The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, two former U.S. military chiefs joined leading Democrats in discouraging the use of force against Iraq. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said the economy is in a meaningful downturn. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Going to war in the Persian Gulf is our lead story after the News Summary tonight. We have the testimony of two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Sec. of State Kissinger before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Charlayne Hunter-Gault backgrounds tomorrow's UN Security use of force vote and concerned citizen Jackie Jackson-Quinn voices her opinions about it all in a conversation. We close with a former top Federal Savings & Loan regulator's testimony about his contacts with the Keating Five Senators. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Two former U.S. military chiefs cautioned today against using force to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Former Navy Adm. William Crowe and former Air Force Gen. David Jones said the economic sanctions should be given more time to work. They made their remarks during the second day of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

WILLIAM CROWE: My main concern with this latest scheduled reinforcement isn't that we might choose to fight, but rather the deployment might cause us to fight perhaps prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily.

DAVID JONES: War is not neat, it's not tidy, and once you resort to it, it is uncertain and it's a mess. And you should justify -- be sure the stakes justify what you're doing before you voluntarily jump into a mess.

MR. LEHRER: We'll have fuller coverage of the hearings right after this News Summary. House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt today said he opposes using military force in the Gulf. He's the first Democratic leader to publicly voice opposition.

REP. GEPHARDT: We must give the policy of pressure and sanctions a chance to work. Before we resort to offensive military action against Iraq, Congress, and the American people need to be convinced that the policy of pressure, isolation, and sanctions has failed. President Bush has yet to make such an argument.

MR. LEHRER: Tomorrow the United Nations Security Council is scheduled to vote on a resolution that gives Iraq until January 15th to get out of Kuwait or face the use of force. The Chinese foreign minister said today China would not support such a measure. He did not say whether China would veto it. He will meet with Sec. of State Baker tomorrow before the vote. Baker is also scheduled to meet with Cuba's foreign minister this evening. It will be the highest level meeting between Cuba and the United States in 30 years. Cuba is currently a member of the Security Council and has indicated it will vote against the measure. Charlayne Hunter-Gault will have more on the UN vote later in the program. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said today the nation's economy had taken a meaningful downtown. He said rising oil prices, uncertainty about the Persian Gulf, and a tightening of bank credit were all suppressing economic activity, but he said it was premature to call it a recession. He said two Commerce Department reports released today showed there was still some positive movement in the economy. The nation's Gross National Product grew 1.7 percent in the third quarter, a slight revision down from an original estimate of 1.8 percent. And orders for durable goods rebounded in October, rising 3.6 percent. That followed a 1.6 percent decline in September.

MR. LEHRER: John Major is now officially the prime minister of Britain. It happened today in London after Margaret Thatcher made her final departure from the prime minister's official residence. Michael Brunson of Independent Television News reports.

MR. BRUNSON: Margaret Thatcher stepped out through the famous doorway for the last time as prime minister to applause and some tears, we're told from those who have worked for her behind the scenes at No. 10. The emotion showed as her voice faltered slightly as she began.

MRS. THATCHER: We're leaving Downing Street for the last time after eleven and a half wonderful years, and we're very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very, very, and much better state than when we came here eleven and a half years ago, and I wish John Major all the luck in the world. He'll be splendidly served, and he has the makings of a great prime minister, which I'm sure he'll be in very short time. Thank you very much. Good-bye.

MR. BRUNSON: Some 40 minutes later and John Major with his wife, Norma, left the chancellor's official residence to follow the same route to the palace taken by his predecessor, Mr. Major's thoughts obviously on the incredibly rapid rise in national politics which is brought him from raw back bencher to prime minister and the audience with the queen in eleven and a half years. By a quarter past 11, it was all complete. The new prime minister was driven back into Downing Street and was moving toward the microphones to begin his first statement as prime minister.

MR. MAJOR: I believe very firmly in the 1990s that we will have a decade of the most remarkable opportunities. In particular, I want to see us build a country that is at ease with itself, a country that is confident, and a country that is prepared and willing to make the changes necessary to provide a better quality of life for all our citizens.

MR. LEHRER: Britain and Syria restored diplomatic relations today. They were severed four years ago when Britain accused Syria of sponsoring terrorism. Foreign Sec. Douglas Hurd said today's move came after Syria assured Britain it rejected terrorism. He said Syria also promised to help free the 13 Western hostages being held in Lebanon.

MR. MacNeil: Soviet President Gorbachev issued a warning to his rebellious republics today. He ordered the army to shoot anyone attempting to seize military installations. Gorbachev wants to prevent republics from forming their own armies and taking control of nuclear arsenals. President Gorbachev's deputy premier said today the nation's growing food shortage was caused by bad distribution and panic buying rather than low supplies. His announcement came as Moscow officials issued a new warning about the crisis. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

MS. BATES: City officials in Moscow sounded the alarm over the deepening crisis. The mayor warned the city would run out of meat in five days. This counselor said food imports must be sent immediately before winter sets in. Shipments from the Germans are being unloaded at the Soviet ports. The Germans seem most concerned about the plight of their neighbors trying to shake off the constraint of their planned economy. The special envoy Chancellor Helmut Kohl sent to Moscow to gain Soviet needs discussed the crisis with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The German government's well aware that continuing reforms in Eastern Europe depend on a stable Soviet Union, has promised emergency aid on a massive scale. Tolcek leads a team of German experts charged with the task of figuring out how to bypass the Soviet bureaucracy and the black market.

