The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Friday, Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry appeared in court on drug charges, Soviet leader Gorbachev said the violence in Azerbaijan is getting worse, and nine Salvadoran soldiers were officially charged in the priests' murder case. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Judy Woodruff is in Washington tonight. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: After the News Summary, the drug arrest [FOCUS - BUSTED] of Washington Mayor Marion Barry is our lead focus. We have a News Maker Interview with U.S. Attorney Jay Stephens, then an update from Correspondent Kwame Holman, and for analysis of the repercussions, we turn to longtime Washington Columnist Dorothy Gilliam, and to our regular Friday team of David Gergen and Mark Shields who will also deal with the rest of the week's political developments. Next the debate over [FOCUS - EARLY WARNING SYSTEM] whether airlines should tell passengers about terrorist threats. Terrorism Consultant Jack McGeorge and the brother of a victim of the Pan Am 103 crash, Bert Ammerman, join us. Finally [ESSAY - POLITICAL THEATER] Essayist Roger Rosenblatt looks at the relationship between government and the arts.NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: The mayor of Washington, D.C. appeared in federal court today on drug charges. Marion Barry was arrested last night in an FBI sting operation at a downtown Washington hotel. The FBI said they videotaped him smoking crack cocaine. Barry was mobbed by reporters and cameramen as he arrived at U.S. District Court this afternoon for a 10 minute appearance. The charge presented to the judge was a misdemeanor for cocaine possession. The U.S. Attorney said Barry faced a maximum one year in prison and a $100,000 fine if convicted. Barry's lawyer told reporters the mayor would not plead guilty if formally charged with the crime. Barry had a brief comment.

MAYOR MARION BARRY, Washington, D.C.: I know that a number of you will be interested and curious about the set of events and activities, but because this matter is in court, unfortunately, I cannot comment or react to or give you information about this particular charge and I would urge you not to ask me any detailed questions about that because you know that in a judicial system we can't answer them. On the other hand, I'm going to leave here and go about the business of government. Thank you.

MR. LEHRER: Later Barry said he was relinquishing his day to day duties as mayor but he is still holding on to the title of mayor. The news came in a press release. He said a city administrator will take over most of the job's daily functions. We'll have more on this story after the News Summary. Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Bush administration had another message for the Federal Reserve today and this one came directly from the President, himself. Just yesterday, White House Spokesman Marlin Fitzwater took the unusual step of publicly commenting on Fed policy. He said current economic conditions warrant lower interest rates. The President's remarks were made today before a group of home builders in Atlanta.

PRES. BUSH: A 1 percent interest increase, a 1 percent increase in the rate of interest knocks millions of families out of the market. In the last few years, millions of families could afford a new home because mortgage interest rates have dropped from 18 percent in the early '80s to less than 10 percent today, but I want to see them come down even more. I am not satisfied at 10 percent.

MS. WOODRUFF: The Republican National Chairman said today that his party welcomed candidates on both sides of the abortion issue. Speaking to a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Washington, Lee Atwater said that he and Pres. Bush both remained strongly opposed to abortion but said that GOP candidates need not agree with them.

LEE ATWATER, Republican National Committee: So my advice to candidates is to search your heart, forget politics and make your decision on what you truly truly believe, and then articulate your position very clearly and very succinctly. Not everybody's going to agree with you. We know that, but I am convinced that the average voter in this country can agree to disagree with the candidate's position on abortion.

MS. WOODRUFF: The astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia are spending an extra day in space. They were supposed to land early this morning, but heavy fog at Edwards Air Force Base in California caused the delay. The crew used today to do scientific experiments and some photography. They are now expected to touch down at one minute after midnight Pacific Time tomorrow morning.

MR. LEHRER: Soviet Pres. Gorbachev said today the violence in Azerbaijan was getting worse. He spoke as more Soviet troops were being sent to the area to join the more than 24,000 already there. More than 70 people have been killed so far in the fighting between Moslem Azerbaijanis and Christian Armenians. We have a report narrated by Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News.

MS. BATES: The Soviet leader facing possibly the greatest challenge yet to his authority issued a blunt warning to the dissident factions waging virtual civil war in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Gorbachev told them the leadership would act responsibly but decisively. He accused them of trying to thwart perestroika, because it doesn't suit their own ambitions. He admitted that despite Kremlin efforts, the situation was difficult, with people's lives still in danger. The official media reported that extremists had blockaded the Communist Party headquarters in Baku, the Azerbaijani capital. The whole city was reported to be on strike, demanding Soviet troops pull out. One senior army officer painted a similarly bleak picture of the crisis. Gen. Ligachev said the situation was deteriorating. He admitted he called up more reserve troops who will stay in the region for the next few days. Ligachev conceded it was a stop gap measure, but insisted the move was necessary to damp down the crisis. In Nagorno-Karabakh, the territory at the heart of the dispute, armed bands kidnapped four soldiers during the day. Groups on both sides seized yet more weapons. The red army despite its military superiority has apparently been unable to gain control of many areas in the face of local opposition. Soviet tanks and trucks have been turned back at roadblocks. As well as the fighting, the economies of both Armenia and Azerbaijan are suffering. Armenia's under virtual blockade and is rapidly running out of food and fuel with transport and factories standing idle.

MR. LEHRER: This evening an Azerbaijani nationalist group said Soviet soldiers opened fire on Azerbaijanis in their capital, Baku. A spokesman for the group said Soviet troops moved into the city by land and sea shortly after midnight. He said they smashed blockades erected by Azerbaijanis to keep them out. In South Africa, police broke up an anti-apartheid demonstration today. There were about 100 protesters in all. Police used attack dogs, batons and tear gas to get them to leave. They were protesting the arrival of a British cricket team, thus defying an international ban against playing sports in South Africa.

