said there were more than 150 such fires burning. They said the smoke covered much of Kuwait and had drifted into Saudi Arabia and over the Persian Gulf. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: In Moscow tonight, the Soviet Union presented a new six point peace plan it said was the result of day long negotiations with Iraq's foreign minister. We have a report from Tim Ewert of Independent Television News.

MR. EWERT: A day of frantic diplomatic activity in Moscow began as Iraq's Teraq Aziz entered a fresh round of negotiations with Soviet officials aimed at trying to find a peace formula which might avert a ground war. It was quickly apparent the eight point plan so triumpantly announced last night would not be enough. By midafternoon, foreign ministry spokesman Vitaly Churkin dismissed it as history, merely a point of departure. Mikhail Gorbachev, who spent more than two hours with Teraq Aziz last night, did not see him today, but from his office in the Kremlin, he made a series of phone calls to alliance leaders trying to drum up support for the Moscow initiative.

SERGEI GRIGORIEV, Deputy Gorbachev Spokesman: Pres. Gorbachev did his best. He was really trying hard. Moscow turned throughout this week into the real center of diplomatic activities. It looked as if Pres. Gorbachev cared more about the possible casualties in the allied troops, like any other leader of the coalition.

MR. EWERT: Tonight Mr. Gorbachev's spokesman unveiled the new six point plan. The Soviet leader had talked for 90 minutes with Pres. Bush, he said, evidence of continuing cooperation between the two.

VITALY IGNATENKO, Gorbachev Spokesman: [Speaking through Interpreter] We have been witness to the fact that since the inception of the crisis in the Persian Gulf and this is a very important thing to stress, the two nations, the Soviet Union and the United States, have acted always in harmony with regard for the interests of each other.

MR. EWERT: But Baghdad's support tonight for the Moscow initiative will put some strain on that relationship. Saddam Hussein may be hoping to undermine the White House by seeking only to do business with the Kremlin.

MR. MacNeil: The new plan set a 21 day deadline for Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. It also called for Iraqi troops to withdraw to positions they held the day prior to the invasion of Kuwait. The White House said the new plan was an improvement, but still fell short of allied demands.

MR. LEHRER: A statement from the Iraqi leadership late today called the U.S. ultimatum shameful but did not respond directly to it. A spokesman said Iraq continues to work for peace for the Soviet Union, but earlier in the day, Baghdad residents were told the ground war was on. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News. The pictures were cleared by Iraqi censors.

MS. BATES: As far as Baghdad Radio is concerned, the ground war has already started, wherever they were, people across the capital stopped to listen to the latest broadcast from the state-controlled station. In cafes, as well as on the streets, Iraqis heard that British forces had spearheaded the assault which had been repelled, but a port which was denied by allied commanders said the size and goals of allied land operations meant that the ground battle had begun. In the skies above Baghdad, the air war certainly continued unabated. After night attacks came a daylight raid. Plumes of black smoke rose as the bombs rained down and allied bombers continued to remove strategic targets. After two raids the all clear sounded, the signal for people to return to whatever normality exists in Baghdad. The rhetoric of war was sounded even in the capital's mosques. Friday prayers are a traditional time for political demonstrations in Muslim countries. Iraqi worshippers were told there was great pride in Iraq's stand against the coalition forces. The men who gathered at Baghdad's Abou Hanifa Mosque were told by one speaker that their countries had scored a great success by its actions. As night fell, that success was brought once more into question as allied bombers returned for another sortie. The night sky was lit up by threads of tracer fire searching out aircraft while bright flames lit up the sky line as ordinance hit home.

MR. MacNeil: U.S. warplanes also stepped up their attack on Iraqi positions in Kuwait today. The American command said U.S. claims used napalm to set fire to oil in deep trenches dug by Iraq. The trenches are designed to slow a U.S. ground assault. At a base in Eastern Saudi Arabia, Marine Harrier jets were armed with napalm cannisters. Their targets were Iraqi artillery and tanks. Napalm is a highly flammable gel that was widely used by American forces in Vietnam.

MR. LEHRER: The governments of the anti-Iraq coalition were united in their support of today's U.S. ultimatum to Iraq. At a meeting of nine Western European countries in Paris, French Foreign Minister Roland DuMans said the nations were in perfect identity of view. British Prime Minister John Major issued this warning to Iraq.

PRIME MINISTER MAJOR: What is necessary is perfectly clear. They have known what the Security Council resolutions are since November of last year. The time has now come for them to implement them. If they fail to implement them, then they will know what the consequences are, and I think everyone will know precisely where the blame will lie for any events that follow subsequently.

MR. LEHRER: Official Israel said today the Soviet peace plan would mean another war with Iraq. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said, "We are worried that if this war will come to an end and Saddam Hussein, this dangerous man, will remain in power with a part of his army and a part of his armaments, the question will not be solved. We will still be exposed to the same danger." Jordan's King Hussein welcomed the Soviet plan. He said, "At this stage the objectives of the Security Council Resolution 660 are on the way to being achieved. I am full of optimism and hope at the developments at hand."

MR. MacNeil: The United Nations Security Council is expected to take up the Soviet plan in a closed session tonight or tomorrow. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has some UN reactions to today's developments.