MR. MacNeil: The worsening conditions in the Soviet Union forced President Gorbachev to cancel his trip to Norway to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. The Tass News Agency reported he'd asked the Nobel Committee to delay the ceremony until May, but today the Committee refused, saying the prize had to be given on December 10th, the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death.

MR. LEHRER: A federal judge in Miami settled the Noriega tapes dispute today. U.S. District Judge William Hovler lifted a ban prohibiting the Cable News Network from broadcasting tapes of the former Panamanian leader's telephone calls from prison. He said it would not jeopardize Noriega's ability to get a fair trial. Noriega's defense team said they would seek to have all drug trafficking charges against him dropped, a charge the government had violated his constitutional right to hold confidential conversations with his attorneys.

MR. MacNeil: That's our News Summary. Still ahead on the NewsHour, Senate hearings on the Gulf crisis, a preview from the UN Security Council, another in our conversations on the Gulf, and an update on the Keating Five investigation. FOCUS - MISGUIDED MISSION?

MR. LEHRER: Going to war in the Persian Gulf is our lead story tonight. The Senate Armed Services Committee had a second day of testimony about the use of force to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Today the Committee heard from Former Sec. of State Henry Kissinger and two former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, retired Navy Adm. William Crowe, retired Air Force General David Jones. Both Crowe and Jones urged military restraint. Here are extended excerpts from today's hearings beginning with Gen. Jones.

GEN. JONES: I believe our initial policies and activities were logical, appropriate, legitimate, and well executed. They were the right actions at the right time for the right reasons. My main concern with this latest scheduled reinforcement isn't that we might choose to fight, but rather the deployment might cause us to fight perhaps prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily. I would stress that this is a risk, not a certainty, the one that ought to be taken seriously. A smart force can maintain deterrence and if properly configured, can also inflict painful interdiction virtually indefinitely, is also less obtrusive in a radically different culture such as Saudi Arabia. The support problems not trivial for protracted deployment but with troop rotation they're manageable. As we build 400,00 troops, however, the support, morale training and culture and readiness problems rise sharp, the longer the troops remain in four garrisons. Thus, the risk is that the problems inherent in maintaining the offensive military option could create irresistible pressures to initiate combat irrespective of the progress of the UN sanctions. This would be unfortunate, for there are indicators that the embargo is having the predicted effect on about the predicted timetable. On balance, adding such a large increment of forces to the theater at this time might add decisive political leverage, but at substantial risk that their very presence could narrow our options and our ability to act with patient resolve. The embargo is biting heavily, in my judgment. Given the standard of living Iraq is used to and the increasing sophistication of Iraqi society, it is dead wrong to say that Iraq is not being hurt. It is being damaged severely. The issue is not whether an embargo will work, but whether we have the patience to let it take effect. Ultimately, these trends will translate into political pressure. I genuinely believe we have already seen the first subtle him that Saddam Hussein is seeking a way out, in other words, a face saving way to withdraw. I would argue that we should give sanctions a fair chance before we discard them. I personally believe they will bring him to his knees ultimately, but I would be the first to admit that is a speculative judgment. If, in fact, the sanctions will work in twelve to eighteen months instead of six months, the trade-off of avoiding war with its attendant sacrifices and uncertainties would, in my estimation, be more than worth it.

SEN. JOHN WARNER, [R] Virginia: Do you feel then that the President's augmentation of these forces was a shift in our basic policy?

GEN. JONES: I'm not sure it was a shift in the basic policy because I'm not sure just what the policy was to start with. I thought it was a defensive one, with some limited offensive operation. I think the impact though limits our options considerably. There are advantages having the 400,000 troops there, there are risks of having the 400,000 troops there. To put it in very simple terms, I think that if we have limited objectives, the basic ones that -- the basic ones that the President outlined initially, Iraq out of Kuwait, free the hostages, the government goes back into Kuwait, and as an additional one we talk about the nuclear -- I think there's a very good chance with patience that we can succeed.

SEN. DAN COATS, [R] Indiana: Isn't there a significant risk and down side to the sanction option and aren't we deceiving ourselves in thinking that this is just a painless, simple, easy way out, and that all we need is patience?

ADM. CROWE: Senator, I would never suggest that there are no down side to sanctions, and I did not imply that -- and I hope I didn't imply that. In fact, every question we're addressing in this crisis in this area of the world is, you know, my father used to say get a one armed lawyer, because if you don't, he'll say I'm a one handed citizen and the other hurts, the other hand. I think the case in --

SEN. COATS: I'm glad you didn't use the word "Senators", but I think it would apply very aptly there.

ADM. CROWE: The case for sanctions is not a "no lose" case. The case for sanctions is balancing out as a better balance than the other thing. It's against something. There's no question that we're going to achieve all the more extreme objectives we have; we're not.

