The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: The news of this day; then the latest on the bombings in Iraq from Douglas Struck of the Washington Post; an Elizabeth Farnsworth report from Tehran on the impact of U.S. words about Iran's nuclear program; a rundown on recommendations today on the use of arthritis painkiller drugs; the analysis of Mark Shields and Rich Lowry, filling in for David Brooks; and a media unit report on some developments at PBS.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: Bombings around Baghdad killed at least 35 people today, most of them Shiites. The attacks came on the eve of the Shiites' most important religious holiday. In the worst attacks, two suicide bombers blew themselves up outside mosques, killing at least 25. Later, a car bomb killed seven outside another mosque, south of Baghdad. And to the north, in Samarra, authorities found the bodies of six Iraqi soldiers and two policemen. Two U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq today. The U.S. Military also announced three Americans have died in attacks around Mosul since Wednesday. That makes at least 34 U.S. Military deaths so far in February. All tolled, more than 1,460 Americans have been killed since the war began. Nearly 11,000 have been wounded, most of them in combat. We'll have more on the situation in Iraq right after this news summary. Russian President Putin defended Iran's nuclear program today. He met with top Iranian officials in Moscow, and said he does not believe Iran means to build nuclear weapons. He also promised to continue helping Iran build a reactor. In Washington, President Bush refused again to rule out military action, but he said diplomacy is the first choice. He also told Belgian Television the U.S. and Europe must show a united front.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We've got a common goal, and that is that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. We will consult like we have been to make sure that we fully understand where we stand to achieve that goal, and I think... I think if we continue to speak with one voice and not let them split us up and keep the pressure on, we can achieve the objective.

JIM LEHRER: Iran will be a major focus of Mr. Bush's trip to Europe next week. He leaves on Sunday. We'll have Elizabeth Farnsworth's report from Iran later in the program tonight. The president signed a bill today to curb class-action lawsuits. He said it marks "a critical step towards ending the lawsuit culture." And he said Congress should also impose limits on asbestos suits and medical malpractice awards. The new law is designed to move multi-state class-actions to federal courts, where it could be harder to win large awards. Opponents charge it protects corporate wrongdoing. A federal advisory group found today VIOXX and similar painkillers can increase the risk of heart trouble. But after three days of hearings, the advisors also found the benefits outweigh the dangers. They narrowly recommended the Food and Drug Administration allow VIOXX to be sold again. Merck and Company voluntarily withdrew it last September. The advisors also said Celebrex and Bextra should stay on the market. The chairman of the hearings, Dr. Alistair Wood, said the public needs clear warnings.

ALISTAIR WOOD: The committee needs to act in a way that limits this hazard to patients. We need to identify patients who can uniquely benefit from these drugs and work out what they need to be told and what risk they would be willing to accept for that small number of unique patients and who would benefit from the drugs.

JIM LEHRER: The studies on the drugs involved long-term use at high doses. We'll have more on this story later in the program. There was inflation news today. The Labor Department reported wholesale prices rose 0.3 percent in January, after falling in December. The increase was partly due to large increases in the costs of new cars. On Wall Street today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained nearly 31 points to close at 10,785. The NASDAQ fell roughly three points to close below 2059. For the week, the Dow fell 0.1 percent. The NASDAQ was down 0.9 percent. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to: An Iraq violence update; Elizabeth Farnsworth from Iran; pain drugs recommendations; Shields and Lowry; and PBS problems.

UPDATE - STRUGGLE FOR SECURITY

JIM LEHRER: The Iraq story. We have a report from Douglas Struck of the Washington Post in Baghdad. Ray Suarez talked with him by phone earlier this evening.

RAY SUAREZ: Douglas Struck, welcome. As night came to Baghdad, what was the overall toll from today's bombings?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: More than 30. The exact number is still a little bit iffy, but we've had such a succession of bombs it's hard to even keep track. There were at least four suicide bombings in and around Baghdad, three of them at Shiite mosques. There was a mortar attack or two, a couple of gunshot ambushes. It's quite frankly been hard to keep the scorecard today.

RAY SUAREZ: Were some of them particularly deadly?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: Yes. The first bomb attack at a Shiite mosque in Baghdad killed 15 persons, which was a tough toll. And this comes as Shiites had expected to be targeted, because it is the height of their religious rites, called Ashura, in which they atone for the death of Hussein. It's a time that last year brought massive bombings and nearly 170 deaths, so there was an expectation that there would be violence today and unfortunately the expectation is that it will continue tomorrow.

