The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I`m Jim Lehrer.

On the NewsHour tonight: the news of this Friday; then, excerpts from the Republican`s first presidential nomination debate; analysis of that and other matters by Mark Shields and David Brooks; a Margaret Warner preview of the Sunday presidential election in France; and a conversation with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz about covering Iraq and other stories.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: The pace of U.S. casualties in Iraq kept climbing today, with five more deaths; that made 12 in the first four days of May. More than 100 Americans were killed in April, the most this year.

The casualty reports came as U.S. forces raided a Shiite militant cell in Baghdad`s Sadr City. They said the group was smuggling high-tech roadside bombs linked to Iran. The Washington Post reported attacks by those bombs hit a high last month. Most were aimed at American troops.

U.S. officials also announced the deaths of two more al-Qaida figures in Iraq. They were killed earlier this week in a raid just north of Baghdad. There was word yesterday the group`s information minister died in the same raid.

A Pentagon survey has found many American troops in Iraq approve of mistreating civilians. Those findings came out today. Ten percent of the troops acknowledged hitting Iraqis or damaging property when it was not necessary.

The U.S. Army`s acting surgeon general, Gale Pollock, said figures on other questions were higher still.

MAJ. GEN. GALE POLLOCK, Acting Army Surgeon General: Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines agree that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. Well over a third of all soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine. And less than half of soldiers or Marines would report a team member for unethical behavior.

JIM LEHRER: Troops with mental health problems were much more likely to act on those beliefs, and the survey found those problems grow with additional tours of duty.

A U.N. climate change conference approved initial plans today to fight global warming. The delegates in Bangkok, Thailand, said they found affordable ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They called for making cars and buildings more energy efficient and shifting to more use of nuclear, wind and solar energy. They also recommended saving forests and cutting emissions from farms.

The head of the U.S. delegation, Harlan Watson, said the key will be putting the plans into practice.

HARLAN WATSON, Senior Climate Negotiator, State Department: It`s action that counts, not meeting in a room and talking about what you might do, but getting on with it. And I think there`s a general recognition the importance of that, and we`re working very closely with the E.U., with Japan, certainly with China and India, through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development Climate.

JIM LEHRER: The plan brought some questions in Washington. The head of the White House Environmental Council said the cost of meeting the strictest targets would be a global recession. And China questioned how fast results can be achieved.

In Britain today, the ruling Labour Party lost ground in local election results. It was a rebuke to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair. His chosen successor, Gordon Brown, was stung by results in his native Scotland. The winning party there favored independence. We have a report from Gary Gibbon of Independent Television News.

ELECTION ANNOUNCER: Alex Salmond, Scottish National Party, SNP, 14,650.

GARY GIBBON, ITV News Correspondent: Alex Salmond has knocked Labour off its Scottish perch. For the first time since 1955, Labour has been pushed back to second place. The SNP, the party that wants Scotland to break away from the United Kingdom, now just topping the poll.

ALEX SALMOND, Leader, Scottish National Party: I think there is a new dawn breaking, not just in the northeast of Scotland, but across our country.

GARY GIBBON: Labour told voters throughout the campaign that this man`s victory would bring constitutional chaos, as the SNP, their eyes set on winning a referendum on independence, would stop at nothing to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.

Gordon Brown drove that campaign. He desperately wanted to avoid an SNP victory. Mr. Brown hasn`t been seen today, but he made it very clear in an interview earlier this week that relations between him in Number Ten, and Mr. Salmond, if he becomes first minister, would be very rocky, indeed.

JOURNALIST: Do you think you could work with Alex Salmond, if he was first minister and you were prime minister?

GORDON BROWN, British Chancellor of the Exchequer: It`s impossible to work around a strategy for the breakup of Britain.

GARY GIBBON: Labour hasn`t given up in getting back into power, because you have to form a coalition to govern with the majority in the Scottish parliament. The SNP, all 47, are one ahead of Labour. The Liberal Democrats hold a critical wedge of seats with 16, the conservatives have 17, the Greens two, and independents one. The SNP only have a chance of getting close to the 65 seats needed for a majority if they team up with the Liberal Democrats.

Both main parties would find it difficult to form a majority, but the phone calls to smaller parties are starting already, and serious negotiations start this weekend.

JIM LEHRER: The voting in Scotland was marred by problems with the ballots. An estimated 75,000 ballots were mismarked and then rejected.

The presidential campaign in France headed toward Sunday`s runoff election. Final opinion polls showed the conservative, Nicolas Sarkozy, increasing his lead over the Socialist candidate, Segolene Royal. We`ll have more on this story from Margaret Warner, in Paris, later in the program tonight.

Queen Elizabeth visited Jamestown, Virginia, today. She was there for the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America. Hundreds gathered to see the queen, who was joined by Vice President Cheney.

The ceremonies included a visit to the site where remains of the original fort have been found. At a luncheon, the queen said the place is about more than just the past.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II, England: The Jamestown landing is not just a historical fact, but a symbol, a symbol of the convergence of civilizations, of the spread of the rule of law, of the grace of representative democracy, and also the symbol of friendship, the deep and enduring friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

JIM LEHRER: The queen is scheduled to attend the Kentucky Derby tomorrow and a state dinner in Washington on Monday. She leaves for home on Tuesday.

In economic news today, the Labor Department reported the jobless rate rose 0.1 percent in April to 4.5 percent. Employers added 88,000 jobs, the fewest in more than two years.