GEN. JONES: Sen. Coats, may I add that I don't think there's a good solution in the Middle East in the sense that it's when, I mean, we're looking the least desirable solutions -- the least undesirable, I should say. The sanction is not an easy route. We're going to see suffering in Kuwait; we'll see it in Iraq with innocent people in Iraq. It's going to be hard to keep our people and the morale high. It's going to be hard to keep the coalition together. No question about it. It's the question as to whether or not we let it have some opportunity to work or not versus going to combat right now. But you're absolutely right. We may not be able to maintain the option, nine months or a year or 18 months to go to war even if the sanctions aren't working, but I don't think that speculation should judge the decision today as to initiate combat on 16 January.

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN, [D] New Mexico: You have a United Nations resolution now which is likely to be adopted tomorrow that's going to say effective the 15th of January, use of force is authorized. It begins to look like something's going to happen right after the 15th of January; that's totally inconsistent with what you re recommending here, as I understand it, in terms of giving these economic sanctions time to take effect.

ADM. CROWE: It seems to me it's a graphic example of the dilemma that all politicians, all President, all diplomats face. In other words, you want to take a step that will impel Mr. Saddam Hussein to do something. You want to scare Saddam Hussein, but you don't want to scare the American people. So what you're doing you have to do is make a statement and it means different things to different people. That's hard to do. And I really sympathize with the President in that regard, and take it that politicians do that better than most people, but --

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN: I was going to say you've got to be able to take a strong stand on a lot of sides of each issue in order to stay around here. Gen. Jones.

GEN. DAVID JONES, Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff: The country would use this time as a breathing spell to try to define the issues and the rest, include make it that we have an option on 15 January, but it's an option that is not pinned down and may not be picked up, depending on the circumstances at that time.

SEN. ALAN DIXON, [D] Illinois: What are the proper numbers over there on the ground to do what you both suggest is the right thing, exercise our patience, let the sanctions and the embargo work? You know, what bothers me, this augmentation in numbers I don't think bothers the Americans so much as the bellicose and belligerent statements of the President and others in the administration coupled with the Sec. of State and others running all around the world, saying authorize us to use force, going to the UN, saying authorize us to use force. It's what Adm. Crowe said. We're sending out this tough message, and that same tough message is being heard by the Congress and the American people. But what is the right number?

ADM. CROWE: I don't know, Senator. It's a terrible answer. I don't know.

GEN. JONES: Can I send a message to Saddam Hussein?

SEN. DIXON: Yes.

GEN. JONES: CNN is on and CNN is watched in Baghdad. And I would hope he would come out of -- his people looking at this -- and report to him that we are unified. He will not succeed. His troops will not stay in Kuwait. The hostages will be released, that he is going to be hurt, and his country's going to be hurt. The only debate is when and how fast and how hard.

MR. LEHRER: Former Sec. of State Kissinger was the afternoon's witness. He discussed his apprehensions about maintaining a long- term U.S. military deployment in the Middle East.

HENRY KISSINGER, Former Sec. of State: I have the most serious doubt whether it will be possible to maintain the present military deployment in Saudi Arabia for an extended period of time. I believe that as this large American deployment in the area is maintained, the pressures against it will multiply.

SEN. NUNN: Do you believe, Dr. Kissinger, that we have deployed too many forces, that we're working against our own interest by having that large a force in the area in terms of being able to have a patient policy?

DR. KISSINGER: Well, as Sec. Schlesinger pointed out yesterday, the presence of the large force puts a pressure on Saddam Hussein, but it also makes it more difficult to sustain it for an indefinite period of time. And this is where we will come to the point of decision, in my view. Sometime in the next few months, we will have to choose between the military option and the sanctions option. I would prefer for the sanctions to work. I do not believe that it is likely that the two can be kept --

SEN. WARNER: Dr. Kissinger, in reviewing your statement, is it fair to say that you believe that U.S. goals in this present situation must include not only the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the reinstatement of a Kuwaiti government, and the release of hostages, but also the reduction of Iraq's military capabilities so as to promote stability and security in the region? Am I correct that you believe this fourth goal is as important to the United States as are the other goals?

DR. KISSINGER: I do not believe, however, that it is necessary to destroy the Iraqi military capability totally because we should remember our experience in the Iran-Iraq War and we should not turn the neighbors of Iraq into ventures, but I believe the reduction of Iraq's offensive military capability is necessary in the light of all that has happened.

SEN. WARNER: And that's offensive military capability --

DR. KISSINGER: Correct.

SEN. WARNER: -- which we understand to mean not completely elimination of everything they have.

DR. KISSINGER: Correct.

SEN. WARNER: Now if we cannot obtain any one of these goals without resorting to the use of military, should we forsake that goal as a nation, rather than use military force to attain it?

DR. KISSINGER: It's very difficult to know, to answer that in the abstract. As a general proposition, I believe that if Iraq emerges out of this crisis in a way in which it can say it faced down the united world that had confronted it, that then the effort would have failed and moderate governments in the area would be in the most severe jeopardy and a huge crisis later on would be nearly certain. It's very hard to define what that point is unless we discuss specific terms, but I would think that significantly these objectives have to be reached.