MS. WOODRUFF: In El Salvador today, nine military men were charged with murder in the recent killings of six Jesuit priests. Eight of the soldiers and officers were arrested last weekend. The highest ranking among them is a colonel who heads the nation's military school. The ninth man is still at large. The priests were shot to death in November, along with their housekeeper and her daughter. Colombia's president today said that he would continue the fight against drugs in his country despite one cartel's offer to give up drug trafficking. The Medellin Cartel said this week that it would stop bombings and kidnappings, give up its weapons, and stop drug shipments in exchange for amnesty, but Pres. Virgilio Barco said military operations against the cartels have been working and would continue.

MR. LEHRER: Finally in the news today, Arthur Goldberg died. The former Supreme Court Justice was found dead in his Washington apartment this morning. His cause of death was a heart condition. Goldberg was a cabinet member in the Kennedy administration. He then served on the high court for three years, resigning at the urging of Pres. Johnson to become the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He was 81 years old.

MS. WOODRUFF: That's our News Summary. Just ahead on the Newshour, the Marion Barry case, the debate over publicizing threats to airlines and a Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - BUSTED

MS. WOODRUFF: We go first tonight to the drug arrest of Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry. As we reported the mayor was arrested in a joint FBI, D.C. Police sting operation at a Washington hotel last night. Law enforcement officials said he was video taped buying and smoking crack cocaine. After an appearance in Federal District Court today Mayor Barry and his wife an attorney emerged to face a hord of journalists. The Mayor and his lawyer had little to say. A few minutes earlier Barry had been advised of the charges against him and was formally booked in a court house cell block. He was then released but ordered to return for weekly drug tests. Joining us now for a Newsmaker interview is Jay B. Stephens, the U.S. Attorney in Washington who put together the under cover operation which resulted in Mayor Barry's arrest. Mr. Stephens thank you for being with us. What exactly happened in that hotel room last night that lead to the Mayors arrest?

JAY B. STEPHENS, U.S. Attorney: Well last night as you indicated the FBI and the Metropolitan Police Department had set up an operation call it an under cover operation designed to investigate certain allegations. It is an investigative technique that could be used to follow up on those allegations where you have some predicate information that would suggest that some is predisposed with respect to certain kinds of criminal conduct.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean predicate information?

MR. STEPHENS: Well predicate information would suggest that there is some evidence that has been developed that would provide a basis to believe that an individual has engaged in criminal conduct or is disposed to engage in certain kinds criminal conduct and an operation was developed around that and particularly around an individual who had a relationship with Mr. Barry and that operation was designed and focused on developing a scenario to see whether or not he would be involved in or was involved in narcotics abuse.

MS. WOODRUFF: We read today the reports that this was a women that the Mayor had known. That the FBI, I suppose your office was involved, brought her to Washington and used her in effect to get the Mayor to come to this hotel room to engage in some sort of drug transaction. Is that pretty much what happened?

MR. STEPHENS: Well I don't want to comment on the individual in particular other than to say that there was some one involved in the operation who had a long standing prior relationship to Mr. Barry. Obviously as the scenario unfolded and Mr. Barry came to the hotel, himself, of his own free will. He was driven there in a city limo. He came to the hotel room on the 7th floor of his own doing and as obviously indicated by the charges filed engaged in and we believe the evidence will show in the possession of crack cocaine while in that room.

MS. WOODRUFF: The reports that I read today said that the court papers indicate that there was money exchanged, that he gave some one an amount of currency and received something back. If this occurred if you have pictures of this because we also understand there was video taping. Why are you charging him only with possession.

MR. STEPHENS: Well the initial charge is possession and I don't want to comment on or confirm the issue you raised with regard to the exchange of funds and money. But as a general practice where a distribution charge would lie you would need to demonstrate that some one was distributing to another individual generally not for personal us. And there is some issue of course whether the facts here would support that but we believe the facts will support the charge which we expect to lodge and that is possession of crack cocaine.

MS. WOODRUFF: As you know the Mayors friends and supporters are already saying that this is entrapment, that the government went out of its way to manufacture a situation where the Mayor would be enticed in to doing something illegal. How would you respond to that?

MR. STEPHENS: Well I respond to that by saying that this is an under cover investigative technique that is a standard type of technique used in sophisticated investigation. It was carefully reviewed. Our office made sure that we would comply with all the law and with respect to entrapment in particular. Where there is predicate evidence entrapment is really not a defense and while I can't speak to the evidence specifically in this case let me say as a general policy where we could establish that by evidence that we have developed that their is conduct that someone is involved in certain kinds of transactions where the evidence suggests that either by the prior relationship or subsequent conduct that they are interested in that kind of conduct I don't think that entrapment is a substantial issue.

MS. WOODRUFF: Well are you confident that you can prove that there was this predisposition that you keep referring too?

MR. STEPHENS: I think that as I have indicated we reviewed this operation very carefully. I think that entrapment while it has a certain ring of appeal to any one who is caught in a sting operation in this case has actually no legal basis.

MS. WOODRUFF: The other charge that I think has already being heard here in the District has to be that there is an element of racism here. That here you have Federal Officials who while people are dying in the streets practically here in Washington because drug related violence. Families are disintegrating because of drug trafficking and so forth. You spend the time and energy and personal in your office going after a possession a misdemeanor against the Mayor. How do explain that?

