The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening, I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight, the news of this Monday, then: Taking it to the streets, hundreds of thousands of immigrants mobilize coast to coast; winter's end in the Pakistan quake zone, a NewsHour update on refugees heading home; a turn in the debate over Iran: How far is the U.S. willing to go to stop the development of nuclear weapons; and, a sampling of some Katrina-inspired poetry in New Orleans.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: Supporters of immigrants' rights staged extensive demonstrations today, in a coordinated campaign to draw attention to their cause. In cities across the nation, rally organizers spoke out against proposals to criminalize illegal immigration. One of the largest demonstrations occurred in Washington, D.C., where an estimated 200,000 were expected to gather on the national mall. Another 50,000 poured onto the streets of Atlanta. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary.

President Bush today dismissed out of hand reports the United States is planning a military attack on Iran. The Washington Post and the New Yorker Magazine reported this weekend military options are on the table to pressure Iran to end its nuclear program.

But in Washington today, the president said prevention does not necessarily mean force.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon. I know, I know we're here in Washington where prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy. And, by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation.

GWEN IFILL: The president of Iran today called reports of U.S. Military plans, "psychological warfare." And in Luxembourg, European Union Foreign Minister Javier Solana recommended using sanctions instead of force to deal with Iran. We'll have more on this story later in the program. In Iraq today, Sunni politicians once again urged Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to resign. They asked Shiites to make a list of names for his successor to break a deadlock over a new unity government. Kurdish leaders have issued a similar demand. This weekend, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, warned Iraqis they're heading toward a civil war, saying, "Iraq is almost close to destruction."

In the latest violence in Iraq, the U.S. military today announced three American troop deaths, in Anbar Province. Three other U.S. troops died over the weekend. And the military reported, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, is behind 90 percent of the suicide attacks there. But the Washington Post is reporting that American forces have overstated al-Zarqawi's importance in the insurgency.

The president of France threw out part of a controversial youth labor law today. President Jacques Chirac made the move after weeks of mass protests by French students across the country. The new plan would bolster existing job contracts, and give more state support to companies that hire young workers. The old law made it easier for employers to fire younger workers. Next door in Italy, exit polls today indicated parliamentary elections there are too close to call. After two days of voting, projections showed Premier Silvio Berlusconi's alliance leading in the Senate. But the center-left coalition, led by Romano Prodi, was in close contention in the lower chamber. The former chief executive of Enron took the stand today in Houston, and maintained his innocence. Jeffrey Skilling testified he would fight the charges against him until the day he dies. He faces 28 counts of fraud. Enron declared bankruptcy shortly after Skilling left the company in late 2001. Prosecutors are expected to cross-examine Skilling later this week.

On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 21 points to close at 11,141. The NASDAQ fell more than five points to close at 2,333. That's it for the News Summary tonight, now: Immigrants on the march; quake refugees return home; military options in Iran and poetry from New Orleans.

UPDATE RALLYING FOR RIGHTS

GWEN IFILL: We begin with today's big immigrants' rights rallies. NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman narrates this report.

KWAME HOLMAN: This scene was repeated in dozens of cities across the country today, as hundreds of thousands of immigrant-rights supporters rallied for what they called a campaign for immigrants' dignity. With an overhaul of immigration laws stalled in Congress, demonstrators have joined the debate in record numbers, hoping to persuade lawmakers to help the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants settle legally in the United States. Appropriately, the largest gathering took place in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol, where Massachusetts Democratic Senator Edward Kennedy rallied the estimated 200,000 on hand.

SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: I look across this historic gathering, and I see the future of America.

(CROWD CHEERING)

KWAME HOLMAN: One of those marching in Washington today was legal immigrant Saul Soloranzo of El Salvador.

SAUL SOLORANZO: Today we are here to present our voice and our petition for a legalization program because so many immigrants are helping this country. Our labor is recognized but so that the status of the people here should be recognized.

KWAME HOLMAN: A bill in the United States Senate would allow a majority of illegal immigrants to remain in the country while seeking citizenship, but it was shelved last week amid partisan blame-laying. The House passed its own bill in December, but it's laced with several controversial provisions, one that would enforce criminal penalties against anyone in the country illegally. That bill, known as HR-4437, has been the main point of protest for most demonstrators. Again, Saul Soloranzo:

SAUL SOLORANZO: HR-4437 is the worst bill there could be; it's not good for America; it's not good for immigrants; and it's not good for this country; and we hope that at end of the day that will not be part of any legislation.

That bill criminalizes immigrants and turns people that work with immigrants into criminals, and that's not right, that's not the way to go, and want to send message to those legislators that are proposing and pushing for those type of legislation that we have more than 50 million voters and they can be penalized by not making the right choices.

