The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; December 22, 2006

I'm Ray Suarez, today's news, talking to Syria about Iraq, energy imperialism, Russian style, shields in Brooks, and 365 plays by Susan Laurie Parks, all tonight on the news hour. Good evening, I'm Ray Suarez, Jim Lehrer is on vacation.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Friday, then should the U.S. talk to Syria about Iraq, we talk to Senator Bill Nelson, just back from Damascus, a Simon Marx report about Vladimir Putin's power play with Russia's natural resources, the weekly analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks, and playwright Susan Laurie Parks on her new project, 365 days, 365 plays. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by... We provide the financing to keep health care strong and healthy, we help energy companies find new resources, we work with communications companies to make the world smaller and

life bigger, we offer financial aid to make college possible for more students, at CIT, we help finance the future, because that's the place to be, see it with CIT. Somewhere in the hardland, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why a farmer is rising for a 15 hour day, and a trucker is beginning a five day journey, an 80M is turning corn and wheat, soy and cocoa beans into your favorite foods. Somewhere in the hardland, a child is sitting down to breakfast, which is why so many work so long, and take their job to hard, 80M, resourceful by nature. And by Pacific Life, Toyota, BP, the Atlantic Philanthropies, the National Science Foundation, and with the continuing support of these institutions and foundations, and this program

was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. There was more grim news from Iraq on this Friday before Christmas. The U.S. military announced the deaths of five more American troops. So far in December, 75 have died with nine days left in the month. That brings the toll for the war closer to the 3,000 mark. It now stands at 2,964. The news came as defense secretary Gates finished a three day visit to Iraq. He said the U.S. in Iraq have a broad strategic agreement on how to proceed. The situation here in Baghdad, obviously, is difficult. Yesterday, I told Prime Minister Maliki that we are committed to the success of the Iraqi government. They success will only be achieved by a joint effort with Iraqis taking the lead.

Gates is scheduled to meet with President Bush at Camp David tomorrow morning. The secretary would not say if he'd recommend sending more troops. An Islamic militant organization in Iraq offered U.S. forces a one month truce today. An audio message said they'd have that long to withdraw, leaving their heavy weapons behind. The message said, we call on President Bush not to waste this historic opportunity. The message gave the U.S. two weeks to respond. The group calls itself the Islamic State of Iraq and includes al-Qaeda among others. Denver International Airport reopened today, two days after a blizzard that wiped out airline schedules. The first plane took off just afternoon, Denver time. Earlier, an army of snow plows cleared more than two feet of snow from the runways. Last night, an estimated 1,500 people spent a second night at the airport. The problems disrupted holiday air travel around the country. Heavy fog at London's Heathrow Airport grounded thousands of people again today.

It forced a cancellation of hundreds more flights across the Atlantic and across Europe. We have a report from Julian Rush, a independent television news. When the suns out, 44 planes an hour land and take off from Heathrow, because of the visibility that's been halved. Welcome to day three at Britain's busiest airport, all fogged up. Once again, British Airways cancelled all domestic flights and some European ones, too. Some of all passengers face delays. I wish they'd give us more information, they haven't said anything. I may even be in the wrong queue. There's a bizzard in Denver, so we're flying to Chicago and hoping for the best. So your cancel not because of bad weather here, but because of bad weather in America. I'd rather America.

By tonight, over a thousand flights will have been cancelled by various airlines. British Airways has tried to clear some of the backlog by flying larger planes like 747s with more seats to European destinations. Ho, ho, ho. Thank you. Maybe yet, B.I. hopes to resume domestic flights at midday tomorrow and run a full schedule on Christmas Eve, assuming the fog does lift a course. The cancellations have affected an estimated 40,000 people since the fog rolled in Tuesday. The space shuttle discovery returned to Earth today after facing weather problems of its own. It landed at Kennedy Space Center in Florida after rain and clouds moved on. Earlier NASA considered landings in California and even New Mexico during an eight-day flight, discoveries crew added a section to the International Space Station. Fierce gun battles broke out again today in Gaza and the West Bank between rival Palestinian factions.

In Gaza City, gunmen from Fatah and Hamas fired hundreds of bullets, but there were no reports of any wounded. Later the two sides clashed at a Hamas rally in Nobles in the West Bank. Six people were wounded there. Islamic fighters in Somalia fought to a virtual standstill today with government troops. It was the fourth day of fighting, mostly around Baidoa, the only town the government controls. Ethiopian tanks and helicopters headed into the area supporting the government while thousands of Somalis fled. Iran faces a UN sanctions vote tomorrow over its nuclear program. The Security Council has demanded Iran stop work on enriching uranium, plus all research that could lead to weapons. The sanctions resolution would ban all trade with Iran involving nuclear technology and missile systems. It would also impose a freeze on some financial assets. The latest nuclear talks with North Korea ended today without an agreement. The Six Nation talks in Beijing with the first since North Korea tested a nuclear weapon earlier this year.

Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Christopher Hill said North Korea refused to discuss giving up its weapons program. We need to see what the DPRK is prepared to do, because if we're going to make progress on this. And six delegations willing to engage, not just five. And then we'll see if we can come back, whether there's an opportunity to come back. For their part, the North Koreans insisted the U.S. must end financial sanctions before there can be any progress. There was no date set for the next round of talks, but Hill said he hopes it will be in weeks, not months. Prosecutors in North Carolina dropped rape charges today against three Duke University lacrosse players. They'd been accused of attacking a stripper at a team party last March. But court papers filed today said the woman is no longer sure if she was raped. The players are still accused of kidnapping and sexual offense, which covers any sexual act.

A federal appeals court today caught $5 billion in damages against ExxonMobil by half. The case stemmed from the Exxon Valdez spill. In 1989, the tanker ran aground, covering 1,500 miles of Alaskan coast in crude oil. In 1994, a jury awarded the damages to 34,000 fishermen and others. Today the court said it was time for the long-running case to end. In economic news, the Commerce Department reported consumer spending was up, half a percentage point last month, the most in four months. But on Wall Street and like trading, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 78 points to close at 12,343. The Nasdaq fell more than 14 points to close at 2401. And for the week, the Dow lost 8 tenths of a percent, the Nasdaq fell 2%. That's it for the news summary tonight. Now, engaging Syria on Iraq, Russian power plays, analysis from shields and brooks, and a year's worth of plays.

The question of Syria, as debates swirls in Washington about whether to engage Iraq's neighbor, several members of Congress have hit the road to Damascus. Margaret Warner has that story. When Democratic Senator Bill Nelson met Syrian President Bashar Assad last week, it was the first time in nearly two years that a high-level U.S. government figure had come calling to Damascus. The Bush administration recalled the U.S. ambassador to Syria in February 2005. The day after a massive car bombing in Beirut killed former Lebanese prime minister Rafi Hariri. Suspicion quickly fell on Syria, and an ongoing UN investigation into the assassination has implicated high-ranking Syrian officials. Yet Damascus has recently emerged as a destination for some U.S. senators visiting the region.

Democrats John Kerry and Chris Dodd followed Nelson's lead this week, and Republican Arlen Specter is expected next week. The idea of renewed engagement with Syria got a major boost this month from the Iraq study group. Led by former Secretary of State James Baker and Congressman Lee Hamilton, they urged the administration to talk directly to Syria and Iran to help stabilize neighboring Iraq. But the Bush administration has publicly rejected that recommendation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained why in an interview on last night's news hour. The idea that we somehow have to tell them what to do in order to stabilize Iraq when they, in fact, are the ones who are destabilizing Iraq? They know what they're doing. They can stop it on any day. Perhaps the reason that they would perhaps rather do it by talking to us is that then they can exact the price for cooperation in Iraq, and those are prices we're not willing to pay.

The White House also has criticized senators for going to Damascus, calling the visits not helpful and not appropriate. White House spokesman Tony Snow, further said that the senators who've met with Assad have only handed him a PR victory. We go now to one of those senators, Bill Nelson. The Florida Democrat is a member of the foreign relations and armed services committees, and beginning in January of the intelligence committee as well. This was his third meeting with Bashar Assad. And welcome, Senator. Why did you go to Damascus? What did you hope to achieve? Well, I was going to the entire Middle East and Central Asia area to see what we need to do with regard to stabilizing Iraq. And it was very clear after the Baker Hamilton Commission reported that this was one component. As a matter of fact, the Bush administration made their request.

I said I would still like to go and would like to have the support of the State Department. In fact, the State Department facilitated the trip and sent one of the embassy in Damascus to the meeting. And I can give you a report on the meeting if you'd like. Either way, I've got an echo in my ear if you'd ask your engineer to correct that, please. Well, definitely see if we can correct that. And I do want to ask you about the meeting. I just want to clarify what you just said when you said they made their request. I mean, they requested the State Department asked you not to go. That's correct. But then when I told them that on the basis of the Baker Hamilton Commission report that I felt won't like it was important, that member of the Foreign Relations Committee go, then the State Department did support the trip and, in fact, sent one of the members of the embassy staff to the meeting.