YVES FORTIER, UN Ambassador, Canada: Well, basically I'm very encouraged. I think what we are seeing on two different fronts is a flurry of activity which has as its objective implementation by Iraq of the UN Security Council resolutions.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some Arabs I've talked to here have said that Pres. Bush is taking this beyond the point that it needs to go, that what he's trying to do is publicly humiliate Saddam Hussein. What do you say to that?

AMB. FORTIER: Well, you know, Saddam Hussein has been thumbing his nose at the UN Security Council, at the international coalition, since August 2nd. For anyone now to say that by giving him more hours, by giving him more days in order to implement the Security Council resolution is a slap in the face of Saddam Hussein. I don't accept that. Saddam Hussein has been slapping the rest of the world in the face. Look what he has done to the Kuwaitis since August the 2nd.

RICHARDO ALARCON, UN Ambassador, Cuba: I'm rather pessimistic because of the way the U.S. has reacted to this proposal seems to suggest that their real aim is not the withdrawal of the Iraqis from Kuwait, but the destruction of Iraq, the ouster of Pres. Saddam Hussein from power, and that's another ballgame completely. That's another war that will not be a UN war but a U.S. war. That's maybe why they are treating the Security Council with such bad manners, let's say.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: If the United States moves without the endorsement of the Security Council, what do you think of that, what would be the reaction?

ABDALLA AL-ASHTAL, UN Ambassador, Yemen: Well, that would be a major breech in this unanimous approach, this consensus which was evolving in the Security Council for the last six to eight months, or seven months.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: You don't think the authorization is there for him to back up his actions by any means?

AMB. AL-ASHTAL: No.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Without additional --

AMB. AL-ASHTAL: I think that this is the turning point in this crisis and the Security Council has to assess the situation, has to weigh, assess the Iraqi response to its own resolutions, and has to decide what to do hereafter; Resolution 678 is not a blank check for operations that do not stop and it doesn't -- it should not leave the aims of the war to be decided by one country or another.

C.R. GHAREKHANE, UN Ambassador, India: It seems to me that we are in the -- at a stage of negotiations, negotiations with the various elements of package of peace, and it is true that Pres. Bush has come out with this, with a statement this morning, about noon tomorrow, followed -- it is not really followed by Mr. Gorbachev's plan, because they had both informed each other of their respective positions. The one is not to be taken as an answer to the other, I think. These are the negotiating positions set down by the two countries, the two most important players, and I would not necessarily like to look at the two as in conflict with one another, or as in confrontation with each other. I think these are the negotiating stances, the opening gambits of the two countries, and I very much hope that what we are going to look forward to now is intensive consultations and negotiation. NEWS MAKER

MR. LEHRER: Now to a NewsMaker interview with U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Mr. Secretary welcome.

SEC. CHENEY: Good evening Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Is this war almost over?

SEC. CHENEY: I don't know Jim. I don't have any way of putting a time table on it. We are clearly at a critical moment. And it is the deadline that the President and the Allied Leaders established. Clearly it is going to clearly bring things to a head very shortly.

MR. LEHRER: Is there really that much difference between the Soviets are pushing and what the U.S. ultimatum says?

SEC. CHENEY: Let me emphasize again the position that the President layed out there today was something that was worked out within the coalition. Worked out among those Government that have put their forces on the ground in Saudi Arabia in the Gulf to roll back Saddam Hussein's aggression and the differences are significant. We are not in a position where we are trying to negotiate with respect to the implimentation of the UN Resolutions. That is the only basis and that included Resolution 660 says the complete total unconditional withdrawl from Kuwait. There are a series of other resolutions and sanctions that have been imposed. Saddam wants to wipe all of those off the board. The latest proposal in effect would recind all of those once he gets out of Kuwait. Of course here is a man who has absolutely devestated the Nation of Kuwait. We've seen him destroy it. He has driven out hundreds of thousands of Kuwaites. He has stolen vast quanties of equipment and material from Kuwait and now he is in the process of torching oil fields in Kuwait. Resolution 674 calls upon him to pay reparations for the damage that he has done to Kuwait. Yet the latest Soviet proposal says in effect that says as soon as he is out Kuwait that Resolution is repealed and recinded. We are not in a position or mode here where we are looking to negotiate on those basic fundamental principles. He has known since early August what he had to do to get out. He has known certainly since the Middle of Januaru what was required to get out. We've now reinterated one more time the only acceptable out come is the immediate, coomplete total withdrawl from Kuwait. And it has to happen with in the next 24 hours.

MR. LEHRER: Well there is no UN Resolution that says that?

SEC. CHENEY: No but the deadline that has been established in effect said we want to see him accept this propostion by noon tomorrow. We want to see him begin to withdraw by noon tomorrow and he will have a week to get out and we will not fire on his forces as they leave. But we've reached the point now after he rejected every diplomatic initiative for five and half months. After he has refused during the course of the air campaign since the middle of January to move we are now down to the final period of time. There is only one way this is going to end and that if for his complete total withdrawl from Kuwait. Not a partial withdrawl, not a withdrawl that takes three or four weeks, not a withdrawl that is conditioned on other things. Immediate, complete unconditional withdrawl from Kuwait.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any doubt that he could all of his forces and troops out in seven days?

SEC. CHENEY: I am confident that he can get his troops out in that period of time. You have to remember it took him only five hours to get in.

