The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, our summary of the news; then, and only, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's congressional testimony on the Iraqi prisoner scandal. We have extended excerpts, reaction from Senate Armed Services Committee Leaders Warner and Levin, perspective from historians Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith, and analysis by Mark Shields and David Brooks.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld apologized today to Iraqis abused in U.S. Military prisons. He appeared before two congressional committees and said he took full responsibility for what happened. He also said an outside commission would examine the scandal. Rumsfeld testified as several more major newspapers called for his resignation. Several leading Democrats have also demanded he quit. At today's hearings, the secretary was asked directly about his future.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Certainly since this firestorm has been raging, it's a question that I've given a lot of thought to. Needless to say, if I felt I could not be effective, I'd resign in a minute. I would not resign simply because people try to make a political issue out of it.

JIM LEHRER: Rumsfeld also warned today there are more photos, as well as videos, of abuse that could become public. The rest of the NewsHour after this News Summary will be devoted to the Rumsfeld testimony and the prisoner scandal. There were new details today on Red Cross warnings of prisoner abuse. Agency officials said they alerted U.S. officials about problems at a Baghdad prison last February. The "Wall Street Journal" reported inspectors found evidence that inmates were severely beaten, stripped naked and handcuffed so tightly they suffered nerve damage. In Geneva today, a Red Cross spokesman said the abuse went beyond just a few cases.

PIERRE KRAEHENBUEHL: It is clear that our findings do not allow to conclude that what we were dealing with here in the case of Abu Ghraib prisoners were isolated acts of individual members of the coalition forces. What we have described amounts to a widespread problem.

JIM LEHRER: The Red Cross also made a separate report last July. Today's "journal" said it detailed 50 allegations of mistreatment at a U.S. Military intelligence site outside Baghdad. Shiite radicals in Iraq condemned the U.S. In Friday prayers today. Their leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, dismissed President Bush's apology for the prison scandal. He said, "America claims that it is fighting terrorism. Now it is doing the same acts done by Saddam." In Baghdad and Fallujah, Shiites and Sunni Muslims attended prayers together. They said they wanted to express their anger over the abuse. Also today, gunmen loyal to al- Sadr clashed again with U.S. Military forces near Najaf and Karbala. At least 23 Iraqis were killed. The U.S. economy surged ahead in April with thousands of new jobs. The Labor Department reported today unemployment fell 0.1 of a point to 5.6 percent. It said employers added 288,000 new workers. The report also raised the March total by nearly 30,000 jobs. On Wall Street today, stocks fell on fears that economic growth might kindle inflation. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost nearly 124 points to close at 10117. The NASDAQ fell more than 19 points to close below 1,918. For the week, the Dow lost 1 percent. The NASDAQ fell 0.1 percent. An American lawyer was linked today to the Madrid train bombings. It was widely reported that Brandon Mayfield was taken into custody yesterday outside Portland, Oregon, as a material witness. The Spanish interior ministry announced his fingerprints were found on a bag containing detonators after the March 11 bombings. Those attacks killed 191 people and wounded 2,000. A bomb exploded in a Shiite mosque in Pakistan today, killing 14 people, wounding scores more. Police in the port city of Karachi said it appeared to be a suicide attack. We have a report narrated by Vera Frankl of Associated Press Television News. ( Sirens wailing )

VERA FRANKL: The mosque was crowded with people when the bomb went off. Most of the victims were adults who had come to the mosque for prayers. The government condemned the attack and ordered an immediate investigation. Scores of people were wounded. Some estimates put the number at over 200. The bombing has enraged Karachi's Shiite community. Many residents were unable to contain their anger, some blaming police for failing to stop the violence. Around 80 percent of Pakistan's population is Sunni, and the rest are Shiite. Most live together in peace. But Friday's bomb could provoke further unrest.

JIM LEHRER: There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, but it was the latest in a string of bombings across Pakistan. The CIA confirmed today a new audio recording is likely from Osama bin Laden. The message appeared Thursday on the Internet. It offered gold bounties worth up to $125,000 for killing top U.S. and U.N. officials. They included Iraq administrator Paul Bremer, U.N. Secretary-General Annan and his envoy in Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi. A top U.S. regulator today defended a ruling on "morning- after" birth control. Dr. Steven Galson is acting drug chief at the Food and Drug Administration. Yesterday, he ruled against selling the "plan b" pill over the counter. He said he needs data on how the pill affects young teenagers. Today, Galson denied abortion politics influenced the decision. He said he considered only the science. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now, and the rest of the program: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's day in the Congress witness chair; with Senators Levin and Warner; Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith; and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - CALLED TO ACCOUNT

JIM LEHRER: The Rumsfeld testimony. Here are extended excerpts, reported by Kwame Holman.

KWAME HOLMAN: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was called before the Senate Armed Services Committee to explain how Iraqi prisoners could have been abused and humiliated at the hands of U.S. military personnel and why Congress was not made aware of it sooner. Virginia Republican John Warner is the committee's chairman.