KWAME HOLMAN: Today, an estimated 50,000 people marched through a suburban neighborhood in Atlanta, home to one of the country's fastest-growing immigrant populations. Clad in white to symbolize peace, and waving American flags, protesters voiced their frustrations with a state-passed bill that, if Georgia's governor signs it, will cut social programs for those here illegally.

Today's nationwide demonstrations followed weekend protests in more than 20 cities, including Dallas, where an estimated 500,000 people gathered, the largest demonstration ever in Texas. But these huge pro-immigrant rallies also have brought out critics.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I am tired of people coming across with impunity. We don't know who is here. We don't know what diseases they have.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN: There's 360 million Americans that need to start standing up for their country before we give it away.

KWAME HOLMAN: In Tucson, Arizona, on Sunday, anti-immigrant members of a group called the Border Guardians set fire to a Mexican flag. But many on the march in Washington today argued that immigrants should be recognized for their valuable contributions to American society. Salvadoran Jamie Guray has been in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

JAMIE GURAY: We're here to protect our American rights and also to show that we are also contributing to this country in a major way: Economically we're a major economic force in the United States. And we contribute culturally to this society.

KWAME HOLMAN: Leaders of today's demonstrations vowed to keep the pressure on Congress until comprehensive reform is passed.

GWEN IFILL: Nowhere has the debate over immigration reform mobilized action more than among this country's expanding Latino community. For more on that we're joined by: Reverend Luis Cortes, the president of Esperanza USA, a national network of Hispanic churches and ministries; Yanira Merino, the national immigration coordinator for Laborers International Union of North America, which represents 800,000 mostly construction workers in the United States and Canada; and Victor Cerda, the former acting director of detention and removal operations for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Department of Homeland Security.

Reverend Cortes, I would like to start with you. We saw the faces of the people protesting, demonstrating in cities across the country today. Who are they?

REV. LUIS CORTES: Well, it's ministers; it's homemakers. It's mostly American citizens. It is a misnomer to believe that the people who are marching are, in fact, not American citizens. It's American citizens who are frustrated with the inability of Congress to come up with comprehensive reform, the type of reform we need in order to have peace in this country.

I think it's very important to show that in all of these protests has been a peaceful protest because it's people with their families. This is, in fact, a protest of family values. We want to unite our families in this country. We think it's important for Congress to do that.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Merino, why the outpouring today and in recent weeks when for so many years we have never seen anything quite like this?

YANIRA MERINO: Well, I think everybody was waiting to see a bill coming out of the Senate. And a lot people, a lot of immigrants put their hopes to see that, that that was going to be resolved, looking to have a comprehensive immigration reform that was going to answer to the crisis that we have right now.

When the Senate failed last week to come out with something and the proposals that were coming out of the Senate were unworkable, that was when people really see that the only way is by us going to the street and raising our voices.

GWEN IFILL: But this demonstration was planned before the Senate decided to act or not act last week. Is this something that's been in the works for a long time?

YANIRA MERINO: Well, I have to say the attacks to the immigrant community have been since 9/11. We have been targeted to be blamed for almost everything that happens, which is not fair, because although we recognize that there are challenges affecting the vast majority of immigrants but also we bring a lot; we contribute to this country as previous immigrants waves have contributed to this country.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cerda, explain from your point of view, why this timing? Why now, why this argument?

VICTOR CERDA: I think the argument has been building up over the last 20 years when Congress last made change in our immigration laws. And I think you're seeing from both sides of the spectrum you have people who recognize that there are people here who keep coming for jobs that are difficult to fill, and at the same time you're looking at on the enforcement side, on the national security side an immigration policy, immigration laws that have not been enforced, cannot be enforced and result in some vulnerabilities in our security. I think those two factions are out there. They have plausible, realistic concerns there. And people want to see Congress make changes that hopefully will address our malformed immigration policies and laws that we've had for the last 20 years.

GWEN IFILL: So this is seeking to put a different interpretation on the term security?'

VICTOR CERDA: I think it's security-plus. There are people, you know, my perspective is we do need to enhance security through better enforcement of the immigration laws, through better border security, but at the same time I think there is a group of people who also understand that security alone isn't going to cut it. They have not done it. And we do need to look at a potential guest worker program to address an economic need that exists here in the United States.

GWEN IFILL: Rev. Cortes I noticed in your earlier response you talked a lot about the families who you said are now part of this, the face of this protest. I wonder if that hasn't been a strategic decision on the parts of organizers to kind of try to humanize the issue?

REV. LUIS CORTES: Well, I don't think so, Gwen. I think the reality is that you have 40 million legal American citizens who happen to be Hispanic; that 40 million number has about five million family members who don't have their documents. Most people who don't have documents came into this country legally. INS has not functioned for a long time. It has not been able to do what it needs to do and, therefore, a lot of people who have come into this country legally are waiting ten and twelve years to get called. Because of INS not functioning, we have divided families. No one is asking, by the way-- I think this is very important to state-- no one is asking for an open border here. It is recognized that we need to protect our border but also the criminalization of the federal criminalization of 12 million undocumented people is actually what we don't need for security in this country. You are now making 12 million people susceptible to terrorists if they were to get into the country because those 12 million people will have to hide.