MR. STEPHENS: There are several points on that Judy. First of all this wasn't just a Federal operation. The Metropolitan Police Internal Affairs was involved in this very much as a team. Secondly our office spends the bulk of its resources fighting narcotics and homicides and third while this is in many respects a personal tragedy for Mr. Barry as I think the evidence would demonstrate drugs are really not victimless crimes and I think that your point there is that really the community here in Washington has suffered a devastating blow from narcotics and violence. They are victims of a crime, victims of drugs, the community is victims of drugs. And I think that in this case one can make the argument that indeed the whole city has been the victims of drug abuse as last nights events demonstrated.

MS. WOODRUFF: Do you think that you have a case that is going to stick here?

MR. STEPHENS: I think that we would not have brought a case that we believe that we could not support based on the evidence and the law.

MS. WOODRUFF: J. Stephens we appreciate you being with us.

MR. STEPHENS: Thank you very much Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: We will talk with a Washington columnist and with our own team of Gergen and Shields about the political fall out from the Mayor's arrest but first Correspondent Quame Holman has this background report.

MR. HOLMAN: Leaving the courthouse after appearing before a judge on cocaine charges this afternoon Mayor Marion Barry has little to say but for years Washingtonians have had a lot to say about persistent allegations of cocaine use and the active night life of their Mayor. In December of 1988 Mayor Barry made several visits to his friend Charles Lewis in a Washington hotel room.

REPORTER: Mr. Lewis can you tell us what you were doing at the Ramada Inn that night.

MR. HOLMAN: Lewis was under police surveillance for allegedly selling cocaine. Lewis reported admitted smoking crack cocaine with Mayor Barry and passed two lie detector tests about that assertion.

REPORTER: Mr. Lewis did you offer the Mayor Drugs?

MR. HOLMAN: The Mayor denied Lewis's charge. Lewis was sentenced to 15 months on his cocaine conviction today. The Lewis incident touched off a storm of press coverage forcing Barry to explain and apologize.

MAYOR BARRY: At no time did I seek any drugs, use any drugs,or have any knowledge of any drugs. I apologize to our citizens, I apologize to the country for putting our city in this kind of situation.

MR. HOLMAN: In an interview with the Newshour last January and throughout the year Mayor barry denied ever using drugs or having a drug problem.

MAYOR BARRY: I was apologizing to the Public for them feeling embarrassed. The news media has taken this around the world, made Washington look like sin city. That here is a mayor who is involved with drugs. Now I never use drugs, don't need to use them.

REPORTER: Mr. Mayor is it embarrassing that when the Conference of Mayors is in town to be subpoenaed before a Grand Jury and that being the front page of the newspapers?

MAYOR BARRY: You all did that.

MR. HOLMAN: The early incidents did not lead to indictment of Barry but they were just the latest in a long string of personal and political trouble for the 53 year old three term Mayor. In 1984 the first major cocaine allegation against Barry reportedly came from former city worker Karen Johnson. After being convicted of selling cocaine Johnson said that she sold cocaine to the Mayor. Then recanted the statement. She served a seven month jail sentence for contempt of court.

MS. JOHNSON: I have no comment.

MR. HOLMAN: Mayor Barry also denied Johnson's allegations. No charges were brought against him. In the interview last year the Mayor claimed a distinction between his private and public lives.

MAYOR BARRY: I ran for Mayor in 78. I didn't run to be Pope or Bishop or to be an elder. I ran to be Mayor and I figure that my private life as long as I didn't do anything illegal or anything outrageous was my private life. The rules of the game have changed now. I am under scrutiny 24 hours a day. No other man in America is under this much scrutiny. I guess I have sort of become bigger than life.

MR. HOLMAN: Washington Post Reporter and Commentator Juan Williams covered Barry during his early years in office and has written often about the Mayor.

JUAN WILLIAMS, Washington Post: If you look back to the beginning and try to get a sense of what was the expectation for Marion, I think the whole town wanted him to do well and once that he won saw his as sort of the embodiment of young black political power.

MR. HOLMAN: It was during the civil rights movement that a young Marion Barry learned his political skills. The son of a Mississippi share croppers Barry cut short his PHD work in Chemistry to become an activist.

MAYOR BARRY: I have always will and have been my own man.

MR. HOLMAN: After two short stints in elective offices in Washington Barry became the upset winner of the 1978 Mayor's race.

MR. HOLMAN: Some Barry observers believed that he remained committed to the goals of the civil rights movement but his image problems hurt his ability meet those goals. Political Scientist Alvin Thornton of Howard University in Washington.

MR. THORNTON: Black Mayors of this type are not elected just to be Mayors they are elected to change things. To change economic,and life chances, to change peoples housing conditions and all of that. And he has not been able to do that because primarily that is the nature of urban America but also because I think he has made some choices detracting from his ability to do that.

MR. HOLMAN: But now city leaders fear the effect that the Mayor's own drug arrest will have on a City plagued by a record number of drug related homicides. Despite his problems before his arrest last night Barry had broad support particularly among Washington's many low income black residents. last January community activist Calvin Rolark described that loyalty.

CALVIN ROLARK, Community Activist: They see a hope in Marion Barry. Marion Barry is the type of person that will go in public housing and will go through the back door and sit down and eat a bowl of beans. He likes to stay out, move in and out of clubs and say hello and shake hands with people, unloosen his tie and just feel at home.

MR. HOLMAN: Barry's arrest saddened and angered many Washington residents and complicated Washington's 1990 Mayoral race which Barry had expected to enter Sunday in search of a fourth term. The field is already crowded with four Democratic challengers to Barry now attention will inevitably focus on Barry friend and ally Jesse Jackson. Jackson has insisted that he would never run against Barry but in an unusual departure Barry sharply criticized Jackson in a recent Los Angeles Times Interview saying Jackson would rather run his mouth than run Washington. In Chicago Jackson's reaction today was one of compassion for Barry and his family.