On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 23 points to close above 13,264. The Nasdaq rose more than six points to close at 2,572. For the week, the Dow gained more than 1 percent; the Nasdaq rose 0.6 percent.

And that`s it for the news summary tonight. Now: the Republicans; Shields and Brooks; the French election; and a journalism conversation.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Last week, the Democrats debated. Last night, it was the Republicans. NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.

KWAME HOLMAN: The 10 Republican candidates for president appeared together for the first time last night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

Earlier in the evening, they had met with former First Lady Nancy Reagan in a replica of her husband`s Oval Office, and they all made sure to invoke the legacy of the late president once they got on the stage.

RUDY GIULIANI (R), Former Mayor of New York: What we can borrow from Ronald Reagan, since we are in his library, is that great sense of optimism that he had.

FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R), Massachusetts: Ronald Reagan was a president of strength.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK (R), Kansas: I believe in the Ronald Reagan principle.

FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Arkansas: What Ronald Reagan did was to give us a vision for this country.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC Host: The candidates will have 60 seconds to respond.

KWAME HOLMAN: Moderator Chris Matthews of MSNBC peppered the candidates with questions, allowing rebuttals and some candidates to speak on longer than others. The 90-minute debate focused heavily on foreign policy, most specifically Iraq.

Arizona Senator John McCain used the opportunity to lash out at congressional Democrats, who he called "defeatist."

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), Arizona: When the majority leader of the United States Senate says we`ve lost the war, the men and women that are serving in Iraq reject that notion. When on the floor of the House of Representatives, they cheer -- they cheer -- when they pass a withdrawal motion that is a certain date for surrender, what were they cheering? Surrender? Defeat?

We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos, there will be genocide, and they will follow us home.

KWAME HOLMAN: Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson outlined his plan for success in Iraq, which includes establishing regional governments and reallocating oil profits.

FORMER GOV. TOMMY THOMPSON (R), Wisconsin: If every man, woman and child is getting part of the oil proceeds, they`re going to have a vested interest in their country. They`ll be purchasing goods. They will be investing in small businesses. And they will be building the country on democratic grounds in Iraq.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Kansas Senator Sam Brownback added that Iraq, as the central front in the war on terror, can be saved only through regional diplomacy.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: There are a number of people that are with us, that work with us around the world, and also in the Islamic world. We`re partnering with a number of moderate Muslim regimes. And that`s something I think we need to convey into the Muslim world, as well, that these are groups, the al-Qaida group, the militant Islamic fascists, they`re trying to unseat moderate Muslim regimes.

KWAME HOLMAN: The other candidates, however, took aim at the president`s handling of the war. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee faulted the administration for mistakes at the outset.

FORMER GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE (R), Arkansas: Clearly, there was a real error in judgment, and that primarily had to do with listening to a lot of folks who were civilians in suits and silk ties and not listening enough to the generals with mud and blood on their boots and medals on their chest.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, who voted against the war authorization, said the country needed to avoid foreign conflict.

REP. RON PAUL (R), Texas: How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don`t police the world. That is a conservative, it`s a Republican, it`s a pro- American, it follows the founding fathers, and, besides, it follows the Constitution.

KWAME HOLMAN: MSNBC`s Matthews also raised questions about Iran and its efforts to expand its nuclear capabilities. He asked former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani what his "tripwire" would be for using force against Iran.

RUDY GIULIANI: The reality is, the use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power. It`s the worst nightmare of the Cold War, isn`t it? The nuclear weapons in the hands of an irrational person, an irrational force.

KWAME HOLMAN: California Congressman Duncan Hunter said Iran already was a dangerous threat because of its support of terrorists in Iraq.

REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), California: Iran has crossed the line, and the United States has absolute license at this point to take whatever actions are necessary to stop those deadly instruments from being moved across the line, being used in explosives, roadside bombs, inside Iraq. And lastly, you know, we should not get to the edge of the cliff on this enrichment of uranium and plutonium.

KWAME HOLMAN: And Politico`s John Harris, who joined Matthews in the questioning, asked former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore to comment on remarks by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who said capturing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden should not be a top priority.

FORMER GOV. JIM GILMORE (R), Virginia: I think we do have to do everything that we can do to get this guy. And the reason is because he is a symbol to the people who believe, as a matter of faith, that they have a right and a duty to destroy Americans and Western civilization.

KWAME HOLMAN: Governor Romney responded.

MITT ROMNEY: This is a global effort we`re going to have to lead to overcome this jihadist effort. It`s more than Osama bin Laden. But he is going to pay, and he will die.

KWAME HOLMAN: The candidates also took positions on domestic issues and fielded questions from viewers through the Internet. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo took a get-tough approach on the issue of illegal immigration.

REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), Colorado: No more platitudes, no more obfuscating with using words like, "Well, I am not for amnesty, but I`m for letting them stay." That kind of stuff has got to be taken away from the political debate, as far as I`m concerned, so people can understand exactly who is where on this incredibly important issue.

KWAME HOLMAN: McCain countered with a push for comprehensive immigration reform.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: We have to secure our borders, but we also need a temporary worker program, and we have to dispose of the issue of 12 million people who are in this country illegally. This issue is an important and compelling one, and it begins with national security, but we also need to address it comprehensively.

KWAME HOLMAN: And all of the candidates were asked if it would be a good day for America if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights decision. Senator Brownback.

SEN. SAM BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom. I believe life is one of the central issues of our day, and I believe that every human life at every phase is unique, is beautiful, is a child of a loving God.