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I have had the privilege of being associated with, and, more importantly, learning from the men and women of the armed forces for close to 60 years of my life. And I can say that the facts that I now have from a number of sources represent to me as serious an issue of military misconduct as I have ever observed. These reports could also seriously affect this country's relationships with other nations, the conduct of the war against terrorism, and place in jeopardy the men and women of the armed forces wherever they are serving in the world.

KWAME HOLMAN: The committee's top Democrat, Carl Levin of Michigan, said he believes responsibility for the abuses extends beyond those who actually committed them.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Those abusive actions do not appear to be aberrant conduct by individuals, but part of a conscious method of extracting information. If true, the planners of this process are at least as guilty as those who carried out the abuses. The president's legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales, reportedly wrote in a memorandum that the decision to avoid invoking the Geneva conventions "preserves flexibility" in the war on terrorism. Belittling or ignoring the Geneva conventions invites our enemies to do the same and increases the danger to our military service men and women. It also sends a disturbing message to the world that America does not feel bound by internationally accepted standards of conduct.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rumsfeld, joined at the witness table by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Meyers, was asked to testify under oath.

SPOKESMAN: The committee will now receive the opening remarks of the secretary.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in recent days there has been a good deal of discussion about who bears responsibility for the terrible activities that took place at Abu Ghraib. These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility. It's my obligation to evaluate what happened, to make sure that those who have committed wrongdoing are brought to justice, and to make changes as needed to see that it doesn't happen again. I feel terrible about what happened to these Iraqi detainees. They're human beings. They were in U.S. custody. Our country had an obligation to treat them right. We didn't, and that was wrong. So, to those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of the U.S. Armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was inconsistent with the values of our nation, it was inconsistent with the teachings of the military to the men and women of the armed forces, and it was certainly fundamentally un-American.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rumsfeld said even though his department had been investigating the abuses for months, he regretted not having shared the information outside the pentagon before photographs were released by the media.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Let me be clear. I failed to recognize how important it was to elevate a matter of such gravity to the highest levels, including the president and the members of Congress.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Rumsfeld said he was looking for ways to compensate those Iraqi detainees who were abused. But he also alerted the committee that there was more evidence of abuse to come.

DONALD RUMSFELD: There are other photos that depict incidents of physical violence towards prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman. Second, there are many more photographs and indeed some videos. Congress and the American people and the rest of the world need to know this.

KWAME HOLMAN: Acting Army Secretary Les Brownlee also testified and reported that the army's criminal investigation command currently is investigating the deaths of 25 detainees in U.S. custody.

LES BROWNLEE: Of the 25 death investigations, the CID has determined that 12 deaths were due to natural or undetermined causes, one was justifiable homicide, and two were homicides. The tenremaining deaths are still under investigation.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rumsfeld and Meyers brought with them a chart to show the progress of the Pentagon's investigations since they first learned of the abuses in January. Senator Levin asked Rumsfeld who he thought should be held responsible.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I just want to know how far up this chain you're going to go. Are you going to limit this to the people who perpetrated it, or are we going to get to the people who may have suggested it or encouraged it?

DONALD RUMSFELD: That is exactly why the investigation was initiated. That is why it's being brought forward. And we'll find what their conclusions are, and I'm sure they will make recommendations with respect to prosecution.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: But in terms of the standard, does anybody who recommended or suggested directly or indirectly that conduct in order to extract information, are they also, in your judgment, if that occurred, violate of our laws and standards?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Certainly anyone who recommended the kind of behavior that I've seen depicted in those photos needs to be brought to justice.

KWAME HOLMAN: During his questioning, Arizona Republican John McCain made it clear he wanted answers to come directly from Rumsfeld.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?

GEN. MYERS: I'll walk through the chain of command, and...

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, I'D... let's...

SPOKESMAN: I'll submit...

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: You can submit the change... chain of command, please.

DONALD RUMSFELD: General Smith, do you want to respond?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: No, Secretary Rumsfeld, in all due respect, you've got to answer this question, and it could be satisfied with a phone call. This is a pretty simple, straightforward question. This goes to the heart of this matter.

DONALD RUMSFELD: It does indeed. The... as I understand it, there were two contractor organizations. They supplied interrogators and linguists. And I was advised by General Smith that they... there were maybe a total of 40.

SPOKESMAN: They were not in charge.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: My question is, who was in charge of the interrogations?

SPOKESMAN: The brigade commander for the military intelligence brigade.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: And did he also have authority over the guards?

SPOKESMAN: Sir, he was... they... he had tactical control over the guards, so he was...

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Mr. Secretary, you can't answer these questions?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I can. I thought the purpose of the question was to try to make sure we got an accurate presentation. And we have the expert here who was in the chain of command. And...

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think these are fundamental questions to this issue.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Fine.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: What were the instructions to the guards?