MR. LEHRER: He didn't get a half million of his people in?

SEC. CHENEY: No he didn't but it was five hours from the time he launched operations until he had occupied Kuwait last August 2. And we've said take a week but theimportant thing is that he begin that process by noon tomorrow and that he move very aggressively to impliment those resolutions.

MR. LEHRER: As was reported in our news summary and elsewhere President Bush spoke to President Gorbachev today for 90 minutes. Did President Bush come away from that conversation with the impression that the Iraqis are in a mood to make a deal. That this could eventually result in something by noon tomorrow?

SEC. CHENEY: Very difficult to say Jim. One of the lessons that I have learned from this whole exercise not to make any assumptions as to what the Iraqi Government will or won't do. What Saddam Hussein will or will not do.

MR. LEHRER: I mean an impression not necessarily and assumption.

SEC. CHENEY: It is clear that President Gorbachev is trying to move the process along. We have no objection to that if he can persuade the Iraqis to comply with the resolutions and get out of Kuwait that certainly would be helpful but he had this dicodomey where on the one hand Aziz goes to Moscow and presumably is prepared to enter in to some kind of negotiations with the Soviets and on the other hand you have the speech the same from Saddam Hussein in Baghdad that takes a very hard line, that talks about the mother of battles and this is the final moment for Iraq. Again it is difficult to know who speaks for the Government of Iraq at this point.

MR. LEHRER: White House Spokesman Fitzwater was asked at the breifing after the President spoke what was in this for Saddam Hussein to go along with the U.S. ultimatum and Fitzwater said to avoid the destruction of his country. Is that what the purpose of all of this has been?

SEC. CHENEY: No the way that I would state it goes back to something what my collegue General Powell said a few weeks agop. TGhe stick is of course military. Using military force to impliment the resolutions to take him out of Kuwait. The carrot is that we don't use the stick. What is in it for him is that if he pulls out his force now that will be the end of military action as soon as he complies with the UN resolutions. That would mean an end to air attacks on strategic targets inside Iraq. It would also mean an end to the damage that is currently being inflicted on the Iraqi Army. But that is the only choice he has is to withdraw immediately. But we are not interested in the destruction of Iraq. We have been very careful in terms of our efforts to day not to do that. We've made it clear that our conflict is not with the Iraqi people but rather with Saddam Hussein's illegal and illicite aggressions against Kuwait.

MR. LEHRER: The French Defense MInister your counterpart in the French Government said this afternoon that the start. This is a quote. "The start of land operations is now programed it is a question of a few hours". Does he speak the truth?

SEC. CHENEY: JIm we've had a number of interviews during the course of this crisis and I have always refrained from speculating about future military action and I am going to continue that policy tonight.

MR. LEHRER: But would it not be a fair statement to anybody who is watching the President and Fitzwater today and noon tomorrow was said, meaning tomorrow or the ground war could commense. We are talking about the ground commensing tomorrow if there is no word back. Would that be a stupid assumption on the behalf of the average American or teh Average Iraqi?

SEC. CHENEY: Well I would think that the bright thing to do is take everything that the President has said at face value. He has been very consistant throughout this crisis since last August 2. I can remember him coming down from Camp David about the 3rd or 4th of August and announcing to the World that this aggression would not stand. His position is exactly the same today. Hehas been very consistant and when he has established in conjunction with our allies deadlines he has ment it. When he has indicated that we were prepared to use military force we were prepared to use military force and when he has given instructions for us to do so we have done it. Having said all of that I don't want to be in the business of predicting exactly when might begin the next phase of the campaign. But clearly we are preparing to begin the next phase of the campaign.

MR. LEHRER: The Prime Minister of Israel said today many members of your party the Republican Party in this country have said in the last few days since the Soviet initiative really took off. Essentially what they have said is wait a minute let's don't stop this thing now because Saddam Hussein remains in power. He still has some part of his military machine left. Let's keep going. How do you respond to those people?

SEC. CHENEY: Well, I would argue that we have done enormous damage to Saddam Hussein's military machine. We have had now 36 or 37 days of the air campaign. We've destroyed his navy we've nutralized his air force. We have taken down most of his air defenses. We've eliminate his nuclear and biological production capabilities.

MR. LEHRER: Eliminated them all?

SEC. CHENEY: Eliminated the nuclear and biological production capabilities and storage capabilities. We've eliminated a lot of his chemical production facilties capability.

MR. LEHRER: How much?

SEC. CHENEY: I would say well over half. We've pretty well shut down his lines of communiation. We've closed down his power grid, his petroleum refining system and we've done a great deal of damage to his army.

MR. LEHRER: How much damage would you say?

SEC. CHENEY: I am reluctant to put hard percentages on it of course but clearly we have eliminated a significant ammount of the heavy equipment in his heavy divisions, his tanks, his artiliary, his armored personel carriers. So we've done a lot of damage already to his military capability. If he were to announce tonight that he accepts the conditions and will comply by the deadline I would be very happy. I would be convinced that we had won a major victory. That we had in fact as an alliance, as a coalition demonstrated that aggression will not be rewarded and we have set back Saddam Hussein's asperations for aggression perhaps by decades. It will be a very long time before he can again threaten his neighbors.