KWAME HOLMAN: Of the 10 candidates, only Mayor Giuliani equivocated.

RUDY GIULIANI: It would be OK.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: OK to repeal?

RUDY GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent.

KWAME HOLMAN: Giuliani elaborated when pressed.

RUDY GIULIANI: Ultimately, since it is an issue of conscience, I would respect a woman`s right to make a different choice.

KWAME HOLMAN: Romney also was asked to explain his position, opposed to abortion. Romney admitted he supported abortion rights when he first ran for governor.

MITT ROMNEY: And when I ran for office, I said I`d protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position. About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, "Look, we have gone too far." And I`m proud of that, and I won`t apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life.

KWAME HOLMAN: And each candidate was asked if he supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Only Mayor Giuliani and Senator McCain said they did.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro- life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It`s a tough issue. I support federal funding.

KWAME HOLMAN: Toward the end of the debate, MSNBC`s Matthews asked a question that elicited looks of horror from all the candidates.

Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?

(LAUGHTER)

MITT ROMNEY: You have got to be kidding.

KWAME HOLMAN: These 10 candidates will meet again in two weeks at a debate in Columbia, South Carolina.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Mark, first, in general, what did you make of the Republican debate?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: Well, after hearing Ronald Reagan lionized, eulogized, canonized, I can only pray that the next Republican presidential debate is independent at the presidential library of Harry Truman, but I think it`s revealing that all the candidates, not simply because they`re at Simi Valley at the Reagan museum, leaped over the 20 years back to Ronald Reagan, to talk about him and his presidency, forgetting that there had been two men named Bush there since, basically ignoring them, not even going out of their way to praise the No Child Left Behind, the tax cuts of George W. Bush.

And I think what it says, it`s a statement about the problem the Republicans have. In 1988, when George Herbert Walker Bush won the presidency against Michael Dukakis, he was, in effect, winning Ronald Reagan`s third term. And there`s nobody in the Republican Party or of the Republican Party that thinks that George W. Bush could win a third term or anybody is going to win a third term as part of it. So they`ve got to be agents of change without being disloyal.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree?

DAVID BROOKS, Columnist, New York Times: I do think there`s a problem with Reagan nostalgia in the party, which is not to say -- I believe Reagan was a great president, great for his time, but his time is not our time. It was a ways ago.

And his time specifically was a time when liberalism was still on the march, in the late `70s, when he was elected. And then the Soviet Union was still on the march, in some sense, so it was a classic time of big government versus small government. And those were the threats.

But now the threats are very different. The threats are threats of sort of these decentralized processes that transcend borders, whether it`s globalization or international terror. And it seems to me that`s just a big different set of problems. And you`ve got to come up with a different set of solutions, and the nostalgia for Reagan really doesn`t help with that.

JIM LEHRER: Were you struck, as Mark was, by the absence of the name "Bush" from these candidates?

DAVID BROOKS: The big, central problem, part of the identity crisis of conservativism, is, what do you make of the Bush presidency? And among the candidates, they don`t dare talk about it, because the party loyalists are loyal to Bush. But among the people who write about this stuff, there`s a difference.

Some people think the Bush administration was wrong, root and branch. Compassionate conservatism was wrong; the aggressive foreign policy was wrong. They think it was all wrong. Other people believe it had some good ideas which it executed poorly.

But that debate, what do you make of the Bush administration, is a key divide, which hasn`t yet emerged, but it will emerge.

JIM LEHRER: And do you think it will emerge? Do you think that Republicans are eventually going to have to talk about the Bush administration, whether they want to or not?

MARK SHIELDS: I don`t think they will. I mean, I don`t think they`ll talk about his restoring dignity, and a man of principle, and a man of character. They don`t want to go there, Jim.

JIM LEHRER: And they`ll just move on?

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, on an individual basis, I thought my old friend, John McCain, sensitive to the charge that if he is elected would be the first candidate elected after the age of 70, overdosed on caffeine.

JIM LEHRER: I was going to ask you, was he hurt the most or helped the most...

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: I thought he came out, and he was just a little hyper. It was sort of overcompensating. But I thought that he had a good night. The longer it went, the better, it showed that having been through this before is an enormous advantage. I thought...

JIM LEHRER: Who else had a good night?

MARK SHIELDS: I thought Mitt Romney had a good night. I think Mitt Romney is personable. He`s articulate. He`s handsome. He`s got the face that a man would love to punch. I mean, never had a cavity or a pimple in his life. It`s movie star handsome.

JIM LEHRER: Just calm down, all right?

MARK SHIELDS: No, but I`ve got to tell you, but he`s overtly optimistic, too. He exudes, projects optimism.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS: If I had his face and his money, I`d be optimistic, too.

(LAUGHTER)

We`re revealing too much about ourselves, I think.

JIM LEHRER: Let`s talk about McCain and Romney.

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with mark. He came out grumpy, angry in the beginning, classic case of being over-prepared. He had lines he wanted to deliver. He squeezed them in, in awkward moments. He smiled at awkward moments. He was too tough. He was not who he was. He appeared too grumpy. And that will change, as the debates go on.

Romney I thought was fine. I didn`t think he was tremendous. I thought there was a little too much platitudes. He squirmed, as he always is, when the pro-choice versus pro-life position is asked. But I think he was generally good. I thought the person that helped themselves the most was Mike Huckabee.

JIM LEHRER: Mike Huckabee?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, he came across as extremely personable, the sort of person...