We have serious concerns with what happened in the Senate, and we are very concerned that the two parties chose to make political -- play political checkers instead of looking at the human need and to look at a bipartisan approach, which is what we actually need in this country.

GWEN IFILL: Ms. Merino, let me ask you another tactical question. I noticed that in Kwame's piece that we saw people -- a sea of American flags. One of the criticisms of the first weekend of protests a couple of weeks ago was there seemed to be a sea of Mexican plague flags and people thought this was anti-American. Was there a decision made that we are going to try to emphasize the red, white and blue? I noticed that the Pledge of Allegiance was recited at the protest on the mall today.

YANIRA MERINO: Well, I mean, we want to give a message that one of the reasons that we're out there is because we are saying we want to be American citizens. We're here. We work. We have families. Most likely we are going to end up staying in this country because we already have roots in those communities. So we have adopted not only the pledge but also the banner. It's difficult sometimes to let go of your roots. That's what it is. And I think the presence of other flags reflected that.

So as organizers we ask people to understand that the message that we want to give is that we -- we would like to be American citizens and the flag represents a symbol but it also represents a symbol for immigrants. This country has given us many opportunities. And we respect and appreciate that. By carrying the flag as a message that we want to send to the rest of America, we're willing to, and it was not a problem.

GWEN IFILL: When you say it's difficult to let go of your roots, how deep does that go? There are some Americans who look at this protest and say here are people who want to do their own thing, they want to hold on to their own culture, yet they want the rights of being an American.

YANIRA MERINO: But I think that doesn't contradict. America is a society where we come together and we culture -- I mean, our beliefs in our cultures. And I think that's why it's so important to be here. I think that you, here you adopt, you love this country, you are loyal to this country but you always keep thinking where I came from and respect that. It doesn't mean that your loyalty to the country that is giving you the opportunity to better yourself, you will forget that -- because you will not.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cerda, let's talk about the law enforcement side of this. That's where you came from. You said that a guest worker program is necessary. But you also said border enforcement should be primary. Am I interpreting what you said should happen first?

VICTOR CERDA: Yes.

GWEN IFILL: So how do you do that, especially when part of the impetus for this rally today, these rallies today, was that at least the House version of the bill there were some effort to criminalize illegal overstays of visas and illegal immigrants? Which comes first and how do you know that toughening enforcement doesn't obliterate the possibilities for anything else?

VICTOR CERDA: I think you've got to look at, in terms of, there's multiple angles that, you know, first we have many lessons from history on enforcement, many options, many targets tried, but we've ultimately in my opinion have failed to truly secure the borders to create a system that works. You have to look at the countries involved. You've got to look at foreign countries. And they need to be partners with us. We need to look at Mexico as a strong partner more than in the past. We need to look at the resources on the border and in the interior. And I think a very important aspect here is to look at the employers who will continue to try to hire undocumented workers.

If you implement the guest worker program but yet you have employers out there who are still hiring people who would then be discouraged from participating in the guest worker program, you're going to have still a problem there. You're still going to have an issue of enforcement and increased migration.

GWEN IFILL: So there should be employer sanctions, ways of basically deputizing employers to enforce the law?

VICTOR CERDA: I think not in terms of deputizing employers but frankly giving more resources to Homeland Security so that they do crack down on their employers and also making the penalty a little bit more harsher than what it is. To them it's a cost of doing business a risk they will accept in terms of hiring illegal workers but if you make it perhaps a criminal penalty, if you really make it an economic negative for somebody to consider hiring a worker, I think you will have an impetus to deter people from going into the country illegally.

GWEN IFILL: Rev. Cortes, there has been so much activity in churches around the country mobilizing people for these marches. Why has there been such a profile not only for Latino churches like you represent but also in the Catholic Church in particular across the board to get people out to these marches to get involved in this kind of legislation?

REV. LUIS CORTES: Well, Gwen, the scriptures which are the hallmark of what we do and why we do things, the Old Testament and the New Testament for Christian people is very clear about it. We are to be a more open and receiving people. In addition, we have our history as a country where we've always allowed immigrants and we've always allowed immigration. It was easier in the past. All you had to do was get here and you would become a citizen. People have forgotten that. They've forgotten that the Irish, the Germans, the Italians when they arrived they didn't have to go through the same immigration process you have to do now where you have to wait 12 years sometimes.

So I think the Church understands and the people of faith understand both our religious traditions, as well as our country's tradition. We understand it. And we are trying to communicate. One thing that is clear, we have not heard from our brothers on the evangelical right. They have been silent even though the scriptures are clear. We as an organization, Esperanza, USA, have asked them to step forward. We're waiting to hear from them and we're looking forward to hearing from that constituent, from that religious constituent who on this family values issue has chosen to remain silent.

