The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight, full coverage and analysis of the post-Saddam Hussein capture story. That includes an eyewitness account of Saddam in captivity; the perspectives of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Walter Russell Mead, Senators Pat Roberts and Bob Graham; and the analysis of David Brooks and Tom Oliphant. It all follows our regular summary of the news.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: President Bush promised today Saddam Hussein will face a public trial for his crimes. The former Iraqi dictator was captured by U.S. forces on Saturday, near his hometown of Tikrit. He was hiding in a one-man hole. Today, in a news conference, Mr. Bush said any trial must stand up to international scrutiny. He would not say whether Saddam ought to be executed. In Baghdad today, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said a trial could happen as early as the "next few weeks." But others said it would take longer. Council members also said Saddam could face the death penalty. But at the United Nations, Secretary-General Annan said the U.N. is opposed to the death penalty. He also said any prosecution must be completely above-board.

KOFI ANNAN: I believe this should be done through open trials in properly established course of law, which will respect basic international norms and standards, including respect for international humanitarian law.

JIM LEHRER: Also today, Canadian Prime Minister Martin urged the United States to create an internationally recognized tribunal, and Iran made clear it wanted an international trial for Saddam. In Iraq, the U.S. Military said the capture of Saddam led to arrests of several other "key" individuals in Baghdad today. Their names were not made public. But there was no let-up in violence. Police stations in and around Baghdad came under attack by car bombs. In all, eight Iraqi officers were killed, seventeen wounded. Democratic presidential contenders welcomed Saddam's capture, but coupled it with criticism. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean has fueled his candidacy by opposing the war. Today, in Los Angeles, he said that position had not changed. And he said President Bush still has not done enough to stop terrorism, or the spread of nuclear weapons.

HOWARD DEAN: The capture of Saddam is a good thing, which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer. Addressing these critical and interlocking threats, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will be America's highest priority under a Dean administration.

JIM LEHRER: Another presidential contender, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, said the president now had a chance to correct his mistakes in Iraq. The rest of the program, after this News Summary, will deal with the Saddam story. It'll include parts of the president's news conference. Secretary of State Powell had surgery for prostate cancer today. A spokesman said doctors removed the prostate. He said there were no complications and Powell was expected to make a full recovery. The secretary is 66 years old. He'll spend several days at Walter Reed Army Medical Center outside Washington, and then recuperate at home. Afghan President Karzai pressed today for a constitution that gives him broad new powers. A constitutional convention, the Loya Jirga, started Sunday in Kabul with 500 tribal delegates attending. Some oppose having a strong president. But Karzai predicted the final product would be closer to what he favors. The gathering will also decide the role of Islam, the rights of women and the division of power among tribes, among other things. Democratic Presidential Candidate Wesley Clark testified today in the war crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic. The former Yugoslav leader is on trial in the Hague, for atrocities across Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Clark was supreme commander of NATO during the Kosovo War in 1999. He testified today in a closed session, and spoke later to reporters.

WESLEY CLARK: It's closure with a man who caused the deaths, or is alleged to have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands an and homelessness and refugee burden throughout Europe, some two million people driven out of their homes and so forth, a decade of war in Europe. And so this is the rule of law, it's closure, it's a very important precedent for what may be happening later with another dictator from another part of the world.

JIM LEHRER: The U.S. asked that Clark's appearance be closed for security reasons. His testimony will be made public on Friday. The effort to safeguard Americans from terrorism has apparently lost momentum. A federal anti-terror commission reported that finding today. It said government and the private sector must do more than simply react to the 9/11 attacks. It also called for an independent bipartisan board to balance homeland security with civil liberties. Senator John Breaux announced today he will not seek a fourth term next year. The Louisiana Democrat said it was time to let others serve. Breaux has frequently worked with Republicans on major issues, including the Medicare overhaul law that passed last month. He's the fifth southern Democrat to decide against running for reelection. The family of the late Senator Strom Thurmond acknowledged a paternity claim today by a California woman. Essie Mae Washington-Williams is now 78, and retired. She says Thurmond fathered her by a black maid who worked in his parents' home in South Carolina. He went on to champion racial segregation, before moderating his stance in later years. He died in June at the age of 100. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 19 points to close under 10,023. The NASDAQ fell more than 30 points, to close at 1918. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Saddam Hussein capture aftermath, with President Bush's news conference, an eyewitness Saddam sighting, plus commentary from Brzezinski, Mead, Roberts, and Graham, and Brooks and Oliphant.

FOCUS - CAPTURE AND CONSEQUENCES

JIM LEHRER: The president's news conference this morning at the White House. He took questions about the possible consequences of Saddam Hussein's capture for nearly 50 minutes. Here are some excerpts.

REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President. What's the United States going to do with Saddam Hussein after questioning him? Will he be turned over to Iraqis for trial? And based on what you know now about mass executions and hundreds of thousands of graves, do you think that execution should be an option?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: He will be detained. We will work with the Iraqis to develop a way to try him in a... that will stand international scrutiny, I guess is the best way to put it. The Iraqis need to be very much involved. He was the person that... they were the people that were brutalized by this man-- he murdered them, he gassed them, he tortured them, he had rape rooms-- and they need to be very much involved in the process. And we'll work with the Iraqis to develop a process. And, of course, we want it to be fair and, of course, we want the world to say, you know, he got a fair trial, because whatever justice is meted out needs to stand international scrutiny. I said I have my own personal views, and this is a brutal dictator. He's a person who killed a lot of people. And... but my views, my personal views aren't important in this matter. What matters is the views of the Iraqi citizens. And we need to work, of course, with them to develop a system that is fair, where he would be put on trial and will be brought to justice-- the justice he didn't, by the way, afford any of his own fellow citizens. Steve.

STEVE HOLLAND, Reuters: Thank you, sir. Will Saddam's capture accelerate the timetable for pulling U.S. troops out and increase the likelihood of getting more foreign troops involved?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the president or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We're just going to stay the course. I've told that to the Iraqi citizens, with whom I have met on a regular basis. I tell them two things. One, you can count on America remaining until the job is done. It's important for them to hear that because there will probably be some that will continue to test our will. You know, they'll try to kill in hopes that we will flee. And the citizens of Iraq need to know we will stay the course. I also tell them that now is a chance to seize the opportunity and show the world that which this government believes, and that is, you're plenty capable of governing yourself. And the level of the troops in Iraq will depend upon the security situation on the ground, and that those decisions be made by our commanders. You got a follow-up? This is part of the holiday spirit, to give you a follow-up. ( Laughter )

REPORTER: ...Opportunity to get more foreign troops involved?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, listen, we're constantly working to get foreign countries involved. But I want to remind you we've got over 60 nations involved now. When you hear me talk about our efforts, I'm talking about the efforts of a lot of countries. We've got a large coalition involved. And, of course, we will accept the willingness of nations to put troops on the ground. And we're continuing to work, whether it be troops on the ground or construction contracts or loans. We're constantly reaching out to more nations to get them involved in the process. And after all, there is a reason why nations should be involved in the process. A secure and free Iraq is in their national interest.

DAVID GREGORY, NBC News: When Saddam emerged from his hole on Saturday, he told a U.S. soldier that he was willing to negotiate. Might there be room for negotiation, perhaps in exchange for a public statement to the Iraqi people that may serve your interest? And secondly, this soldier also said to Saddam, reportedly, that President Bush sends his greetings. You say this is not personal, but you've also pointed out this is a man who tried to murder your father. What is your greeting to him today?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein. I find it very interesting that when the heat got on, you dug yourself a hole and you crawled in it. And our brave troops, combined with good intelligence, found you. And you'll be brought to justice, something you did not afford the people you... you brutalized in your own country. And what was the first part of the question?

REPORTER: I know you've scoffed at the idea of negotiation...

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, how do you know I scoffed at it? Laughing does not mean scoffing. ( Laughter )

REPORTER: No, I'm just saying... well, there were others who were scoffing. I mean, if he were to do something that you might view as constructive, like making a public statement...

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Dave, it's way too... way too early to tell. First of all, I don't trust Saddam Hussein. I don't believe he'll tell the truth. He didn't tell the truth for over a decade. I just can't believe he's going to change his ways just because he happens to be captured. And so I don't think we ought to trust his word. I think what needs to happen is he needs to be brought to justice, and the Iraqi citizens need to be very much involved in the development of a system that brings him to justice. And there needs to be a public trial, and all the atrocities need to come out. And justice needs to be delivered, and I'm confident it will be done in a fair way.

JUDY KEEN, USA Today: Mr. President, do you have a sense yet of how involved Saddam Hussein was in planning and directing attacks on coalition troops? Should the American people expect that those attacks will now decrease, or should they be prepared that they might, in the short term, get worse?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The Defense Department will try to learn more from Saddam Hussein as time goes on. And secondly, I believe there will be more violence because I believe there's holdovers of Saddam that are frustrated, and I believe there are foreign terrorists that cannot stand the thought of a free Iraq emerging in the Middle East. Now, this is a... a free Iraq will be a defeat for those who believe in violence and murder and mayhem, and they will try to resist us there. And that's... I do believe that there are going to be some people who are persuaded that since Saddam Hussein has been captured, that he will never return, and, therefore, they need to be a part of the emergence of a free Iraq and a free society.