JIM LEHRER: Here`s a guy who is hardly a household name.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, but I think he came close to entering the top tier or really elevating himself. First of all, he was a good personality, a very relaxed, warm presence.

Second thing, he actually branded himself. You know, you`ve got 10 guys up there. Distinguish yourself. And he actually distinguished himself as sort of a populist, straight-talking person from out in the country.

JIM LEHRER: What about Giuliani?

MARK SHIELDS: Can I just say on Huckabee? I agree. I thought Huckabee came across as authentic, as well as likeable. And then there was a nationalist to him. He answered the questions. He didn`t have talking points, and his answers...

JIM LEHRER: No rolodex...

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: No, as others did. But I disagree with David about Romney. I thought Romney`s answer on abortion was as good, if you move from pro-choice to pro-life in the Republican Party, and you`re accused of flip-flopping, and you say, "Wait a minute, I`m traveling a journey already made by Ronald Reagan, by Henry Hyde, by George Herbert Walker Bush, all who traveled there," that`s a pretty damn good answer, for that crowd and for doubters.

And I thought Rudy Giuliani, by contrast, when Chris Matthews asked him if Roe v. Wade were overturned, I mean, 20 percent of people in the country think it would be a disaster of historic proportions like Dred Scott, 20 percent think it would be morning in America, and he says, "It would be OK." I mean, that`s alienating about 40 percent of the country.

DAVID BROOKS: That`s 60 percent right there. He`s doing fine. No, I thought Giuliani -- I noticed a lot of the pro-life people really think he did very poorly. And it was all based on that answer. And you got the sense, he`s not afraid of terrorism, he`s not afraid of crime, but he`s terrified that somebody will ask him about abortion. And he still hasn`t come up with an answer.

JIM LEHRER: Well, let me ask you a general field question. What do you think of the field, these 10 people who are now offering themselves to the Republican nomination? Good crowd? A good offering?

MARK SHIELDS: It`s a better crowd than it appeared last night. I mean, Tommy Thompson, for example, the longest serving governor in the history of Wisconsin, the real compassionate conservative, did school choice, did welfare reform before anybody else did.

And, boy, I just thought he had a terrible evening. I mean, he didn`t hear a question. And he wasn`t forceful in making his story. So I think it`s a better field, in some respects, than it presented itself last night.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I agree. And this is a terrible forum, you know, define your morality. You got 30 seconds. It`s just not a good forum.

I think it`s quite a good field. I think McCain is a serious statesman. Romney is fantastic businessman, successful governor, a couple successful governors. I think quite a serious field. Fred Thompson is hanging out there.

JIM LEHRER: I was wondering about that, about Fred Thompson and others. Do you have the feeling that Republicans, deep down inside, are still looking for an 11th or 12th?

DAVID BROOKS: They certainly are, certainly 60 percent of the party is looking. And I would think that last night helped Fred Thompson, because, A, nobody looked great, and nobody leapt forward, and he`s sitting out there, and there`s a lot of talk about him.

MARK SHIELDS: I agree. They`re looking for Reagan. I mean, it`s Godot. I mean, they want Reagan. And Fred Thompson is the closest thing to him. He`s an actor. He`s big. He`s got a great voice, and he`s not in the race. And I think that`s what gives him the greatest appeal.

I mean, I happen to like him and admire much of what he did in public life, but if they think he`s the answer to all their problems, I think they`re kidding themselves right now.

They know that they`re in trouble for 2008. They know the country is against them. They`re looking for somebody to rescue them. Democrats used to do the same thing, look for somebody to rescue them.

The one point I disagree with David on Rudy Giuliani is, Rudy Giuliani I didn`t think played well at all last night. He is used to a stage all by himself, to a microphone all by himself. And he was not comfortable. I`m not saying in that format, but I don`t think he`d be comfortable in any debate format.

DAVID BROOKS: Right. And he`s still doing the speaker circuit. He still doesn`t have a presidential campaign.

Just one final point. They know they`re in trouble. A lot of people in the party...

JIM LEHRER: The Republicans...

DAVID BROOKS: ... think they`re in trouble for years, for a long -- a series of election defeats, but they somehow have hemmed themselves in so they can`t offer any change. And somebody has got to crash through the barriers that they`re restricting themselves with.

I still think Giuliani is the most likely to just break out. McCain did a bit a couple weeks ago. So he did poorly, Giuliani, last night, but I still think he has a lot of potential.

MARK SHIELDS: I think McCain has had the best couple of weeks of this campaign.

(CROSSTALK)

MARK SHIELDS: I think he`s got the maverick -- on immigration last night, he was the truth-teller. I mean, he knew it wasn`t popular in that crowd. He knows it isn`t popular with Republicans. It`s the third most frequently mentioned issue among Republican voters, is immigration. Democratic voters don`t mention it. It is a big, divisive issue, and he`s on the wrong side, by most of their lights, but he made his case, I thought, quite forthrightly.

JIM LEHRER: David, new subject. What`s your read on how the negotiations are going between the president and the Democratic congressional leadership over the funding?

DAVID BROOKS: Better than I thought a week ago.

JIM LEHRER: Is that right?

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, if you think coming to an agreement is a good thing.

JIM LEHRER: And you do or don`t?

DAVID BROOKS: I do. I mean, I think it`s bad for the troops to have them fight in this way. And the Democrats know they`re going to fund. The Republicans know they`re going to fund. And, basically, the Democrats have walked a little away from the withdrawal timetable, and they seem to have settled on this idea of benchmarks, which is the phrase they`re all using.