MR. JACKSON: My mood right now is sorrow and sympathy and concern for Marion and the family and the family of Washington and people around the nations who are so concerned about the out come of this matter.

MR. HOLMAN: Long before last nights drug arrest observers like the Posts Juan Williams said Marion Barry's seeming penchant for trouble has brought a sense of betrayal.

MR. WILLIAMS: People really, you know, feel that deeply that this is our town and we have an opportunity here to be a shining light of progressive black government and that faith has been violated.

MS. WOODRUFF: We will round all the weeks political news with our regular team of Gergen and Shields. That is David Gergen Editor at large at U.S. News and World Report and Mark Shields Syndicated Columnist with the Washington Post but first we talk about the arrest of Washington's Mayor Barry. Joining us for that discussion is Dorothy Gillian, Metro Columnist for the Washington Post. She was one of last of the City's Commentators to call for Barry to step down from office. Dorothy Gilliam first of all before we talk about the politics of this. Why do think that Marion Barry did this assuming that the charges are correct and of course we don't know until there is a trial?

DOROTHY GILLIAM, Washington Post: Well I think that you are right. We first of all have to say that we don't know and we must be careful to put everything in the context that he is innocent until proven guilty and I think the whole conversation has to be framed in that context but, I think, it seems to me clearly that if indeed all of this occurred as it has been laid out then Mr. Barry has a serious problem and I think the questions have been asked well how could be fall for what seemed such an obvious situation and I think the answer is as far as I can tell that when you have a problem of this magnitude that you know that your activities are not ones that we would call we thought out or well planned. So I think that is an indication of the problem.

MS. WOODRUFF: Will his friends and supporters and especially the friends and supporters in the black community in Washington stick with him through this or is this the final straw?

MS. GILLIAM: Well I think that still remains to be seen. I think that there is a great deal of support for Mr. Barry primarily because he is not seen in the context of only the last two or three years but he is seen in a broader context.

MS. WOODRUFF: What do you mean?

MS. GILLIAM: The context of a man who was one of the original freedom riders, a context of a man who was the first chairman of SNIK, the context of a man who came in to a City that was not particularly active politically and really began to charge up the little people, you know the ordinary people in the street. So I think there is a lot of caring about the Mayor. I think in many instances it is a class issue. He represented the little people as a opposed to the middle class. And I use that word little people in all reverence but simply to make what I think is an important distinction about his supporters?

MS. WOODRUFF: What are you hearing today. Are people that you are talking to saying that this was clearly a set up? This was a vendetta they were out to get the Mayor or are you hearing people saying they understand what was taking place?

MS. GILLIAM: I am hearing both. I am hearing people who are saying they think that it was a set up but I am hearing more people who were just expressing enormous sadness. You know certainly the issue of entrapment has been raised. It will be Mr. Barry's defense but I think that most people are beyond that. I think that they feel that the City has been under quite a cloud. They still have a lot of support for Mr. Barry because they look at him as also in some ways of being victimized by the media, you know, they see almost this sort of a persecution of him by the legal forces so I think that for a long time that feeling has been there. So I don't people are going to change so rapidly so that by tomorrow the enormous support will fade but I do see a sense of change of people who feel in some ways they have been betrayed because he spoke so vehemently against drugs and he made it so clear that he had never done it.

MS. WOODRUFF: And denied it.

MS. GILLIAM: And denied it so much. And to me that is why I think there is also sympathy because clearly we are talking about some one who has a problem and needs help and I think that is the context in which I think that we should be viewing this.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark and David you both have obviously talked to people today. Why do people think that Marion Barry did this. I mean, is it another case of what we saw with Gary Hart almost a death wish telling the press follow me I am not guilty and then turning around and being apparently guilty?

MR. GERGEN: I'd like to go back to Dorothy's point. We don't know what all the facts will turn out to be in this particular case.

MS. WOODRUFF: And we want to keep stressing that throughout this.

MR. GERGEN: But I do think the suspicion has been around in the city for some time and now clearly it's been fueled, that he does have a drug problem, and whether it's a habit or an addiction, I don't think one can tell, but there have been so many allegations over the years that clearly I think many people now feel the evidence suggests that he has become reckless. You know, everybody knew that he was being carefully watched. He was just about to declare for a fourth term. So that recklessness is something which occurs in people who have these habits and can't seem to shake them, and I think there is a tragic quality here. I would have to say though if he does have a problem, this may be a blessing in disguise, because finally for the first time he may really be able to get some help.

MS. WOODRUFF: Mark, is this the end politically for Mayor Barry no matter what comes out, or does he still have a straw, something he can hold onto?

MR. SHIELDS: I think two points. I think if in fact the charges are proved and if he is convicted, I think it is the end for Marion Barry, because the most devastating of all political charges to be leveled against any candidate is that of hypocrisy, and Marion Barry's practiced the cruelest form of self-deception or municipal deception. I think the point you raised and Dorothy alluded to earlier, the betrayal. Gary Hart is a great point of reference. Gary Hart in 1987 betrayed his own campaign, his workers, his volunteers, and he left the campaign trail. His campaign disappeared. Marion Barry, if, in fact, he is guilty as charged, has betrayed an entire city and he's betrayed a legacy. We in Washington, I've lived here for 25 years, have a very short history of self government. He represents a disproportionately large share of that short history and it is devastating. People who are against self government, who for one reason or another don't want blacks in a position of leadership in this country, are having a field day tonight thanks to what Marion Barry has done.