DONALD RUMSFELD: That is what the investigation that I have indicated has been undertaken is determining.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: But Mr. Secretary, that's a very simple, straightforward question.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, the... as chief of staff of the army can tell you, the guards are trained to guard people; they're not trained to interrogate. And their instructions are to, in the case of Iraq, adhere to the Geneva conventions. The Geneva conventions apply to all of the individuals there in one way or another.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: So these...

DONALD RUMSFELD: They apply to the prisoners of war, and they are written out and they are instructed, and the people in the army train them to that, and the people in the central command have the responsibility of seeing that, in fact, their conduct is consistent with the Geneva Conventions. The criminals in the same detention facility are handled under a different provision of the Geneva Convention.

KWAME HOLMAN: Rumsfeld has maintained the pentagon made public it was investigating reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees as early as January.

SEN. BILL NELSON: Mr. Secretary, when did you first find out about the abuses?

DONALD RUMSFELD: With everybody else, when they were announced in... by the central command Jan. 16. They announced that they had a series of criminal investigations under way. They told the world, the Congress, me, everyone else that they were under way.

KWAME HOLMAN: In fact, on Jan.16, central command released this statement: "An investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse at a coalition forces detention facility. The release of specific information concerning the incidents could hinder the investigation which is in its early stages." But Maine Republican Susan Collins questioned whether Rumsfeld should have done more before CBS released photographs of the abuses last week.

SEN. SUSAN COLLINS: And I think that rather than calling CBS and asking for a delay in the airing of the pictures, it would have been far better if you, Mr. Secretary, with all respect, had come forward and told the world about these pictures and of your personal determination-- a determination I know you have-- to set matters right and to hold those responsible accountable.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, Senator Collins, I wish I had done that. I said that in my remark. I wish I knew-- and we've got to find a better way to do it-- but I wish I knew how you reach down into a criminal investigation when it is not just a criminal investigation, but it turns out to be something that is radioactive, something that has strategic impact in the world. And we don't have those procedures. They've never been designed. We're functioning in A... with peacetime constraints, with legal requirements, in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had... they had not even arrived in the Pentagon.

KWAME HOLMAN: There have been calls among some Democrats, particularly in the House of Representatives, for Rumsfeld to resign. None on this committee has called for it, but Indiana's Evan Bayh raised the issue.

SEN. EVAN BAYH: Even though you weren't personally involved in the underlying acts here, would it serve to demonstrate how seriously we take the situation, and therefore help to undo some of the damage to our reputation, if you were to step down?

DONALD RUMSFELD: That's possible.

SEN. EVAN BAYH: I appreciate your candor.

KWAME HOLMAN: Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor was the last senator to question Secretary Rumsfeld.

SEN. MARK PRYOR: Mr. Secretary, I must tell you that we do not like these type of surprises here in the Congress. And I don't want to sound glib in asking this question, but let me ask: We know the photographs are coming out, but do you anticipate anything else coming out in relation to this story that we need to know about today?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I'm certain there will be. You've got six investigations going on. You can be absolutely certain that these investigations will discover things, as investigations do, and that they'll elevate other individuals for prosecution and criminal matters. And you can be certain that there's going to be more coming out.

KWAME HOLMAN: Less than half an hour after finishing up before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Rumsfeld and Meyers kept their appointment before the House Armed Services Committee. In response to a question from Chairman Duncan Hunter, the two made a vehement denial that approval to abuse Iraqi detainees had come from Washington.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER: Is there anything, any regulation with respect to the treatment of prisoner that directs anything close to what we saw in terms of the activity manifested in those pictures.

DONALD RUMSFELD: Absolutely not. You want to....

GEN. RICHARD MYERS: I was just going to say there's... any implication that this behavior was driven by direction of the chain of command or by any pressure from any to get interrogation results from Washington, D.C., is absolutely just not right. I mean that is not how it works at all.

KWAME HOLMAN: House members' questions continued late into the afternoon. Secretary Rumsfeld said the Pentagon plans to create a special commission to investigate the abuses of the Iraqi detainees.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: Senators Warner and Levin; Beschloss and Smith; and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS - REACTIONS

JIM LEHRER: Now, reaction from the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: And we get that from the committee's Republican chairman, John Warner, and the ranking Democratic member, Carl Levin. Welcome, senators.