GWEN IFILL: And Ms. Merino, is the constituency you represent, laborers -- there is some concern among some American-born laborers that in fact this kind of legislation is going to take jobs away from them.

YANIRA MERINO: Yes, the concern exists but that's why we're saying that you cannot continue having this 12 million or more people without a status because that actually placed you -- puts you in a position that can be abused and exploited and be used against affecting everybody's wages and everybody's jobs here.

So the only real way to resolve this is by giving them a status so that cannot be used against them. They have to have full rights. And we're advocating for very strong worker protection because in order for an employer to respect that, an employee has to have the right to say, you know, this is violating my rights. And I have the right to speak up.

GWEN IFILL: It doesn't sound like employer sanctions and worker protections necessarily work together.

YANIRA MERINO: That's correct. That's correct, not from our part, but we're saying that we're saying the unions are saying or at least my union, the Laborers International Union believes that in any, any comprehensive immigration reform, a strong worker protection is the key to guarantee protection for all workers in this country.

GWEN IFILL: Is this a turning point, Mr. Cerda, in this immigration rights movement?

VICTOR CERDA: Well, you would hope that it is a turning point in the nation's immigration law and policy. You hope that it's another opportunity where nobody can take credit for solving the immigration problem in this country because we've had it throughout the years. So this is another opportunity for Congress, for the Senate, to step up to the plate and possibly offer a solution that may advance the cause here in terms of getting uniform policy.

GWEN IFILL: You two don't necessarily agree on what the elements of that solution should be.

VICTOR CERDA: That's correct. I think that flows --

GWEN IFILL: Or you three I guess.

VICTOR CERDA: I think that shows the complexity of the issue. You know, worker sanctions, enforcement, even the religious causes and issues there are all on the table right here. But the reality is that's what makes it a difficult job for those senators up there. And they have a challenge in front of them.

GWEN IFILL: Mr. Cerda, Ms. Merino, and Reverend Cortes, thank you all very much.

UPDATE HEADING HOME

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: A Pakistan quake update; Iranian options; and New Orleans poetry.

Now, an update from Pakistan- controlled Kashmir, six months after its devastating earthquake. Our report is from NewsHour correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro of Twin Cities Public Television.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: There's not even a terminal building at the airport in Muzaffrabad, but it's been the center of the biggest humanitarian air lift since Berlin after World War II. The U.N.-U.S. European Union and Pakistan have been working here with one goal: Helping the 3.5 million people left homeless by last October's devastating quake survive the winter. Relief workers had feared a second wave of exposure-related deaths over winter, especially among those who remained in the remotest villages, places completely cut off after the quake. But after 30,000 tons of food and relief supplies were flown in, spring arrived. The catastrophe averted says Keith Ursel, who heads the World Food Program here.

KEITH URSEL: One of the biggest emergencies was to get shelter to the people before winter so there's so much energy and energy put towards shelter and food that it was met. You know, the need was met basically.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: A mild winter was crucial to the success of the relief effort. In this village of Guypour, this woman and her family got by with food aid in this tiny shed built their collapsed home. It has served as kitchen and bedroom for nine people.

WOMAN (Translated): We use the warm clothes that we had before the earthquake. It was difficult but God provided.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Much of the energy in the relief effort was directed at getting people out of their destroyed mountain homes and into tent camps at lower altitudes which were warmer and closer to supplies. Now the government says it's time for them to go back. Altaf Saleem heads a committee the government set up to oversee the transition from relief to recovery.

ALTAF SALEEM: We have to take people back to their own place. If we linger on too long unnecessarily in the tent, there's a tendency to get used to easy supply of food, and this can create problems in the future.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: To make sure people don't become dependent on handouts, Pakistan's government ordered all free food distribution stopped by March 31, except for those widowed or maimed in the quake. The government promised money to help build small homes but only once people returned.

ALTAF SALEEM: The sooner they move to their homeland, the quicker they can start construction. This will help them make a shelter available to them before the next winter comes. I think we are looking at everybody moving to that place and starting their life in the next two months or so. I think 85 percent or 90 percent of people will move back and start some kind of construction.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That goal is supported by international agencies, which also have promised to provide seeds, farm tools and employment programs. But they think the recovery may take a lot longer.

KEITH URSEL: Most of them are going back to the same destroyed village or the same destroyed house or agriculture land that they left six months ago. That's why they left. So those people going back, we do consider them quite vulnerable. Some that were able to stay in some of the villages were able to build shelter for themselves and start repairing some of their farmland with terraces and water supply. The hundreds of thousands of people that are returning now to their villages are faced with really difficult times.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: To he's the transition, relief workers are making sure returnees like the family of Mohammed Din are fit to travel, that they have adequate provisions. Darren Boisvert is with the U.N.'s Organization for Migration, IOM.