MS. WOODRUFF: Dorothy Gilliam, just one other question. After what's happened in Boston, it's been in the news for weeks now, the Stuart murder and so forth, without going into the details of that, do we, I mean, is there the potential in Washington that we could have some sort of racial breakdown in this city as a result of this, or is this such a different case that you don't see that happening?

MS. GILLIAM: In many ways I think it is a very different case. I think there certainly exists a great deal of racial divisiveness and indeed hostility. In many ways, Mr. Barry kind of was almost the pole around which a lot of that seemed to revolve, but we cannot look at this in a very isolated way because there were so many societal factors, there's so many other things that really impacted on what he was and what he did, so I don't think I would say that we would have a breakdown of this sort in Boston, but I do think that the racial hostility is probably going to increase certainly in the near future.

MS. WOODRUFF: David.

MR. GERGEN: I would have a different view and that was, in fact, we would have had more racial hostility had Marion Barry declared, run a campaign and been elected, because I think there are so many people suspicious of him. I think the sense of betrayal and once you clear the Barry issue from the agenda, I think the city can more easily unite behind a different leader.

MS. WOODRUFF: Assuming he does not run again or even if he does, where does this leave Jesse Jackson, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think Jesse Jackson, I mean, the challenge is to him. I mean, Jesse Jackson and Marion Barry said it to Della Stumble in the Los Angeles Times, "Jesse don't want to run nothin', just want to run his mouth," is the language which she described Marion Barry as using in describing Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson I think faces the challenge of his career. He has a city in crisis to which he moved where he is really being sought to run for leadership. There are qualified candidates seeking the mayorship. I don't mean to denigrate them in any way but the key is Jesse Jackson now has an office which is seeking him for which he could win in a city that needs leadership, especially in the two areas that Jesse Jackson has been so visible and so vocal and I think so emphatic, drugs and childhood education. That's the city in crisis, and I think having ducked the chance to run for Senator from South Carolina and I think having ducked the chance to run for Mayor of Chicago, he came here. There's no excuses for his not running at this point.

MS. GILLIAM: I just think there is something that has to be added to that analysis, and that is that there are many people in this city who have a very different kind of view of it. I mean, there is the carpet bagger view that many people have. They feel that he is an outsider who has come in as kind of an interloper. Now it seems to me, however, that if there is a carefully strategized kind of campaign that Mr. Jackson still has a good chance.

MR. GERGEN: I disagree again. Back in May, the Washington Post took a poll which included Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson and asked people in the city who do you want to see as mayor and Jesse Jackson at that point was beating Marion Barry by 40 percent to 10 percent. I think that Jesse Jackson does have a strength here. To elaborate on Mark's point, I would argue, Mark, that this may well take Jesse Jackson out of the '92 contention.

MS. WOODRUFF: Out of the presidential contention.

MR. GERGEN: Out of the presidential contention, because I think he has got a choice. He has to run for mayor in which case that takes him out, or if he doesn't run for mayor, then I think a lot of people are going to say he's run away from that responsibility and I think that's going to diminish him in '92. So either way, I think he becomes less of a factor in '92. My personal hope is he runs for mayor, because I think it would greatly enliven the race and he could be a very very good leader to a lot of young people in this city.

MR. SHIELDS: For the first time in Jesse Jackson's public career, this is an office he can win or presumably could win that is open and where he's being urged to run for it, or he can, as David says, sit back and say, well, I'm a presidential candidate. Well, if he's a presidential candidate, I think he'll be taken a lot less seriously.

MR. GERGEN: Exactly.

MS. GILLIAM: I think '92 is not the best presidential year. I think '96 is probably going to be better for him anyway.

MS. WOODRUFF: Just a couple of minutes left and one or two other things I want to ask the two of you about. One is there are some very favorable poll ratings that came out this week on Pres. Bush. Does this mean that he is so formidable now sitting over there at the White House that the Democrats might as well not even come to Washington for this next session of Congress? What are we talking about here, Mark -- she said disingenuously.

MR. SHIELDS: I will eat two slices of humble pie for having not predicted that George Bush would be sitting here today with the approval of four out five Americans one year in office, but is George Bush invincible politically for '92? No. Does George Bush have an intense, true believer constituency that would walk over hot coals in their bare feet or in their LL Bean boots for him? No. He is favorable, he is liked and the job he's done so far, the stewardship, has been respected. A status quo President is terrific as long as the status quo is good and the status quo has been terrific the first year.

MS. WOODRUFF: You're saying we've had the status quo.

MR. SHIELDS: I think George Bush has had a great first year. But I think the convincing point about it is, Judy, that nobody has yet written a letter to the editor that I know of, Time Magazine, arguing that George Bush ought to have been man of the year.

MR. GERGEN: That's because of events overseas, but listen, I think you have to give credit to George Bush for having managed the affairs of the office very well in foreign affairs and he's getting very high grades from the American people for that and the economy is rolling along for him. I agree if the economy goes down, his ratings are going to go down substantially. But the popularity we're seeing though I do think is different from the kind of popularity we ordinarily measure in Presidents. With someone like Lyndon Johnson high popularity would have made him an intimidating figure in Washington. With George Bush, for a variety of reasons, it doesn't seem to do. Partly it's the nature of his personality and partly the nature of the Democrats.

MS. WOODRUFF: Last week, we talked about this new Social Security proposal from Sen. Moynihan to do away with this tax increase that was levied the first of this year. The President really came down hard against this this week. Are we now facing what is certain to be a big fight over this, or is this something that's going to go away, I mean, without great elaboration?