SEN. WARNER: All of them?

DR. KISSINGER: All of them.

SEN. JOHN GLENN, [D] Ohio: You -- I don't understand though yet why you think we cannot maintain 400,000 people there. You made in your statement the differentiation between that and the 350,000 or so that we had in Europe for 45 years, the fact that they were domestically stabilizing in Europe, but are domestically de- stabilizing in the Persian Gulf area.

DR. KISSINGER: My gut feeling is that the presence of such a large American force in a theocratic society like Saudi Arabia is in the long-term incompatible with its domestic stability.

SEN. NUNN: There are many of us though that share your apprehension about the size of the force we're putting over there now.

DR. KISSINGER: I --

SEN. NUNN: But there are a lot of people who feel -- and I think you would agree on this -- that we've had an offensive capability of very substantial offensive capability, air capability, since early October. So the question of having to go to 430,000 troops to be able to say we have an offensive threat is one that no one has supplied an answer to me on, and I also would say that I know you would probably concur in this with the Joint Chiefs when they usually don't come in and say we're giving you the mission, Mr. President and here's how many forces we need to carry out that mission. It works the other way. The President gives them the mission. Then they say how many forces. And when they went to the four hundred and something thousand, that's when they were given a new military mission, which was indeed to be prepared to liberate Kuwait offensively.

MR. LEHRER: Former Sec. of the Navy Jim Webb is one of the witnesses scheduled to appear tomorrow. Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell are scheduled for Monday. FOCUS - PREVIEWING THE VOTE

MR. MacNeil: Tomorrow the spotlight shifts to the United Nations Security Council which could issue its strongest ultimatum yet to Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Charlayne Hunter-Gault has that story.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The flurry of activity at the UN this week followed an intense three week lobbying effort by President Bush and Sec. of State Baker. The U.S. hopes to get a strong majority of the Security Council to support a draft resolution hammered out by the five permanent members before it vacates the council Presidency on Friday. In a dramatic move, the U.S. requested the members nations be represented by their foreign ministers. The draft resolution they will vote on perhaps as early as Thursday afternoon authorizes the use of military force to end Iraq's occupation of Kuwait. The draft sets a deadline the first half of January for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to withdraw his forces from Kuwait, after which countries with forces in the area authorized to use all necessary means to free Kuwait. Diplomats acknowledge the phrase refers to military action. The United States appeared reasonably confident that the draft could command the votes of a majority of the Council's 15 members, including a permanent panel, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China, although Peking has since signaled that it may abstain. So far, the U.S. believes it also has commitments from the following non- permanent members: Canada, Ethiopia, Finland, Ivory Coast, Romania, and Zaire. Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, and Yemen, are still open questions, although each has been critical of the resolution and Yemen has been leaning against it. During the last two days we spoke with some of the members about their positions.

L. YVES FORTIER, UN Ambassador, Canada: The time has come to say to Saddam Hussein, look, we want a peaceful resolution. This is the house of peace. This is not the house of war. We want a diplomatic, a political solution, but if you do not obey those many resolutions that we have passed, then we will consider other means necessary in order to bring you to your senses.

DAVID HANNAY, UN Ambassador, UK: You heard from the security Kuwaiti ambassador today in the testimony he gave the Council of the really horrific events that are going on in his country and you heard how there is a systematic attempt to wipe that country off the map, to wipe it off the map and to wipe its people off the map.

KLAUS TORNUDD, UN Ambassador, Finland: I think the purpose of the resolution, as far as I understand, is first of all to give a message of peace to Iraq, to demonstrate that there is still time for a peaceful resolution of the crisis if Iraq implements the resolutions which already have been adopted. But there will also be a clear message to Iraq that if this message of peace is not acted upon, then there may be a necessity to take other means in order to achieve the result which must be achieved, the restoration of the sovereignty of Kuwait.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think about this giving a deadline, a finite deadline?

RAZALI ISMAIL, UN Ambassador, Malaysia: I'm not against the idea of giving a final deadline. What is horrendous to this later is the end of the deadline, what are you going to do about it?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think will be done at the end of it?

AMB. ISMAIL: At the end of it, if he doesn't comply, and obviously force will be escalated and this is a very serious business, lots of people are going to be very, are going to be killed or injured or maimed in the course of the war. That is a terrifying prospect for us. As a member of the Council, it is an awesome responsibility, so our hesitation is not to flinch from the responsibility, but it is to examine every aspect first before we make up our minds.

ENRIQUE PENALOSA, UN Ambassador, Colombia: We have a lot of concerns. The main one is that we think that all the diplomatic and political avenues have not been exhausted. Among all else, we think that the Council should state very clearly to Mr. Hussein what would happen to him if tomorrow he decided to comply with all the resolution of the Council.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you think this resolution encourages?

RICARDO ALARCON DE QUESADA, UN Ambassador, Cuba: I think it encourages war. It encourages a path of unilateral approach -- of only considering a military option and ignores completely a very simple fact, the Security Council can technically decide on war, sending an army to fight and so on and so on if and after the Security Council determines that the peaceful measures, the sanctions, such as economic sanctions in this case, have failed or are, have been violated and so on. So far, I repeat, nobody has even claimed that -- very simply rushed to war.