Senator Warner, what new did you learn today from Secretary Rumsfeld about how and why this abuse occurred?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, a great deal in this perspective. My good friend, the ranking member Carl Levin, and I have been on this committee 25 years. We've been through a lot of hearings. And today was an extraordinary one, for any number of reasons, given the tragic nature of these facts, the implications on our foreign policy, the implication on our forces, our forces which are bravely fighting on all over the world in the cause of freedom. But what we did learn is, I thought, very candid answers in response to very tough and thorough, but fair, questions. We gained a lot of information. And I think the secretary carefully said what he knew to be fact and what he expected to learn. For example, regrettably, but I think understandably, much more evidence is to come out. And the secretary very carefully advised the committee of that. The nature of that evidence we know not, except that it's likely to be various ramifications of what we've already seen. But it does provide, unfortunately, the media of the world an opportunity each day to grind a new chapter. And I'm just hopeful that our men and women of the armed forces understand that we are pursuing this revelation of facts according to the deeply rooted democratic principle of this country of freedom of information, freedom of speech, sharing with the public, and getting it all out there so the sooner it's behind us, they can then put it behind them. I'm talking about 99.9 percent of the men and women of the armed forces who are valiantly and courageously carrying out their missions throughout the world and here at home.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Levin, just to sharpen that... my question a little bit, what did you learn, or what have you concluded now after reading the investigative report and hearing Secretary Rumsfeld, about whether this was one MP unit run amuck, or whether there were either policies, orders that encourage or condoned this behavior?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: According to the testimony in the Taguba report, and even the photographs that reinforce that to indicate some really strong evidence that this was an organized effort to extract information from the people who were being detained, to get information from them by using MP's to mistreat them in the way that they were mistreated, to soften them up. In the words of one of the MP's in the Taguba report, this is more than MP's misbehaving and conducting themselves in the despicable ways that they conducted themselves. This is, it seems to me, quite clear part of a pattern, an effort, to obtain and extract information for the intelligence folks. And they're the ones, if in fact this is true, that have got to be held accountable. And there was some reluctance, I felt at the end on the part of Secretary Rumsfeld, when he said that he can't imagine that anyone could have approved or encouraged that kind of behavior. Well, it's kind of hard to imagine the behavior itself. But once you see the behavior itself, frankly, it not hard to imagine that somebody put them up to it.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Warner, let me just follow up on that. Secretary Rumsfeld did say that he thought there was an effort, and he thought it was appropriate to somehow link the way these mostly men were being held with efforts to make the interrogation more "effective," was his word. Do you think that could have been a factor, I mean, based on what you have learned this week?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, clearly, these men were held for reasons. They had reason to believe that their participation, either on the field of battle or elsewhere, was against the goals of the coalition forces to bring freedom to Iraq. But I want to commend the president of the United States, President Bush. He was the first to step in and apologize. And each one of our witnesses today offered the same apology and total condemnation of the breakdown of discipline, the non-professional behavior, and the obtaining-- if they did obtain, we are not sure of that-- obtaining of information and in fact by means of cruelty that just is not a part of our military history.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you think it was in response to some kind of encouragement, some kind of policy that was higher up than this one MP unit?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, there we don't have solid facts. I've always been of the opinion that our young men and women, when they leave the towns and villages of this nation, going through the arduous training to become soldiers, sailors or airmen, marines, they're the finest that we have. And they want to go abroad in the cause of freedom and fight, if necessary, or do their duties and respond to the orders of their superiors, whether that superior be a sergeant or a lieutenant or up the line. And I can't imagine that all these individuals, collectively put together, got into this unit and suddenly began to do things which are contrary to what they were taught at home as young people and taught in their schools. If not, someone hadn't instructed them to, in some way, deviate.

MARGARET WARNER: And who do you think that someone was, Sen. Levin?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I'm not going to speculate.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Levin, based on what you have.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I believe there's significance evidence that the military intelligence people and the contractors that were hired here privately were using these MPs, encouraging them to obtain infor... to soften up... soften up the people who were being held, the prisoners, so that then when the interrogators came along, they would provide intelligence. Is that known yet beyond a reasonable doubt? No. But there is testimony right in general Taguba's report from the MPs that that is what the intelligence folks told them that they wanted. They wanted them to soften up those inmates and those prisoners. And there's significance evidence, even looking at the pictures, as a matter of fact, that there was some kind of a methodology here. This is not just a few people acting in their own aberrant ways. These are people in a room-- six, seven people, you can see in a picture-- some people helping other people, other folks just standing by in a corner. It would be easier to believe, somehow or other, that this was just a few people engaging in incredibly sadistic and unbelievable behavior. But I'm afraid that there's too much evidence, even in the report of the army, to the contrary, that these folks were in fact working with the intelligence people, or at least thinking they were getting signals from the intelligence people, that they should soften up these prisoners.