MARK SHIELDS, Washington Post: No, I don't think it's going to go away. I think just to touch on what David said, George Bush is not a fearsome figure and the two major agenda items legislatively that have bubbled up this week were proposed by Senators, one by Bob Dole on foreign aid and second that of Pat Moynihan earlier on Social Security. I think the Democrats right now are edging toward a vote where you can vote one way, up to cut capital gains tax, or to cut the payroll tax.

DAVID GERGEN, U.S. News & World Report: I think the Moynihan proposal is looking like a great first date and the more people look at, the less enthusiastic --

MS. WOODRUFF: The Moynihan proposal.

MR. GERGEN: Yes, the Moynihan proposal on Social Security. And the more people look at it, you know, it hasn't gotten much support from within his own party. Very very few people come out for it.

MS. WOODRUFF: What about Bob Dole's proposal, you must mentioned it, to cut foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, and a few other countries in order to increase or give more aid to the Eastern Bloc?

MR. SHIELDS: Nobody likes foreign aid. There wouldn't be any foreign aid if there weren't foreign aid for Israel. There was great support for foreign aid, support of Israel, within the Congress. There is less so in the country as a result of the Palestinian uprising on the West Bank and the Intifada and Israeli treatment of it. But I don't think that this Congress is about to cut aid to Israel, but I think the administration is well served because they like the message it's sending to Mr. Shamir, that you'd better negotiate.

MR. GERGEN: The real issue here is whether we're willing to give more foreign aid to Eastern Europe and Latin America at a critical time. It's not a question of whether we take money from Israel. The fact is this country is very rich, we used to give 1 percent of our GNP a year into foreign aid. We're down to 1/4 of 1 percent. We give less than most of the other industrialized nations. We ought to give the same aid to Israel and then give some more to Eastern Europe and Latin America.

MS. WOODRUFF: David Gergen and Mark Shields, thank you both, and Dorothy Gilliam. We appreciate your being with us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Still to come on the Newshour tonight, security threats to airliners and a Roger Rosenblatt essay. FOCUS - EARLY WARNING SYSTEM

MR. LEHRER: Next, an airline security debate. The issue is whether airlines should tell passengers about bomb and similar threats. The federal government says no and today Federal Aviation Administration officials met with airline representatives to discuss that situation. It's an issue because two American airlines have just done some notifying. Northwest Airlines told its passengers about a threat against a Paris to Detroit flight on December 30th. A few days later, Delta Airlines announced a general terrorist threat against its trans Atlantic flights. The FAA said this afternoon that Northwest and Delta acted prudently because the threats had been checked out and were credible. However, the FAA said the vast majority of threats are hoaxes and should not be publicized. Here to debate these questions are Jack McGeorge, a private consultant on terrorism who runs his own company, The Public Safety Group, and Bert Ammerman, whose brother was killed in the Pan Am bombing 13 months ago. He now runs a group called Victims of Pan Am Flight 103. Mr. McGeorge, you agree with the FAA's position on public warnings, do you not, sir?

MR. McGEORGE: I do not believe -- [Network Audio Difficulty]

MR. LEHRER: We're having trouble hearing you, Mr. McGeorge. Could somebody turn his mike on. Now they've done it. Go ahead.

JACK McGEORGE, Terrorism Consultant: Generally speaking I do agree with the FAA's position that we should not be communicating all of the threats to the general public that the airlines receive. They receive more than one threat a day. There is no way that the public is in a position to make the informed judgment with a limited amount of information that could be made available. Whether what Delta, Northwest did is correct or not, I am not so sure. I do not generally believe that those threats should be made public.

MR. LEHRER: What's the harm in doing so?

MR. McGEORGE: A number of things. No. 1, you encourage people to make spurious hoax threats. They can see an immediate large scale reaction to their threat. That's of great harm. It will lead to disruption in scheduling, it will increase cost, and decrease the efficiency in the way our airlines operate. I do not see a positive effect to communicating that information outside the security community, which is prepared to do something about the threat.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ammerman, you disagree.

BERT AMMERMAN, Airline Passenger Advocate: Well, with all due respect to this expert, Pan Am Flight 103 in December of 1988 is the evidence of the efficiency of our security system. We now know after forming this organization for a year that there were plenty of warnings available that should have stopped the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. This information was not passeddown to the appropriate baggage handlers and the X-ray people to look for the Toshiba tape cassette recorder. We now know that the director of the British Aviation Authority, Jimmy Jack, on November 22nd, told the baggage handlers, that they're not sure what's in the baggage, put it in the hold of the plane. With that type of security we might as well have the terrorists run the security system. We know the Pan Am alert that was in charge in Frankfurt had German police dogs, the bomb sniffer dogs, excepted they rented them from a kennel and they were never trained to do that. They had individuals asking the six questions, if this is your bag, did you pack that bag. The only problem was they didn't speak English. They only learned the questions phonetically. With that type of security, I think we have a better chance and we would be better informed to make our own decisions.

MR. LEHRER: But how would telling people that there's a threat, how would that help the average person make a decision?

MR. AMMERMAN: Well, in our society in this day and age we have disclaimers, and I think it's appropriate, and we sent a letter personally to the chairmen of the board of Northwest and Delta commending them on what they did. We do not expect it to be announced to the public on the AP/UPI. But every passenger has a right to be informed when they go to the ticket counter to be informed that there was a potential threat. They would be given the information that the airline figures they've taken the appropriate measures, the captain and crew have been informed and believe that the flight should take off, and then that passenger makes that decision. I have said to Sec. of Transportation Skinner, and I'm impressed today from what you just said that he at least modified their position, that Northwest and Delta acted prudently. That's a major step forward.

MR. LEHRER: That's a new statement that just came out a while ago.