JIM LEHRER: Better than timetables?

DAVID BROOKS: Right, and that is something I think a lot of Republicans, and eventually the White House, can live with. They all are sort of -- have different version of benchmarks.

My only problem substantively is, you know, if they`ve lost hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, four million people have left the country, or moved. If this is not incentive enough to reach some sort of political compromise in Baghdad, is the threat of cutting off a few million dollars of aid going to change things? I`m not optimistic about that.

MARK SHIELDS: Apparently, Republicans are floating the idea of they`ll accept benchmarks, but not on military appropriations.

JIM LEHRER: And not mandatory either, right?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, that`s right. But, I mean, they will, unlike No Child Left Behind, which does have mandatory enforcement of benchmarks, we cut off fourth-graders, but we`re not going to cut off the Iraqi government.

But what fascinates me -- David`s right. There seems to be a positive attitude. I talked to the Democratic leadership today, David Obey, one the most respected, effective members of the House, is the lead man in dealing with, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, dealing with the White House. And he was sort of upbeat, which is not characteristic of him.

But, Jim, implicit in this -- the administration makes the case that this is the battle for civilization. I mean, you know, if we leave, they`re going to follow us here. This is a war that`s going to last -- it`s World War II.

But implicit in this, their position is, if things aren`t better by September, if the surge doesn`t work, we`re going to have to start pulling out. I mean, that`s really it.

Now, if this is World War II, if this is really good versus evil, then what happens in September and the surge should not make a difference. But you have to concede that that is implicit in their argument.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I mean, that has been the central weakness of the Bush administration from day one, which is they thought a big global struggle, the organizing conflicts of our time, let`s send 100,000 troops. Let`s not send 300,000 troops. That has been the central weakness.

I will say, on their benefit, that at least the Republicans have some sort of conception for the next year of what to do in Iraq. The Democrats really don`t. And if their surge doesn`t work, except for Joe Biden, nobody has a plan after that.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of plans, what about Hillary Clinton`s new idea to have a new vote to withdraw the original authorization legislation to go to war?

MARK SHIELDS: That she has with Senator Byrd.

JIM LEHRER: Exactly, co-sponsor.

MARK SHIELDS: Senator Byrd offered similar legislation during the Balkans war, when Hillary Clinton`s husband was president of the United States. And Bill Clinton`s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, said, "Don`t do this, because it would hurt our position."

I mean, it has a certain political value to it. It makes the case, not against the troops, but against the president. You know, let him come in and tell us why we should continue this, extend it for another five years. It also makes the case where Republicans don`t want this argument being made right now on the merits of the war.

DAVID BROOKS: I just think it`s political posturing. As a friend of mine said, she won`t apologize for her Iraq war vote. She`ll just have it annulled. It has nothing to do with the future.

JIM LEHRER: All right, thank you both very much.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And now, the politics of change in France. Margaret Warner reports from Paris.

MARGARET WARNER: Paris in the spring. And on Tuesday, the left took the streets for the annual May Day parade. Workers, socialists, communists and Trotskyites singing hymns of socialist solidarity, as they march down the city`s ancient streets.

France, with its generous public benefits and worker-friendly labor rules, has been close to a socialist paradise in the family of industrial democracies, and city planner Fabrice LaBroille hopes it will stay that way.

FABRICE LABROILLE, City Planner (through translator): My life is good, and I like that to be the case for everybody.

MARGARET WARNER: But France`s high unemployment and lagging economic growth have dimmed that good life and given center stage in this presidential campaign to this question: Must France fundamentally change to compete in a globalized world?

The standard-bearer of the message that it must, center-right candidate Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy, the energetic son of a Hungarian immigrant, wants to do to his country`s economic system what Margaret Thatcher did to hers. "The French must work more to earn more," he says, and he believes many French agree with him.

NICOLAS SARKOZY, French Presidential Candidate (through translator): I`ve met a France that doesn`t want a break, but a France that wants to build, that wants to work, that wants to get ahead, but that hasn`t been allowed to do so.

MARGARET WARNER: Sarkozy`s remedy is positively Reaganesque: to lower taxes, which at the upper ends hit 60 percent; to introduce flexibility in the labor laws; and to stop penalizing employers and workers if they exceed the legal 35-hour workweek.

Hoping to stop that vision of France dead in its tracks, Segolene Royal, the coolly elegant former education minister and Socialist Party candidate. The first woman with a serious chance of becoming French president, she, too, tells the country it needs to change, but in a kinder, gentler, more humane way.

SEGOLENE ROYAL, French Presidential Candidate (through translator): In the France that I dream of, there is a place for every man and every woman. No one will be excluded.

MARGARET WARNER: She says the way to spur economic growth is to spend more on education and research. She wants to raise the minimum wage by 20 percent, beef up the universal government-funded pension system, and create subsidized jobs for the vast numbers of young French who are unemployed.

CHRISTINE OCKRENT, Political Commentator: The French want to think that they are really craving for change, but at the same time they fear change.

MARGARET WARNER: Christine Ockrent, one of France`s most respected anchors and analysts, says it`s not an easy choice for the French, who are suspicious of globalization and even capitalism, yet also fear being left behind.

CHRISTINE OCKRENT: They know that they can`t afford forever to have such an expensive welfare state, and yet they are very much attached to that welfare state. They know they have a very high unemployment rate, about the highest among the rich European countries.