RAY SUAREZ: And who is the Hussein that they remember at this Ashura holiday?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: Hussein in 662 A.D. was -- he was the grandson of the prophet Muhammad. He was killed in battle in the holy city of Karbala, south of Baghdad, and the Shiites atone for the betrayal that led to his death. Soyou see processions around the town in which Shiites symbolically whip themselves with chains. It's a very somber, and frankly a little bit morbid to outsiders, rite, but it is one that is held deeply by the Shiites. It's one that they could not practice under Saddam Hussein, so the sort of public display of practice of this rite is really an underscoring of the importance of religion in this society right now.

RAY SUAREZ: Have there been any claims of responsibility and are the Iraqi authorities assuming that these attacks are coordinated?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: There's never been a clear understanding of how much coordination goes on, but to the extent that there was an expectation that there would be violence today, and indeed there was, there is at least some sort of a rough master game plan. There have been blames of responsibility. One of the top Iraqi officials blamed Zarqawi, the Jordanian who is said to be behind many of the attacks of the insurgency. But all of this sort of points to the question, no one's really sure exactly who and exactly and exactly how many are behind this spate of violence. But the violence is so pervasive these days that it's a fairly large group.

RAY SUAREZ: All during the attacks specifically aimed at Shiite civilians, clerical leaders have counseled restraint and no retaliation. Is that resolve starting to weaken? Is there any sign that there may is there any sign that there may be a punch-back?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: A violent punch-back, no, because there still is that very strong message that you referred to coming out of the mosques. Today, being Friday, is a day for the Friday prayers, and the message was repeated. The Shiite religious leaders firmly believe that they cannot strike back, they cannot be drawn into this lure of violence that could lead to civil war and would ruin their one chance for -- to assume the political power of this country, which they are just about to do. There is signs, however, that when they do assume political power, there will be some payback of sorts. There were sermons today at Friday prayers that specifically warned that they would further cleanse the government of Iraq from former Baathist officers. And that's pretty disturbing and alarming and is seen as a possibility of bringing retaliation from some of those former officers who feel they have nothing to lose.

RAY SUAREZ: So the election results strengthen the Shiite political hand in such a way that the attacks may make them less open to conciliation as they form a government?

DOUGLAS STRUCK: No. There is still a strong unity among the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurdish political players that there has to be roughly some sort of government of national unity; that all the players have to be involved in the government. But, of course, when you get below that platitude, you find that each of those players has their own agenda. And one of the things that is coming out on the Shiite agenda as being very strong is this issue of de-Baathification, that is cleansing, or in their terms "purifying," the government of former Baathist leaders. And that has the potential for creating some real problems.

RAY SUAREZ: Doug Struck of the Washington Post is in Baghdad. Thanks for being with us.

DOUGLAS STRUCK: My pleasure.

FOCUS - WAR OF WORDS

JIM LEHRER: Now, the war of words between the U.S. and Iran over Iran's nuclear program. President Bush got things under way with these words in his state of the union message.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Today Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. We are working with European allies to make clear to the Iranian regime that it must give up its uranium-enrichment program and any plutonium reprocessing and end its support for terror. And to the Iranian people I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you. (Cheers and applause)

JIM LEHRER: Vice President Cheney also called Iran a "top threat" to world peace and Middle East stability. And two days ago, Secretary of State Rice told a Senate committee: "The Iranians know what they need to do. They need to stop enriching uranium; they need to stop trying to under the cover of a civilian nuclear power program, to get Elizabeth Farnsworth has been in Iran recently on a reporting assignment for us. Here is her report on how officials and ordinary Iranians are responding to these American words.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The heaviest snowfall in 15 years blanketed Tehran as we arrived. A soft quiet fell over the city, and people had trouble getting around. In the hills to the North, neighborhood friends lobbed snowballs at each other and pelted people in cars as they drove slowly through heavy drifts on their way home. The harsh language aimed at Iran by the Bush administration seemed very far away. (Chanting) But on Thursday, the 10th, the Iranian counterattack began. People bundled up against the weather and walked by the thousands to Azadi Square to celebrate the 26th anniversary of the Islamic revolution's victory over the shah. (Chanting) "Death to America," they shouted, "Death to President Bush." In the square, President Mohammed Khatami launched some rhetorical grenades. He's a moderate, a reformist, in the Iranian political context, and is usually mild-mannered when he speaks, but not on this day.

SPOKESMAN: The Iranian nation doesn't support war and conflict. Despite our differences, the Iranian nation will unite against any form of aggression and threat. If, God forbid, aggressors walk into this country, Iran will turn into a burning hell for them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The president insisted that the large nuclear power plant under construction with Russian help at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf and other nuclear facilities are not producing fuel for weapons. The Bush administration insists that some of the work at these plants is military in nature. Last fall, in response to U.S. and European pressures, Iran agreed to suspend uranium- enrichment, such as at the Natanz plant, and multinational negotiations are under way now about the future of Iran's program.