BOB DEANS: I have to ask you since you're here, sir: Have you chatted with your dad since Saddam's capture?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I talked to my dad. He called me Sunday morning. I got the call from Donald Rumsfeld Saturday afternoon, and made the decision there until I was more certain about the facts that I would talk to very few people. I talked to Condi and asked her to call Andy, and I talked to Vice President Cheney. And... because what I didn't want to have happen is that there would be this rush of enthusiasm and hope, and all after sudden it turned out not to be the person that we would hope it would be. And so I didn't talk to my family. I told Laura of course, and pretty much went to bed early Saturday night and Condi woke me at 5:15 in the morning, which was okay this time. And... "just don't do it again." But she said that Jerry Bremer had just called her and they were prepared to say this was Saddam Hussein, in which case I got dressed and hustled over to the Oval Office to start making calls. One of the calls I did receive was from my dad, and it was a very brief conversation, just said, "Congratulations. It's a great day for the country." And I said, "It's a greater day for the Iraqi people." And that's what I believe.

JIM LEHRER: The president said he definitely did not expect Saddam to tell the truth about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or ties to al-Qaida.

JIM LEHRER: And now, speaking of that, a report on the interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Terence Smith talked a short while ago with Brian Bennett of Time Magazine.

TERENCE SMITH: Brian Bennett, welcome to the broadcast.

BRIAN BENNETT: Thank you very much. Good to be with you.

TERENCE SMITH: We understand, and you have an article in Time Magazine about the initial interrogation of Saddam Hussein. Tell us about that. Where did it take place?

BRIAN BENNETT: Well, the initial interrogation, after he was captured from the hole outside of Tikrit, took place at the Baghdad airport. And a U.S. Intelligence official who saw the transcript of that first interrogation told me that while Saddam was answering questions, his answers were of little substance to the interrogator.

TERENCE SMITH: What, from what you understand, was his manner in this interrogation? Was he defiant or cooperative? What was he like?

BRIAN BENNETT: Well, he was certainly defiant. He was answering the questions, but using the same rhetoric and political propaganda that he was famous for during his regime. A very simple example that the U.S. Intelligence official gave me was that when he was asked for a... if he wanted a glass of water, Saddam replied, "how can I possibly have a glass of water? If I drink a glass of water, I'll have to go to the bathroom, and how can I possibly go to the bathroom when my people are in bondage?"

TERENCE SMITH: Exactly. Is... is... who was doing the interrogation? Were they U.S. Intelligence officers?

BRIAN BENNETT: This would be U.S. intelligence officers from a number of different agencies that are coming together to talk to Saddam. They asked him several questions. Some of the first questions they asked him were about the weapons of mass destruction, where they were and why he was hiding informationfrom the U.N. They also asked him about Captain Scott Speicher, a U.S. Navy captain who was downed in the 1991 Gulf War and has been declared missing ever since.

TERENCE SMITH: What was his answer on the weapons of mass destruction? He was asked whether he had them, right?

BRIAN BENNETT: He was asked if he had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam said, no, he did not have weapons of mass destruction and that the U.S. had fabricated the details about the Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion of the country. When he was pressed further by interrogators about why he would hide information from the U.N. about his weapons systems, he simply said that it was to preserve the privacy of his presidential areas and of the military secrets of the country of Iraq.

TERENCE SMITH: Did he suggest in this interrogation that he was in close touch with the resistance and insurgency that's going on in Iraq now?

BRIAN BENNETT: He did not suggest that he was in contact with the resistance or insurgency in Iraq inside the interrogation itself. But this U.S. Intelligence official told me, when he was captured, there were documents in his possession that could very well connect Saddam to certain resistance cells operating around Baghdad.

TERENCE SMITH: And you mentioned he was asked about this missing airman, still missing from the Gulf War. Did he have any information on it?

BRIAN BENNETT: He had no valuable information. He... he dodged the question, saying that it is not Iraqi policy to keep prisoners and, therefore, implying that either they had never found the captain or that he was dead.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. Now, these documents in... I gather it was a briefcase that was found with him, they contained some names of resistance leaders, is that correct?

BRIAN BENNETT: Yeah, I was told by the official that they found a briefcase in his possession. Inside the briefcase was a letter that had been sent to him from the leader of a Baghdad resistance cell. And inside that letter were the minutes for a meeting of a number of leaders from cells around the city triangle who had come together and they were relaying the information of that meeting back to Saddam himself.

TERENCE SMITH: So presumably the U.S. forces locked on that information now and will attempt to round some of these people up?

BRIAN BENNETT: It's possible they already have. The U.S. authorities right now claim to have arrested two members of the former regime acting on intelligence they got from Saddam Hussein. It would not surprise me if it was based on the information contained inside that document.

TERENCE SMITH: Mm-hmm. All right, well, Brian Bennett of Time Magazine, fascinating. Thank you very much for talking with us.