MR. LEHRER: Some people have said well we'll have to fight him again in five years if we stop now?

SEC. CHENEY: He is going to spend most of the next five years who ever is in power in Baghdad rebuilding the infrastructure of the country. So again I am very comfortable with the amount of destruction that we have been able to impose on his forces to date. We are not eager to do any thing more than to achieve our objectives and our objectives are to get him out of Kuwait. Get him to comply with the Security Council resolutions.

MR. LEHRER: Is there any feeling with in the Defense establishment both the civilian part and military part, hey some on and finish this war, let's go ahead and do it right and get it over with. Is there some disapointment if this thing did end. If he accepted this in the next 24 hours and the war was over?

SEC. CHENEY: You have to remember that the Defense establishment is over 3 million people. So there isa whole variety of opinions. But those of use who are in the chain of command, who are responsible for conducting our policy out there had a mixed set of emotions. We are not eager to have to undertake military action that will cost American lives, Secondly we are absolutely determined to carry out the President's policies and to liberate Kuwait. And third I think that it would be fair to say that our men and women in the military are very proud of their capabilities and very confident that they can do the job that the President asks them to do. So there is no doubt in my mind that we can achieve our objectives. It would be nice if Saddam Hussien tonight or tomorrow morning come in to compliance. Announce that he is prepared to withdraw and immediately begin the process. But if he doesn't there is also no doubt in my mind that what we will in fact be able to do by military means what he refuses to do diplomatically.

MR. LEHRER: As Secretary of Defense and one of the key players in this from the United States point of view of the U.S. Government would be at all ill at ease and uncomfortable walking away from this with Saddam Hussein still the leader of Iraq?

SEC. CHENEY: Again I have to be very careful in terms of making certain that ourt objectives are those that we set out when we decided that we had no choice but to use military force. Those objecrtives had not included the elimination of Saddam Hussein. The President has made it clear that if we have a new Government in Baghdad no body will shed a tear over Saddam Hussein's demise. But we really beleive that the people of Iraq are the ones that have to decide how they are going to be governed. We've not established as an objective getting Saddam Hussein out and I think that he will be a much diminished individual whether or not he survives the current crisis.

MR. LEHRER: Are you concerned that if this diplomatic deal falls through. And let's say it fall through. The Soviet plan now says 21 days. Our ultimatum says 7 days and there are other pieces to it that don't quite work out between now and noon tomorrow for what ever reason and the ground war is launched and a lot of people die. Are you concerned how history might look back at that and say wait a minute was there a too big a hurry or whatever that lives could have been spared if you all had waited a little bit longer or whatever?

SEC. CHENEY: My impression from having been in the Middle of this crisis since it began last August 2, is that no body can accuse us of unnecessary or unwise speed. We've been very deliberate, very methodical. We have exhausted all the alternative before we finally reached the point where we had to use military force including months of diplomatic activity. Late November we set a deadline and gave him 6 more weeks to get out. He still didn't get out. So, again, we have tried. I think the Hallmark of the President's approach to this problem has been one of great caution. But a very deliberate approach to resolving this crisis. We think that it is a matter of Supreme national and internation importance that it be resolved. I think the country has been supportive of the effort, the Congress has been supportive of the effort. The international community has. And we are now at a point where we are close to achieving the objective and we will achieve those objectives and I think that history will judge us based on the result and I think the result is consistant with out interest.

MR. LEHRER: You were sitting with me just now watching the news summary and you saw the Soviet spokesman in Moscow saywell some people can interpret this that President Gorbachev is more concerned about Allied deaths in this war than President is or words to that effect. How do you react to something like that?

SEC. CHENEY: Well first of all I would not attribute those views to President Gorbachev. I think to suggest that those of us involved and the Allied Leaders who have committed troops out there have less regard for the lives of other soldiers than do those who have not committed forces. I simply would not accept his interpretation of that events.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary thank you very much.

SEC. CHENEY: Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Now to some congressional reaction. It comes from Congressman Les Aspin, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, they join us from Capitol Hill, Sen. John Kerrey, a Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who joins us in Boston, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Democratic shadow Senator from the District of Columbia and twice a Presidential candidate. Sen. Kerry, are you happy with the Bush ultimatum?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I don't consider it an ultimatum. It's really what has been stated previously, which is that he has to get out of Kuwait unconditionally, and it's a restatement of a deadline that existed in January. So in a real sense, it's more of a restatement than an ultimatum that it's within the context of the current peace initiative. I believe the President has made the right decision in moving from what Pres. Gorbachev put on the table, which essentially had the 2/3 complicated question, and has moved to really restating what is the UN resolution. I'm concerned, however, about what our response will be if it isn't met, because I think as Sec. Cheney just said, I mean, we're achieving enormous military victories right now, we've brought Saddam Hussein to this extraordinary point without a massive land war, and it seems to me prudent to place the lives of American service people and the allied service people ahead of a rush to try to conclude it.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Lugar, do you agree with that?

SEN. LUGAR: I don't agree that we're heading in a rush to conclude it. The President throughout has said that we would not move to the combination of air and land warfare until we were at an optimum point in terms of being able to minimize our casualties, as well as innocent bystanders who are in Kuwait.

MR. MacNeil: So you don't think a "no" from Saddam or a failure to comply by noon tomorrow is the automatic start of a ground war?