MARGARET WARNER: And Sen. Levin, the other focus of the hearing, of course, is how the Pentagon has handled this ever since reports of abuse came to them. What's your assessment there?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Well, they were very late in sharing this information, obviously, with the Congress. I want to give Sen. Warner credit. He has taken the lead in really forcing into the open this information: Getting this hearing today, put together on very short notice, to really get the Pentagon to come forward and to share with us what they knew and when they learned it. So they had an opportunity last week to share this with us when they met with about 40 senators. They did not do so even though it was the same day that there was going to be a television program showing these abuses. And they should have done it at that time. They have not been forthcoming, as far as I'm concerned. But our chairman, Sen. Warner, is surely doing everything he can to get this information out to the public so that we can then hopefully get beyond it.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Warner, let me ask about the question of whether Secretary Rumsfeld should resign. Do you think his apology today was enough, or do you think he should resign?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: I want to be very careful about this. And first I would acknowledge that, yes, I'm chairman. I was preceded by Carl, who was chairman, and we have worked together these 25 years. And I think through our joint leadership, our members of our committee brought in before the public view today a good Senate hearing that was thoroughly given the opportunity to learn. Now, as to Rumsfeld's situation, I've known him for many years. We started way back together as youngsters in the Nixon administration. I was secretary of the navy, and I served under three consecutive secretaries of defense for five years during the War in Vietnam. And since that time, working with Carl, we've served these 25 years in the Senate Armed Services Committee. We've known a lot of them. I would rate Rumsfeld as a very competent secretary of defense. We work together cooperatively, we had our differences, but nevertheless, we both made an effort to work -- and a strong bond between the Congress and executive branch as it relates to the Department of Defense. The question was raised, and I think the president gave the answer; he said, "I want him to stay in the cabinet." And I support the president in that view, and I feel that Secretary Rumsfeld and I can continue to work just as we did before this tragic incident.

MARGARET WARNER: Sen. Levin, I would like to ask you the same question, and particularly ask it from the point of view that Sen. Bayh brought up today, which is, he said to Secretary Rumsfeld, "Even though you weren't directly involved, do you think perhaps you need to resign to demonstrate to the world how seriously the American government takes this?"

SEN. CARL LEVIN: And I think Secretary Rumsfeld's answer was that it is possible, as I remember. And he's right, it is possible; that it would help to restore confidence. If I thought his resignation would result in the changes that are necessary in underlying policies, I would very much favor that. But I don't think the underlying policies... and there has been too much... too many errors, too much mismanagement of this war, I don't see that changing with a change in the leadership in the Defense Department. And in terms of these events particularly, I think that Secretary Rumsfeld's answer is the right one. It is possible, particularly if there is more and more information unfolding, that a resignation would help to restore some public confidence. But from my perspective, it's the underlying policies which are the issue at this point.

MARGARET WARNER: Senators Levin and Warner, thank you both.

FOCUS - PERSPECTIVES

JIM LEHRER: Now, some historical perspective, and to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: We get that long view from presidential historians Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith, the director of the Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum.

Well, gentlemen, many times before in American history, there have been great events and public passions and concerns that find their expression in congressional hearings. And suddenly the spotlight turns and big stuff happens. Any come to mind as a parallel to today, Michael?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Well, I think maybe the key point here, Ray, is that you've got a president's person, Donald Rumsfeld, who is essentially being asked how high up did the responsibility for this go. And he essentially fell on his sword, which is usually what these people do; for instance, in 1960, a U-2 spy plane was sent by the U.S. into the Soviet Union and crashed, caused a big international incident. Christian Herter at the time, the secretary of state was asked in sworn testimony. Who sent the plane; was it the president? Herter said no. He could have been sent to jail for perjury so great was his eagerness to protect the president from involvement. No hint of that here, but there was very much that sense that Donald Rumsfeld wants to make sure that blame goes no higher and the president's protected.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: You know, it's interesting. I actually thought a little further back, back in 1951 when Harry Truman relieved Douglas Macarthur of command in Korea. Macarthur came home to a hero's welcome, and the parades in the street and talks of impeachment and then there were hearings conducted on Capitol Hill and they were thoughtful hearings, serious hearings conducted by serious and thoughtful people and they were about something important and that was the relationship of basically civilian control of the military, and in that sense today, in miniature, was an opportunity to strip away some of the cover to look at the military culture. What happened, of course, in Macarthur's case, he testified for three days, laid out his rationale for his conduct. He was followed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by the formidable General George Marshal. And before those hearings were over, could you already sense the air was going out of Macarthur's balloon. The talk about impeaching the president was over and 50 years later there's really not much debate over who was right and who was wrong.

RAY SUAREZ: You name a case, Richard, where the hearings, in effect, doused flames on what could be a runaway political problem for a sitting president. Are there times when a case can do the opposite and feed the fire and not end the speculation and keep an issue going?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Sure can.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard, finish up and we'll go to Michael.

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Certainly Watergate, which led in turn to the impeachment of President Nixon. And I also thought it is interesting. Listening to Senator Gramm today if you closed your eyes and I thought maybe he was channeling Sam Irvin, the same kind of folksy ferocity in his questions -- questions that were not legalistic, questions that I thought in many cases you or I or anyone on the street might want to ask of Secretary Rumsfeld and others, I thought there was some very thoughtful exchanges, which also were called the Watergate hearings at their best.

RAY SUAREZ: And Senator Graham's line of questioning got out on the floor what will likely lead a lot of newspaper stories and broadcast stories today and tomorrow that more pictures and possibly videos yet to come. Michael you wanted to say?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Could very well and Richard is right. The reason why Watergate flared is that unlike the other cases where you usually have the president's man or woman come in and say it was my fault; the president was not involved. You had John Dean, Richard Nixon's White House counsel saying for the first time Richard Nixon was at the center of the cover-up of the Watergate affair.