BRIAN BENNETT: Good to be with you.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, an Iraqi's firsthand account of seeing Saddam Hussein in custody; Brzezinski, Mead, Roberts, and Graham; and Brooks and Oliphant.

FOCUS - CONFRONTING SADDAM

JIM LEHRER: Yesterday four Iraqi leaders met with Saddam Hussein after his capture. Jeffrey Brown talked with one of them earlier today.

JEFFREY BROWN: Adnan Pachachi was foreign minister of Iraq before Saddam Hussein's party took power in 1968. He is now a member of the Iraq Governing Council and joins us on the phone from Baghdad.

Mr. Pachachi, this must have been an extraordinary moment for you and your colleagues. Could you tell us what it was like, being in the room with Saddam Hussein.

ADNAN PACHACHI: It was indeed an extraordinary moment, and it came rather quickly and unexpectedly. We found him tired, haggard, and obviously a spent force - he seemed to be unrepentant and no remorse and even sometimes there was a hint of defiance. Sometimes he wasn't very coherent and he seemed to say the same thing over again - you know, all the slogans, all the excuses - one wonders whether he believes his own slogans.

JEFFREY BROWN: I understand that he turned to you at one point and recognized you as a former foreign minister. Could you tell us about that exchange?

ADNAN PACHACHI: Well, yes. I mean, he asked who we were and when I told him it was me, of course he recognized me, and he said, what are you doing with these people? So I told him we are trying to build a new Iraq, quite different from the Iraq he ruled over, a democratic Iraq that the human rights are guaranteed, the rule of law. And I asked him, why did you kill so many people; he said, you know, Iraq needed a firm, a just ruler -- I said but you're not a just ruler at all, you are a despot, and you are responsible for thousands of innocent lives. And he said, well, I was - I was elected by the people. I said, we completely dispute that. Your elections were stage managed. What you want to do in Iraq is we want to have real democracy.

JEFFREY BROWN: I understand that you and your colleagues also asked him about some of the other crimes of his reign, the chemical weapons against the Kurds, the invasion of Kuwait. Was he accepting responsibility for such things?

ADNAN PACHACHI: No, no, no. I mean, he accepted no responsibility and he tried to explain everything away, you know, and he just -- he tried to justify everything he did.

JEFFREY BROWN: Justify how?

ADNAN PACHACHI: Well, saying that either these people were plotting against him or they were aiding outside enemies, or that this is just not true and things like that; he blamed everybody except himself obviously.

JEFFREY BROWN: Did he lead you to believe that he, himself, has been leading the resistance in Iraq?

ADNAN PACHACHI: I don't know about that, but certainly his name was being used as a rallying point to some of the dissident elements.

JEFFREY BROWN: Did he appear to you to be lucid and in control -- when he spoke to you, did he look you in the eye, for example?

ADNAN PACHACHI: Oh, yes, yes. He - at times he seemed to be lucid but at times he seemed a little incoherent. He was under tremendous strain, and I think he knew that the game was up; that was the end as far as he was concerned.

JEFFREY BROWN: Do you think that his arrest now will lead to less resistance, or is it possible that in the short-term there will be more?

ADNAN PACHACHI: In the immediate short term there may be some more acts of violence, but I think in the long run his capture would help in stabilizing the situation.

JEFFREY BROWN: President Bush said today that now is a chance to seize the opportunity to have Iraq capable of governing itself. How does Saddam's capture change the equation for those of you trying to form a government?

ADNAN PACHACHI: I have personally called for reconciliation in the country. I emphasize the necessity to look forward, not looking at the past, look forward and try to get into the mainstream of political life in Iraq. All of the Iraqis who have been involved in one way or another with Saddam- except those of course who are implicated in crimes against humanity or war crimes and those who practice torture and all kinds of other things - we emphasize also that the trial will be open with due process, right of appeal, with lawyers, habeas corpus and all the other guarantees, you know, to make it acceptable to the world, I mean, to have world standards, international standards of judicial propriety.

RAY SUAREZ: Okay. Adnan Pachachi, thank you very much for joining us.

ADNAN PACHACHI: Thank you. Bye.

FOCUS - THE ROAD AHEAD

JIM LEHRER: Now, more on the possible consequences of the Saddam capture, in Iraq and elsewhere, and to Margaret Warner.

MARGARET WARNER: For that assessment, we turn to republican senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Democratic Senator Bob Graham, former chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor during the Carter Administration. He's now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; and Walter Russell Mead, senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He recently authored "Special Providence," an historical look at the U.S. And the world. Welcome to you all. Let's start Zbigniew Brzezinski, with this very broad question: What new opportunities does the capture of Saddam Hussein present in Iraq?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, there have been two words used even on this program, which give us a clue. Our Iraqi friend talked about the opportunity for reconciliation. The president, I think very rightly, said that this is a moment to be seized. And in my view, in fact there is now an opportunity to move more rapidly in transferring authority to the Iraqis. The Saddam era is now clearly over. There may be a little more resistance briefly, but by and large, those who favored Saddam have to recognize that this is now the past. It's important for us not to let the occupation become the focal point of opposition. And the sooner we create what I would call a provisional, nominal Iraqi government, the better, the sooner the government I think would begin to gain legitimacy, the faster it might be able to mobilize some social support, and thereby transform the occupation into some form of a post-Saddam regime that acquires a life of its own.