SPOKESMAN (Translated): Iran's nuclear activities are peaceful, and we will not stop these peaceful activities because of the illegitimate demands of others. We willingly and temporarily suspended our nuclear activities as a gesture towards maintaining trust and building good relations, and we expect others to show their goodwill so we can fulfill the task of building good relations.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The next day Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani led Friday prayer, a weekly event at the University of Tehran, and in a sermon fired away at the Bush administration. Rafsanjani is a former president who still wields much power as chairman of a high council of the clerical government. Though not yet formally a presidential candidate, many here think he will run and has a good chance to win elections this June.

SPOKESMAN (Translated): We should address the issues being raised by the Americans today. What the leaders of the White House are saying can best be described as psychological warfare. Don't doubt it. Psychological warfare may be an introduction to violent actions. I would like to tell the White House categorically that their way and their threats are futile. These things frighten neither our people nor us. The Persian Gulf region is not a suitable place to play with fire.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The Persian Gulf region holds more than half of the world's known oil reserves, and about 9 percent of the area's oil exports must pass through the Strait of Hormuz, between Iran and Oman. The strait is only 34 miles wide, making it a potential choke point for the world's oil supplies. For months, ever since Iran's nuclear policies came under heavy U.S. Fire, the Iranian military has been showing off its stuff. Last fall an improved missile, the Shahab-3, capable of reaching Israel and U.S. troops in the region, was the star of a military parade. And last weekend, Iranian television featured minister of defense Ali Shamkhani, a rear admiral, introducing a new line of stealth torpedoes. He said it was part of the effort to step up defense capabilities against possible threats. The defense minister had warned some months ago that if Iran's nuclear facilities were attacked, America's troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would suffer. On Saturday, he said: "There is no geographical position in the region which would be secure for the enemy to attack Iran." For months, newspapers here have been reporting sightings of low- flying aircraft in Iranian airspace. Some people thought they were UFO's. On Sunday, the Washington Post, citing U.S. officials, reported that: "The Bush administration has been flying surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses. The news was widely covered in Iran all week. Iran's intelligence minister responded to the report on live television, saying Iran is aware of the surveillance and ready to shoot down the drones. At a press conference, I asked the foreign ministry spokesman whether Iran was also aware of spying by secret American reconnaissance missions on the ground, which has also been reported in the U.S. media.

HAMID REZA ASEFI, Iranian Foreign Minister (translated): The very essence of the remarks and the reports proves that the Americans have violated the Algiers agreement, according to which America had pledged not to interfere in the domestic affairs of Iran. This again shows the violation of international law by America.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Gauging public opinion here can be tough. Polls show wide support for the government on the nuclear issue.

SPOKESMAN: We are not pursuing for the military purposes like the United States, British, French and China. They have the bombs, so why in the world -- nobody asked the United States Government, why they should have it? Who died and made them king? Who are the Bushes to make the decisions for the whole world?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Getting views critical of the government on camera is another thing. Occasionally, people would approach us off camera to say they welcome Bush administration pressures. But many people won't speak to us because they know that local and foreign reporters are monitored by the government. We asked Dr. Mohammed Reza Khatami, brother of the president and leader of his political party, about the nuclear issue. Khatami was deputy speaker of parliament and is now a candidate for vice president in elections scheduled for June.

DR. MOHAMMAD REZA KHATAMI, Vice Presidential Candidate: You know, the only thing in the countrythat a majority, a very strange majority, of the people support the government in having nuclear technology.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: The polls are reliable?

DR. MOHAMMAD REZA KHATAMI: That's right, that's right. So it is some psychological thing here in Iran.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You were in government. Is Iran pursuing a path of nuclear weapons?

DR. MOHAMMAD REZA KHATAMI: I think the major plan of the government of Iran is not to have nuclear weapons, but there are some radicals, maybe some of them in the government and military forces and so on, that they clearly have announced that we should have a nuclear weapon. But one thing is very important for us: World asks us to guarantee the security of world by not having a nuclear weapon in Iran. But what happens to our security in the region?

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: To your security?