So tell us about the conversation with Assad, particularly as it involved Iraq. What did you say to him? What did he say to you? I just want to say also that the administration, you know, they want a monopoly on the foreign policy and they've had a compliant partisan Congress to give them that monopoly in the last six years. And it just simply hasn't worked with regard to the issue of Iraq and our stabilizing Iraq. And so as the Baker Hamilton Commission reported, they want fresh ideas and they want a bipartisan approach and it was in that sense that I went not only to Syria, but I went to nine countries in the last two weeks. Now what Assad said to me was, of course, we sharply differed on Lebanon. We sharply differed on Hamas and Hezbollah.

He was not telling me the truth, truth about those matters. But he did open the door to want to have some cooperation with America or the Iraqi army on the question of the control of the border, the Syrian Iraqi border, or for that matter, the Damascus airport, where a bunch of the people are coming in there. And so I immediately then called Nicholas Burns, the number three fellow in the State Department and reported to him so that they can then, in the executive branch, pick up from there. As you pointed out, since then, John Kerry and Chris Dodd have been there, our inspector is coming and I called our inspector after my meeting with Assad and gave him a complete rundown on the meeting. But you heard Secretary Rice say, the Syrians know she said, what to do if they want to help at least not inflame the violence in Iraq, and that is to stop letting insurgents

and weapons and money cross the border from Syria and to Iraq. Did you discuss that with President Assad? Did he tell you why he hasn't stopped it up till now? Well, I certainly did, and that's where he and I sharply disagreed. And I told him that the next day that I was going to Lebanon to meet with the Prime Minister, Sinora, and that I strongly supported that government. I'm sorry, Senator. I'm not actually asking about Iraq. Did he explain why that border between Syria and Iraq continues to be so porous, why the insurgents continue to get resupplied through that channel? Well, he did that three years ago, and at the time that I was there indicated a willingness to start cooperating, and indeed, there was cooperation, albeit sporadic, and it continued up to and past the time of the Rafik Harari assassination in Lebanon, and then all of a sudden

that cooperation and communication cut off. And so I felt like that it was important to see if there was any daylight there, and indeed there was a little crack in the door, and we'll see if it was an outright lie, or if indeed it was like last time, and some cooperation starts. Now, Secretary Rice also said that, you know, since they already know what they should do, they don't need to talk to us. The only reason they want to talk to us, meaning she's speaking of herself and the administration is, they want to exact a price. They want the U.S. to help them get a pass, let's say, on the investigation going on through the U.N. of the Harari assassination or other issues. Did Assad suggest that, in fact, there would be a quid pro quo that he was looking for certain things from the United States? No, but all of this elliptical conversation and all of these jockeying for position, this

is not only reflective of the Middle East, but indeed with a lot of our diplomatic relations around the world. And so what I think it would do well for America is to listen what Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to extraordinarily experience the diplomats have said, and that is start talking. And remember what Jim Baker said, he believes in talking to our enemies. But just finally, could you get any sense from Assad, what incentive he has now to help that he might, that he didn't have before? As you said, you yourself, and he had the same conversation two years ago, and in fact, it still goes on what Syria is doing. Yeah, the conversation was three years ago.

Yes, as a matter of fact, he does have some incentive now. He's got a refugee problem coming out of Iraq. It is clearly in his interest to have some control of that border. He also wants to run a pipeline from Kirk Cook in northern Iraq through Syria to an outlet at the Mediterranean. So he clearly has that incentive. Now whether or not anything's going to come of this, I don't know, but I was certainly going to report this little slight crack in the door, and let's see if it's true. All right, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, thanks so much. Thank you. Coming up, shields and brooks, and playwright Susan Laurie Parks writes a play a day for a year.

Those stories follow a special report from correspondent Simon Marks on how Russia's vast energy reserves are fueling its political ambitions. Every night for 28 years, Gennardi Loganoff has driven the streets of Moscow. One of the longest-serving trolley bus drivers in the Russian capital, from behind the wheel, he's been able to measure the historic shift that took place here after the Soviet Union collapsed, and a new Russia rose to prominence in its wake. Driving the streets at night, he can physically see the energy-led boom that is bringing unprecedented prosperity to Moscow, flooding the Russian capital with cars and bright lights that at this time of year illuminate this once gloomy city for 15 hours a day. It's impossible to keep to the schedule now because there are traffic jams everywhere, and the city used to be a lot darker.

First of all, we never had these kind of illumination, and even the street lamps were different. There were lights, but compared with today, it was a lot worse. The lights of Moscow bear witness to Russia's new economic confidence, and to a sense that in the capital at least, the authorities have money to burn. That prosperity is derived from Russia's natural abundance in gas and oil, and the soaring prices of both on global markets. Russia controls around one-third of the world's total natural gas reserves, and most of the gas industry is controlled by the state-owned conglomerate GazPROM. It's now the world's third-largest company worth more than $300 billion. Its business reaches far beyond Russia's borders. It now supplies fully one-third of Western Europe's gas imports from its control room in Central Moscow, and is quite literally a major player, keeping European households warm and industries powered this winter. The Gaku Priyanov is gas-crumbs spokesman.

