The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then with British Prime Minister Blair meeting with President Bush, a look at how the Iraq coalition is holding up; the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks; and a report on protecting the air cargo system from terrorist attacks.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair gave their support today to a U.N. transition plan in Iraq. They spoke after meeting at the White House. This week, U.N. Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called for a caretaker government in Iraq to replace the current governing council. That's until elections are held next January. Mr. Bush today praised the U.N. effort. And, he said again, the June 30 transition date was firm. Prime Minister Blair said the U.N. Security Council should adopt a new resolution on Iraq's political structure. We'll have more on this story and the coalition in Iraq right after this News Summary. The U.S. formally urged the U.N. today to resume large-scale operations in Iraq. Earlier this week, Secretary-General Annan essentially ruled that out. He cited the recent surge in violence. Today, the Security Council met to consider the situation. American Ambassador John Negroponte asked member states for troops to safeguard U.N. operations.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: I believe that I do not overstate the broad desire within the international community of the United Nations to return to Iraq to play an expansive, robust and vital role in particular after the June 30 transition.

JIM LEHRER: The U.N. withdrew its international staffers from Iraq last august after a truck bomb destroyed its headquarters in Baghdad. That blast killed 23 people, including the chief of the U.N.'S mission. In Iraq today, U.S. officials met with local leaders in Fallujah. They were believed to be the first such talks since U.S. Marines besieged the town 11 days ago. Scattered fighting has continued there, despite a week-old cease- fire. Going in to the meeting today, a top U.S. Diplomat, Richard Jones, said the stakes were high.

RICHARD JONES: We are going to be asking them to help create an environment which will allow our military to operate, to have freedom of access. What we really want is to be able to go into the town, to have meetings with the local authorities, to work on these development projects, to help improve lives of the people without fear of being attacked every time you do it.

JIM LEHRER: After the talks, Ambassador Jones said the U.S. agreed to reposition some troops so civilians could have better access to a hospital. The two sides agreed to continue talks tomorrow. Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, grand ayatollah all-Sistani, warned U.S. troops today not to enter the holy city of Najaf. He said doing so would "cross the red line." U.S. forces have massed outside Najaf with orders to kill or capture a radical Shiite leader. We have a report narrated by Lindsay Taylor of independent Television News.

LINDSAY TAYLOR: More skirmishes on the outskirts of Najaf today, and nearby Kufa. This is the tense background to the continued negotiations to resolve the crisis, as up to two and a half thousand American troops ring the holy city, intent on bringing pressure to bear on the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr left his offices in Najaf and addressed Friday prayers in Kufa. In a speech to thousands of supporters, he warned U.S. forces not to confront the Iraqi people, as they would never submit to injustice, and demanded that those attacking civilians with tanks and air strikes are held to account. He said authority and sovereignty should be in the hands of Iraqis through elections and warned followers America would never leave Iraq. But he also advised groups holding hostages not to harm them and to release them if they were from countries not involved in the U.S.-led occupation. Significantly though, he refused to disband his Mehdi army militia. Al-Sadr's Najaf office was the dropping-off point today for a Canadian humanitarian worker, freed after being held hostage for the past eight days.

FADI IHSAN FADEL, Released Canadian Hostage: I'm doing okay. I'm in great company. I'm pretty happy and the office - I think --

LINDSAY TAYLOR: The Syrian-born 33-year-old later broke down as he described how his captors had beaten him and accused him of being a Jewish spy.

JIM LEHRER: Four other captives were also freed in Iraq today, three Czechs and a Chinese citizen. But two more were kidnapped, a Danish citizen and a man from the United Arab Emirates. And late today, the al-Jazeera TV channel showed a U.S. Army soldier being held by gunmen. He identified himself as Private First Class Keith Maupin. He's one of two soldiers missing since their convoy was attacked a week ago.

JIM LEHRER: There were no new U.S. deaths reported in Iraq today. Nearly 90 Americans have been killed so far this month. The U.S. Military says 687 U.S. troops have died since the war began. More than 3,600 have been wounded. Wire services and private groups estimate up to 17,000 Iraqis killed, more than half of them civilians. The U.S. State Department has ordered non-essential diplomatic staffers to leave Saudi Arabia. The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh posted the order on its web site early today. It cited growing signs of possible attacks on U.S. And western interests in Saudi Arabia. The order includes the families of U.S. Embassy officials. It also urges other Americans to leave the country. In Spain today, police announced three new arrests in the Madrid train bombings. The suspects are from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and morocco. Six other Moroccans were released from custody today for lack of evidence. At least 18 people have been charged so far in the attacks last month. Output at U.S. factories, mines and utilities fell last month. The Federal Reserve reported today industrial production was down 0.2 percent in March, after two months of strong growth. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained more than 54 points to close at nearly 10452. The NASDAQ fell six points to close below 1996. For the week, the Dow gained a fraction of percent. The NASDAQ fell nearly 3 percent. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: The Iraq coalition, Shields and Brooks, and protecting air cargo.