DARREN BOISVERT, International Organization for Migration: We ensure that they have their two months of rations so we're not moving anybody who is going to go hungry once they arrive. They're allowed to take all of their personal belongings, but they're also allowed to take whatever relief materials they've gathered to date. So, anything from tents to blankets to tarpaulins, tools, whatever they've managed to be given.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: After hours of loading and waiting, the convoy headed north to the Elan Valley. The treacherous drive is just one reminder of the continuing legacy of the earthquake. The quake moved massive quantities of earth, and much of it remains unsettled. Landslides are an almost daily occurrence triggered by aftershocks or just rainfall. One of the biggest challenges in the months or years ahead is keeping the roads clear so people can return and also to maintain their only link to the rest of the world. Two hours later Mohammed Din's family was dropped off six miles from their former home. The last stretch is accessible only by foot and would take two more hours. For the moment, din decided to join several relatives who had earlier pitched their tents in this spot. While anxious to return home sometime, he said he had no choice but to leave the camp now.

MOHAMMED DIN (Through interpreter:) They told us go to your village so what could we do? They said, you'll get everything here. Here in the camp, you won't get anything. They said, you'll be able to get building materials.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: His next challenge is to find a lot to build on. Din lost not only his home but, like many others, his land literally slid down the mountain.

MOHAMMED DIN (Through interpreter): Never mind the money. There's just nowhere to stand. The government said they'd give us $150,000 rupees. If I can get land, that would be enough to build a house. But until that time, we'll live in a tent.

WOMAN (Through interpreter): There are ten people in this tent. The kids have no shoes, no clothes. It's cold in the tents and we sleep together under a quilt.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The extended family of Noor Jehan has been struggling to rebuild since last December. When we visited them then, they worried about the coming winter living in a tent camp high above Muzaffrabad. Their homestead was only two miles further uphill. Three collapsed buildings in which nine people died. They were buried in a cemetery across the street. Noor Jehan's son, Aslam, stayed behind to protect the property, salvage what he could and clean up. Four months later, he's still pounding and clearing rubble. The family does have three temporary dwellings now, enough to sleep all 20 of them. But sleep does not come easily.

NOOR JEHAN (Through interpreter): His son died. His son died. So many young people in this family lay under the soil. So many young ones have gone. I don't even sleep. It was a day of judgment for us.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: They also worry about how long it will take for the promised assistance to reach them. Government compensation won't cover the rebuilding costs, they add, and materials like sheet iron for walls and roofs are hard to find and hard to transport to their mountain home.

ASLAM MOHAMMAD (Through interpreter): The rain and storms are heavy here and water comes in. We need corrugated iron sheets for roofing. That would be good. Because when it rains heavily, the water really comes in.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Pakistan's government received $6 billion in international aid, money separate from relief aid that is to be used for long-term rebuilding. How efficiently and transparently it spends that money will be watched closely, says the U.N.'s Boisvert.

DARREN BOISVERT: There is $6 billion. In a country like this, that's a lot of cash to actually begin reconstruction. We need to make sure that that money is spent well, that there's no corruption involved in that.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The Pakistan government says it will hire international auditing firms to oversee its expenditures. Out of the rubble of this tragedy, Atalf Saleem says is a unique opportunity to rebuild a region and improve its standard of living. But it will take time.

ALTAF SALEEM: There are close to 6,000 schools that need to be built; 800 medical facilities including the basic health units, bigger hospitals. There are two universities that are to be built. So I think a lot of money will go there in the transportation sector. We have to build some bridges, in roads, some water works. You will realize that this infrastructure was built over a 58-year time frame and collapsed in less than 58 seconds. And people expect that we will rebuild them in 58 days. It has to take longer.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: First, the government hopes most people will rebuild their shelters by next winter. For many Kashmiris that's happening one timber at a time. Even as they stop serving tent villages, relief officials have contingency plans to at least reopen some next winter, just in case.

FOCUS THREAT OR BLUFF

GWEN IFILL: Our Iran coverage begins with this background report, narrated by NewsHour correspondent Tom Bearden.

TOM BEARDEN: With his remarks this morning, President Bush joined a cadre of international leaders trying to dampen talk of a U.S. military strike against Iran. And the administration followed up this afternoon when White House spokesman Scott McClellan stressed that diplomacy was the preferred course to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: The president has made it very clear that we're working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution when it comes to the Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons. And that's exactly what we're doing.

TOM BEARDEN: The comments were in response to stories that emerged over the weekend. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Bush administration is studying options for strikes against Iran. An account by New Yorker magazine's Seymour Hersh said one Pentagon plan included using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's underground nuclear sites. Hersh wrote that U.S. planning was spurred by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent threats against Israel and the U.S. one of Hersh's sources was quoted as saying that President Bush thinks he must do: What no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do.: During an interview today on Good Morning America, Hersh elaborated:

SEYMOUR HERSH, The New Yorker (Good Morning America): The people I talked to, senior people in and out of the government, that this is really not about the worry about whether they enrich a little bit of uranium. This is about this president and this vice president wanting regime change.