SEN. LUGAR: I think the ground war might come very soon. I think that's the reason the President has made the announcement today. This is also an optimum time of strength for the coalition. He's just talked or his aides have overnight to all the members of the coalition. They're solid together. The world is solid together at this moment and it seems to me that the President's decision that this is a good moment to have a time of truth is very appropriate.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Kerry, just to go back to you for a moment, are you saying you disagree with Sec. Cheney when he says no one can accuse us of unwise speed?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I think there have been a number of instances here where the administration moved faster than was necessary, but that's a judgment which is perhaps even, you know, inappropriate at this particular moment of time, because it really goes back to the debate and to the whole question of sanctions and so forth. We're not there anymore. The question is now what is to our best advantage. Sec. Cheney said we've cut off the electrical grid. He no longer has a nuclear chemical biological capacity. His tanks are being destroyed a hundred a day. We're capturing X number of troops a day. We're destroying X number of bunkers per day, and we're doing it in a very surgical, strategic, and I think very competent way. Why change that if we have brought Saddam Hussein to a point of moving as he has? Obviously, you want the stick of the, the stick that Sec. Cheney talked about, but I see no reason to move away from that primary goal that we have stated since day one, which is not only to force him to withdraw from Kuwait, but to do so with minimum allied casualties. And I see us capable of accomplishing our goal without a need to rush into head long land war. Now the land war can have several definitions. If it merely means very strategic surgical insertions with helicopters, small units, flesh them out of the bunkers, envelope them, cut them off in Kuwait, I don't think it's a bad idea. But if you're talking about a big invasion and a massive onslaught, I don't think we need to do that now.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Aspin, do you approve starting the ground war soon if Saddam doesn't comply by noon tomorrow?

REP. ASPIN: I think the noon tomorrow date was picked consistent with what our previous plans were about when the ground war would start. In other words, I think that we, from what I can tell, what we'd be doing is probably starting the ground war sometime this weekend even if there hadn't been this big flurry of diplomatic initiatives, first from Saddam Hussein on Friday, then the Soviets and now our ultimatum, but I think that -- so I think this is consistent, this date or this timeframe, for starting the ground war is essentially consistent with the plan from the beginning. I do think though that they have in mind a way of fighting this ground war which will not automatically lead to a big number of casualties. I mean, I think that the point that Sen. Kerry makes has got some validity here. There's lots of different ways to do this ground war. I think they have in mind a way of doing this ground war which is not going to go run the U.S. or the allied ground forces directly at the entrenched positions at the strongly defended positions that use a lot of maneuver, use a lot of envelopment, try and maneuver either, to get them either to get out of their defensive positions, in which case the air power will still be very, very effective against them, or if they stay in their positions, just go right by 'em.

MR. MacNeil: Rev. Jackson, how do you feel about the ultimatum and the prospect of a ground war, by whatever definition, beginning soon after Saddam's failure to comply with it?

REV. JACKSON: Well, first of all, the negotiation process has begun. Pres. Gorbachev is playing the role of mediator. He is talking both with Pres. Bush and Pres. Saddam Hussein, therefore, it seems that the process of Saddam retreating has taken place without the stimulus of a ground war. We should do everything that we can to lead the allies diplomatically as we led them militarily to achieve the objective of getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, and that process has begun.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Lugar, would the American public support risking the lives of American soldiers and allied soldiers to enforce meticulous compliance once the Iraqis had agreed in principle to withdraw, with the idea of withdrawing, and if Saddam didn't get out by a full week, is that a justification for risking lives to get him out by the full week?

SEN. LUGAR: I think that we will risk lives in that respect, that we're going to be credible in making certain that he moves.

MR. MacNeil: So you don't have any problem with that once the principle of going has been established, which it seems to be close to being established, you don't have any problem with that?

SEN. LUGAR: No. No more problem than I have with the air attacks that are going on probably right now as we talk about it. There is an onslaught in Kuwait right now. The ground aspects of it, as others have mentioned, may be an additional part of that and may be finally decisive in bringing the thing to conclusion.

REP. ASPIN: Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Who is that?

REP. ASPIN: Les Aspin.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, sir.

REP. ASPIN: I think that the key difference between the U.S. position and the Soviet position here, or the U.S. position, the allied position, the U.S. stated by, supported by the allies, and the Soviet position is not the one week versus the three weeks, but there is a fundamental difference between the way the Soviets are going and the way the allies are going, led by the President and by the United States. Two fundamental questions, if we go down the road of the Soviet proposal, we do two things. No. 1, we relinquish any attempt to get Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government to recognize that Kuwait is a legitimate government and a legitimate existence. Some of those UN resolutions that get bypassed by the Soviet government are ones -- or by the Soviet proposal are UN resolutions which make null and void the Iraqi absorption of Kuwait. That's a very fundamental question. The second question is that under the Soviet proposal, if you go down that road, we give up on reparations, we give up on the sanctions as part of the process of him withdrawing forces. We, therefore, relinquish all ability to influence the post crisis Iraqi government. Those are two fundamental differences here. This is the difference of going down the road that you term as an ultimatum -- and John Kerry's got a point -- it's essentially an updated ultimatum - - but going down the road of the United States road is very different from going down the Soviet road. And I think that that is a fundamental difference, and frankly it's worth fighting about. If we go down the Soviet road, we have a real risk that at the end of all this, Saddam Hussein will survive, Saddam Hussein will still be able to claim he's a hero, and we'll face Saddam Hussein and this whole problem again in two to five years.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Kerry.