MR. AMMERMAN: Which is impressive and which means we must be having an impact, so I commend him for that and his Department. The thing that amazes me, Jim, and we're missing the concept here, and we will be presenting legislation in February regarding this, if the FAA is willing to accept the responsibility and the accountability for airport and airline security, then don't tell the public, but they continue this facade and these cosmetic charges, the directives to the airlines without the clout. Pan Am Flight 103 was attacked, the American flag was attacked. The government should become an active participant. They're just passing the buck.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. McGeorge, what about that, that if the government can't guarantee moving in an effective way against security threats, then what's the point of keeping it from the public?

MR. McGEORGE: Making the public a part of that decision making process I don't think serves any good purpose. While certainly I am not an advocate of withholding information in general, I don't think we're going to serve any good purpose by making it public. Now the government has a responsibility to regulate, to set policies, to set standards, and what not. The airlines have a responsibility to maintain those standards and do what is necessary. That does not happen overnight. I believe you would agree with me, I hope anyway, that the situation securitywise today is not the same as it was when Flight 103 took off. Unfortunately, that tragedy was an impetus to get many things improved and changed. But I think that's the way of things. I don't think that is so unfortunately, so uncommon. Change comes from some stimulus. That was a stimulus that is believed more than adequate to make lasting change in the way we do business, and I think that is what is going to solve the problem in the long run, not having the passengers get intimately involved in this discussion.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ammerman, what about Mr. McGeorge's earlier point that this would just cause havoc in the airline business?

MR. AMMERMAN: We think just the opposite. We have documentation that shows in April of '89, 15 minutes before the Pan Am flight was supposed to go from Paris to the United States, was to take off, 200 passengers were notified of a potential bomb threat. Seventeen got off the flight. At Easter last year, the European media leaked a potential threat and the travel did not depreciate immeasurably.

MR. LEHRER: On the Northeast flight I think that really did. The word was only four people ended up flying on that flight from Paris to Detroit, is that not right?

MR. AMMERMAN: Twenty-two out of a hundred and thirty.

MR. LEHRER: Twenty-two. Sorry.

MR. AMMERMAN: What took place there, that was the safest flight to take off that day with the media attention that was given which we do not endorse. I would have flown that. That was safer than Air Force One. They had 48 hours to prepare for that one.

MR. LEHRER: How in the world can you tell 200 people that there's a bomb threat to their flight and not expect that to get out to the media eventually?

MR. AMMERMAN: The concern that we have stated, and this is the simple process and there's nothing difficult with it, the responsibility of the airline would be to notify the passengers that are flying that plane. If the media or public want to know, the simple statement is that the information is being passed on to the appropriate people. The media is not flying that flight. The public is not flying that flight. The passengers deserve that information until appropriate training and technology is in place. It is not, and what our government is saying, they can't protect us, we don't want to warn you but we will allow you to play Russian Roulette.

MR. LEHRER: Is that what they are saying, Mr. McGeorge?

MR. McGEORGE: No, by no means. I can't speak for the government obviously, but I just cannot go along with that. The technologies are being worked on. No question about the fact that we don't have a perfect solution to find explosive devices, and when we can find explosive devices quite reliably, I am sure that the bad guys will come up with something else that we can't find readily. I don't believe anyone is intentionally playing Russian Roulette with anybody's life. I fly a great deal. I don't feel that I am being abused by the system in that regard. I truly think things are going along about as well as they can. Fast enough? No way. No question about that. But it's probably as well as it can realistically be done. We can call for all the accelerated security we want. The fact of the matter is we have millions of people flying every day, tens of thousands of bags moving through an airport every day. You don't change the way you search those things. You don't train all the people whom we don't want to pay too much for, otherwise we have to increase the cost of tickets. That does not change overnight. That takes months, sometimes longer. We need to be patient.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ammerman. Be patient, Mr. Ammerman.

MR. AMMERMAN: Please. In 1986, Pan Am put out an advertisement, full page advertisement, that said, the Pan Am alert was a new form of security that would be the best security ever available for passengers. In 1990, yesterday, in the New York Times, Plaskett, the chief EO, put out a full page ad saying that Pan Am's security is far in exceeding of the FAA's standards and foreign services. That's minimum standards. The only thing that's happened between the '86 advertisement and the '90 advertisement is 270 people were massacred. They were massacred because Pan Am did not have security in place and the FAA did not have the people have to monitor it. The FAA thinks by monitoring is fines. That's the American mentality. Money solves everything. The FAA has to have the training and the FAA should have the supervisors in place. And it's not going to be a major increase as Mr. McGeorge talks about. The airlines still put in their money. The passengers put in their money. Pan Am has been collecting $5 per passenger, saying they have the greatest security in the world. And we now know that that was a sham.

MR. LEHRER: You disagree then with Mr. McGeorge that things have gotten better since 103?

MR. AMMERMAN: Oh, absolutely. There have been improvements on the questions, et cetera, but Pan Am says they have enhanced themselves with machinery. We know for a fact that only one TNA machine has been put in place and that's at JFK. We know that Pan Am fought the implement of a TNA machine in Miami, and had to finally relent due to pressure. The compensation which Mr. McGeorge just eloquently referred to is still minimum. We called a couple of weeks ago at JFK when Pan Am advertised, said what the hourly rate was, they said $4.75. I can get $6.00 an hour flipping hamburgers at Burger King. So, therefore, I don't see the commitment. I still see a lot of words, and a lot of the information that has gotten out the last year is because of our organization and other American citizens saying, let's speak the truth.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. McGeorge, the word "commitment", are you saying that there is a commitment within the United States Government and within the airline industry to do something about this, to move in a very decisive way?