FOCUS - COALTION CHALLENGE

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez has the coalition story.

RAY SUAREZ: It was Prime Minister Blair's ninth U.S. meeting with President Bush since 9/11. And on a brilliant spring morning in the rose garden, no daylight appeared between the two allies, even as other coalition partners, in the midst of increasing violence in Iraq and at home, have come under new pressures to withdraw their troops from Iraq. The prime minister joined the president in asserting the coalition had to stay the course.

TONY BLAIR: It was never going to be easy, and it isn't now. I pay wholehearted tribute to the American and British troops, and troops from all the different coalition countries, and to the civilians also from many nations. We mourn each loss of life. We salute them and their families for their bravery and their sacrifice. And our promise to them in turn is very clear it is to succeed, to get the job done, to ensure their courage and their sacrifice has not been in vain. And our plan to do this is clear and we shall see it through.

RAY SUAREZ: Prime Minister Blair and President Bush also appeared to agree: The United Nations will take a bigger role in organizing the June 30 transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi transitional government.

TONY BLAIR: The U.N. will have a central role, as now, in developing the program and machinery for political transition to full Iraqi democracy. And we will seek a new U.N. Security Council resolution to embody the political and security way forward.

RAY SUAREZ: Until recently, the Bush administration has said the U.N. will have a vital role in Iraq while retaining key power for the U.S. in the occupation authority. But today, the prime minister and the president praised the work of U.N. Special Representative Lakdar Brahimi in the hand-over.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This week we've seen the outlines of a new Iraqi government that will take the keys of sovereignty. We welcome the proposals presented by the U.N. Special Envoy Brahimi. He's identified a way forward to establishing an interim government that is broadly acceptable to the Iraqi people.

RAY SUAREZ: Even on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, just a day after the European Union criticized an Israeli plan endorsed by President Bush to withdraw from Gaza but keep settlements in the West Bank, Blair joined Mr. Bush in calling it an historic opportunity. In Iraq, coalition allies apart from the U.S. have reported 100 deaths. Iraqi militants also have kidnapped about 40 foreign civilians. Two days ago an Italian security guard was killed by kidnappers, and they have threatened to kill other Italian captives unless Italy withdraws its 3,000 troops. Italy's foreign minister said his government would not bend to the captors' demands.

FRANCO FRATTINI (Translated): Our aim is to maintain these contacts, but without negotiations with terrorist groups that kidnapped the Italian people. And we will continue to fight against terrorists, and we will continue to keep contacts with all communities in Iraq. Our aim is to stay in Iraq in order to help Iraqi people.

RAY SUAREZ: Italy is among the nearly one dozen European countries that have contributed about 20,000 troops to the coalition in Iraq. The other major contributors beyond the United Kingdom's 7,500 troops include Poland, Ukraine, Netherlands, Spain, Romania, and Denmark. In an audio tape released yesterday, Osama bin Laden offered a "truce" to European countries that withdraw their troops from Muslim nations. Several European states rejected his offer, and so did the European union.

ROMANO PRODI: There is no possibility to deal under a terroristic threat. This is completely impossible.

RAY SUAREZ: But Spain's incoming prime minister renewed his pledge to withdraw 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq unless the U.N. takes charge there. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero won a surprise victory last month just days after deadly train bombings in Madrid believed to have been masterminded by al-Qaida. Last month Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski complained his country was "misled" by the United States about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But the polish prime minister said his country's troops would remain in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: For more now on Prime Minister Blair's visit and the state of the Iraq coalition, we get three views. Christopher Makins is president of the Atlantic Council of the United States. He holds both U.S. and British citizenship. Bartosz Weglarcyzk is the U.S. bureau chief of "Gazeta Wyborcza," Poland's largest newspaper. And Maurizio Molinari is a New York-based columnist for the Italian newspaper "La Stampa." Christopher Makins, rising death toll, more intense fighting, a rise in the number of kidnapped soldiers and civilians? Has this shaken the unity of the coalition?

CHRISTOPHER MAKINS: No, I don't think it has up to this point, at least not seriously so. Your introductory piece mentioned the Spanish question, and obviously the elections in Spain have resulted in some change in the Spanish attitude. But I think you've seen in the rejection of Osama bin Laden alleged proposal or offer yesterday and the statements that have been made coming out of Europe in the past few days, that the European countries who are committed to Iraq are going to stay committed through this transition of power that is due at the end of June.

RAY SUAREZ: In the news conference featuring President Bush and Prime Minister Blair this afternoon, there was almost complete unanimity in their public statements on the conduct of the war. Behind the scenes, are there differences in approach, differences in emphasis that might not come out in something like a news conference?

CHRISTOPHER MAKINS: Well, it would be surprising if there were not some differences of emphasis, and differences of judgment. But I think so far as I know, the agreement is actually very substantial right now, both in private as well as in public. I think that Prime Minister Blair is committed to this course. He believes in it. I think it was clear from the statements he made in the news conference today that he sees this problem very much in the same way as President Bush does, and he is politically quite committed to staying the course and to being by the side of the U.S. as it goes through this transition.