DAVID HANNAY, UN Ambassador, UK: There's no rushing going on. It was the 2nd of August that Saddam Hussein rushed into Kuwait and he didn't sit around waiting for very much then and he's managed to kill a considerable number of Kuwaiti soldiers in an act of war on that occasion. So I don't think there's a lot of rushing. There's been a great deal of patience. This six week period is there to be put to good use, to be put to good use by the Iraqi government in understanding that they are really reaching the end of the road and that the only sensible way to proceed now, the only way that is consistent with their interests as well as the rest of the world is to withdraw from Kuwait, release the hostages and to restore the previous government of Kuwait.

AMB. DE QUESADA: We are not talking about the high military command. We're talking about the Security Council. This institution was not created to organize war, to dispatch military matters, but to assure for the next generation to avoid war for the future, to free the future generation of the scourge of war. We are doing the opposite.

AMB. ISMAIL: The objectives are not well spelled out. This resolution should not be a blank check to pulverize Iraq. That is not the way Malaysia would see it and Malaysia certainly cannot support that intention.

TESFAYE TADESSE, UN Ambassador, Ethiopia: This is not an option to war. This is only an expression of the result of the Security Council once again expressing its full unanimity, its full readiness to result to all possible means if Iraq does not withdraw.

AMB. FORTIER: Although the sanctions are working, they have not yet produced the desired effect and I believe, Canada believes that there is another weapon which has been resorted to by the United States and many other countries, and that is to drive home to Saddam Hussein that if he does not obey the resolutions of the Council, that the international community will use force.

ABDALLA AL-ASHTAL, UN Ambassador, Yemen: The problem we have with this kind of resolution is that it does not -- first of all -- it's too hasty -- there is very much rush towards a military confrontation in a situation which we believe can be resolved peacefully through the sanctions regime. There is in place a sanctions regime imposed on Iraq that the most sweeping and the most comprehensive, the broadest kind of sanctions -- it includes anything, nothing goes to Iraq and nothing comes out of Iraq.

AMB. DE QUESADA: According to the charter, the Security Council should determine that the previously adopted the sanctions are not working, and so far, nobody has even claimed that the embargoes are working. It's quite the contrary. Everybody's saying that embargo is working and this is the first point; somebody has to make that case.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you account then for the support that the resolution appears to be getting if all of the things that you're saying are known by the other members of the Council?

AMB. DE QUESADA: Well, the majority may exist at the Security Council, but there is also a growing concern among the membership of the UN concerning the possible consequence of the situation, because it is not very difficult really to start a war. It's not very difficult to pass a resolution authorizing you to do that, but it's completely another different story to tell you how that war will end, what will be the consequences for those -- that include those involved in the war and in this case for everybody else.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you account for the support that the U.S. has gotten so far?

AMB. ISMAIL: That is up to the U.S. authorities to count the numbers. But obviously if the U.S. goes along with the resolution, the original co-authors of the resolution, you don't get a big clear majority, then the resolution would have its weakness and may go to it domestically.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So they have to get big numbers like 13 or --

AMB. ISMAIL: This resolution must -- we have big numbers because the import of this resolution is the application of war.

MR. MacNeil: If the Security Council passes that resolution, it would be the first time the United Nations has granted member states the right to use force to settle an international dispute. CONVERSATION - I WANT YOU

MR. LEHRER: Now another in our special series of conversations about going to war in the Persian Gulf. Yesterday Judy Woodruff talked to someone we talked to before about other things. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Now Jacquelyn Jackson-Quinn, a 40 year old mother with four children ages 10 through 19. Mrs. Quinn is earning her teaching degree at Alcorn State University in Lorman, Mississippi. We talked to her first in 1988 about her expectations for the new President and then again in 1989 after the inauguration of George Bush. Each time, the response from our viewers was tremendous. They liked her, they said, because she made sense, so we turned to her again tonight. Jacquelyn Jackson-Quinn, thank you for being with us.

JACQUELYN JACKSON-QUINN: Thank you for having me.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think the United States should go to war over the crisis in the Gulf?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Nobody wants to go to war. You know, if you're a civilized person, you don't want a war. Do we have to go to war? I'm not sure yet. I don't think I'm being given enough reasons. You're getting too many reasons.

MS. WOODRUFF: For example, the President began by saying we were there to protect Saudi Arabia, to look after -- to try to get the hostages out potentially. Is that a good enough reason in your mind?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: No. I thought we were -- okay -- I thought we'd been selling arms to Saudi Arabia already. They should be ready to look after themselves. We can't nanny everybody in the world. We don't know where the hostages are. They're scattered all over the place and we can sit there and wait for them to come out but we can't go in there and get 'em out militarily; it's not going to work. You hear so many reasons why we need to go in there you begin to wonder, okay, now what's the real reason, you know, are we getting a smoke screen or what, because we all know that the bottom line is the oil. You don't want any kind of dictator or anything controlling our oil resources over there or the oil resources that we purchase from over there.