MR. McGEORGE: As decisive as government ever moves. Yes, certainly there's commitment. I can't speak for the government or any branch of the government.

MR. LEHRER: But from the outside looking in, do you see signs of that commitment?

MR. McGEORGE: Absolutely.

MR. LEHRER: Give me a sign.

MR. McGEORGE: Development of the TNA machine, which I would go immediately on record saying I don't believe it's the panacea, nor is it going to detect all bombs or any other such thing.

MR. LEHRER: But it's a highly sophisticated --

MR. McGEORGE: Yes.

MR. LEHRER: -- new era type machine.

MR. McGEORGE: On which considerable money was spent, a lot of research dollars are spent there, and it is probably one of the best of the possible solutions to move us in the direction. There's no one thing, whether it's just training or just TNA's at a million dollars a piece or any other single thing. It's a whole series of things that have to be taken as a system to help improve. No security, however, no matter what we do, is ever going to absolutely prevent a terrorist or someone bent on destroying an airplane from doing so. I honestly don't think there's a way to absolutely prevent it.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ammerman, Mr. McGeorge also said in terms of havoc that this would cause, the people just phoning in hoaxes, the people who wanted to cause trouble, and it could proliferate in a very serious way. Do you see that happening?

MR. AMMERMAN: The way it was handled with Northwest, announcing that it was an anonymous phone call, leads towards that. I agree with Mr. McGeorge. I think that the step forward today, the credible threats, of which there are only about twenty-five to thirty a year, definitely should be dealt with with the passengers. And I see --

MR. LEHRER: So they can be distinguished, one from another?

MR. AMMERMAN: Oh, yes, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Can they, Mr. McGeorge?

MR. McGEORGE: Yes and no. There are three things typically that you use to evaluate the credibility of a threat, other intelligence that would tend to support the idea of the threat, the history of the threatening party or of attacks against that particular entity, in this case an airline, and third, the degree of specificity of the threat, is there such a flight with that airline at this time and so forth. Those elements are frequently absent in threats that actually turn out to be real. There is --

MR. LEHRER: So --

MR. McGEORGE: You cannot say that yes, we can absolutely distinguish real threats from non-real threats. We can make some pretty good judgments, but that's as far as you can go.

MR. LEHRER: As far as we can go?

MR. AMMERMAN: Well, the FAA has credible threats and they go to twenty-five to thirty, and the Helsinki warning December 25th was a credible threat.

MR. LEHRER: That's as far as we can go tonight too on our time, gentlemen. Thank you both very much. ESSAY - POLITICAL THEATER

MS. WOODRUFF: We close tonight with an essay. Roger Rosenblatt has some thoughts about the conflict between art and government.

MR. ROSENBLATT: The purposes of art and the purposes of government collide head on at the idea of freedom. Art has to be totally free in order to work. If government were totally free, it would explode in anarchy. The collision of enterprises may soon be checked in Czechoslovakia, where the people have elected Vaclav Havel as president. An artist as head of a country? What an idea. In 1968, Havel said, politics and culture will always remain entirely different activities. Now the artist has the opportunity to reconcile those differences, perhaps even to make something better of the combination of the two. No playwright in history has ever had such a theater to work in. Not that sometime artists have never led countries before. Winston Churchill painted a little, and rather nicely. Mao Tsu Teng wrote poems, propaganda to be sure, but the English poet, Shelley, said that poets were the legislators of mankind. Harry Truman played the piano, so did Richard Nixon, who was artful in more ways than one. Still, there's a great difference between art as a hobby and art as a life. The serious artist, the wholly committed artist, sees the world as a fiction, something to make new. All that is real enters his mind, changes color and shape and comes out a dream. The ambition of course is that the dream is a dream of the truth. What art can do for government is problematical to say the least. Art is eccentric, fantastic, frequently irresponsible. Imagine if Goya had been king of Spain or the mystic William Blake king of England, now there's a thought. Wild and stormy Blake, would he have left the American colonies go? Picture Mozart as emperor of Austria. The music would have been great, the chord in chaos. How about James Joyce as president of Ireland, leading his people from Zurich while sending unintelligible edicts from Finnigan's wake? Elect Andy Warhol as president? At least the memoirs would have been different. Yet, the idea is not without possibilities. Art has a way of always being hopeful, even in satire and gloom, hopeful and ideal. It might be refreshing for a citizenry to hear hope without cliches. Ordinary politicians do not give them that. Politicians don't give the people much beauty either and beauty is the stuff of art. Whether or not the artist sees the world as beautiful, he makes it beautiful. That's his trade. As for reality, both art and government distort reality for different ends, yet art ends are more generous. But back to the question of freedom which remains the stumbling block if art and government are to ever get along. As a playwright, Havel wrote about characters who were oppressed and belittled under the old Communist regime. Yet, the artist saw these people as innately free. He wrote, "Freedom is not so much a matter of the limits of possibility as it is a certain inner independence. As President of Czechoslovakia, Havel will see if he can encourage the inner independence of his people while organizing them into a coherent, orderly whole. It is the severest test of democracy and the severest test of art as well, as all art needs a frame work. Those crowds in Wensceslaus Square. Yesterday they were the audience. Now they're the play. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Friday, Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry appeared in court on a drug charge. He was arrested last night in an FBI sting operation. Soviet Pres. Gorbachev said the escalating violence between Azerbaijanis and Armenians was getting worse, more Soviet troops were ordered into the area. And nine Salvadoran soldiers were officially charged with murdering six Jesuit priests and two others. Good night, Judy.

MS. WOODRUFF: Good night, Jim. That's our Newshour for tonight. We'll be back Monday night. I'm Judy Woodruff. Thank you and have a good weekend.