REV. JACKSON: If I could -- this really, however, is not the UN mandate. The UN mandate is to get Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait unconditionally. Now we are discussing not the policy of his getting out by the strategy of his getting out in that process. We should be about that business. We do not have any mandate by this resolution to go into determining the course of Iraq, except through some mutually verifiable process to protect our interests and that of our allies, and I think at this point, we're probably dealing with seven days or twenty-one days while he is retreating, we need not risk one American life in that process. We're negotiating, in fact, through Gorbachev from position of considerable economic and military strength.

MR. MacNeil: Let me pick up on that point with Sen. Kerry. Sen. Kerry, suppose tomorrow the Security Council meets in public or in private, and the Soviets say, look, we got the Iraqis to agree to this and the US comes inon behalf of the coalition and says, yes, but we insist on our deadline, what should happen then in the Security Council which, after all, the coalition is representing?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I think it would be a mistake for the United States to be so absolutely tied to the deadline that there's no flexibility providing that all the other aspects of the UN resolution are being met. I mean, if Saddam Hussein came back and said, okay, I accept the UN resolution, I'm not going to play the 2/3 game, everybody's going to go out, here's the timeframe within which they'll be out, we will agree to have a liaison officer, prisoners of war will be returned, but it has to happen within 15 days or something, then it would be a mistake for us to get so stuck on the numbers of tanks that might be able to be recouped by him or whatever because he can dig them out, that we would not accept that, I think, and I think that that goes back to the point that was just made by Les Aspin. There is, in fact, a kind of confusion in our goals. There's a sort of statement by Les Aspin and others that we really don't want Saddam Hussein there and we don't want him to continue in power and indeed, we don't. But as Sec. Cheney said, we are not, in fact, trying to achieve that goal. And the confusion is that part of our policy seems to be driven towards trying to achieve that latter goal without it ever having been stated as part of the UN resolution.

MR. MacNeil: Congressman Aspin -- just in the time I'd like to go back to Congressman Aspin for a moment -- hasn't Mr. Gorbachev by pushing his negotiation hustled up the timetable so that if Saddam accepts it, Saddam will get away and survive with a large part of his forces, exactly what Prime Minister Shamir said today, to the disappointment of a lot of people who feel as, I believe, you do?

REP. ASPIN: Yes, but I think that John Kerry is absolutely right. And Dick Cheney's right. Our fundamental goal is not to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Our fundamental goal is No. 1, get Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, but No. 2, compliance with all of the UN resolutions, not just the one of getting out of Kuwait, but all of the UN resolutions.

MR. MacNeil: Would you agree with Sen. Kerry that the U.S. shouldn't be too demanding if there's a compromise between 21 and 15 days --

REP. ASPIN: As I said at the beginning, the fundamental difference between our proposal and the Soviet proposal, our proposal, the Bush administration proposal and the Soviet proposal, is not the timetable. The 21 days, 7 days, I don't think that's the main point.

MR. MacNeil: It's compliance with the other resolutions.

REP. ASPIN: It's a compliance with the other parts of the UN resolution. That's the fundamental difference.

MR. MacNeil: So, Sen. Lugar, what would you feel about how absolutely binding the noon tomorrow deadline and the one week should be in the U.S. view?

SEN. LUGAR: Well, I think it should be absolutely binding, and my one basic reason is that we want the Iraqi forces to leave, and we would not be disappointed if they behind their equipment, which is severely diminished. I see no point in beating around the bush that American foreign policy will be enhanced if Iraq has a less army, a situation that it had before, and furthermore, I would not be at all disappointed to see Saddam Hussein badly embarrassed so that he's less effective.

SEN. KERRY: Can I just comment on that?

MR. MacNeil: Yes.

SEN. KERRY: You're really talking about the distinction between sheer and utter humiliation and total degradation, and I'm not sure you can really draw that kind of distinction when it means a lot of families in America, you know, having to suffer the loss of their loved ones --

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Lugar.

SEN. KERRY: -- for one weak of weapons.

REV. JACKSON: Drawing a line in the sand tomorrow at noontime is more like a shoot out at the OK Coral, which is a movie, as opposed to dealing with the fact that we are winning the war militarily. We must now consider winning the war, winning the peace diplomatically. We must recognize that tomorrow's 12 o'clock deadline is essentially a U.S. deadline. We're dealing within the context of a UN deadline, beyond winning the war which will win militarily, there are ramifications beyond tomorrow that we must consider.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Lugar.

REV. JACKSON: Not the least of which is saving the lives of our troops if they, in fact, can be spared and our political objectives realized.

MR. MacNeil: Sen. Lugar, come back on that, on Sen. Kerry's point and Rev. Jackson's, that it would be difficult for American families to accept the loss of their soldiers' lives for a sake of a few days in the deadline.