RAY SUAREZ: Maurizio Molinari, in the past few days came the shocking news of the murder of an Italian civilian in Iraq. In the case of that, in the case of Italy, a country where most voters say they were against the participation of Italian troops in Iraq, what has this done to public opinion?

MAURIZIO MOLINARI: Well in my country while most of the people are against the war, actually both the government and the main leader of the position are in favor of staying in Iraq, to leave the troops in Iraq. This is something to be understood we have to take into account at least three elements. The first one, as you reminded, is the big shock of the image of the Italian hero killed, and before being killed to scream, to, I will show you that an Italian is able to die. The second is the position of the Catholic Church. Last Sunday in the most solemn moment of the week, the pope said we have to stay united against terrorism. And the most important bishop that we have in Italy said that after the bombing of the Italian headquarters in Nasiriyah, we should not withdraw our troops. We don't have to escape in front of terror. And finally the third element is what happened what happened at the beginning of the uprising in Nasiriyah. When the militia people of al-Sadr, they attacked also the Italian troops, well actually the Italian troops shoot. And in shooting they also killed several civilians. Now this was the first time after World War II that Italian troops trying to defend themselves have actually killed civilians. Well, after this episode, most of the Italians agreed they didn't criticize the army... so if you see the full picture in the public opinion is in favor of remaining in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: Bartosz Weglarczyk, your president attracted a lot of attention by saying publicly that he felt Poland had been misled about weapons of mass destruction and just a very short time later your prime minister publicly contradicted him and renewed Poland's commitment. Does that show a split in Polish society?

BARTOSZ WEGLARCZYK: I don't think what he meant by this is to say that he was obviously surprised there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq like everybody else. I heard from sources all over Europe -- Germany, Poland and the U.S. that everybody actually believed that the weapons were there. The difference was how to deal with them. Poland is committed to having troops in Iraq. Nobody in Poland nor in government nor in the opposition says or proposes pulling the troops out. As Maurizio said, we are in basically the same situation with our troops. We suffered the first combat casualty in Iraq since World War II. Obviously it's a moment of historical importance for Polish public opinion and for Poles but pope, who Maurizio quoted, said we have to stay united and I'm pretty sure that Poland will stay united.

RAY SUAREZ: Maurizio also discussed some of the differences between public opinion and what the governments say is official policy. Is there a difference between your electorate and what your government's position is?

BARTOSZ WEGLARCZYK: Absolutely. Listen, we send troops to places far, far away from Poland to fight war that was not a danger... Iraq was never a danger to Poland. And Saddam Hussein actually we had a lot of business with Iraq in '70s and '80s. So we have pretty big Iraqi community in Poland. We have a lot of Poles who know Iraq and Iraqis. So it was obviously an extremely difficult decision for the Polish government to move troops to Iraq. And 75 percent of Poles today think that the situation in Iraq is not pretty, that it is going in a bad direction. So definitely there is a split.

RAY SUAREZ: Christopher Makins, your governing party has fairly senior members expressing doubts in public now about your prime minister's policies. Has the 9/11 Commission, the Clarke book, the presidential news conference begun to at least waiver some of the people who had previously been for the war in Great Britain?

CHRISTOPHER MAKINS: Well, I think without doubt there has been some shift in opinion, and, of course, in Britain as well as in other European countries as we've heard. The public is the much more skeptical about the war and the British commitment to it than the British government is. But Prime Minister Blair has a very large majority in the parliament. He can tolerate a level of criticism from within his government being in any serious danger. And he and his principal ministers are clearly committed to the course of action that they've chosen. They chose it after a great deal of thought and believing in it very strongly. So I think that, you know, in any democratic system, you are going to find critics of a policy like this and one which exposes the country's soldiers to risk in this way. But I think it would be a mistake to take those criticisms for quite some time to come very seriously. Now I think it's important to say that we are coming up to a very important transition moment in Iraq. There's to be a transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is becoming much more directly involved, which is something which the British government has certainly been in favor of right along. And so it's important, I think, that if those steps are taken, if the process goes forward, I think that the British government will remain strongly committed. One can't look forward in the situation more than a number of months, but I think with the time being and with the course that is being chosen and strongly held I think by both the British and the U.S. Governments, British government will be in support of it.

RAY SUAREZ: Maurizio Molinari, are there prominent politicians in Italy who are also looking for that backing of the United Nations? Would it help bind up some of the splits that have appeared inside EU over U.N. Backing for war in Iraq?

MAURIZIO MOLINARI: Absolutely, yes. First of all our Prime Minister Berlusconi appointing a more and important role of the U.N. we have the main leader of the position where they say the condition they put not to withdraw the troops, of course is that after June 30, we have to have the U.N. leading the transition. And by the way, there is more or less the position of the new Spain -- Spanish prime minister. As you may know, the Italian left and Spanish socialist party are very close. Actually, they're speaking with each other. They're coordinating their policies. Well, if you speak with the main leaders of the left, they say we say that we need a new resolution with authorization to the U.N. to overview the transition. The key point is not this. The big race could be military issue. I mean who will command forces, the multinational forces after June 30?