RAY SUAREZ: Let's talk a little bit about the art and the craft of apologies, Michael. There have been a lot of them coming from the administration this week. At other similar times in history they have been either forth coming or not.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And usually not. The sounds like a distinction without a difference to outsider but presidents are very careful in the language they use. For instance, even in 2001, remember the affair when an American plane had a near collision with a Chinese jet or a very difficult problem that led to a big diplomatic problem with the Chinese. Chinese asked George W. Bush to apologize. He wouldn't. When they finally settled it, he said he would only express regret. Usually presidents are very loathe to say to another country "I apologize to you." For instance even Nixon and Watergate we were talking about a moment ago, to another country. After he was thrown out of office, resigned to avoid impeachment, accepted a pardon, he never apologized for Watergate. Just said he was sorry about his mistakes. That's how deep the culture really is.

RAY SUAREZ: Richard, why is that term "apologize" so radioactive? It's an expression of regret. If you use those words, it's not considered an apology. Why is that?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Well, first of all, Presidents are much more likely to apologize for acts of other presidents than they are for their own. Bill Clinton was an apologist in chief. He went to Africa to apologize for American slavery and American complicity in apartheid. He apologized I think, quite rightly, to the victims of the ghastly medical experiments at Tuskegee. He went to Central America and expressed regrets about CIA actions in the cold war. But as we all know, he thought it much harder to put into words his regret or his apology of wrongdoing vis- -vis Monica Lewinsky. He is by no means alone in that. Ronald Reagan was famously stubborn. It often served him well. It didn't serve him well in Iran-Contra. It got to the point where in the spring of 1987 a White House speechwriter named Landon Parvin came up with a crafted formula where Reagan told the nation in television that in his heart, his intentions, he believed we never traded arms for hostages. The facts proved otherwise. So it was an apology of sorts but thread through the needle of self-justification. One reason presidents do not apologize is they're not acting as individuals. They're acting as the personification of a state. If Dwight Eisenhower had apologized for the U2 flights over the soviet union or American surveillance, that might have started a whole chain of events that might have undone that surveillance. A president is not under at liberty as the rest of us are for something we've done wrong, to apologize.

RAY SUAREZ: And Michael another motif of these kinds of historical events, there is an expectation that somebody pays the price by losing their job in many cases, in this particular case, the Bush administration is saying that is not going to be part of this. Have there been times where that does end the controversy? Some heads roll and we move on?

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. Presidents try to do that. Nixon tried to keep on stemming the flood of Watergate, for instance, he fired his top aides, Halderman and Ehrlichman. That did not work. Ronald Reagan fired his chief of staff, Don Regan. That to some extent stopped the antagonism of people against Reagan over Iran-contra. So there is that temptation. But at the same time if you have got someone essentially out there saying the president is not involved, spare him, it is very hard for the president to say this guy should be canned.

RAY SUAREZ: Is there a virtue in sticking with your people, Richard?

RICHARD NORTON SMITH: I guess it depends on your people. I think lesson of all this is confession is good for the soul everywhere except in Washington.

RAY SUAREZ: Michael, Richard, thank you both.

MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Thank you.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And speaking of Washington some final words now from Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "New York Times" columnist David Brooks. Continuing on that theme, David, is Rumsfeld going to go? Is he going to survive this?

DAVID BROOKS: I think he'll survive this. You know, the guy has made a million desists over the past year, some of which have been very bad decisions that were actually things he did. This thing, he - is all good -- it happened far away. He was not directly involved in whatever happened at the prison so I think he will survive this.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think?

MARK SHIELDS: I did not know, Jim. I think his chances of survival would be better if the war that he was chief advocate of and architect partially, if it were going well, and it is not.

JIM LEHRER: What about the Bayh question that if they want to put this behind them, whether he is as culpable as you say, you say he is not, that it is not a result of a decision he made, if they want get this off the table to show that the United States is serious in cleaning this up, out of here, Rumsfeld?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I don't think that helps. I sort of agree with Mark. Listen, even for those of us who supported this thing, it has been a terrible year and this has been the most depressing week of a terrible year. It has been a wholeseries of things. The fundamental problem here has nothing to do with the prison. The prison caps a whole series of things. The main danger here is the crisis of confidence if the American people lose faith in their leadership. Maybe him leaving would help that but it would have to be part of a whole new series to show the president wants to keep the course, but he is willing to do fundamental rethinking because the cause is just but the means have not been the best.

JIM LEHRER: Yeah. Do you agree with that? We have got a crisis of confi... that's potential problem,.

MARK SHIELDS: I think the confidence is gone, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: It's gone?

MARK SHIELDS: It's gone. I mean, I don't think there is any question about that. I don't think Don Rumsfeld leaving is going to change that and alter it in any way. I think that Americans have lost confidence in this war.

JIM LEHRER: In the war?

MARK SHIELDS: In the war, in the conduct of it, in the purpose of it, and I think this just drives it home. This, Jim, cannot be understated the importance, the psychological and emotional impact of this on the American psyche.