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I agree that this is a real opportunity here. I've always thought, in spite of the resistance and the conflict that we've been having, that the majority of Iraqis never wanted to go back either to the Saddam Hussein regime or even to the Baath Party regime before that, that the large majority of Shia Arabs have always been alienated from this regime, and the Kurds in the north also had little in common with it. Now that Saddam has killed, it's really possible for Sunni Arabs, more of the Sunni minority who have historically been very important in Iraq, to play an important role in reconciliation and moving forward. Saddam's power, I think, inhibited some of the Sunni from participating. There were loyalties, personal loyalties and so on. The sense, well, maybe he'll come back, maybe the cause isn't lost. That's passed now. So let's hope a new era can begin.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Roberts, do you think there's an opportunity for a new era of the sort that Mr. Brzezinski and Mr. Mead described?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I think it's already started. When I was in Iraq, could you not help but notice that when anyone mentioned the name of Saddam Hussein, I don't care whether it was a school teacher or somebody helping with an oil refinery trying to get it back from sabotage or whether it was somebody in a local police station, any time you mentioned the name Saddam Hussein-- and we tried not to-- you got a frozen-face response and palpable fear in the eyes of the people that you were talking to. If you're going to make progress in Iraq, and I think we will, and you're going to have stability, and I'll take stability first and then we'll try for democracy, and make this provisional government work, the absence of fear I think is exceedingly important. And I would hope that the Baath Party loyalists and the Sunni extremists and even the Fedayeen thugs and murderers, would know that that is a dead end street and that hopefully their future would be under a unified Iraq and a stable Iraq. I don't know what to think about the foreign Jihadists who are there in that I think they are fighting for different reasons, even though they probably shouted Saddam's name at the end of whatever attack that they did conduct.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Graham, do you agree that this offers an opportunity for accelerating this transitional process?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, I agree with most of what's been said. But I'd add a couple of other things. One, it's an opportunity for the United States to achieve its objective in Iraq, which is to leave Iraq as expeditiously as possible with honor, having achieved our objectives. This is an opportunity to do that thing which is the most contributory towards that objective and that is to reach out to countries that have real military and financial capability to be of assistance in Iraq. The second thing is we have essentially abandoned the war on terror since the spring of 2002. Our attention was shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Now we have the opportunity to restart the war on terror and eliminate the threat that is the greatest to the people of the United States, the international terrorist organizations.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Roberts, we heard President Bush say, when he was asked about, does this accelerate the process, say, "look, we're going to stay till the job is done, and first we have to have security." And I know you've been briefed. What is the best thinking in the U.S. Government about to what degree Saddam Hussein was tied to this insurgency and to what degree having him captured or removed will enable the United States to really pierce through to that leadership and wrap him up?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, first I'd like to respond about Graham's comments. Number one, I'm very envious of being in Miami and we're being in Washington where it's a little colder. And Bob was a great chairman and is a great senator of the Intelligence Committee. But I do take issue that I don't think we have abandoned the fight against terrorism. I just don't think that's right. I think we have ample funds in the intelligence budget, helped by Bob Graham by the way, who did a good job and I want to thank him on the U.S.S. Cole investigation. Now, I've made a speech and I got to get back to your question.

MARGARET WARNER: All right, get back to the question about the insurgency. And you know, we heard the "Time" reporter say that among the documents that were found were the minutes of a meeting of some resistance leaders. What does that say to you, and what have your briefings told you?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: Well, I won't know until we get through the document exploitation. There are considerable documents -- none to the degree that, say, Dr. Kay is going through...

MARGARET WARNER: On weapons of mass destruction?

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: But that's going to be important. And I know at the head of the newscast, it's been indicated they have arrested some individuals. I think if we... I am very proud of the intelligence effort in Iraq. Now, I know the intelligence community has got a lot of brick bats lately and some of them are deserved and some of them not. But this has been an expanded adjustment with a lot more analysts, a lot more transparency, a lot better joint effort in regards to the analysts, to the neighbor, to the military in the field, real-time analysis. And we did one heck of a job with a stunning result, and we got will lucky. You know, that always helps. I don't think Saddam Hussein was in any position of command and control with the kind of insurgent attacks that we're seeing now against mosques and the Iraqis who are really cooperating with us. I mean this man moved two or three times a day even when he was in power, he moved about once a day or, you know, two or three times a week. How on earth, in farmhouses not even in his hometown of Tikrit, could a man like that in a spider hole be of any real significance in regards to command and control?