RAY SUAREZ: And in the case of Poland, which is a fairly recent member of NATO and fairly new member of the E.U., Has your country been put in a funny position by some of the alliances and the disputes there have been over this?

BARTOSZ WEGLARCZYK: Absolutely. Poland's position, some are very close U.S. ally and some are being the future member of the European Union in a few weeks. It is a very difficult position for the Polish government. And I think that is one of the reasons why the polish government is pushing to have U.N. involvement in Iraq. I think it's important to trust that Prime Minister Blair brought his proposals to Washington, not on behalf of the British government but also on behalf of several European governments, among them the Polish government. The Polish government supports very strongly U.N. Involvement in Iraq. It's not condition of having our troops in Iraq. Nobody in Poland says that unless there is U.N. involvement we will pull the troops out, but we want to see U.N. involvement in Iraq and if it doesn't happen in the next several months, I think there might be a much, bigger shift in the public opinion, in Poland and other European countries.

RAY SUAREZ: Briefly Christopher Makins, do you agree, if there is no new U.N. resolution, will we start to see some of the coalition members leaving Iraq after June 30?

CHRISTOPHER MAKINS: I think that's quite possible yes. I think that whether... what exactly it needs in the way of a resolution is not perhaps entirely clear but what is needed is that the U.N. play a large role in orchestrating the political process that will come to some degree before but certainly after the 30th of June.

RAY SUAREZ: Christopher Makins, gentlemen, thank you all.

CHRISTOPHER MAKINS: Thank you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Brooks, and air cargo security.

FOCUS - THE POLITICS OF IRAQ

JIM LEHRER: American policy in Iraq has already become an issue in the 2004 presidential election. President Bush and Senator John Kerry both spoke about it this week, in fact.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We've encountered... we've encountered-- I say "we"; it's just not American forces, it's coalition forces, and innocent Iraqi citizens, by the way-- have encountered serious violence in parts of Iraq. The different factions-- former Saddam loyalists, some foreign fighters, Sadr, who is a radical cleric, and his gangs -- have a common goal. They want to stop the march to democracy in Iraq. The idea of a free society really bothers them. Freedom is something they can't stand. And they want to run us out of Iraq. That's what they want to do. I... we're not going to be run out of Iraq. We're not going to let a ruthless power grab affect that which is important. See, it's in our national interest that Iraq be free and peaceful. It's in our national interest, the long-term interest of this country, that right in the heart of the Middle East there be a free society, one that will help spread hope and opportunity. I'm proud of those who have served our nation and are serving our nation. Our military is doing incredibly good work.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: We have troops being shot at even as we stand here today. Pick up the papers every day and you read the names of young Americans who are giving their lives in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere. I know what that's like. And I know what the responsibilities of leadership are as to how you ask young Americans to go into harm's way. This president broke his promises to America and misled this nation. (Cheers and applause) This president said he would build a true global coalition, he said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and he said he would go to war as a last resort. But I believe he rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, left our allies standing by, and I am convinced, as I think you are, the way you best protect our soldiers, the way you fastest get the target off of them, the way you provide the least cost to Americans, the way you maximize the chance for success is to get the rest of the world involved and on the job and be recognizing they share responsibility for the outcome, too. (Applause)

FOCUS - SHIELDS & BROOKS

JIM LEHRER: And that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Brooks: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and "New York times" columnist David Brooks.

David, is this election going to be end up being a referendum on the Iraq war? Is that a possibility?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's a good possibility. My feeling about this election right now today is that the people who are paying attention have made up their minds and the people who are undecided are not even paying attention. It's like in the primary season where the polls were floating around for a long time and the last three weeks, the undecideds finally started paying attention and the polls moved radically in one direction or another. So I think it is quite possible that something happened in Iraq in October that will be either good or bad for the United States and that event will provoke a sharp swing in the polls. So it is sort of a last minute thing, depending on what happens now.

JIM LEHRER: Has John Kerry found his voice, found his position on the war? We just heard one clip what he said this week. What do you think, Mark?

MARK SHIELDS: I don't think he has yet, Jim. I think he is still somewhat caught because he voted for the war and he, in a strange way, the worse the war goes, the greater the increase... you can see it now in the National Guard families, the reserve families... to bring our troops home. If that becomes a political movement, that become almost a difficulty for Kerry because the established position is we are going to stay the course.

JIM LEHRER: He agrees with the president on that.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. But I do think, Jim, that what we are seeing in this campaign is that George W.'s greatest strength is in danger of becoming his greatest weakness. That was the war president and the war leader. His Achilles Heel, the economy, may in fact be improving, so I think there has been a turnaround but I don't think that you want to see George Bush running as the war president right now.