JIM LEHRER: Today, David - first of all, do you agree that the American psyche is in trouble right now?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't go as far as Mark. I don't think we're there yet. But, you know, it's not only this. It a whole series of mistakes have been made -

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

DAVID BROOKS: A whole series of hearings, a whole series of commission. So it's a question of confidence. I think even those who support the thing, can these guys actually do the job?

JIM LEHRER: Go ahead.

MARK SHIELDS: Just one thing, Jim. Old enough to be, to have lived through Vietnam in this town, in this country, and I was in the marine corps in peacetime. I never was tested in combat. Every man I know who wasn't, you wonder how you would have responded -- whether you would have done with honor and appropriately. But I'll never know, but I have spent time in the company of heroes in these past few months. I've been to Walter Reed Army Hospital in Washington, I've been to Bethesda Naval Hospital in suburban Maryland and spent time in the company of the 340 Americans who had been severely wounded since the president declared mission accomplished. They've lost arms, they've lost legs. They've lost their sight. Not one of them I ever talked to -- men and women - ever lost any belief in the mission, in the unit they served in and the tasks that they have been assigned. They have been dishonored. They have been sullied. Their service and their sacrifice has been stained. That's how profound this is. This isn't going to go away. If Don Rumsfeld... that's why don Rumsfeld seems secondary to me -- Don Rumsfeld can leave tomorrow - it's not going to change. This is an American....

DAVID BROOKS: You're going a little too far for me now. Listen, in World War II --

MARK SHIELDS: Milai didn't change when administrations changed; it was an American tragedy. It changed America's view toward that war and itself and this will... this isn't going to change for generations in the Middle East.

DAVID BROOKS: That's a fundamental problem we have in this country, or in this age really. World War II there were atrocities, civil war there were atrocities, Revolutionary War. Can we fight a war in media age - that's a fundamental problem. There were atrocities in every war. The atrocities don't necessarily disgrace the war or de-legitimize the war. But in this case, we have a specific problem.

JIM LEHRER: Do we have a specific problem, David? We Americans have a specific problem because we tell the world how wonderful we are all the time and that we are not barbarians like everyone else, that we don't acknowledge the dark side of argument psyche as everybody else does?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think that's part of it. I mean, if you go to Egypt -- how they handle Islamic fundamentalism - if you go to Syria, if you go to Algeria, they had very effective way of handling it. They wiped out whole cities; they killed lots of people. That's something we are never going to do. We assign ourselves higher standards and we portray ourselves and think of ourselves as higher. We are not a people that's well versed in the dark side of human nature. We have trouble with the evil in ourselves. We are convinced as Immer said in our own innocency, and so it backfires sometimes as we look at... we're human beings.

DAVID BROOKS: This wasn't an atrocity performed in combat. This isn't somebody having seen his buddy killed next to him. This was an act, a calculated act on the part of Americans. And I could not... I could not hardly endorse the words of Sen. Lindsay Graham, Republican of North Carolina, today who said it bothers him that it is only privates and sergeants, and if that's where it ends because anybody who thinks this was organized by a bunch of young enlisted people untrained, unschooled to humiliate, to degrade in terms of sexual abuse the other side, the Iraqis, and then Jim the idea that this wasn't done to get further information. Senator Levin touched upon it.

JIM LEHRER: Senator Warner conceded....

MARK SHIELDS: Senator Warner, but it was about weapons of mass destruction. They can't find weapons of mass destruction. You got to find information. For God's sakes, get intelligence soften them up, do whatever you have to do.

JIM LEHRER: Does that make sense to you?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't know where it started or how broad it is. I know there are people in that prison who did not participate, who refused to do this sort of thing, but, again, I go back to the long stretch of things. Whose brilliant idea was it to take Saddam's gulag and use it as a prison? I mean, it boggles the mind.

JIM LEHRER: I want to go back to human psyche questions for a moment, the impact on the American public. I realized late this afternoon that all three of the commercial networks ran the Senate, not the House, ran the Senate live. That's in addition to the cable networks. That means millions and millions of Americans at least had an opportunity to see this, which is very unusual for the commercial networks to do that in the daytime. That's old school. In the new school, they turn it over to the cable network but not this time. What does that say and what could be the possible impact of that?

DAVID BROOKS: We are not a shame culture but I think all across the U.S. people feel shamed and humiliated. It is not a common emotion, I think, for Americans. We are not Japan. But I think we all feel that shame whether you're for it or against it. You know it's like a nursery school where you go off and they say, you better act well; you're representing your school. Those people were representing us. And they, a picture of American women with a naked Islamic guy, she's got a leash around that guy's neck. It is as if she has been reading Arabic for 50 years and she's figured out the most brutal way to caricature or insult the Arab people. She just chose it and we are all humiliated by it.

JIM LEHRER: Humiliated by it, and to follow up on your point, you believe, looking at that, Mark, that there is no way in the world that young soldier could have done that on her own.