MS. WOODRUFF: But the President has also said that we're there to fight against naked aggression, Saddam Hussein taking over a helpless country like Kuwait. Is that -- is that a reason for us to fight?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: No, no, because that happens all the time. You know, we'd be running all over the world if we did that every time somebody made a move. We didn't go into Ethiopia. You know, there are lots of countries that's happened in. We didn't run over there. We just don't need to use all these marginal excuses. You know, they treat American people like we're children, we're going to go hysterical. And we have to deal withsome reality. They give you a lot of reasons. Instead of just saying, look people, we depend on those oil resources over there, we've got to protect 'em, you know, the bottom line, you can't talk about Israel, you can talk about all the rest of it, but you know, my gut feeling is it's the oil. And I think a lot of Americans know that.

MS. WOODRUFF: But if that's the reason, should we be going to war if we have to go?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: We may have to. We made some bad mistakes in our energy policies and you know, this is one of the consequences of it. We should have been more energy independent a long time ago. We should have foreseen this coming. We know the character of that area. We know what kind of personality profiles we've got over there. And we should have known that our oil resources were going to be held hostage sooner or later. They've been done in the past in a non-military way. Well, we should have known this was going to happen and we should have had some contingency plan set up, but the last energy crisis we were in we did a little piecemeal fixing and then we went back to things as normal, as though there was oil being shipped in from Jupiter or somewhere, and then we waited around.

MS. WOODRUFF: So what should we do now? The President has compared Saddam Hussein to Hitler. You know, we can't let another Hitler in.

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: No, we can't let another Hitler show up, but then this guy's a little peanut compared to Hitler. He's just a very noisy little dictator who's making some moves, and we may have to militarily go in there, but the bottom line is if we go in, don't wave the flag at America, don't give us some marginal reasons for going in, be very honest, say why we're going in, and the biggest thing we've got to do in terms of military people, there's a lot of talk about another Vietnam. When Vietnam ended and during the war, we blamed our military people for decisions that politicians made. And if we do that again, then we're less than the Americans we should be. You know, no matter what happens with our people, those day to day little soldiers, go in there, we've got to back them, we've got to believe in them, we've got to support them, and we've got to try to get them home as soon as possible. We cannot use our army for political gains, never again, because we did it once, and we hurt a lot of people, those people who went, those people who didn't go. We've got to support our military because they took an oath to protect this country and they go where they're sent. And if they go, we'd better give 'em a good reason for going and we'd better believe in why they're going and those politicians who make those decisions, I mean, right now they can't even decide who's supposed to decide, you know. So that's the first thing, because they've got to realize we've got a Constitution who tells us how we are supposed to make a decision to go to war. And we just follow the process that has kept us a nation this long. It's not the people in Washington. It's the process that we have in place. And we've got to believe in that and we have to let it work. But you go through the whole process before you go unilaterally into war. I mean, war is the last thing you should have to do in a conflict situation. You've got to manage a conflict so that war is the very last option you have, not the first option.

MS. WOODRUFF: Does it matter to you whether this war -- if a war happens -- that it's done in concert with other countries through the United Nations or that the United States goes it alone?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: We're not the only people who get oil from over there. We shouldn't be the only people to go in there and protect those interests. And if the rest of the world -- you know, we're getting some little halfway kind of oh, yeah, we need to go and do that. I wouldn't move until they were moving with me. I mean, they've got to be there. It's just as much their problem as it is ours, and that goes for Israel on down the line to everybody else who has some interest in that area. And don't --

MS. WOODRUFF: Japan, Europe?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Especially Japan. Don't they get oil from there?

MS. WOODRUFF: Sure.

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Good. Then let Japan help pay some of the bills. Let them send some troops over. I mean, we're not the world's police. We do not send our young men and women over to die for every brother in the world. That's not what we're here for. We're Americans. We look after our own and our own interest and when our own interest and the interest of the global community needs looking after, then the global community helps to look after it. We don't just go out there and play the Lone Ranger.

MS. WOODRUFF: How do you feel about -- you have a son, 19 years old, he's in college -- how would you feel if he had to go or if any of your children or anyone in your family had to go?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: You know, it's so horrible to even think about. I've never lost any family to a war directly. So far we've lucked out. But it's just so horrible to think about, because that's my son and there are other women who are just like me, and you'd better give me a darned good reason for my son to go over there and possibly die, and so far, I haven't heard it.

MS. WOODRUFF: You live near a military base in Mississippi. What do you hear? What are the conversations you hear?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: We were down, when we were moving down to Mississippi, we stopped at a base for a couple of days to visit a friend and I see things more personally. There was a lot of fear, a lot of nervousness. There were families being broken up. That's not something that we should do lightly for any reason, break up families, separate people. Interestingly enough, there are a lot more women leaving, so there are fathers taking their children home and I'm all for women's lib, but I don't want to see it happen this way. I'd rather see some other examples of it, but - -

MS. WOODRUFF: You don't think women should be over there?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Oh, sure. If any -- you know -- yeah -- you have to. I mean, you can't -- women have every much a right and responsibility to defend this country as anybody else does. My son has no business going over -- as a matter of fact, my son's girlfriend may go over before my son does because my son's in college; she's in the military. And she's in training now and she may end up there before he goes, which brings us to another question for me personally. My future grandchildren may end up sitting on a sand dune. And that's something that we as American people have not had to face before is our women fighting, you know, over there, and it's not saying that when we went to war with just our men, it was any less a serious thing, but it puts a whole new set of photos into the constitutional family album there, to speak, of mom sitting on her tank or whatever, you know. It's a whole new -- we're going into a whole different arena.