MARGARET WARNER: So what's your sense, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as a former consumer of the most kind of classified intelligence about what the U.S. ability is here now, vis- -vis the insurgency?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, it certainly is enhanced to some degree. But my feeling is that the Saddamite resistance, so to speak, whether he was in control or not is of secondary importance-- is mostly a residual phenomenon of the past. And it was going to wane one way or another. My concern is that there not be a new form of resistance galvanized by our presence, galvanized by individual desire for revenge in case some Iraqis are killed by us, and that could become a serious problem if it's somehow or other joined by a sense of Iraqi nationalism directed against us. This is why I do feel very strongly that we have a very unique opportunity right now to try to transform the governing council into something which begins to look like a provisional government and put the burden of responsibility on them, increasingly, for policing the country.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying even more rapidly than the timetable the sort of June, July timetable?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: That's right. I think we now have an opportunity to move more rapidly. And there is a secondary issue, which further complicates the problem, but I feel I should mention it; namely, that if we, at the same time, can begin to move a little more energetically on the Israeli Palestinian front, we'll reduce the danger that, if we leave and the Palestinian Israeli conflict is still alive, then any new subsequent Iraqi government will again become anti-American and anti-Israeli. So we have a wider responsibility, but also a bigger opportunity.

MARGARET WARNER: Walter Mead, do you think that's a wise course to try to accelerate the political transformation?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: As much as you can. But what you have to watch out for in this is you don't want to get the wrong government to entrench itself too fast or people to take undue advantage of their kinds of access to money and funds that a government gives you. You want to make sure that, at the end of the day, that you have a representative government. But I think Dr. Brzezinski is absolutely right, that what we have to avoid is this being seen as some kind of a new version of the old colonial wars, and we being seen as the latest of these European imperialist powers who used to dominate the Middle East.

MARGARET WARNER: So you talked earlier about the different groups in Iraq, and the president today said, and he said yesterday, he seemed to be really appealing to all the factions that now's the time, it's a new day and so on. How do you make the Sunis, who held total power under Saddam Hussein, now feel invested in a different kind of process where they will share power?

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I think it's a mix of carrots and sticks in a sense that, if we leave Iraq and there is no constitution, there is no democratic process, that protects the rights of minorities, the Shia are now... the Sunni are now a minority, and they will be left to the mercies to some degree of the Shia and Kurds who they've persecuted. So the Sunni in Iraq need to understand that now, particularly with Saddam Hussein out of the way, their interests and those of real national reconstruction under U.S. protection and building some form of at least rule of law, if not, know, Swiss-style perfect democracy, is very, very much in their interests. We have got to get that message out to the moderate Sunni leadership.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Graham, you spoke earlier about the international community. Do you see this as an opportunity to heal some of these... some of the diplomatic rift between the U.S. and particularly France and Germany? And if so, I mean how important is that, and what should the Bush administration be prepared to do to bring that about?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: The chance is real, and it's very important. We've missed a chance before the war and immediately after the war to bring in the international community. Let's don't miss it a third time. It is very important because, if our objective is to be able to honorably leave Iraq as expeditiously as possible and bring our soldiers back to their families, we need to be able to get some other people who have got serious capabilities involved, and that means a half dozen or so countries in the world who meet that standard. I believe that at this point in time, we have a chance to reach out again for troops and for financial support. It also gives us a chance to unravel some of the things that we've done, which will make it more difficult, such as the recent announcement that we would not allow any country that had not participated in the war to participate as a prime contractor in the restoration.

MARGARET WARNER: So briefly, are you saying, that for instance, Jim Baker left today on this mission to try to get some of these other countries that forgive Iraqi debt. Are you saying he hope he has in his back pocket that kind of an offer, that France and Germany could get in on the action with contracts if they were willing to help forgive the debt?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: If he doesn't have something like that in his back pocket, I'm afraid that he is going to receive a very chilly reception from those countries.

MARGARET WARNER: Senator Roberts, on that point, on what it will take to... one, whether you see this as an opportunity to heal the diplomatic rift, whether you think the Bush administration should try to seize it in that way.

SEN. PAT ROBERTS: I think both will happen. I don't think there's any better person to do the job than our former Secretary Baker, our special envoy. And I don't know if he has a deal in his back pocket, but I think the stance that the president took was pretty hard and fast stance, but certainly it is a card on the table that Secretary Baker could play. And I think with the capture of Saddam and some of the comments, more especially coming from the French that they are certainly more amenable to something like that, and there may be a real breakthrough and start a dialogue where we will end this, you know, business of us and them, or the allies and the critics. There's one other thing that I would say. I hear an awful lot of comments saying we need more international help. We failed to get it at the first and we failed to get it at the end, and we must have the U.N. involved. What part of "no" didn't these people understand? I mean every time we made an overture to see if we could not increase the number of 60 countries, they said no. And there was a very strong difference of opinion. Now's a good time to go back in and try to alleviate that, start a dialogue, and I'm glad the president made that statement because maybe Secretary Baker can pull that out of his hip pocket and say, "okay, if you can forgive a debt, let us consider what can happen in regards to the reconstruction."