So they know things have to change. But at the same time, they`re very reluctant as to what shape that change might take.

MARGARET WARNER: In their cozy apartment at the center of Paris, 41- year-olds Christophe and Severine Schulte live the kind of everyday life that many ordinary French cherish. He`s a public high school phys-ed teacher. She`s a book editor.

They don`t make a lot of money, but they enjoy the value of such social benefits as subsidized day care, where their two young children learn to distinguished among letters of the alphabet and varieties of French cheese. They`re voting for Royal on Sunday.

CHRISTOPHE SCHULTE, Teacher: I don`t want to get into a two-level society, where the easy and rich people becoming more and more easy and rich, and forget more than the half of the other population.

SEVERINE SCHULTE, Book Editor: I dream of a society where everyone could have a chance to progress.

MARGARET WARNER: French society today has its own unique characteristics. People here linger over long lunches and early aperitifs in the brasseries and restaurants of Paris.

Small, privately owned stores abound in all of the French capital`s neighborhoods. Parisians still buy their daily bread, meat and other staples from locally owned shops that the state protects against large- scale corporate competition.

At the same time, France also boasts successful global corporations of its own. Along the Champs-Elysees are storefronts bearing the brand names of French automobile, fashion and cosmetics companies that are global giants themselves.

Yet only 38 French enterprises rank in Fortune`s Global 500 today. And France`s per capita growth rate stands among the lowest in Europe. Europe`s other two powerhouses, Germany and Britain, have leapfrogged ahead of France, so those calling for change here say there is no time to waste.

They include Olivia Gobillard and Raphael Parente, both unemployed, both consulting with a recruiter in Paris who specializes in placing high- end executive assistants increasingly abroad. Thirty-four-year-old fashion industry veteran Gobillard is seeking work in London, because she`s stymied by the lack of opportunities here, and she`s voting for Sarkozy.

OLIVIA GOBILLARD, French Citizen: I think most French people want security. I think lots of them are very scared. And by being scared, they become less ambitious, which I think is a real big shame of France.

RAPHAEL PARENTE, French Citizen (through translator): If the labor laws change, and if young people get more chances and responsibility, then, of course, I would stay, but that`s not the case right now.

MARGARET WARNER: Agency Chief Davide Mele says the departure of young professionals from France today is an exodus.

DAVIDE MELE, Agency Chief: There are people who would like to work more and earn more, and not only work 35 hours a week. And so it is a frustration, because we are people, we have people in the market who are ambitious, in terms of career opportunities, but are also ambitious financially, who want to make money. And I think France needs to get its house in order.

MARGARET WARNER: Millions of French gathered in homes and bistros Wednesday night to watch the candidates debate how to get that house in order. Their competing visions were particularly stark during fierce exchanges over the 35-hour workweek.

SEGOLENE ROYAL (through translator): You know what people have done with the extra time they`ve had after their 35 hours? These people, at least 70 percent of them, have been spending more time with their families. And there are many women, especially those who are working in some of the most difficult jobs, who, after 35 hours, are so exhausted that lengthening the working day is not going to be social progress.

NICOLAS SARKOZY (through translator): Madam Royal, what is the point of free time if you don`t have the money to pay for vacations for your children? What is the point of free time when, at the end of a long month of work, there`s nothing left?

There is a problem of purchasing power. You say it`s great, I visited a company where they`re working 32 hours. But if it`s the small salaries, it`s not all that great, and that`s why I want to give employees the freedom to choose.

MARGARET WARNER: Yet some undecided voters, like Thierry Rochas, said they remain torn between the two, even after the fiery debate ended.

THIERRY ROCHAS, French Citizen: Many people like me, I am from the center, said the same thing. They said, "He`s got the best program, but she is the best -- she`s the most beautiful humanity for France."

MARGARET WARNER: But on Sunday, France as a nation will have to make a basic decision, as it elects a president for a five-year term, whether accepting the rigors of the globalized economy or preserving what makes France different is the best way to restore this country`s glory and economic might.

JIM LEHRER: And Margaret added an update in a talk with Ray Suarez earlier this evening.

RAY SUAREZ: Margaret, outside commentators and political analysts have been paying a lot of attention to this being the end of the 12 years of Jacques Chirac and calling this a pivotal election. Have the voters that you`ve been talking to been looking at it the same way?

MARGARET WARNER: Absolutely, Ray. I`ve talked to scores of voters here. And I would say all up and down the sector, from doctors to cab drivers, there is a sense that this is a very important, even decisive election.

It`s based on two things. First of all, this is a new generation, new faces, as you said, and there`s a sense that they`re electing a new generation of leaders. But, primarily, there`s a strong sense that really France has some serious problems that haven`t been addressed, here at home, and also in terms of its relationship with Europe and the United States and the rest of the world, that they really have to get on with it.

At the same time, there is a certain healthy dose of skepticism, the sense that this is a hard country to turn around. One shopkeeper said that to me. He said, "Look, France has a very definite way of doing things, and no French president can turn that around quickly."

RAY SUAREZ: On the eve of the polling, how do things look in the race? Where do things stand?

MARGARET WARNER: Well, after the debate Wednesday night, the gross poll numbers, Sarkozy widened his league over Segolene Royal from 2 percent to 4 percent, from 6 percent to 8 percent, but I would add a caveat there about those kind of horserace polls.

I thought more telling was what the polling told us about the debate itself. When people were asked who was most convincing, not who are you going to vote for, but who was most convincing, Sarkozy was chosen by 53 percent and Royal by only 31 percent.