There is no alternative to GazPROM for European consumers, maybe they are starting to realize this and they are getting a little nervous about it. But this has been clear for a long time. There are no equivalent gas reserves to ours, and gas output in Europe has been rapidly falling. Our position is absolutely constructive. We reach out a hand and offer partnership. We offer to build our relations in a way that causes no one any offense, so that we can really build our joint businesses over the long term based on contractually defined relations. GazPROM is defensive on the issue of its motives and business practices, insisting publicly that it's like any other global corporation, simply seeking the best financial deal it can find for its 470,000 shareholders, the largest one of which happens to be the Russian government. But travel just 500 miles southwest of Moscow to Kiev, the capital of neighbouring Ukraine, and you can hear a very different story.

As winter closes in on Ukraine, protesters have taken to the streets of the capital. This demonstration was called to focus attention on rising prices in general, among them at the soaring costs of energy. Since Soviet times, Russia has supplied Ukraine with fuel at deeply discounted prices. Ukraine keeps some for domestic use, but sells the lion's share at a profit to Western Europe. 80% of Russia's gas exports have to pass through Ukrainian pipelines on the way to Western Europe, and the protesters blame the rising prices on the Russian government. Russia is hiking prices because it wants us to give up the pipelines that transit gas to Europe. We want to put a rope around our necks so that we give up our pipelines, and then it will be able to do whatever it wants with us. The demonstrations come just two years after a popular uprising known as the Orange Revolution

overturned the result of a rigged presidential election here, an election in which Russia directly intervened to the anger of many Ukrainians. Ukraine is part of what Russia refers to as the near abroad, the now-independent states of the former Soviet Union that constitute its own backyard. And in that backyard, Russia is seeking to maintain, and these protests to say expand its fear of influence, and its using its control of oil and gas as a principal weapon in that campaign. It's a weapon that many Ukrainians argue was unleashed last January. In the midst of a dispute over the price Russia wanted to charge Ukraine for natural gas, gas problems suddenly cut supplies to Ukraine. It in turn reduced supplies to Western Europe. Even today, there is no agreement on why the dispute was elevated to a level where it dramatically caught the attention of governments in several European capitals.

My feeling is that that was motivated politically. Al-Ye-Griba-Chupk, at the time the Ukrainian president's chief of staff, says the Russians were simply holding his country to ransom. The world suddenly realized that something is wrong or something is missing in the code of conduct in this fear of energy security. But we've had the privilege to be the first one to feel how does it taste. Actually, we didn't like it very much. The Russians put the blame for the disagreement firmly at Kiev's door, saying the Ukrainians balked at starting to pay market prices for natural gas that for decades has been sold to them at heavily subsidized levels. If you receive an electricity bill that says electricity in the entire building is going to be more expensive and you say, I'm on the first floor of the building. I want to pay what I paid before or else you can't come into the building and then instead

of reducing your consumption, you turn all the lights on in all the rooms. While a situation similar to this happened on January 1st, our Ukrainian partners believe that through their unique transit position, they could get special prices for themselves. Independent observers say there's a third dynamic at work, a desire on the part of the Kremlin to use Russia's energy resources as a tool of foreign policy that rewards countries for pursuing friendly relations with Moscow and punishes those that don't. In the past few weeks, the Russians have turned their attention to Georgia, an ally of the Bush administration announcing today that the government there had agreed to a 125% rise in the price of Russian gas, 24 hours after being threatened with cuts in supplies, and Belarus, where the government is facing similar pressures after failing to integrate its economy with Russia's as fast as Moscow would have liked. If a country wants to receive cheaper gas from Russia, then it has to recognise it has

certain responsibilities towards Russia to get that cheaper gas. Roland Nash is the chief strategist at Renaissance Capital, an investment banking firm specialising in Russia and the former Soviet Union. I think Russia decided that Ukraine was following a policy objective that it didn't like, and that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence, and that a way in which Russia could put pressure on Ukraine to follow policies that Russia liked better was through the use of their energy position and the fact that they are a monopoly supplier of energy to Ukraine, and put pressure on Ukraine for exactly that reason. It seems pretty clear to me that that's what they were trying to do. Not so, say, advises to the Russian President Vladimir Putin. They vigorously contest the notion that gas bomb is pursuing anything other than transparent relationships with its customers based on current market prices.