SEN. LUGAR: Well, it's a false equation. The fact is that George Bush as our President has offered decisive leadership, including deadlines throughout all of this, very careful concern with regard to the optimum military situation to save American lives, and I just feel that when the President of the United States sets a deadline of this variety, it's well for Saddam Hussein to listen, and in my judgment, the President would not be setting this deadline if he did not believe it would save American lives and Kuwaiti lives and a lot of other people's lives that are in that area.

REP. ASPIN: Robin, could I make a comment?

MR. MacNeil: Who is that?

REP. ASPIN: Les Aspin.

MR. MacNeil: Yes, sir.

REP. ASPIN: Let me just say that I think there's two deadlines here. One is the deadline for noon on Saturday, which is to get a response, and the second is the deadline if it's a go/no go, what is the deadline for him getting out, is it seven days after that or twenty-one days? I would be flexible on the seven versus the twenty-one. But I'm with Sen. Lugar on tomorrow noon deadline. I think that we've been beating around the bush long enough. If he wants to avoid a ground war, he can certainly make a "yes" or "no" decision by tomorrow.

MR. MacNeil: Do you have a final comment, Sen. Kerry?

SEN. KERRY: No, no. I agree with that. I think that Les drew the right distinction here. I'm not saying that you change tomorrow's deadline, but if he said tomorrow that I'm going to do the 15 days, then I think that's where this other issue comes in.

MR. MacNeil: Well, we --

SEN. KERRY: And look, we held the Soviet Union accountable for 40 years. You can't tell me that if it's a difference of one week's removal of weapons, we can't put sanctions on and keep Saddam Hussein isolated in the post period enough to deal with this man having done it over the years with other countries.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Lugar, Rev. Jackson, Congressman Aspin, thank you for joining us. Jim. FOCUS - GERGEN & SHIELDS

MR. LEHRER: Our final words tonight will be spoken by Gergen and Shields that are with Judy Woodruff. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: And just in case you don't know who they are. That is David Gergen Editor at Large at US News and World Report and Mark Shields Syndicated Columnist with the Washington Post. Mark has the Bush Administration handled this correctly?

MR. SHIELDS: I think he, the President handled it right. I think that he made the right decision today. I think that he was in a little bit of a box by Gorbachev's earlier actions. That Gorbachev had grabbed the spotlight and the initiative. That the key to getting out of that box was provided by Saddam Hussein with his scortched earth policies today in Kuwait. That gave the President freedom from any criticism for hios response.

MS. WOODRUFF: Did the President have any choice than to do this David?

MR. GERGEN: I think he had some choices Judy. In my opinion this has been the finest hour in his Presidency. To gop back to somethiong that Les Aspin was saying. It seems to me that we were planning a military, air land offesnive starting perhaps this weekend. The Administration a few days ago had considered internally the idea of an ultimatum. It had not gone forward with that publically but when Mr. Gorbachev got involved with this. When he started opening up the bazzar to negotiations the Administration decided to come forward with the ultimatum. I do think that it is an ultimatum. I do think that the Soviet proposal as far as the Administration is irrelevent.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just how much of an ultimatum is it? We were just told the guest just have been talking about flexibility. Is there any flexibility on the part of the Administration? Because the assumption is that they may well come back with some question here.

MR. GERGEN: A member of the Administration has told me that this is not open to negotiations. I think that the Administration is quite clear about this. When the Administration speaks it is speaking for the entire coalition. It has put forward the criteria by which a withdrawl would be possible and a cease fire be possible. If he doesn't meet those conditions by noon tomorow I think we are at a land air war start with in a matter of hours probably Sunday or Monday.

MS. WOODRUFF: Should Americans be comfortable of that Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well I think that it is going to be tough. I think the question in the polls whether in fact lives lost if it is as sudden and quick and complete as military reports seem to suggest the fact that his troops are in a weakened conditions. Our troops are ready and prepared. If it were over in four days I think that it would be awfully tough in those four days that the thousand or fifteen hundred or two thousand, whatever number of lives there are were not lost in vain.

MR. GERGEN: I think that there is a misassumption, at least within the Administration there is a feeling this way that somehow we have painted a land war as being some awful event. They plan on fighting a war in which they can minimize the number of casualties. And after all, once it starts at any time in that process on day one, day two, or day three Saddam Hussein can call it off. All he has to do is say I quit.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is it still a victory if we walk out, if they get out of Kuwait, if Saddam Hussein is still in power?

MR. SHIELDS: I think that's the problem, I really do, and I think that Dick Cheney did a superb job, as the Secretary of Defense always does, when he appears in this forum of making the case that it wouldn't be a defeat, that it wouldn't be somehow less than a totally satisfactory victory for the President.

MS. WOODRUFF: But you're saying you're disagree?

MR. SHIELDS: Ninety percent of the American people had some idea of who Saddam Hussein was last August. The President had focused the attention, he personalized the efforts considerably on Saddam Hussein. He demonized him and Saddam Hussein, believe me, was more than cooperative, he was helpful in that effort. But now to suggest that this Hitler fellow, after all we've been through, is going to survive and still be around I think would, might leave some people feeling cheated, that he didn't, he wasn't toppled.

MR. GERGEN: Actually, I think Mark has reversed his position since last week and interestingly enough, I think, Mark, the administration has changed its thinking since last week. Last week I felt they very much wanted him out of power. During this week I think they have come to accept the position. Well, I thought last week you felt it was wrong for us to try to push him out.