MARGARET WARNER: How do you read the Europeans?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I think the Europeans are ambivalent. They resent what we did, but they know that, in the long run, if there is to be a solution in the Middle East, they have to be part of it. And that means being involved in Iraq, being more actively involved in dealing with the Palestinian-Rizi peace process. And there is a third did I mention which we should really mention; namely, how should Saddam be tried? I think there's going to be a strong international consensus that it would be better to have an international court. There is international war crimes court dealing with Milosevic, there is an international court dealing with the crimes in Rwanda and so forth in Africa, and I personally think that the Europeans would support an international court and would have more credibility worldwide, including among the Arabs, than a court composed purely of Iraqis who never inevitably will be viewed as our agents and engaged essentially in vengeance. And I think our interests is not in whether Saddam hangs, but whether he's condemned historically and politically. And an international court will be a far more effective mechanism for achieving

that.

MARGARET WARNER: Very briefly, how important do you think, Walter Mead, that the trial and the handling of the trial is?

WALTER RUSSEL MEAD: The trial as the president said this morning, has got to be seen to be transparent, has got to meet international standards. There may be more than one trial by the way, because there are crimes that Saddam Hussein committed against Iraqis in Iraq. There are crimes that he committed in the war of aggression against Iran and the war aggression against Kuwait. There are other crimes, so it may well be that more than one court, more than one tribunal will be trying him under different sets of laws. The United States, at some point is going to give up control of some of this process. The faster we take Dr. Brzezinski's advice and move toward a government in Iraq that is sovereign and in control of itself, the less Saddam Hussein becomes our business and the more he becomes the business of this government. So I think we're going to have to be open about where it goes, but don't be surprised if there are a variety of solutions moving forward.

MARGARET WARNER: On that note, we'll end it. Thank you all very much.

FINALLY --

JIM LEHRER: Some final words tonight, from Brooks and Oliphant: New York Times columnist David Brooks and Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant.

David, in any context that you want to put it, to you, what's the most important thing about the capture of Saddam Hussein?

DAVID BROOKS: That the tension is gone. I think there had been a sense that justice had not been done in Iraq because Saddam was out there. And I think when this... when he was captured, there was a huge moment and I think even I was shocked by talking to people in furniture stores and such what a great sense of relief that the tension that he was still out there was gone. And I would only add that this sense of relief is small compared to the sense of relief that will be felt and the earthquake that will be felt when Osama bin Laden is captured

JIM LEHRER: What's the most important thing to you, Tom?

TOM OLIPHANT: I have been struck by how tempered and measured the reaction has been in the first 30 hours or so. This is a wary country, a chastened country in a way. We've been through the end of desert storm, and the fall of Baghdad, and the appearance on the aircraft carrier in May. And I think Americans are wary of saying, "well, now it's over because clearly it isn't.

JIM LEHRER: "It's going to be okay now."

TOM OLIPHANT: In the last two days, I have not heard a Bush administration official who hasn't openly acknowledged that it's the situation next spring that matters politically.

JIM LEHRER: Getting to a...

TOM OLIPHANT: This gives time, room to gather support abroad, in this country, to do more things to make further progress. But as an end in itself, I'm struck by how that is not what it is.

DAVID BROOKS: But at the same time, I think the debate has been jerked and even we've seen in the last few minutes here, the talk of quagmire, the talk of Vietnam, I think maybe it's only temporary, but at the moment that talk is in the past. I think now there's a greater sense that there's a level of competence in the way Iraq is being... that war is being fought and a level that things are not totally out of control and that we're not slipping into a swamp.

JIM LEHRER: As long as Saddam Hussein was on the loose, competence was an issue, right? If we can't find him, what...

DAVID BROOKS: Or impotence, a sense that we can't even top the big guy.

TOM OLIPHANT: Americans have a special ability of shifting the reason for their dissatisfaction. And clearly the casualties among our soldiers have to go down. The cost may have to go down. There may need to be now some light at the end of the tunnel, an indication of more support abroad. We will move on to other demands being a demanding country.

JIM LEHRER: Much has been said since yesterday morning, Tom, about what this does to the presidential race and most particularly was it does to the Democratic nomination race. Would you like to add your comments, sir?