And he won as most convincing in all the big economic questions, who can restart economic growth, unemployment, even the 35-hour workweek, which people here absolutely seem to love. She did win as most convincing on the environment and schools, but he won the big, big questions.

Also, he was seen as a better leader, as having more stature, as better able to represent France in the world. In short, though she really made a huge push in the debate to look confident and aggressive, he seems to have won the "more presidential" category.

RAY SUAREZ: As in a lot of countries, I guess the active campaign has gone dark, and the candidates sort of disappear for this last bit before the polls open. But Segolene Royal took her final opportunities to give a very tough interview to French radio, didn`t she?

MARGARET WARNER: Absolutely. This had to do with what`s going on in the community of French of recent immigrant origin in the suburbs, the so- called banlieues, and elsewhere in France. There`s been a lot of tension.

We spent a lot of time in that community for our piece on Monday. And they are very, very opposed -- many of them are very opposed to Sarkozy. It`s not monolithic. And this stems, of course, from his comments during the 2005 riots calling the young people in the suburbs, quote, "scum," saying he would, quote, "power wash them out of those neighborhoods."

Royal said today that his election would unleash violence and brutality. And when she was asked, "Do you think there will be an outbreak of riots if he is elected?" She said, "I think so, I think so." And that was really seen as throwing fuel on the fire.

It`s unclear how much influence this community will have. France does not count by race, so you can only tell by looking at certain very concentrated population centers, but they are believed to have voted 80 percent against Sarkozy in the first round, and they vow to do the same this time.

RAY SUAREZ: Margaret Warner joining us from Paris. Good to talk to you, Margaret.

MARGARET WARNER: Great talking to you, Ray.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: And finally tonight, to Gwen Ifill for a book conversation.

GWEN IFILL: There are many stories which unfold in a war: bloody battles, heroic victory, aching defeat. In Iraq, authors have told these stories through the eyes of the generals and the politicians, but less so through the experiences of the people who fight and their loved ones at home.

Martha Raddatz, who covered the Pentagon and now the White House for ABC News, tells that story in "The Long Road Home," a homefront battlefront account of one skirmish that may have changed the course of the war, the 2004 standoff in the Baghdad slum known as Sadr City.

I spoke with Martha recently in Washington.

MARTHA RADDATZ, ABC News Correspondent: This was an area that had been considered safe, Sadr City then. Only one soldier had died the year before. And this day, the first cavalry division had just taken over Sadr City.

The soldiers had never been in battle. The soldiers were expecting a peacekeeping mission. Their families were expecting a peacekeeping mission. And within two hours of taking over, there were eight soldiers dead and 70 wounded.

I don`t think people understand how profound that would be on a battalion, on a company, on a platoon. A platoon had been pinned down. A gunner had been killed, almost immediately. And the majority of the casualties were when rescue teams tried to go in and save this platoon.

And this was pivotal militarily, because it was the day that I think the U.S. soldiers and the U.S. military realized that, you know what, things aren`t going so well here. Maybe everybody doesn`t like us.

GWEN IFILL: No flowers, no candy.

MARTHA RADDATZ: No flowers, no candy. Children actually armed and attacking U.S. soldiers, the same children they thought might greet them with candy and flowers. It was a horrendous battle.

GWEN IFILL: But you chose to tell not only a battlefield story, you also told a homefront story, who these soldiers were, who their families were, the choices they made to be there, and what they were giving up. Why would you decide to tell both sides of the story that way?

MARTHA RADDATZ: First of all, the soldiers convinced me that this was a story that also wasn`t being told, you know, each day we say, "Oh, the poor families," or we have our yellow ribbons and we support the families, but no one understands what it is like to be in a military community or have your son or daughter in the military, but no one else has anyone else in the military.

It becomes very isolated. They become isolated. They understand that the rest of the country doesn`t really appreciate what they`re going through. And the soldiers had told me, "You have to talk to our families. They`re the ones who really suffer. They`re the ones who show courage."

GWEN IFILL: Tell us about the battalion commander, Lieutenant General Gary Valesqi.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Lieutenant Colonel Gary Volesky is an amazing leader. And when I first met him, you could see the pain of being the leader that night, being the battalion commander, and the loss he suffered was so apparent, and so deep, and so profound. I knew that this was a story that I really wanted to share, I really wanted to people to hear.

When I first started covering the military, I probably had all those stereotypes in mind, too. I didn`t know anyone in the military. I didn`t know any family members in the military. And over the 12 years that I covered the military, I certainly appreciated and came to know and respect many people in the military.

But meeting someone like Lieutenant Colonel Volesky and understanding how much they are like me, how much they are like you, how much they`re like all of us, but they have this incredible burden and responsibility that the rest of us do not have.

GWEN IFILL: The lieutenant, Shane Aguero, he was the one who was trapped with the platoon in Sadr City and felt, at some point, like no one was ever coming to help.

MARTHA RADDATZ: He remembers standing in that alley and looking up at the sky and seeing tracer bullets. And they`ve already been there, which seemed like an interminable time, a couple of hours. He has a dead gunner. He has soldiers getting wounded. They`re running out of ammo. No one can find this platoon.

And he looked up, and he says, "And I see this sparrow crossing the sky under the bullets," and he thought of his wife, and the warning his wife had given him, which was, in every war, there`s always a platoon that gets pinned down. Don`t let it be your platoon.