DR. MOHAMMAD REZA KHATAMI: Yes. When the U.S. Government says very clearly that we want to change the Iranian regime, so why should we cooperate with the United States? It's not my belief. I believe we should do our best with the IAEA and stop all uranium enrichment in Iran, but when the conservatives and the radicals say those words, that what will happen to our security, everybody in Iran will give the right to them to say to the people, to the world, "we are ready to solve this problem in a mutual way." We should have something to earn. We are in need for new modern technology, for more collaboration with the West and other countries.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: This is the context in Tehran as nuclear negotiations between Iran and the Europeans continue, with the United States waiting skeptically and exerting pressure in the wings. The snow stopped before we left Tehran, and the streets, like relations with Washington, were grid-locked once again.

JIM LEHRER: In a second report next week, Elizabeth will report on how U.S. pressures are affecting political reformists and human rights advocates in Iran.

Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the safety of drugs, Shields and Lowry, and a PBS media story.

FOCUS - DRUG SAFETY

JIM LEHRER: New developments on painkiller drugs. Margaret Warner has our update.

MARGARET WARNER: Last September, the popular arthritis drug VIOXX was pulled from the market after studies showed it increased the risk for heart attacks and strokes. That focused attention on an entire class of anti- inflammatory painkillers known as cox-2 inhibitors. Millions of Americans use them. Today, after three days of hearings from experts, an advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration declared that three top-selling prescription drugs do, in fact, pose an increased risk for heart attack and stroke. But the panel said the drugs should remain on the market with warnings for those who need them. The three drugs are VIOXX, made by Merck, and Celebrex and Bextra, both made by Pfizer. For the record, Pfizer is an underwriter of the NewsHour. Here to tell us more is Christopher Bowe, who covers the pharmaceutical industry for the Financial Times.

And, Chris, welcome. First of all, just give us a sense. When you're talking about this whole -- the whole market for painkillers in this country, how big a stake did this class of drugs have before these latest questions were raised?

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: They were very, very big drugs. All three of the drugs we're talking about were considered in pharmaceutical industry parlance, "blockbusters." Worldwide they accounted for -- even with the withdrawal of VIOXX, they accounted for about $6 billion in sales last year. So these were large products and consistent growers. They had flattened off in a couple of years, but they were big.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Now explain -- and I'd like to split, if I could, the decision into two categories. First of all, explain after three days of hearings what led the panel to conclude that these -- this class of drugs, or these three do, in fact, pose an increased risk of heart attack and stroke -- what do they base that on?

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: It was quite a lengthy review, although even then they talked about having to shorten it up so they could get through all the material they could. Essentially what they based it on, most of their findings they based it on placebo-controlled trials of these drugs. One of the problems with these drugs used on arthritis patients was that they are almost always tested comparing against another pain drug, and that made it sometimes unclear what the trials were showing. And so a couple of trials using placebo as these drugs were being studied for other indications, most notably the prevention of colon polyps, showed heart signal risks with these drugs. The first one, obviously, was VIOXX in their approved trial. Now, the controversy really started back in 2000, when Merck found out in an old trial against Naproxen, which is sold as Aleve here in the U.S., that VIOXX showed an increase in heart attack and stroke risk. And they explained it away as Naproxen being cardio-protective, which has never really been proven. Anyway, there's other science. Years ago, a researcher, Garrett Fitzgerald at the University of Pennsylvania, had theorized -- and the committee took a lot of stock in this now-- that what was going on here was cox-2 inhibition sort of changed or destabilized the haemostatic balance in the bloodstream. For instance, aspirin is a cox-1 inhibitor, so that helps, you know, your blood flow and prevent heart attacks. And what cox-2 was doing was some sort of disruption where it allowed for platelet aggregation or actually would make constriction or hypertension, potential clotting. And this is was what the basis, they think, is the basis for why these drugs are risky.

MARGARET WARNER: And were they able to "a," quantify how much riskier they are than using, say, aspirin or nothing? And secondly, if they are risky, however risky they are, then why did they also decide the drugs should remain on the market?

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: Yeah, one of the most interesting characterizations of the risk that I heard during the hearings was in a study by FDA -- or a presentation by FDA Researcher David Graham. And a lot of the committee seemed to take this as a fairly decent characterization, although I'm not quite sure if the percentages are accurate. But he said that taking one of these drugs in high doses was similar to you having diabetes or being a smoker or maybe even uncontrolled hypertension or high blood pressure. At low doses it might be like a little less than smoking and diabetes and like hypertension. So that's kind of like the risk. If you were -- if you didn't have any risk at all and all of a sudden you took one of these drugs in high doses, it was almost like adding a disease risk to yourself that was prone to heart disease.

MARGARET WARNER: And so why did they say that they can stay on the market?