DAVID BROOKS: I'm struck by the differences right now -- moving forward -- there are huge differences over the past year. Over the next year, I don't think there are striking differences. I don 't know if you've got the same sense that I have, but I felt Kerry's move toward the center dramatically both on domestic and foreign policy in the last three weeks and they both basically embrace some sort of U.N.-led transition to elections and on domestic policy, very aggressively embraced Bob Rubin economics.

JIM LEHRER: What about the specific issue that he raised in that clip? He has raised it before, very dramatically. In other words, the reason we went to war in Iraq. Is it possible to make that a viable political issue?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, politically, I mean, you could make it a legitimate issue to talk about it, intellectual issue. Politically I think the American people are right now split 50-50. Whether it was a good idea, they're willing to go either way.

JIM LEHRER: If casualties continue to go up....

DAVID BROOKS: It's interesting how they both see it as a strength. The Bush campaign released commercials today attacking Kerry's vote against the $87 billion to spend. So the percentage --the Bush administration feels this is an issue they should be raising.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel?

MARK SHIELDS: It's hard for me to believe this ever becomes a plus for George W. Bush.

JIM LEHRER: -- the pre-war -

MARK SHIELDS: David makes the case that it's about half today. It was 75 percent three months ago. The trend line is in the wrong direction. And but I don't think... I think there's two charges about the president I think that probably fall under an umbrella. One is he is reckless - that he has been reckless in his relations, he's been reckless in his actions. I mean we are now back to the U.N.. we are counting on the U.N. to pull our bacon out of the fire, Jim. I mean, this is the U.N. that was ridiculed, repeatedly and publicly by the administration's leaders as feckless at best and corrupt at worst. Now you hear the president, this is a master plan that's going to do it. So I think it's awfully tough to say that this was well planned, brilliantly executed and an indication of a command leadership.

DAVID BROOKS: I guess I differ. The best thing I like about the Bush administration the past six months is their willingness to be ruthlessly pragmatic. When the caucus system for moving to a transition in Iraq didn't work, they dumped it. They dumped thing after thing looking for the thing that will work, and the thing that seems to be working is not so much the U.N., which they still have only moderate faith in but it's this guy Brahimi. For four or five months I've been hearing them talk about Brahami with tones of great respect. They respect what this guy is going to come up with. And I think he has -- because they can trust him, they can trust the U.N. a little more than they would otherwise.

JIM LEHRER: This week -- how does the president's news conference look three days later?

DAVID BROOKS: I think -- again, I canvassed people that I know and I got wildly different reactions. Some people thought he was a forthright leader. Some people thought he didn't know that much and they were sort of spooked by sense that he doesn't know that much about Iraq on the ground. I just - I found tremendously different reactions.

JIM LEHRER: What about your own?

DAVID BROOKS: My own reaction is that I guess....

JIM LEHRER: I'm sorry to ask.

DAVID BROOKS: I guess it's my job.

JIM LEHRER: You better have one.

DAVID BROOKS: My reaction to the first 17 minutes was overwhelmingly positive -- laid out a framework, laid out a direction for Iraq. My reaction to the question and answer period and I blame this partly on the press and partly on the president was that he was just repeating the same four points over and over again -- bored and impatient.

JIM LEHRER: How did you feel about the president's news conference?

MARK SHIELDS: I think he was stampeded into it, Jim, and I think it was a bad decision. I mean, the 17 minutes was a hybrid. We never had one of those before where the president comes out and gives a 17-minute speech and then....

JIM LEHRER: An address to the nation....

MARK SHIELDS: And then don't answer questions. Before I don't answer your questions, I want to make a 17-minute speech. And I just was struck by how un-agile the president is even after three and a half years. The question he kept getting, Mike Allen of the Washington Post - among others -- why are you going in there with the vice president to testify at the 9/11 Commission, the two of you together? I mean, he just could have said something very light like, you know, the vice president isn't sure of himself and I just want to be there to coach him. People would have chuckled and said he didn't answer it but you got to like the guy. He just isn't good that way. I was at a focus group Tuesday night among swing voters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania being a swing state. And it was fascinating. They like George Bush; they admire his resoluteness, and at the same time they don't like this war and they don't think he has an exit policy and they were looking for answers and if you were looking for answers Tuesday night, there were very few there.

JIM LEHRER: I was just going to say is that your view of it?

MARK SHIELDS: I think he just kind of got into this mantra of words and phrase in the second part and there weren't answers to where we're going, how do we go from here, Mr. President, not whether this is a battle for freedom, it's a battle for Iraq, it's a battle for democracy -- there was no question of where we are going from here.

DAVID BROOKS: He anticipated the Brahimi plan which is a significant thing that's going forward, a sort of positive development as far as Iraq goes. And he showed the most important thing he can show, which is that success is our exit strategy. We are not getting out until this is done. That's the most important message to send to the troops, the American people and to the Iraqis. The substantive... the style of the press conference, that's not his format but substance, it's four basic points. They're the right points to make.