Energy is important in terms of politics, but it is not the thing that he would like to use as a policy instrument. It just gives us enough economic strength to be considered as one of the active participants in the world politics. So not used by the Kremlin as a tool of foreign policy? No. No. Not at all. But the Russian audience has been hearing a different message from Vladimir Putin himself. In late October, the Russian leader appeared on a television program, taking questions from Russian citizens from the Baltic to the Pacific, and he appeared to endorse the notion that Russia and its neighbors should use their economic power to buy themselves foreign policy leverage.

We understand that for hundreds of years, the people of Russia and these republics have existed as the people of one country. This could not but be reflected in our human relations, in our economic ties, in our transportation system. Whatever anyone says, this is a special case in the national relations. I think we should use this absolutely obvious competitive advantage over our partners and competitors in world markets. We should move towards not only coordination, but integration above all economic fear. That kind of talk alarms Europeans, a recent addition of the London-based Newsweekly the economist offered one assessment of the Russian leader's approach. Today Vladimir Putin, on his first visit to Ukraine for two years, was pledging to build relations with the country based on neighborly ties and equal rights. But many Ukrainians believe the Russians still have a problem with the whole idea of their country's independence, and among those concerned is Oliagrebachuk, the former chief of staff to the Ukrainian president.

If you talk to Russian diplomats, and if you talk even to citizens in the street, they would say that they do not understand things like independence of Ukraine, because it sounds stupid. And they would speak about spheres of influence, or they sometimes call it soft under belly. They would be choosing different words, sending a clear signal that by dealing with Ukraine, you have to proudly discuss it with Moscow. Financial analysts worry that Russia's geopolitical goals are now damaging the climate for foreign investments, certainly in the energy sector. Western partners are being kept at best at arms length, some including BP, Texaco, and Shell have seen existing agreements constantly revised by the Russians. The fast money the country is earning, thanks to Boyan, world prices, obscures what many analysts argue is a potentially disastrous lack of investment in the energy sector.

Russia's oil output rose only 2% in the first 10 months of 2006. Exports were actually down, and the country is facing a shortage of gas for domestic consumption in 2007. To pretend to be a superpower when your pipelines are 25 years out of date, when gas from production output last year has reached only 0.8%. When oil production this year is expected to reach only 2% is a bit of a creation new illusion. The only question is whether Russian political elite and the Kremlin team really believe in its mirage, in the inevitability of Russia's become in a superpower, or it's simply a trick, a gimmick, and a fairytale that they are playing with the West, and with its own electorate. Russia continues to project itself as a major power broker, both in terms of supplying

energy and in terms of wielding influence throughout the former USSR and around the world. If global energy prices fall or Russia fails to invest adequately in its energy sector, the outward signs of prosperity may be threatened. But for now, the bright lights of Moscow continue to burn. And to the analysis of shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, in Mark the President's announcement to the country of the new way forward in Iraq is going to have to wait till next year, but he did talk to reporters earlier this week for over an hour. What did you see? What did I see? I saw the President have a certain rendezvous with reality about the progress, a lack thereof, and Iraq, say that the United States is not winning, which was obviously reversal.

At times, he seems more relaxed and confident than he had in the past, we're talking about bipartisan initiatives in cooperation with the Democrats and the Hill. And then, Ray, he would turn a little bit current and defensive when he was asked to his own legacy and compared to LBJ. But the reality is that the President has only two options in Iraq and either disengage or escalate, and it looks like he is leaning toward a limited version of the second. So he wouldn't be drawn out, David, on exactly what he has to play. Yeah, I don't know why he had to go public this week, and what he had nothing to say. There was this duper debate about winning and losing, which are probably obsolete terms in this kind of conflict, but he has a decision inside the administration, which they're now arguing about. And the decision is a plan really prompted by retired General Jack Keane and others, which is to devote 20 or 30,000 troops to Baghdad, and finally do the job we haven't done, which

is to actually secure the place. It has to get our troops out of the bases to put more people in and secure the place. And the theory is that it still can be secured, and that creates the political room. My fear is that it's not two options, it's three options that are going to do a half-hearted attempt at securing the place, which we've been doing for three years, which is like a 70% solution, where we've put in a few more troops, pretty limited time. We don't take people out of the bases and put them in the neighbors to secure the neighborhoods. We do it halfway, which is what we've been doing as some sort of compromise measure. I don't know which is the right policy, but my advice to Bush would be if you're going to do the go large, which is the do it, or get out, but don't do some sort of halfway go medium, because that will surely fit. Well this week there was reporting in the Washington Post that indicated his own service chiefs are very skeptical of a go large strategy. Right. And what you have in the military is people in the mid to low levels saying we need more troops, we need more troops, and gates hurt some of that this week. In the top levels you have the generals who have been in charge of our troop levels for