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: They said they could stay on the market for -- there were a couple of major factors. One was the complexity in pain drugs overall. There's not quite certain that if they remove this option from patients, whether taking the older drugs is completely safe. There are still some questions. A lot of these older pain drugs have never really been studied for safety. And so there was a fear amongst the medical experts that by removing a certain drug you would be forcing patients on to drugs that hadn't been tested as much as these had been tested. Moreover, these drugs were developed with the idea that they might prevent stomach bleeding that some older medications, ibuprofen, I think, and naproxen as well, cause when you use them in chronic pain. You take so much it hurts your stomach. So they didn't want to take that away, too although there's ways to get around that. So essentially they said there was still value in these drugs if they could pinpoint the people who use them. As one researcher said-- it was Garrett Fitzgerald who came up with the original theory-- he said maybe these drugs are a good example of how we can use personalized medicine, something people talk a lot about for the future.

MARGARET WARNER: And, briefly, we know this isn't the final decision because the FDA does have to decide, but if they do, is there any word from Merck yet whether they would put VIOXX back on the market?

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: Well, they hinted at it in a very surprising move on late Thursday night, that now that other drugs had problems, and it was a class effect, maybe they could bring it back on. Tonight they're saying that they -- I think the quote is they're looking forward to discussions with the FDA. The committee made it pretty clear, though, that if VIOXX was returned, they said it would be possible for them to return it. But if it did, it would come with some serious restrictions, potentially not allowing people with heart disease, things like that.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. Chris Bowe of the Financial Times, thanks very much.

CHRISTOPHER BOWE: Sure, thank you.

FOCUS - SHIELDS & LOWRY

JIM LEHRER: Now, analysis by Shields and Lowry: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review editor Rich Lowry. David Brooks is off tonight.

Mark, what's your take on the nomination of John Negroponte to be the new director of national intelligence?

MARK SHIELDS: Jim, I think he's got a number of major hurdles that he confronts. I mean, first, just stylistically he was the fourth choice, publicly known as -- it was building pressure that the job was vacant almost a sense that "we have got to take somebody to the prom." And there was that sense he got the invitation. But I'd add to that -- obviously he's got a tough task. He's the first man in the job, he's going to define it; he's going to make it. It's a tough task, 15 different intelligence gathering agencies, 15 heads he's got to deal with, bring them all together. And the third, I'd say is that Don Rumsfeld, who's one of the most legendary turf fighters in all of Washington, a very effective internal elbows fellow in dealing in any hegemony and turf in an administration, is not going to go quietly. He's got a major say right now in intelligence. I think this is going to be not an easy thing for Mr. Negroponte. It's a tough job.

JIM LEHRER: Rich, many people have said -- in fact some folks said this on this program last night -- that it's really up to the president. The president gives this man the power; then this man can do the job, doesn't matter whether it's John Negroponte or whoever it is, whether he's having a problem with Rumsfeld or Congress or anybody else. Do you agree with that?

RICHARD LOWRY: That's the most important key to power in Washington obviously is access and the trust of the president. I think it's understandable some people may have been hesitant to take this job, as Mark points out. It's a new job, it's a reorganization; any of these things are really hard to work. Look at the Homeland Security Department which by all accounts is still dysfunctional, will be for a long time. That said, I think you have to judge Negroponte on his merits. He's a serious guy. He's served government in a bunch of capacities in some of the worst hot spots in the world whether it was Vietnam during the war there or Latin America in the '80s or Iraq over the last eight months. My concerns go much deeper. I don't think this job necessarily makes sense from the get-go because if you look at the key intelligence failures, 9/11, or the intelligence failures in Iraq, which went much deeper than weapons of mass destruction by the way, we sort of missed the whole nature of the Iraqi government and society as it was existing prior to invasion. That had very little or nothing to do with the organization of our intelligence or with Don Rumsfeld. It had to do with the fact we are unable to put agents on the ground in these places to give us the sort of intelligence that we need. And that is a capability that's eroded over 30 years. If Negroponte realizes that and addresses that deficit in U.S. Intelligence, he'll be a great success. Now, whether he does that or not remains to be seen.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree with that analysis?

MARK SHIELDS: I think the human intelligence part there's no question. I man, we've been defective in that and there's been a certain technophilia fascination with, you know, pictures and satellites and all of that.

JIM LEHRER: Satellites and people on the ground?

MARK SHIELDS: That's right. But the other thing, Jim, and Congress doesn't get off the hook on this one. Rich is right. I mean, the homeland security is still very much in chaos. It's not shipshape by many means. But one of the problems is that the head of homeland security is responsible and accountable to 88 different committees and subcommittees on Capitol Hill.