TOM BEARDEN: The article prompted reaction from American allies, among them British Foreign Minister Jack Straw who yesterday dismissed as out of hand the idea of a nuclear attack.

JACK STRAW: The idea of a nuclear strike on Iran is completely nuts.

TOM BEARDEN: Back in this country, retired General Anthony Zinni told CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday that a military move against Iran was risky.

GEN. ANTHONY ZINNI: We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over. The Iranians will retaliate; we're going to have to be prepared to, in effect, go all the way, whatever that means. And I don't think we should kid ourselves that this can be simply ended by one strike. A nuclear-armed Iran is extremely dangerous. And I hope we don't come to that position.

TOM BEARDEN: Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner has studied Air Force targeting and has run unofficial war-gaming on Iran.

COL. SAM GARDINER: There are about 20 nuclear-related facilities in Iran, an attack on them would probably take place over one night; it would be B2s and Navy launch cruise missiles, some for the targets would use deep penetrating weapons.

TOM BEARDEN: He thinks if there was an attack, the U.S. would bomb more than just nuclear sites.

COL. SAM GARDINER: If we're going to go in there, we should go after the things that could hurt us. So what I would expect is to see targeting of not only the nuclear facilities but of the medium-range ballistic missiles, of the air bases, of the chemical warfare plants -- yes, they have WMD -- and of the missiles that could control the gulf. Now this is a bigger strike, probably five or six days or nights.

TOM BEARDEN: Iranian leaders have branded the reports as psychological warfare, and at a rally today, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his country would not give in to pressure from the West.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD (Translated): Our enemies know that they cannot stop the Iranian nation from its path with such propaganda, meetings and showing an angry face to us.

TOM BEARDEN: Ahmadinejad added that soon he would have "good news" about his country's nuclear program. Meanwhile, inspectors from the United Nation's nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, inspected an Iranian nuclear facility over the weekend. And IAEA Director Mohammed ElBaradei is expected to pay a visit this week.

GWEN IFILL: Margaret Warner has more on the story.

MARGARET WARNER: We get two views on all this from: Richard Perle, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration, and former member of the Defense Policy Board, which advises secretary Rumsfeld; and Morton Halperin, a former official with the National Security Council and the State Department, most recently in the Clinton administration. Welcome. Richard Perle, do you think the U.S. should be thinking about attacking Iran as a feasible option for resolving this nuclear situation?

RICHARD PERLE: Well, every one hopes, of course, that it will be resolved peacefully through a negotiating process and through a decision by the Iranians to terminate their nuclear weapons program. But no one can be sure that we'll achieve that result. And, in fact, the lack of progress to date is pretty discouraging. So it is only natural that contingency planners would think about how force might be applied if it comes to that, but no one is eager to see it come to that.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you persuaded that in fact this kind of planning is going on and preparations are?

RICHARD PERLE: Well, when you say "this kind of planning," I think there's been a lot of exaggeration particularly in the reporting over the weekend. I do not believe that we are contemplating the offensive use of nuclear weapons, for example, which was the sensationalism in Mr. Hersh's article that's now gone all around the world. I don't believe we're considering that.

MARGARET WARNER: Mort Halperin, what's your view, first of all, on whether this is an option that the United States should be seriously considering if diplomacy fails?

MORTON HALPERIN: I think it's something that you never want to completely take off the table. But it is not something that we should be seriously considering now. We have not yet begun the kind of serious, direct negotiations with the Iranians that I believe we need to have to try to see if we can resolve the differences with them. Nor have we put on the table a serious comprehensive proposal to deal with their right of access to nuclear material for peaceful purposes. And I think it's particularly dangerous to think about threatening to use nuclear weapons. I take the story very seriously.

Sy Hersh's reporting over the last few years and all the way back has been extraordinarily accurate. And I think it would be a mistake to discount those stories. I think it is incumbent upon the administration now to take the nuclear option off the table. It would be irresponsible to threaten or to use nuclear weapons. And I think the administration, if it's serious about wanting to persuade the Iranians to give up their capacity to develop nuclear weapons, that among the things we need to do very clearly is to reaffirm that we will not use nuclear weapons against them.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying on the broader question whether or not it's nuclear weapons but attacking Iran that you think it would actually be counterproductive, that it would be damaging to U.S. Interests?

MORTON HALPERIN: Yeah. I think that one doesn't necessarily want to take the option completely off the table. I understand the value in diplomacy to leave unstated where you might go eventually if there was not a settlement. But when we look hard at the question of using military force, I think it is an illusion to think that we can permanently affect the Iranians' ability to develop nuclear weapons by a bombing campaign. We may be able to slow it down.