the past three years, and their theory has been if we put more troops in that just inflames the situation, and their second theory is we can't support the troops we have there. And so their top generals are pretty much let's stay the course, let's do what we've been doing. I think for most outside viewers that's not working, so either go large or go small, but don't stay the course, which was a general case in Abazade, have been saying and continue to say. And it's interesting that this strategy from keen is recently retired general, and a whole series of recently retired officers from Telafar and other places have come up with this strategy saying let's finally do it right. And so it's gone outside the normal military channels through the retirees and gotten straight to the way down. I just just say, and I think it's becoming increasingly clear that sending more US troops to Iraq will not postpone, will not alter the inevitability of US and disengagement. It will simply postpone that date of that inevitable disengagement. And the generals are talking about the George Bush is ignoring whose council is ignoring

right now. Are the men he chose, he didn't inherit any of these people. Every one of the generals in a position of leadership right now in Iraq and the military anywhere was a Bush appointee. He was nominated for chosen by this White House, chosen by this Secretary of Defense, the previous Secretary of Defense. And so I mean, this isn't, this is the president who said I'm always going to be guided, always going to be determined by the number of troops we use by the commanders in the field. And now he's saying the commanders in the field are to be ignored. So it is, it's it's about face on his part, but I don't think anybody ought to be kidding that this is going to 20,000 troops are going to mean anything in changing the outcome of this war. Well, first of all, I mean, let me jump in there, because both of you are talking about a Washington establishment that is talking about these options seemingly removed from the realm of politics, as if 300 million Americans from sea to shining sea don't get a vote in this thing too.

Are the American people up for another 20 or 30,000 troops in Iraq at a time when they were constantly told and have been told for years that we would now be pulling out? Well, I'm not sure there's much momentum for pulling out. I think one of the things the Baker Hamilton Commission did, we could have had right after the election, we could have had a move to pull out Gordon Smith, Republican Senator, said, I'm at the end of my rope, but the Baker Hamilton Commission really froze debate for a month and drained away that pulling out momentum. And then the Baker Hamilton Commission talked about a gradual drawdown leaving perhaps 70,000 troops in for another two or three years. So I think within Washington, the momentum for quickly getting out is not there. And so I think there would be some bipartisan support if the President decided we're going to give this one last turn. My question, frankly, is not so much the American people, it's the Iraqi people. Suppose we do secure Baghdad, but suppose the Shia and the Sunni still don't want to compromise, suppose the butcher on the street and Baghdad, all he can think about is not reconciliation, but killing the people who killed my brother.

And if that's really in the heart and soul of the Iraqi people, then I do think that the more troops won't help. But there are a number of people within the military who think that what we've been doing for three years by General Casey and I would say it's just enough to lose, and we should give it one honest attempt to devote the resources we need. Right, George Bush's presidency right now is on life support. This is his last chance, what he comes up with. What he proposes does not inspire and generate support, popular, and political support in this country. But more important does not lead to success on the ground. It's been the failure on the ground, the reality of the tragedy and the defeat that is penetrated to America. It's not been a loss of will. It's been a confrontation with the reality of what's happened there. And I think this is where George Bush's, if it fails, then George Bush's presidency is for all practical purposes over. David mentioned the Iraq study group, and this program, like many others, minded, analyzed it, dissected it.

Is it finished or people even talking about it as a policy blueprint any longer? In some respects, it became for Democrats who did not have an agreed-upon policy, a convenient place to rally. But I think it did something terribly important in something that's changed in terms of this debate, and that is it put right on the table where nobody could hide from it and nobody descended that we are losing, that the situation is deteriorating, and that is going to get worse in a hurry. You can argue about specifics, whatever, but that committee, that commission coming together and making that statement and getting no argument and no dissent on the other side from the administration, I think has changed the debate and brought a new sense of urgency this and has forced this president to confront his own reality and his political mortality. I mean, because Iraq is his legacy, Iraq is his entire legacy, and it's a tragic legacy. Right, I would say it did a good job of describing how bad the situation is there. I think the second thing it did was to kill the Murtham momentum, which is to get out. The third thing it did was to emphasize talking to other countries in the region, which

is what we heard earlier in the program, and the fourth thing it did was talk about how does Astros would be to get out too rapidly. And so it did all those things, and that's where Bush is now left with, the disastrous consequence of getting out, which is why he and other people, not only him, are willing to give it perhaps one last try. Let's revisit what you mentioned was sort of injected into the policy bloodstream, talking to the neighbors, talking to Iran and Syria has not come easily to this administration. Is there more of an opening? Well, kind of Lisa Rice was on the news hour last night, basically saying not unless both of them changed their tunes. In general, I think talking to those countries, and especially Syria is a good thing. For the reasons Dennis Ross, the former envoy, talks about it, it's a shock absorber. You get the countries engaged, and especially you get the elites engaged. I'm extremely dubious that can do much good. We're not going to trade the Lebanon to get Syria's cooperation in Iraq that would just be a betrayal of Lebanese people in the national shame. I do not believe that what's happening in Iraq with Sunnis killing Shia has anything to