JIM LEHRER: They say Negroponte would be responsible to 80 himself.

MARK SHIELDS: At some point the Congress and its congressional oversight has to say "Okay, we're going to give up some turf" because every little subcommittee has a piece of the action and say this is the committee and you're only going to have to deal with one or two rather than 80.

RICHARD LOWRY: Good luck. Everyone wants to be called Mr. Chairman and I don't know whether that's ever going to change.

JIM LEHRER: And intelligence is a sexy subject, everybody wants to know the secrets and all of that. Social Security reform, Rich.: How important was what Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan said this week about private accounts? Personal accounts, sorry.

RICHARD LOWRY: Get your lexicon right. Scott McClellan's going to be all over you. It was a boost in the administration's case. He bolstered it in two key ways: One, he said that there is a problem with the long-term financing of the program and, two, he said personal accounts make sense -- now, with some caveats. Now, he's taken shots for this. People point out that Greenspan, there's always an element of political calculation in the statements -- which is true, he's like a cat, he's always landing on all four feet here in Washington which is why in the '90s he was sitting next to Hillary during one of the state of the union if you remember but I do think this is consistent with his views over the years. He want more private assets in individual hands, whether it's from tax cuts or whether it's from a policy like personal Social Security accounts.

JIM LEHRER: What do you think impact will have on whether or not personal accounts get enacted in Congress? Do you think it's an important thing?

MARK SHIELDS: Not to the degree the White House hoped, Jim. I think Rich is right. Alan Greenspan is like a Delphic Oracle, you ask him who's going to win the battle and he says "there's going to be a great victory." And you say, well it must be my side and while he says there's going to be a great victory - you say you're going to win - and that's exactly what --

JIM LEHRER: Maybe the other guys.

RICHARD LOWRY: We need to do that as pundits, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: He's made a great career of it. He said he is for personal account but at the same time he pulled back and said personal accounts are in no way going to help solve the problem of solvency on this.

JIM LEHRER: There are different two issues -

MARK SHIELDS: Two issues.

JIM LEHRER: -- solvency and personal accounts, which is philosophically a good thing --

MARK SHIELDS: That we ought to go slow and we have to be careful about the deficit. I think the White House would have been pleased if this had been the statement going in the weekend, Jim. If it had been Greenspan endorses personal accounts. But it wasn't. The president stepped on the story by saying "well, we've got to keep open the option of. -- I'm not ruling out the option of raising the Social Security tax collected on incomes above $90,000, and that started a firestorm. Luck would have it - and it wasn't good -- that the National Conservative Political Action Convention is meeting in town and every conservative in town was -- just a firestorm of criticism of the president, including Tom Delay and Denny Hastert and others --

JIM LEHRER: What about Rich Lowry -- were you part of the firestorm?

RICHARD LOWRY: This is one of the weird Washington things where technically it wasn't a change in the administration's posture because you read really, really carefully. They're always leaving open raising the cap. And the high level administration officials --

JIM LEHRER: Explain what raising the cap does.

RICHARD LOWRY: The payroll tax stops at $90,000 a year. And --

JIM LEHRER: You make $2 million; your payroll tax is only based up to $90,000?

RICHARD LOWRY: You're free after $90,000 -- so one way to raise revenue is raise that cap. But Bush floated this in a higher profile way and the way that got everyone's attention and it was not a good - if this was a deliberate ploy, it was ill considered for two reasons: One, this will be a major concession if Bush gets on board this. This is something that you wait to float until the very end, until 4:00 A.M. dramatic meeting and say "okay, now I'll do it." He's kind of blown that. And the other problem, and Mark hit on it, the reaction from the House leadership was really severely against this. You may have a dynamic where the Senate will not pass anything on Social Security unless the cap is raised and the House won't pass anything unless it's not raised. And that's going to be a difficult difference to bridge if it comes to that.

MARK SHIELDS: And to complicate things, Jim, the Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll came out this week and it showed after a month of the president's campaigning where plurality in January had supported private investment accounts, now by a ten-point margin they're down. So that was not at all encouraging as well. So I think what the president was doing may have been a deft political move that did backfire. I think he was trying to send a signal to Democrats. He needs some Democrats to support him -

JIM LEHRER: To make this thing work.

MARK SHIELDS: -- and I think he was trying to say "look, I'm open." And I think the firestorm really just kind of ended that little --

RICHARD LOWRY: Just quickly, though, there are miles to go before anyone sleeps on this thing and one fact of the administration has going in its favor and I think has been strategically shrewd is the utter near total flexibility. They will -- it's not going to be like Clinton on health care where he really got locked in and didn't compromise fast enough. As soon as there's a deal anywhere near to what Bush wants, he's going to take it.