On the other hand, most estimates are that it's still five or ten years away so it's not clear how much we would actually slow it down. And we may redouble the determination of the Iranians to move forward so that at the end of the day we actually speed up the process. Moreover, as we know from leaked press reports of a couple weeks ago, the assessment of the intelligence community is that Iran will respond to this by attacking the United States where it is vulnerable. We know Iran is a neighbor of Afghanistan and Iraq with the United States has troops. I think we need to expect attacks from forces supported by Iran if we begin a bombing campaign.

MARGARET WARNER: That all sounds pretty dire, Mr. Perle.

RICHARD PERLE: Well, first of all, nobody is thinking-- as far as I know in terms of an imminent attack on Iran's sites.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you think Iran would react that way, would then launch more attacks on U.S. forces, perhaps U.S. personnel elsewhere, cause more trouble in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

RICHARD PERLE: Well, they are already causing a great deal of trouble in Iraq. We should be under no illusion about that. With respect to Afghanistan, they believe their interests are rather similar to ours in keeping things stable at least in the areas close to their own territory and so they've been doing that but for their own reasons. Look, I think there's just a lot of hyperbole here. We are not contemplating the use of nuclear weapons. It is widely irresponsible and wrong for Sy Hirsh to suggest we are. And far from having been accurate in the recent past, he's been wildly inaccurate on any number of occasions, but the idea that we should now be put in the position of having to offer assurances that would appear to validate the claim because one irresponsible journalist makes unreasonable charges I think is -- would be very foolish.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Halperin, if we could separate ourselves from Sy Hersh for a minute and talk about whether this is even militarily feasible, there's been quite a debate about this, about whether even if any country, the United States or anyone else, wanted to take out the facilities, whether we know where they are, whether they're too spread out, whether they're hidden, what is your view of that?

MORTON HALPERIN: Well, I think the first thing to say is that we don't know what we don't know. And that's a fundamental problem here. I have no doubt that American intelligence has identified some facilities. By definition, we do not know of facilities that we have not identified. And there's no way to be sure that you have identified all the facilities. The Iranians have moved forward knowing that the Israelis had attacked an Iraqi facility. They know that there has been a risk of an American attack.

I think we have to assume that they have proceeded in a way that has taken account of the possibility of an attack. But even if you destroy some particular sites, you have to ask yourself, what does that do to the American position in the world? What does it do to Iraq? Yes, it may be true that the Iranians are causing trouble in Iraq. I assure you they can cause a great deal more trouble, and I think most people would agree they would do so if we attack.

Now they may have some common interest in us with Afghanistan but they can still cause us a great deal of trouble within that context. And if we attack them, their incentives and their attitudes towards cooperation in those areas will change. Moreover, you cannot affect the long-run ability of that country to develop nuclear weapons. And you make it much more likely that it will try to do so if the message we send to them is if a country doesn't have nuclear weapons, we will feel free to bomb it whenever we decide it is in our interest to do so.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Perle, respond on those points: One, our intelligence is rarely good enough to know exactly where these installations are; and, two, that it would definitely spur Iran to go all out and try to develop the nuclear weapon if this ever happened.

RICHARD PERLE: I think they're going all out now. And they're paying a very high price in order to pursue nuclear weapons. They're put themselves in a pariah-like position. Even the Europeans are fed up with them now. They could rejoin the international community and probably usher in some prosperity which they've been missing, the country's in pretty desperate straits.

And of course we may not know where everything is. But we do know where some of the large and critical installations are. They are vulnerable. But if we don't know where others are, if there are others that are hidden, then I don't see how we could expect a diplomatic solution to solve the problem because the Iranians are not about to say, oh, and by the way, in addition to abandoning the sites you know about, we have these other secret sites and we'll throw those into the par gain. That's not going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me conclude by asking you both, starting with you, Mr. Halperin, why do you think these stories are suddenly bubbling up now? It wasn't Sy Hersh in the New Yorker; there have been other articles quoting unnamed people inside the administration. Who do you think is behind this and why?

MORTON HALPERIN: I think it's the people who fear that we are close to a military attack and are close to a nuclear attack. We had the leak a few weeks ago about the intelligence estimates of what would happen if we attacked. And then we had the stories in the New Yorker and in the Washington Post over the weekend about assertions that there is serious planning for attack.

I think many people did not believe that the president would go into Iraq when he did. And they do not believe now that we are contemplating an attack. My sense is that these are people inside the government who have been fighting this, who now fear that the president has made up his mind, is going to attack, and they're trying to bring the Congress and the public into a debate in an effort to stop the president.

MARGARET WARNER: And what's your assessment as an old Washington hand?

RICHARD PERLE: Well, there are undoubtedly people on all sides who were leaking. That seems to be all that happens in Washington these days. There is a better solution than bombing -- we should have started work on it years ago -- and that is recognizing that the Iranian regime is an extremely unpopular regime, particularly among the -- half the population that's youthful. And we should be supporting the democratic opposition to the regime of the mullahs, which crushes human rights and would be overthrown in a heartbeat if the opposition had the means to do it. And I trust that Mort with his interest in human rights and individual freedom would find that a better alternative than using bombs.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you want a brief rejoinder, Mr. Halperin?