MS. WOODRUFF: How will you know if the decision that's made is the right decision? Do you just ultimately have to trust your political leaders in Washington?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: I have to trust them, because we elected them. I voted for some. Other Americans voted for others. I think after you get past all the hoopla around these elections and all the, you know, the little two minute philosophies that show up on the television, these are good, honest men, and they're part of a whole process. And you can't separate the man from the process. The process is the Constitution. We're all constitutionally kin. The Constitution will protect me from the weakness of the man. You can see it every day in Washington.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're confident of that? You feel confident in that?

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: You're not going to destroy my country by making a couple of mistakes. You may destroy some lives, and that's a part of my country, but the Constitution's there. It says how we're supposed to make the decision to go to war. There's a process there. If they follow the process --

MS. WOODRUFF: It involves the Congress.

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Yes, it does. They had better have their say so in it with the full weight of the Constitution and us behind 'em.

MS. WOODRUFF: And if they don't --

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: We'll have another mess on our hands and we'll survive it, but just because we survive it does not mean our nation comes out stronger. When we make those kind of mistakes and we survive, we leave wounds that have to heal and those wounds carry over into all kinds of other things that go on and we can't wound the country. We're not talking about personal wounds of soldiers. We're talking about a wound to the psyche of our nation when we make those kind of mistakes. And we have gone to war for raw materials before, you know, and if it's necessary, yeah, we'll go, we'll have to. You know there's no two ways about it. We can't let ourselves come to a standstill. But if we do, two things had better happen. You'd better tell us why we're going, give us an honest reason, and then once it's over, you make sure we never have to go back in there about this oil again. You get us an energy policy that works. We should have done something a long time ago, but since we didn't fine. Let's look, let's straighten it out now. Use every avenue available, we don't go in there by ourselves, you know, this is a global problem. The world has to help deal with it. Let the United Nations do all they can, bring in everybody we've got. Let everybody work on this. Don't send us out there by ourselves ever again, because we cannot solve the world's problems. You know, we have a deficit problem here. I don't hear anybody asking how the heck are we going to pay for all of this. You couldn't get into the Statue of Liberty about a month ago and now we're going to a major war. You've got to think about that and Congress -- I'm quite sure some of them are glad we're going into war. It takes the heat off them with this budget issue. But we can't just walk in -- we can't run off and save the world because maybe the world doesn't want to be saved by us.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well, Jacquelyn Jackson-Quinn, once again we thank you for being with us.

MS. JACKSON-QUINN: Thanks for having me. UPDATE - MONEY & INFLUENCE?

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight the Keating Five hearings, the Senate Ethic's Committee investigation of Senators Glenn, McCain, Riegle, Cranston, and DeConcini, and their links to failed savings & loan operator Charles Keating. Appearing for a second day was the federal regulator who met with the five Senators to discuss Keating's savings & loan, Edwin Gray, the former head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

SPOKESMAN: Next is Mr. Green for Sen. Riegle.

MR. LEHRER: Lawyers representing the five Senators each took turns cross-examining the former Bank Board Chairman. Late yesterday, attorney Thomas Green pressed Gray about his characterization that a March 1987 meeting with his client, Sen. Donald Riegle, was unusual.

THOMAS GREEN, Sen. Riegle's Lawyer: And when you're sitting in Sen. Riegle's office on the 6th of March, 1987, did the fact that Sen. Riegle told you that colleagues were concerned about the Bank Board's regulation of Lincoln, what flag went up? I still don't understand.

EDWIN GRAY, Former Chairman, Federal Home Loan Bank Board: Well, it did concern me.

MR. GREEN: It did concern you. Can you articulate the concern?

MR. GRAY: Well, it concerned me because first of all I didn't understand why Don Riegle from Michigan would be telling me that.

MR. GREEN: Did you ask that of Mr. Riegle? Did you say why are you telling me that?

MR. GRAY: No, I didn't. I don't know why I didn't, but I didn't.

MR. GREEN: Part of your self-effacing, you know, discourse with members of Congress that you don't raise these concerns that you have?

MR. GRAY: Well, I didn't second guess or try to cross-examine Senators as to why they were asking me certain things, no, of course, not.

MR. LEHRER: Gray has testified that a month later, April 2nd, at a meeting in Sen. Dennis DeConcini's office, he told Senators Cranston, Glenn, McCain, and DeConcini he knew little about an ongoing investigation of Lincoln Savings & Loan. Gray said they would have to speak with the San Francisco examiners conducting that investigation, and a week later, they did. But this morning, DeConcini's attorney, James Hamilton, challenged Gray's lack of knowledge concerning the Lincoln investigation. He read a memo sent to Gray by Jim Cerona, one of the San Francisco examiners, several months before Gray's meeting with the Senators. It detailed the Lincoln investigation.