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of firestorms and the Congress and the president, the president re-nominated some folks that had been turned down earlier for judgeships. What's going on there?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, the president made a pledge that he would do so and he did it. He won the election.

JIM LEHRER: And the Democrats are coming right back and --

MARK SHIELDS: Democrats are coming right back and Harry Reid sat here last night with you and recited the figures on 95 percent of his judges have been approved. I think this is a test of presidential politics as much as anything - not George Bush -- but the race to succeed him and that's Bill Frist, the Republican Senate leader. Conservatives have made this very much the litmus test for him. Are you going to be able to get these judges confirmed? Are you willing to go to what's called the nuclear option -- and that is eliminating the filibuster and the extended debate which has been a hallmark of the Senate.

JIM LEHRER: Which any given Senate can do, can they not?

MARK SHIELDS: With 51 votes, as long as you get the chair and the parliamentarian and when the vote is appeal to a chair then you've got the 51 votes. There's a question whether he does have the 51 votes but Pat Robertson, fond memory this week tossed out this challenge to Bill Frist. Is he going to be able to deliver on judges?

JIM LEHRER: Do you see it in Frist terms, too, Rich?

RICHARD LOWRY: A little bit. First of all, I think the biggest factor is the president campaigned on these judicial nominations in 2002 and 2004 and picked up seat in the Senate each time. So the White House believes this is a political winner and they believe putting these nominations up again is basically a win-win proposition. If you get them through, wonderful; if you don't get them through and there are more filibusters, well, then you get to call Democrats obstructionist, a charge that has had resonance in recent years. Now, with regard to the nuclear option, I think there are two things going on. I doubt it will ever happen. I think one is you're playing brinksmanship with the Democrats and you're hoping to get some concessions by floating that you're really going to do this. I know you're shocked, Jim, at the cynicism of that.

JIM LEHRER: Shocked.

RICHARD LOWRY: And two there is Frist is beating his chest about it because to appeal to conservatives because he is a likely 2008 candidate. I think in the end Mark is right and there are not the votes there to do it.

JIM LEHRER: Okay. Well, look, thank you all very much. Rich, enjoyed having you with us the last two weeks.

RICHARD LOWRY: Thanks for having me.

JIM LEHRER: We will see you soon. Thank you both.

FINALLY - EMBATTLED PBS

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight, problems at PBS. Media correspondent Terence Smith has our story.

SINGING: Buster!

TERENCE SMITH: The public Broadcasting System finds itself in the midst of two controversies these days: One involving Buster, a cartoon rabbit; the other, strong language in an upcoming Frontline documentary about Iraq.

SINGING: Buster --

TERENCE SMITH: Postcards from Buster is a children's program seen on 350 public broadcasting stations. It features an animated rabbit who, a few weeks ago, hopped out of the woods and into a brewing debate.

SPOKESPERSON: It comes out there into the bucket?

SPOKESMAN: That's the maple syrup.

TERENCE SMITH: In a disputed episode, Buster, who travels the world learning about various people and cultures, goes to a Vermont farm to learn how maple syrup is made. He encounters two families headed by lesbian parents, although they are never identified as such onscreen.

WOMAN: You have to meet my kids!

TERENCE SMITH: The episode drew the ire of the new education secretary, Margaret Spellings, who wrote to PBS chief Pat Mitchell to express her "strong and very serious" concerns about it. Noting that the Education Department had provided funding for the series, Spellings wrote: "The Congress and the Department's purpose in funding this programming certainly was not to introduce this kind of subject matter to children." Mitchell, who had previously screened and approved the episode, announced that PBS would not distribute the segment, but denied that it was a reaction to pressure from Spellings or the administration. WGBH, the PBS station in Boston which produces Buster, aired the episode anyway, and representatives there say that 47 other stations have said they have either aired or will air the episode. This week Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who is openly gay, joined the argument with a blistering letter to Spellings that read in part: "I resent your profoundly degrading comments about me and millions of other Americans."

SPOKESMAN: This is Indian territory out there.

TERENCE SMITH: Meanwhile, in the second controversy, PBS has warned its member stations that it cannot protect them against potential federal indecency sanctions if they broadcast a version of Frontline that contains 13 expletives spoken by U.S. soldiers in battle. The Company of Soldiers, produced also by WGBH, focuses on a U.S. Army regiment in Baghdad as it confronts insurgent attacks. The film is scheduled to be broadcast Tuesday night. PBS, concerned that the program may draw fines from the Federal Communications Commission, is making available to its stations both an edited and unedited version, as it often does with programs that have controversial content. But producers at Frontline said PBS had taken the unusual step of offering only the edited version of the film for direct airing. Stations that want the unedited or raw version will be required to pre-record it and sign a waiver exempting PBS from any damages or fines they might incur.