MORTON HALPERIN: I think certainly promoting democracy there is the key solution in the long run to this problem. I am doubtful that our attempt now to provide assistance to the democratic opposition there would do anything but discredit that opposition.

MARGARET WARNER: OK. Mort Halperin, Richard Perle, thank you both.

FOCUS STORMY WORDS

GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, finding the words in New Orleans, and to Jeffrey Brown.

ANNOUNCER: Please help me welcome to the stage, a very beautiful and fine poet, Ms. Keisha Brown. (Applause)

JEFFREY BROWN: One night a week, on one small corner of the French Quarter, local poets tell of Katrina.

KEISHA BROWN: Storm blew down through history and whisked my life away; flood crashed the levee and washed my life away out here a thousand miles from my home in the Tramay

JEFFREY BROWN: Keisha Brown fled New Orleans for Chicago.

KEISHA BROWN: Ain't no second line on this Sunday afternoon; ain't no second line parade on this Sunday afternoon; ain't no brass band coming; no buck jump no time soon. Somebody sing a dirge for me, a slow respectful stroll; somebody sing a dirge for this dove on shoulder stroll out here 900 miles in the harsh Chicago cold

JEFFREY BROWN: Since starting again last October, these readings at the Goldmine Saloon have provided a sanctuary for old friends, many still living outside the city, a place to share words written in response to a personal and civic disaster.

UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN (reading her poem): And what is the value on life in a city where the river cuts dirt continuously and we all live six feet below levels of respect of what is good, of what is intended and what is the value on life in a city full of soul ghosts?

DAVE BRINSK: Yeah, people used to live upstairs.

JEFFREY BROWN: Reporter: Dave Brinks, the owner of the Gold Mine Saloon, and his wife, Megan, started these Thursday night events two and a half years ago. A poet himself as well as editor of a journal called Yawp, brinks says that after Katrina, poetry like everything else, is cast in a new light.

DAVE BRINKS: We're trying to give shape and measure to something that's nearly incomprehensible. And, but the magic of poetry allows one to make that leap. It's the poets' task here in New Orleans at this point in time, to document its people. It's, that's what, that's the poets' job.

JEFFREY BROWN: Typically 17 poets are chosen to read at the goldmine, and everyone is allotted five minutes. Brinks sees his fellow writers, some published veterans, others new to the scene here, as this unique city's, unique storytellers.

DAVE BRINKS: These people are teachers, they're social workers, they're musicians. I think that these people represent the soul of the city.

JEFFREY BROWN: Katrina, Brinks says, changed him and his poetry.

DAVE BRINKS: Just the idea of riding a boat to my house to save my daughter's tricycle, maybe a few pictures, some baby movies, I mean, that's definitely not something that ever crossed my mind that I'd be writing about.

DAVE BRINK (reading his poetry): Before the water fell nothing kept us from a good time it was as simple as digging up worms in the backyard, trains going by near the playground, were big jaw droppers. The ice cream truck adored us; the after dinner moonlight wagon ride was our most recent ritual hopgrassers, smushrooms, and puppydog shoes were newly-minted vocabularies then. Now, the water keeps falling, it never stops.

JEFFREY BROWN: During our visit, a range of post-Katrina emotion was on display, there was some anger, toward Mother Nature and politicians.

MAN (reading poetry): And if you really wanna get to the bottom of the problem, just follow the money, honey. That's right.

WOMAN (reading poetry): We are the reluctant immigrants, living where we can until we can get back home.

JEFFREY BROWN: And there were many questions.

ANOTHER WOMAN (reading her poetry): Where do we bathe our feet? Where do we anoint our heads? Where do we quench our thirst? Wash our crud-filled fingernails? How can we ever trust water again? Our former good friend.

DAVE BRINKS: We have to have our smells and our sounds, our words, our architecture, our laissez faire. Poets will continue to wrap their hearts and heads around this so that the story is completely written.

JEFFREY BROWN: Niyi Osundare grew up in Nigeria, but like so many others, chose to make this unusual city his home. And now, like so many others, he sings for its survival.

NIYI OSUNDARE (reading poetry): The birds, long gone, will return to roost as the aroma of gumbo-grills sweetens the laughter of the streets; this city will rise again; this big gone easy; this neglected treasure. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major developments of the day: Supporters of immigrants' rights staged extensive demonstrations across the country in a campaign to draw attention to their cause. President Bush dismissed reports the United States is planning a military attack on Iran. And the president of France scrapped part of a youth labor law that triggered massive protests and strikes. Before we go a programming note: The Nightly Business Report looks at the rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast. The special edition airs tonight on most of these PBS stations. Check your local listings for the time in your area. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.