do with Israel and Palestine. I doubt which was the Baker Commission theory that Syria could get Hamas to recognize Israel. I think that's unrealistic. So I don't have much optimism that talks can come out of this, but I do think talking is generally a good thing for the atmospherics of the region. Mark? I think it's better than just atmospheric, I think it's more important. And I think what we saw this week in Iran, I mean that when the president gets confronted by student revolutionaries, one of the resistors, who object as many people have a past political events, when the bust-in is an entire crowd that's pro-president and there's no room for the students to speak, even be heard at this university and they stand up with death to the dictators' signs and burn them in his presence. I mean that tells you and the elections in Iran, you know, I think there's an opening there. I really do. I think it's one that ought to be explored and exploited.

But why does it help us to legitimize him? I mean they hate the death to the dictator, they don't want the dictator gone, and why does it help them if we legitimize the leader? I mean I've meant it. Deenajad comes out of the Holocaust denial session and goes into a session with Condi Rice how does that help either that arise? I'm simply saying you talk to all Iranians, you simply talk to him. I mean it just as foreign governments talk to all elements in this country, they simply talk to the United States at White House. Well I'd be certainly for going and talking to the dissidents if it would help. Well I mean it means talking to them, I just I really think you know, Jai Jai Jai is better than World War War and this seems to be a lot of World War war talk and moving battleships around in this past place. The other thing that plays into that though is the Saudis and the Sunni governments really do not want us to talk to Iran. They do not want us to negotiate from position of weakness. A little less remarked upon was the president's casual mention that he's ready to support a sizeable increase in the minimum wage. At another time in our past that might have gotten a lot of attention but Iraq sort of

totally drowned that out? It is. What's most interesting to me even though he puts in that have to have some regulatory relief and tax breaks for business was I mean this is heresy to the theologian. The theologians of the Wall Street Journal editorial page I mean any increase in the minimum wage is violent of the market and everything else is going to have dire consequences and if the George W. Bush to embrace it I think is an important step in the right direction. Again a rendezvous with reality and we get 30 state plus states that have already acted on it and overwhelming majorities in the Congress but I think he's to be commended. Well I mean the argument against it is that it cuts the number of jobs that are created because you make the employment so expensive but at this stage not having had a raise in such a long time in many parts of the country you know the minimum wage jobs are already $67 an hour much higher so I don't think it would do much harm economic harm and I think a lot of free market economists say under these circumstances it probably wouldn't do it much economic harm but I do come back to my original point that it's awfully poorly

targeted. That if you really want to help the working court the earned income tax credit is the way to do it not to have a policy which has massive spillover massive subsidies for upper middle class kids and relatively few subsidies to the working class. Mark Merry Christmas David Happy New Year and have a good vacation thank you. Finally tonight a project of days plays and a year of theater Jeffrey Brown has our report. It was not a typical day at the theater recently in Denver. And you're sitting. You're not. Your legs are folded underneath you. Actors delivered their lines on a sidewalk while the audience watched from the street. The play ended only minutes after it began and was followed soon after by another one across the street.

Well that's the end of that I get it. Nothing in fact is typical about the 365 days 365 plays project not how the plays were written one a day over the course of a year let me pass and not how they're being presented by hundreds of theater companies around the country in a year-long festival. In New York recently I met up with a woman behind all this in 2002 Susan Laurie Parks had just won a Pulitzer Prize for her play top dog hundred. When she got the idea of writing up play a day. I felt like I'd been given so much by theater so why not make a daily offering to the art form that had given me so much. That's the psychological version of why I did it. It was fun. It sounded like fun and could I do it? I don't know. Let's see. That's really why I did it. So you got this idea. You wrote the first one and then you woke up the next day and thought oh my goodness. What the heck am I doing or what did I do?