JIM LEHRER: The president also made news this week by endorsing Sharon's -- Prime Minister Sharon's plan, settlements plan. What do you think about that?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think, Jim....

JIM LEHRER: In the Middle East, I should have finished in the Middle East.

MARK SHIELDS: Go ahead.

JIM LEHRER: I just did.

MARK SHIELDS: You did and brilliantly so, Jim. I thought - I mean, The president broke tradition, broke pattern of six previous presidents, four Republicans and two Democrats, and I think it's fair to say that we took sides for really the first time so publicly so dramatically between the Palestinians and Israelis. We ratified and validated the land grab on the West Bank.

JIM LEHRER: By endorsing the idea of keeping settlements Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Pull out of Gaza....

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. Pull out of Gaza? That's a good deal. I mean, you can't stay in Gaza for goodness sakes. They know that. They're overwhelmed in Gaza. And the reality is, Jim, they're closing down 500 settlements along -- 500 people. Since 1967, there have been 200,000 Jewish settlers there. I just think that the president is probably best said by the leading Israeli newspaper, Sharon gets it all.

JIM LEHRER: Did Sharon get it all?

DAVID BROOKS: No, but he got a lot. Let's be honest about that. He restated the position which was the Clinton position and the positions of every other president for the last three presidents - those suburbs outside of Jerusalem were never going to Palestine -- the right of return was never going to be acceptable because it's the end of Israel if they grant right of return. He made it explicit. The question is making it explicit a good thing to do or not.

JIM LEHRER: Let's explain it for people who don't follow this very carefully. By making it explicit now rather than to wait for it to be negotiate somewhere down the road, which has been the U.S. position, well, we'll see how it all works out.

DAVID BROOKS: The question is, does that make future negotiations, does that obviate them? Does that mean we are now going into a unilateral position? And Dennis Ross, who was Bill Clinton's man on the Middle East there at Camp David, said it does not pressure future negotiations at all. The main goal in the Middle East is to get them out of the settlements but in a way that does not reward Hamas. You cannot pull back unilaterally the way Israel pulled back from Lebanon because then Hamas celebrates, oh, this works, this terror works. So they somehow have to withdraw from the settlements in a way that shows to Hamas, you know, this process is no the going to be good for you our unilateral withdrawal. We'll do a punitive withdrawal and that's the way you get the Palestinians saying, we can't just sit here and let nothing happen. That's the way you kick start a negotiations for settlement.

MARK SHIELDS: Let me just say, Jim, the United States may be a broker in the Middle East between the Palestinian and Israelis but it can no longer be an honest broker. We have come down and we have come down on the side of the most extreme position. And that is the most extreme position. There is no doubt about it. David said what was already going to be negotiated. What we did was we just intruded and gave away on behalf of the Palestinians without talking to them. We talk about believing in the existence of a Palestinian state by the year 2005. That is not Ariel Sharon's agenda.

DAVID BROOKS: Not the extreme position. It's the Barak position, it's the Rabin position; it's the Clinton position. There is no way these suburbs outside of Jerusalem were ever going back. What is going to happen now is they're going to be ripping Israeli settlers out of those settlements. It could cause the Lockerbie government to fall.

MARK SHIELDS: The president in my judgment has yielded to what is the equivalent of the China lobby and I think John Kerry was mute in endorsing it and did not show any kind of a profile in courage. But China --

JIM LEHRER: You think this is locked into the 2004 election?

MARK SHIELDS: Paralyzed... the China lobby paralyzed the United States policy on China for a generation and George Bush is about to paralyze the United States policy between the Palestinians and... how would you like to be running recruitment right now for any of these groups? The oppressive Arab government that has used anti-Israeli feeling, as sort of a way -- a palliative to their own people and their own failure and their own sense, were just given a gift.

JIM LEHRER: David.

DAVID BROOKS: We've had three years of no negotiations; we've had three years of freeze - we've had three years of terror attacks and worsening negotiations. Somehow you have to get the negotiations started. Getting the Israelis out of those settlements is the start of the process.

JIM LEHRER: You don't think it is politically motivated?

DAVID BROOKS: Everything is politically motivated. George Bush is deep into the Middle East. He overruled his key advisers to marginalized Yasser Arafat. Whether it was right or wrong it's something he deeply feels it in the soul. There is politics in all decisions but I think it was a sincere decision.

JIM LEHRER: Before we go. You mentioned the 9/11 Commission. What is your progress assessment of how they're doing, especially after this week?

MARK SHIELDS: I think that the strategy outlines are pretty clear, the White House is trying to preempt an initiative of the national intelligence director dusted off the 15-month old proposal from Brent Scowcroft - there's a hell of an idea -- and they would like to give the sense that it is very political and going after Jamie Gorelick and having her ousted by John Ashcroft and the memo. Hats off to Slade Gorton, former Republican senator from Washington who blew the whistle on John Ashcroft and pointed out that John Ashcroft ratified the Gorelick memo. But I'll say this.