So when Lieutenant Aguero told me a story like that and how -- it`s what I mean when they`re like us, you know? It`s not that they`re standing in that alleyway, and saluting, and, "Let`s kill everybody, and let`s do this." These are husbands, fathers, sons, daughters. They all have deep emotion, fear.

I`ve always been interested in how someone, day after day, goes back and does something like this. I mean, I look at myself and how I go back and how you deal with fear. They deal with it in the same ways we deal with it. They have to. They have to go out and do it again. So that is part two of what compelled me to tell the story.

GWEN IFILL: And fear in this case was looking out from a rooftop in a building in which you`re trapped and seeing hundreds, hundreds of people coming from every direction, all intent on killing you, including children, who they`re firing over the heads of. When they talked about this after the fact, was this one of the most searing images that they were describing, because it certainly was in the book?

MARTHA RADDATZ: It was. And what`s remarkable about the description of that scene to me is Lieutenant Aguero didn`t have to tell me about that. He didn`t have to tell me that his men ended up killing children. He just told me clearly and plainly, and said, "I was in that alleyway. I had my men with me, my soldiers, who were under attack." He looks out and, in both directions, sees them coming. And the Mahdi militia had lined up the children in front. They were firing over the children`s heads as they went down each side of the alleyway.

And Aguero knows and calculated that, at some point, he was going to be overrun. And he waited until that point in his mind before he opened fire. They tried to miss. They tried to aim over the children`s head at the beginning, but they were firing wildly, and they were missing the Mahdi militia, as well.

And as they advanced, he said, "We had to kill them." Now, Shane Aguero is a father. Many of the men in the alley were fathers. And I said, "What was that like for you, to have to kill a child?" And they said, "It was kill or be killed. It was kill them or kill the father of my own children."

GWEN IFILL: I want you to tell me the story of one couple, she at home in Fort Hood, he one of the casualties, Dusty and Leslie Hiller.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: She had to claim his body in the end after all of this was over. Could you read to us the section of the book where you write about that?

MARTHA RADDATZ: When they brought the body home, Leslie just didn`t want to believe it was him. When she got the knock on the door, she didn`t want to believe. She told them she had the wrong house. When they finally brought the body home, she was in the room with the casket, and she ran to open it up. And then she just thought, "It`s not him."

She stared at Dusty`s face, then a strange thought occurred to her, a thought that might seem irrational later, but at the moment chilled her to the core. Maybe, she thought, maybe it`s Dusty`s head on someone else`s body. He looked smaller.

So Leslie reached into the coffin and touched Dusty`s shirt. As the escorts looked at each other uncomfortably, Leslie`s fingers moved across his chest and began unbuttoning his shirt. In a moment, she had it open. "Ma`am," one of the escorts said again, "What are you doing?"

"I need to see a tattoo," she said. "I need to make sure this is my husband." She wasn`t really talking to anyone.

"Ma`am, we`re sure this is your husband." That wasn`t good enough for Leslie. She moved around to the other end of the casket and lifted the lid down by Dusty`s shoes. She started to pull at his pants, determined to find the evidence she needed. She had to find his tattoo, the one on his right calf.

Finally, she found it: a dragon, holding a crystal ball, with a heart inside. He had gotten it just after they were married. Above the dragon was her name. "That`s me, Leslie," she said, touching her name on the tattoo. Now she knew for sure. "And this is my Dusty."

Pretty powerful. I talked to Leslie shortly after the book came out. And I said, "Leslie, what you`ve been through and what you`ve done is remarkable." She said, "Ma`am, I`m still going through it."

GWEN IFILL: And so are some of the people further up the food chain, Lieutenant General Peter Chiarelli, is one of the people you talk about. And he`s a very emotional man in this. Here he is, this big-time general, but it seems like he was struggling with this. You tell a story in the book about how he knew that he couldn`t share it with his wife, and so he called another general.

MARTHA RADDATZ: He called General Rich Shinseki (ph). And General Shinseki wasn`t there, and it was an answering machine. And General Chiarelli said, "Sir, we`ve lost eight kids." General Chiarelli always calls them kids, because to him they`re his kids. And he started crying on the answering machine.

This is something else we don`t think of. And we say, "Oh, he`s a high-ranking officer, so he must be `salute and carry on` and this must not affect him." It affects them enormously.

At the end of that year, Pete Chiarelli had lost 168 soldiers in that division. The first night they took over eight of them. When he dedicated a memorial a few years later and saw all those names on the wall, it`s powerfully emotional.

And I`ve had some younger officers say to me, "Oh, it`s terrible when people get emotional about death. You know, they`re leaders. They should lead." I said, "You know, they`re not crying when they go into battle. They lead. But if you don`t show that emotion afterwards, what does that say about what you feel about your soldiers or your Marines?"

So, to me, that is the right response. You should be emotional. These are human beings with lives and families, and they`re not there any more. And for General Chiarelli to have that kind of emotion, I think, shows that he has a heart, that he is a good leader, and that he cares about his soldiers. He`ll never forget any of those soldiers.

GWEN IFILL: And that he gets the cost of war, as do you. Thank you very much, Martha, for sharing this.

MARTHA RADDATZ: Thank you.

(BREAK)

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day.

The pace of U.S. casualties in Iraq kept climbing, with five more deaths. That made 12 in the first four days of May.

And a U.N. climate change conference approved ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They included greater reliance on nuclear and alternative energy forms.

"Washington Week" can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations. We`ll see you online and again here Monday evening. Have a nice weekend. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.