Well, I'm not cleaning up my language there but what have I got myself into? We've been Austin where they did it on a bridge outside. Oh really? A pedestrian bridge. Parks 42 is the author of 12 plays but she'd never done anything like this. As the days unfolded the plays came all quite short some just a few paragraphs other several pages. Inspiration came from everywhere the news the depth of a famous person and overheard conversation. Sometimes in line as I waited to board an airplane you know you're waiting to get on the security line you know get to the security thing standing in line you know with your shoes tucked under your arm you writing and you're overhearing someone say I lost my sweater. I don't do that because part of a play. Hey guys. All of this was merely a personal quest for parks until her friend theater director Bonnie Metzker asked to see the plays and decided they had to be produced. We began to talk about how we might be able to give that experience to as many people as

possible. We invite you now to go inside we're plays are performing in the lobby and in the balcony. The two women then took the next a typical step in this story rather than work with one theater they created a festival in which the plays would be presented over a year by many theater companies nearly 800 have signed up to date. Lord! Me too! They organized regional hubs around the country each hub then enlisted 52 local theater groups to perform one week's worth of plays. There's this huge art community and theater community across the country and around the world that is happening every day and this is an expression of that community. Friends fries. Lots of ketchup and hot sauce. Double burger, make it with those nice thick patties, a root beer float and a slice of apple pie. All the mode. When the festival launched in November the curious theater company in Denver presented

the first week's plays which included one about the last meal of a man on death row. Microwave? Yeah. Like I'm going to be in a minute. I'm home. Another called father comes home from the wars, had parks characteristic mix of humor and seriousness. They're home. Yes. I wasn't expecting you. Ever. Maybe I should go back outside and come back in again. Please. I think a lot of people might not recognize these as plays or at least as full blown plays the way we're used to.

Sure. Sure. So what sense are they a play? A play has a doorway in it from the conception, from its conception. A play has a doorway in it. Through that doorway will come actors, directors, audience members, journalists, scholars, designers, you know, of all kinds. And in terms of the rewriting, the editing process, the quality idea, is there any difference in these as opposed to your full-length plays? Sure. Sure. Certain words, first the writing comes, the radical inclusion, everything is welcome. And then, of course, you trim, prune, you want to make it strong enough so that you can pass it out to 700 different theaters. The actors in Denver said that in spite of their short length, the plays felt complete. They were pertinent to what was going on, but they just had this incredible timeless quality about them, this sort of iconic, mythic, almost sort of scenarios that were being

played out. She gives you a full arc. Those characters have a full journey, and I do feel that as far as the pieces that I've been a part of, they started a specific place. You have a wonderful arc, and then they end. Which I think is a magnificent thing to be able to accomplish, and sometimes half a page. You know, why not? For the audience, it wasn't always easy to distinguish the actors from those watching. But Paul Baru said he felt that only heightened the experience. Well, I think you get more of a sense of the vitality of life as it is actually going on when you're watching it. When you see a play, it's very hard to break the barrier of knowing that it's on the stage and been directed and created, and while some plays get beyond that, they're very rare. Where's this breaks beyond that almost every time you see it?

Park says her project is also sparking another kind of response. What's fun is that I've gotten a lot of emails from other writers, a lot of young writers saying, hey, we got a group together in Portland, and we're going to write a play a day, all of us together. We're going to do that, and that's really neat. Well, that's what I was wondering. I mean, there's a sense of, be a writer every day, learn to write by writing every day. If you're a writer, it's not about deciding once, and then just coasting. You know what I mean? It's like being married. You can't just decide. You can't say I do on your wedding day, and then just coast. You have to say I do every day, or at least that's how I feel. I say I do with my husband. We say I do every day. We're looking into a disaster. I do. You do? You do, too. I do the same thing with my writing process. I do. I say that every day. There will always be damsels in distress. There will always be dragons. 365 days, 365 plays, the festival will continue through November 2007.

APPLAUSE MUSIC Again, the major developments of this day, the U.S. military announced the deaths of five more American troops in Iraq. Denver International Airport reopened two days after a blizzard wiped out airline schedules, and the space shuttle Discovery landed after an eight-day flight. Washington Week can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations, and we'll see you online, and again here, Monday evening. Have a great weekend. I'm Ray Suarez. Thanks for joining us. Good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by. There's a company that builds more than a million vehicles a year in places called Indiana and Kentucky,

one that has ten plants from the foothills of West Virginia to the Pacific coastline. What company is this? Toyota. A company that along with its dealers and suppliers has helped create hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs, a company proud to do its small part to add to the landscape of America. In navigating towards retirement, there are many courses you can take, and Pacific Life can help you reach your goals. With over 135 years of experience, Pacific Life offers a wide range of financial solutions. Approach the future with confidence. Pacific Life, the power to help you succeed. And by BP, CIT, the Archer Daniels Midland Company, the Atlantic Philanthropies,

the National Science Foundation, and with the continuing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Who do you trust to tell all sides of a story? Who do you trust to let different voices be heard? Who do you trust to teach your children? Who do you trust to help make sense of it all? Americans trust PBS more than any other television network. To purchase video cassettes of the news hour with Jim Lehrer,

call 1-866-678-News. We are PBS. Thank you. Thank you.