JIM LEHRER: Say it quickly, please.

MARK SHIELDS: I think Democrats make a mistake to try and concentrate attention and effort on what preceded 9/11 to find a villain. George Bush's political vulnerability is Iraq and the policy in Iraq. That's his war.

JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about the commission?

DAVID BROOKS: Think I it's fallen in love with itself, becoming too politicized and made a mistake by allowing people on television shows like this one.

JIM LEHRER: This is different from other ones.

DAVID BROOKS: And as far as Gorelick, John Ashcroft made a valid point. Everybody isbeing attacked for building walls between the agencies. After the Moussaoui investigation, some FBI agents said we want to investigate the hijackings. Somebody said you can't do that. It is important to talk about Jamie Gorelick writing a memo, saying you can't do that. If we are going to cast blame on people, she comes in....

JIM LEHRER: She wrote the memo long before Moussaoui was arrested.

MARK SHIELDS: 1995, which was reaffirming a policy that had been in previous administrations

DAVID BROOKS: But the major issue of this investigation are the walls between the F.B.I. And the C.I.A.. she was part of it. --John Ashcroft was part of it. Administration was part of it.

JIM LEHRER: You all set a record tonight. I don't think you agreed on anything I asked you about.

DAVID BROOKS: We agreed on your brilliance.

JIM LEHRER: Well, thank you very much.

MARK SHIELDS: 60-40.

JIM LEHRER: Thank you both.

FOCUS - SAFE CARGO?

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, the safety of air cargo. Spencer Michels reports.

SPENCER MICHELS: Of the millions of tons of cargo that are shipped by air worldwide, about half goes in the belly of passenger planes; the rest in all-cargo planes. Unlike passengers and their luggage, since Sept. 11, 2001, most of the cargo is still not inspected, even though the Government Accounting Office, in a 2002 report, found major vulnerabilities in cargo handling. Cited were inadequate background checks of cargo handlers and the possible tampering with cargo all along its route. Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of the Transportation Committee is alarmed by what she calls a "Trojan horse."

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON: I'm very concerned that we have secured the top of the aircraft, done a really good job of that, but we haven't done practically anything in the cargo area. We haven't even done criminal background check requirements on people who handle it.

SPENCER MICHELS: Congressman Ed Markey says the airlines are making the same excuse for not screening cargo as they did when they resisted screening luggage.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: They said that the lines at the airports would go from here to Timbuktu. But once the government mandated that they had to do it, they got it done, and it works very efficiently right now. Well, the same kind of "it's impossible" argument is being made by the very same people about screening the cargo, which goes onto the very same plane and sits right next to the very same bags which they said it was impossible to screen after Sept. 11.

SPENCER MICHELS: For their part, the airlines admit the threat, but say it is being addressed aggressively by them and the Transportation Security Administration. James May is president of the Air Transport Association, representing passenger airlines that also carry cargo.

JAMES MAY: I think people should be assured that we have the finest levels of security that we've ever had on passenger aircraft.

SPENCER MICHELS: Is that enough?

JAMES MAY: It's never going to be enough. We're always going to look for ways to enhance that security; we're never going to rest.

SPENCER MICHELS: The TSA recently began recruiting cargo pilots who want to be trained with weapons, after congress passed a law allowing them, like passenger plane pilots, to carry guns. And Homeland Security's Asa Hutchinson, who oversees airline security, insists it is getting better.

ASA HUTCHINSON: It is substantially improved from what it was even a year ago. For the first time we're requiring inspection of some of the cargo that go onto the craft, whether it's a passenger aircraft or whether it is an all-cargo aircraft.

SPENCER MICHELS: But neither the airlines nor the TSA will say specifically what is being inspected and how. Although it has been improved since 9/11, the basic air cargo security program hasn't changed since the 1990s, when the known shipper program was instituted. A secure TSA website contains a list of approved customers, "known shippers," whose employees have undergone background checks. A freight forwarder like Kamino International Transport has access to the site. Much air cargo goes through freight forwarders, which pick up boxes or get them delivered to their warehouses, load containers, arrange with the airlines to have them shipped, and, finally, deliver them to the air cargo facilities at the airport, where the airlines load them into planes. Bill Kuhse is station manager for Kamino in South San Francisco. So if I came to you and I said, "I've got 100 boxes I want to ship to Germany," and you didn't know me, what would happen?

BILL KUHSE: I would probably accept your shipment, and then we would do a background check on your company and follow a few other procedures that I shouldn't state, and then we would be able to handle your shipment probably only on a freighter aircraft, not on a passenger airplane.

SPENCER MICHELS: The "Known Shipper" program is flawed, according to Congressman Markey.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: Why should passengers in the plane have to take off their shoes, have their bags checked even though they're known trippers who frequently fly on that airline, but someone showing up with a truck and boxes that are unscreened, say, "here's a piece of paper; you know the name of my company; put all these boxes on the plane"? It is absolutely absurd.