TOM OLIPHANT: Well, we have at least two main answers tonight: One, we might call the Howard Dean answer, not very much. His people spent most of the night rewriting a foreign policy speech he gave in Beverly Hills today. Let me be clear, my position on the war has not changed. And the view is that it hasn't... this hasn't changed the situation politically in the primary states either.

JIM LEHRER: That's what he says.

TOM OLIPHANT: Joe Lieberman would disagree with that and used a rather... I think the quote of the day, he said that he thought Dean had fallen into a spider hole of denial.

JIM LEHRER: He also said yesterday on "Meet the Press" "if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be in power today, not in prison."

TOM OLIPHANT: This is the question that has to be answered before Democrats vote. Dean had a fascinating construction this afternoon where he said "clearly the capture of Saddam makes our soldiers safer, but it has not made America safer." And perhaps David could explain to me how you can have a distinction between safer soldiers and a safer country.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he has gone back and forth on the issue, was Saddam a threat to the United States and I guess he was saying he's not so it doesn't make any difference if he's captured or not. The Lieberman comment that Saddam would be in power and not only would Saddam be in power, but Uday and Qusay would presumably about to be in power for the next several decades, that's a strong argument against Dean. And I think...

JIM LEHRER: But is it a fair argument?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I think so. Saddam would be in power if Dean had been listened to. I think what has happened, this may be a little too little too late, along with the gore endorse the, this following upon that has rallied the anti-Dean forces to be angrier, more aggressive and to say this guy was running on an anti-war platform, that's going to be terrible for us.

JIM LEHRER: Who does it help?

DAVID BROOKS: It helps Lieberman, primarily I would say it helps Edwards and Gephardt. Gephardt I think is the primary alternative to Dean right now.

TOM OLIPHANT: Here, however is how Howard Dean may be right. You're talking about four other candidates of similar views splitting the center -- whereas Dean holds on to the left. But to understand the political change, can you imagine Al gore delivering the lines he delivered just seven days ago tonight? It would be unthinkable.

DAVID BROOKS: The worst mistake in American history he said.

JIM LEHRER: Somebody mentioned today that to me last night; if Gore had waited with a week, who knows what he might have said. President Bush's news conference today, David, he said that-- this is almost a direct quote, but that in 2003, the year we're in now, we have become a safer, more prosperous and better nation, end quote. That leapt out at me as when what this 2004... when you get to the general election, that's what it's going to be about, right?

DAVID BROOKS: Oh, absolutely. And if you compare the Dean speech in California with the Bush speech, it's very interesting. Bush is a moral person, he said, you know, God endowed freedom, Saddam took the freedom that God endowed away from the Iraqi people. It was a very moral way of tacking. The Dean speech was almost Dukakis-like in its competence and pragmatism. There's no moral vision there. It's just we will rally the people of the world together in international organizations and we'll solve problems -- very un-moralistic, very multilateral, whereas Bush is more unilateral and sees a grand vision for America.

JIM LEHRER: Go ahead.

TOM OLIPHANT: I think the president's choice of words I thought was very revealing because this is a re-election election that we're about to have, and obviously, peace and prosperity are the best themes for any incumbent president. In this case, however, you're seeing the case made for, well, we have less war and less hard times. It's still a difficult sell, depending on the situation six or seven months from now.

JIM LEHRER: But the point you made earlier that Dean talked about said today our troops may be safer, but the country's not safer. And the president says, yes, we are safer. I mean that could be... that could have many strings during the political...

TOM OLIPHANT: Indeed. Before Iowa and New Hampshire vote, I think once Howard Dean has to explain to all of us why he would have countenanced Saddam Hussein's continued stay in office. And after he's dealt with that question, we'll see whether the non-Dean vote coalesces with one of these people, or whether it stays split.

JIM LEHRER: Finally David, back to Tom's initial point, do you agree and were you the least bit surprised by this kind of muted response generally in the body politic to the capture of Saddam Hussein?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, people are smart. They know if you pull some guy out of a hole in the ground, it's not going to stop a few hundred or a few thousand suicide bombers, that that is a process that's going on by itself. I think the American people, if you look at the polls, tolerance for the casualties, there was a hit when we started losing people in large numbers every week, but that it solidified and even gone up a little. I think people have decided or at least a slim majority of people have decided this is worth it, we'll stick it out. I don't know if they'll want to do that for another six months or a year, but for the time being there's a solid base that the president can rely on.

JIM LEHRER: As you were saying, the capture of Saddam Hussein is a step on the road not the end of the road.

TOM OLIPHANT: Absolutely. It gives time more than anything else.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, gentlemen, thank you both very much.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: President Bush, as we've just been talking about, promised Saddam Hussein will face a public trial for his crimes. The former Iraqi dictator was captured by U.S. forces on Saturday, and Secretary of State Powell had surgery for prostate cancer. A spokesman said he was expected to make a full recovery. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.