JAMES HAMILTON, Sen. DeConcini's Lawyer: "The above described work, which is obviously time consuming under normal circumstances, was further delayed by uncooperative management. The association has been exceptionally slow in responding to requests for data such as documents needed to facilitate the completion of outside appraisals and sales contracts to support alleged sales of land. Didn't this letter, didn't this memorandum provide you information about why this examination was taking so long?

MR. GRAY: Yes.

MR. HAMILTON: And didn't this letter, this memorandum, provide you some information about the appraisals and the problems with the appraisals?

MR. GRAY: Yeah.

MR. HAMILTON: Don't you think that if you had given the Senators this memorandum at that meeting that this might have avoided the regulators coming in from San Francisco?

MR. GRAY: Well, I don't know.

MR. HAMILTON: And don't you think that if you'd given 'em the memorandum at this meeting that this would have prevented much of the consternation and the heartache that we've had and perhaps would have even prevented these proceedings?

MR. GRAY: Well, it certainly would have prevented a lot of allegations that I was a liar, that's right, when I told this story, that's true. That was heartache for me.

MR. HAMILTON: In hindsight, Mr. Gray, don't you think it was irresponsible for you not to have given this memorandum to the Senators?

MR. GRAY: Repeat that.

MR. HAMILTON: In hindsight, don't you think it was irresponsible for you not to have given this memorandum to the Senators?

MR. GRAY: No, it was not irresponsible, and let me say why. They didn't ask for this. When I brought it up in the meeting, they didn't ask. I don't know how that could be irresponsible.

MR. HAMILTON: They asked for information, didn't they, Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: And I said the San Francisco regulators had the information and they could answer their questions.

MR. HAMILTON: And you had the information too, you had it in the Cerona memo, didn't you?

MR. GRAY: I didn't have the information at the meeting, no.

MR. HAMILTON: But you had it, you had it at least back in your office, and you'd read the Cerona memo, hadn't you?

MR. GRAY: Eight months before.

MR. HAMILTON: And it wasn't true that if your life depended on it, you couldn't answer these questions?

MR. GRAY: Absolutely. If my life depended on it, I could not answer their questions, absolutely.

MR. HAMILTON: Mr. Gray, don't you have some regrets that you didn't give this memo to the Senators?

MR. GRAY: Well, I regret perhaps that they didn't ask for it when I brought it up.

MR. HAMILTON: It's all their fault, they didn't ask for it. They didn't know what was in it, did they?

MR. GRAY: Well, you're saying that?

MR. HAMILTON: I'm asking you. They didn't know what was in it, did they?

MR. GRAY: No, they didn't know what was in it.

MR. HAMILTON: But you don't regret not giving it to them?

MR. GRAY: I don't regret that, no, because --

SEN. WARREN RUDMAN, Vice Chairman, Ethics Committee: Mr. Hamilton, he's answered your question. He said he doesn't regret it. We've heard the answer. There's no sense in continuing the line of question. He's very clear on it. The Committee is the judge of this whole episode and not Mr. Gray.

MR. GRAY: Let me just add if I may, the real purpose in my mind of that meeting was not the 55 or 56 minutes that went into all of those issues, this was in Sen. DeConcini's office. It seems to me that the real purpose of that meeting was to get me to withdraw that regulation that Lincoln had sued us on a few days before.

MR. LEHRER: Today's hearing also had its lighter moments.

MR. HAMILTON: Is there any reason that the American public could believe you and disbelieve four prominent United States Senators?

MR. GRAY: The American public can believe whoever they will. I have nothing to gain whatsoever by telling the truth -- by not telling the truth, I should say, not telling the truth, all right? I think you understood the intent of my --

MR. HAMILTON: In this pressured situation, we all make a few mistakes.

MR. LEHRER: This afternoon Sen. Cranston's attorney, Bill Taylor, pressed Gray on statements he had made prior to these hearings.

BILL TAYLOR, Sen. Cranston's Lawyer: There appears to be an article which appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on or about April 17, 1990. "It's asking too much for politicians to hold themselves accountable," said Gray, the chief witness against the Senators, "to suggest that there would be anything other than an utter whitewash of the five Senators' activities would be asking too much," Mr. Gray said in a telephone interview from his office in Miami. Did you say that, Mr. Gray?

MR. GRAY: I have a right to express my opinion. I'm sorry, I have probably a healthy skepticism of politics.

SEN. RUDMAN: Mr. Taylor, we do have wide latitude in cross- examination, and I'm going to let you go on, but I really don't see what this has to do with the matter that we're investigating.

MR. LEHRER: Later in the afternoon, Sen. Rudman asked Gray if in his view any of the Senators acted improperly during their meeting with him. Gray said he felt Sen. DeConcini's request to withdraw a regulation affecting Keating's S&L was improper. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, Wednesday's top stories, two former U.S. military chiefs joined leading Democrats in discouraging the use of force against Iraq. The UN Security Council is scheduled to vote on a resolution authorizing military action tomorrow. And Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said the economy is in a meaningful downturn, but said it was premature to call it a recession. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you tomorrow night with more coverage of the Senate hearings on going to war in the Persian Gulf. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.