MR. SHIELDS: I said, Judy, what would be the reaction if, in fact, the result was his remaining in power.

MS. WOODRUFF: Is it perceived as a victory?

MR. SHIELDS: That's right.

MR. GERGEN: I think the American people as long as we get him out of Kuwait and we restore the government of Kuwait, I don't regard this as a victory, but let's go on beyond that. I think what the administration is now trying to do is to ensure that when this is over there will be reparations and just as important, and very important for the future that either Saddam will be out of power or he will be contained, and they want to keep the UN sanctions in place, unlike the Gorbachev plan, they want to keep the UN sanctions in place long enough to ensure that if Saddam is still there, he does not pose a threat. They would like to see him overthrown still.

MS. WOODRUFF: But as Mark just said, the President has painted him to be another Hitler. If he's still in power, even if he's, you know, running a country that doesn't have biological and nuclear weapons, you think that that still would be perceived as a victory on the part of the American people?

MR. GERGEN: If, as I think is going to happen, we're going to have a big land-air offensive, his troops are badly defeated, his army is dismantled, he is personally humiliated, they're sent out of there in a surrender condition and we impose reparations and impose a regime upon which denies him weapons, I can't see him declare anything but an American victory. If we also get him out of power, as I hope we do, that would be a further part of the victory, but I think the main thing, the critical thing is not whether it's a political victory, not the critical thing, it's have we achieved security in the region for the future?

MR. SHIELDS: It's nice to say the important thing is not whether it's a political victory. That's certainly one of the ways the White House is going to measure it and the way it is going to measure. There are going to be post mortems when this is over, Judy, and there are dozens of despots around the world. Why do we pick this one? Why do we go in? And all the signals that were sent and everything else, and this is inevitable, there's going to be some scapegoating. It happened after Pearl Harbor with a Democratic Congressman and a Democratic President, there are going to be inquiries made, and I think that if, in fact, we have a land battle, as David's describing, it is furious and terrible in its scope, in its intensity, and costs a lot of lives, and this fellow's left in power, I think it's going to be a tough thing for the President to defend. I'm not saying whether he should be or shouldn't be. I'm simply saying that George Bush has made it Saddam Hussein against George Bush, and I think tonight they're backing off. That's fine, if, in fact, it means that there's a resolution and the threat of loss of further life is diminished.

MR. GERGEN: Well, I don't think the American people want or would welcome a drive by the American forces to take Baghdad, to march to Baghdad. I think they want to see him out of Kuwait.

MS. WOODRUFF: Which is what you're saying would be necessary, to actually go get --

MR. GERGEN: It might be necessary to actually go get him. I don't think that we favor assassinating him, nor do I think we necessarily want to go to Baghdad just to score a political victory. The critical thing is let's try to get him out. I think what the administration is hoping is that he will be toppled. He'll be treated like a Mussolini by his own people. He'll be hung up by his own people. Failing that, if that does not happen, they want to make sure they have contained him, and that's why they want to keep the sanctions in place until they get that done.

MR. SHIELDS: Last week it would have been unacceptable to the Kuwaitis and the Saudis, as I understood it, as well as the Israelis, for him to remain in power. Is that no longer the case?

MR. GERGEN: I think that they, obviously the Kuwaitis, Saudis and Israelis all want him out. I think the administration did as of last week. I think the administration, the one thing I think they've changed on is I think they've backed away a little bit. I think they've softened on the question of whether they have to go all the way to kick him out.

MS. WOODRUFF: Because of all the damage that's been done?

MR. GERGEN: Yes, because of all the damage and because they think they can contain him and because they think the price of trying to go get him by going to Baghdad may be too high.

MS. WOODRUFF: And again, what are the instincts of the people you're talking to about what's going to happen tomorrow, that the Iraqis are not going to do what they're asking them to do?

MR. SHIELDS: I'm hopeful and I don't think anybody really knows - - it will be an informed guess -- but I'm hopeful that he will accept the terms and will begin the withdrawal and that we'll have a chance for peace. I mean, Gorbachev is hopeful as well. He wants -- his hands are not clean in this -- don't get me wrong. There is a capacity for mischief the Soviets have. They want to play a part in the post war role in the Persian Gulf. They want -- they don't want to see an old ally and a protege further humiliated and debase the Soviet military in particular that has supplied and trained this guy.

MS. WOODRUFF: David, what about the administration, what did they really think Saddam was going to do?

MR. GERGEN: I think the truth is they think it's unlikely that he'll move out, but they really wanted to end the haggle and they wanted to take this out of the bizarre and set a deadline that was clean, and end this once and for all.

MS. WOODRUFF: David Gergen, Mark Shields, thank you both. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: To recap the main stories of this Friday, Pres. Bush gave Iraq until noon tomorrow to begin withdrawing from Kuwait or face a ground war. On the NewsHour tonight, Sec. of Defense Cheney said the President's word should be taken at face value. He said, "Clearly, we are preparing to begin the next phase of the campaign." Also today Pres. Bush accused Iraq of launching a "scorched earth" policy in Kuwait. Pentagon officials said 150 Kuwaiti oil facilities had been set ablaze. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll be back on most public television stations tomorrow night with our special Saturday edition and then again on Monday. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.