MARK SHIELDS: No.

JIM LEHRER: No way.

MARK SHIELDS: None, Jim. I mean, the thing was... it was orchestrated. It was done... it was choreographed for maximum humiliation. There were attacks upon that jail made because of allegations of female prisoners having been sexually abused. And because that is such a violation of Iraq... and the idea that part of the reason, I mean, the only justification for the war now, not weapons of mass destruction, not al-Qaida, is we got rid of Saddam Hussein and who tortured his own people, who abused his own people. We go to the very building and... David, I mean... but I mean... where is the moral parity of the world between the United States and the torture. I'm not talking about killing people. I mean we went in as liberators -- we are now occupiers and don't think that's going to change - it's not.

DAVID BROOKS: It was an aberration. I doubt it was only privates and corporals. It probably went higher. I don't know how high. Nobody knows how high. But this was an aberration. I do not believe most of our soldiers there or servicemen or women would behave this way. I don't believe it is in any way representative of what we are doing over there. To say that it somehow is an indicative problem of the entire occupation to me is ridiculous.

JIM LEHRER: Let me try a hypothetical on you. Private Brooks, MP Brooks, let's say I'm lieutenant... let's say I'm Lieutenant Lehrer and you're PFC Brooks, MP. I'm your commanding officer and I say, look, we have to find weapons of mass destruction and those five people in your custody know where they are. And I've got an interrogator who is going to come and talk to them in a minute; can you help make it a little bit easier for them to get the answers they want for the good of your country? You don't think you might consider doing something awful?

DAVID BROOKS: Well corporal or lieutenant or whatever you assigned yourself. I think you were actually a higher rank. What I think I saw there in those pictures was not a conscious decision. What I saw was people who didn't look at the prisoners as human beings. There is a whole culture, a whole climate.

JIM LEHRER: You said -- back to another point we talked about earlier -- that Rumsfeld isn't going to solve this problem. What is going to solve this problem?

MARK SHIELDS: Rumsfeld's going is not going to solve the problem.

JIM LEHRER: His going. What is going to solve the problem?

MARK SHIELDS: Time, resolve and let it just be clear. I never suggested this was representative of Americans there. I don't know anybody who has. I'm saying that this has stained sullied and dishonored the service of those brave Americans especially the ones at Walter Reed and ones whose lives have been lost. And, Jim, I don't know. I mean, it's probably going to take something. It is going to take in the way of reparations... it's not going to happen, Jim. I'm sorry.

JIM LEHRER: It's never going to happen?

MARK SHIELDS: There is not... what it is going to turn over on the 30th of June. We've built 1700 schools, we've vaccinated hundreds of thousands of children, redone hospitals and Jim, it means next to nothing after this.

JIM LEHRER: David.

DAVID BROOKS: I don't agree with that. There are atrocities in warfare. If there is an election, there is a long road to normalcy for the Iraqi people, if they're not dying by the tens of thousands, if there are no more mass graves, then I think this is a horrible aberration in what has been a messed up, incompetently run but fundamentally noble idea.

JIM LEHRER: What about the point that Secretary Rumsfeld and others made today that whether or not they blew it from a PR standpoint and public standpoint going to Congress, the system is on track, and we are showing the rest of the world that we do open things up eventually, and we do go after, to coin the president's term again, evil doers, our own evil doers. There is something to be said for that?

DAVID BROOKS: I think that is a fundamentally strong argument, the process we are having, the argument we're having here, the discussion - listen, I think the criminal justice system worked extremely well in the military. It went on with all dispatch. The problem was the political problem. They didn't realize what these photos would do. They would be like weapons of mass morale destruction. They didn't lift the photos out of the investigations and preemptively go public.

JIM LEHRER: It stunning to think there's even... you don't have to read between lines, Rumsfeld said there is more to come and even worse. There are apparently videotapes and that's much different even than looking at a still photograph.

MARK SHIELDS: This is not political, it really isn't -- back and forth on that. It is not three points for John Kerry, five points for George Bush. This is national. It's not going to change, you know, if George Bush loses and Don Rumsfeld leaves or whatever. It is not going to change. This is a permanently upon Americans. Jim, if you were organizing, recruiting for al-Qaida tonight, you would consider this was a boon. This was serendipitous.

JIM LEHRER: You don't disagree with that.

DAVID BROOKS: I don't disagree with that.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, on that one note of agreement we'll leave it. Thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, as we have just been discussing, the major developments of the day on the Iraqi prisoner story. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld apologized to the abused Iraqis, but he said he would not resign. Later, Senator Edward Kennedy joined other Democrats calling for Donald Rumsfeld to step down saying Secretary Powell could replace Rumsfeld. And in other news, the U.S. Labor Department reported the economy added 288,000 jobs last month. Unemployment fell 0.1 point to 5.6 percent. A reminder: "Washington Week" can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online, and again here Monday evening. But, for the record, I will be gone from the program off and on during the next few weeks on a combination book and public television station tour. For now, have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.