SPENCER MICHELS: There's also virtually no inspection of cargo at the freight forwarder, although the events of 9/11 have put Kuhse on the lookout for unusual shipments.

BILL KUHSE: Well, it certainly raised everyone's awareness of security. As far as our daily operations go, it hasn't had a major effect. We've had to retrain employees to meet TSA's requirements, and pretty much it's been a thing of awareness.

SPENCER MICHELS: Markey has introduced legislation that would require that every cargo package on passenger planes be inspected, just like luggage. But that would cause big problems, say airline and cargo executives, including Kamino's Kuhse. This is shrink-wrapped.

BILL KUHSE: Mm-hmm.

SPENCER MICHELS: It would be difficult to inspect all this, or not?

BILL KUHSE: Well, it wouldn't be that difficult; it would take time. It would take a lot of time. You'd have to cut the straps, pull the wrapping off and theoretically you'd want to put it all back together.

SPENCER MICHELS: The TSA agrees that inspecting all cargo would slow down the system and cost billions of dollars. Officials favor just targeting suspect cargo. Members of the Cargo Airlines Association, which represents all cargo carriers like Fed Ex, fear that too much inspection could have a disastrous ripple effect. Steve Alterman is the group's president.

STEVE ALTERMAN: The effect would be basically to put the industry out of business as we know it today. If we were ever forced to open every box, we could never get the freight moving as needed. And so the impact is not on the airline only. It certainly has an impact on the airline. The impact is on the entire world economy.

SPENCER MICHELS: Airline security consultant Douglas Laird says that most of the techniques that Markey's plan would use have shortcomings.

SPOKESMAN: Go to work!

SPENCER MICHELS: Trained dogs, like these at a U.S. Mail facility, are already being employed to sniff for explosives. But Laird says the dogs can be fooled.

DOUGLAS LAIRD: If you build a device, and if you cleanse it so that there is no vapor escaping and there are no particles on the outside of the item, then a dog can't find it.

SPENCER MICHELS: X-rays of the kind in use at airport carry-on security points are another option.

DOUGLAS LAIRD: It's good for finding humans hiding within containers. It's not very good for finding a very small amount of explosives, and it takes very little in the amount of explosives-- I'm talking about size and quantity-- to bring down an aircraft.

SPENCER MICHELS: Private companies like Savi International are developing computerized locking systems that can track cargo and determine if a container has been opened. Another security measure, computer tomography, already is being used on checked luggage. It works like a CAT scan, using waves of energy to look inside solid objects. But at the present time, laird and others say, it doesn't work for big objects. The TSA admits current technology is insufficient and is spending $55 million this year on research.

SPENCER MICHELS: Can you develop a technology that essentially will be almost 100 percent effective?

ASA HUTCHINSON: Absolutely. I believe that our private sector can develop technologies that will do this type of inspection and even for the cargo that goes onto the aircraft that's larger than the passenger bags. But it takes a huge investment. And so once you determine what the solution is, then you've got to figure out who's going to pay for that.

SPENCER MICHELS: The airlines are clear: The government should pay. Up to 10 percent of American passenger airlines' revenue comes from belly cargo, and they oppose higher costs.

JAMES MAY: So far to date we've spent pushing $10 billion-- both the government and ourselves-- on security for airplanes. We've spent on our own well north of $4 billion. But make no mistake. We believe strongly that it is the role of the federal government to assume these extraordinary expenses related to what amounts to national security.

SPENCER MICHELS: Markey claims that effective technology, although expensive, is being used overseas, but he charges that the Bush administration is putting politics over safety.

REP. EDWARD MARKEY: The Bush administration has sided with the airline industry, has sided with the cargo industry, and has sided with the fiscal conservative Republicans in Congress, who don't want to spend the money in order to insure that every one of these passenger planes is secure.

ASA HUTCHINSON: We're not bowing to anyone. Our job is homeland security. We take that very seriously. And our job is not to stop planes from flying. Our job is not to stop cargo from moving. Our mandate is security in a way that's consistent with a legitimate flow of commerce.

SPENCER MICHELS: Republican Senator Hutchison also doesn't think Markey's 100 percent inspection plan is feasible, and, along with Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, has introduced a security bill to beef up the known shipper program. So far, neither Senator Hutchison's nor Representative Markey's cargo security bill has passed congress. Even without legislation, the TSA says it can and will improve the system.

JIM LEHRER: And the TSA announced in recent days that new air cargo security regulations will not be issued before summer at the earliest.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of the day. President Bush and British Prime Minister Blair gave their support today to a U.N. Transition plan in Iraq. U.S. officials met with local leaders in Fallujah. They were believed to be the first such talks since U.S. Marines besieged the Iraqi town 11 days ago. And the al-Jazeera TV station showed a U.S. Army soldier being held by Iraqi gunmen. He's been missing since his convoy was attacked a week ago.

JIM LEHRER: And again to our honor roll of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available. Last night we paired two names on the honor roll with incorrect photographs. We apologize for the mistake. And we run them again now, along with seven more.

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