TERENCE SMITH: Joining me now is Karen Everhart, senior editor of Current, an independent weekly newspaper that covers public television and radio.

Karen, welcome. Speaking of the second of these two controversies first, Frontline's The Company of Soldiers," in which the producers of Frontline maintain this is the way men and women in the armed forces speak under the stress and pressure of war. What are the member stations going to do? From your reporting, from talking to them, what do you think they're going to do?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, they're going to be weighing their decision very carefully as to whether they're going to broadcast the program on Tuesday or not in the edited or unedited version. I don't think we'll have a real sense of how many decide to do the unedited version until Tuesday.

TERENCE SMITH: I take it the FCC has given no indication in advance-- it usually doesn't-- as to what is acceptable and what is not?

KAREN EVERHART: They won't make a ruling on a program before it airs.

TERENCE SMITH: We're talking about rough language here?

KAREN EVERHART: We're talking about strong language of soldiers in the battlefield.

TERENCE SMITH: Right. Do broadcasters at this point have a clear guideline? Because here is a year-- last year-- in which there were a record number of indecency fines issued by the FCC and, of course, there was a controversy over showing the movie Saving Private Ryan on Veterans Day. A number of ABC affiliates decided not to do that because they were concerned. Is this a gray area here?

KAREN EVERHART: Yes, definitely a gray area. That's part of the reason why there's so much anxiety about what to do with this particular documentary. PBS and its stations can't really afford to incur fines or the legal fees it would take to combat some sort of case before the FCC. But, on the other hand, the producers at Frontline feel the language is really integral to the journalistic integrity of their documentary and the experiences they found when they were with the soldiers in Iraq.

TERENCE SMITH: This is getting to be real money because the House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the fine to $500,000 per incident.

KAREN EVERHART: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: So it can cost money. Let me ask you about Buster the Rabbit and his problems. Where do things stand now on that? A number of stations, obviously, have already run the version despite the objections of the Department of Education.

KAREN EVERHART: A number of stations have run it already. Some are actually waiting until March 23, which was the original date that it was going to be broadcast.

TERENCE SMITH: And the reaction from individual stations about the segment? Do they -- do most of them seem to like it, or do some share the objections of Secretary Spellings?

KAREN EVERHART: It varies widely around the country. I mean, some station managers have said, "This is really innocuous and I don't see any problem with it at all." And others feel they can't put it on the air in their community; it would just offend too many parents.

TERENCE SMITH: What reason did Pat Mitchell, the head of PBS, give for deciding not to feed it to the network at large? She did say that it wasn't in reaction, that she took it before Secretary Spellings wrote a letter? But nonetheless, what reason did she give for it?

KAREN EVERHART: She said she felt it jeopardized the safe harbor that PBS provides to parents and children with its children's service; that parents can sit their children down in front of a PBS children's program and not worry about the content they're going to be exposed to.

TERENCE SMITH: And so she felt that this did jeopardize that, what you call "safe harbor?"

KAREN EVERHART: She was concerned that parents would -- some parents would find it objectionable and be uncomfortable with it.

TERENCE SMITH: Even though initially upon viewing it earlier, she evidently had thought it was going to be all right?

KAREN EVERHART: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: Right.

KAREN EVERHART: She told us she was personally comfortable with it, but her own personal feelings about it couldn't weigh into this. She had to consider how people in communities around the country were going to react.

TERENCE SMITH: Is this criticism that came from the Department of Education, is this part of a larger and critical atmosphere that PBS is working in right now?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, PBS has had a lot of criticism in the Republican administration for some of its public affairs documentaries. This coming on the actual... you know, on a children's program is unusual.

TERENCE SMITH: Mm-hmm. And this week at the same time -- but I gather unrelated -- Pat Mitchell said that she was going to step down, or to be precise, that she will not seek a renewal of her contract 15 months from now, when it comes up to continue in that position. Now, I know that you interviewed her. What's your understanding of that and the reasons behind it?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, I understood that when she renewed her contract the last time that it was a difficult decision for her, and she weighed it very carefully. And my sense from the meeting where she announced it this weekend was that she was really trying to say, "Okay, here, I have this amount of time left and here's what I want to accomplish." And she laid it out pretty clearly. She wants to focus on finding on funding and she wants to focus on program content.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. And the Department of Education -- it, I understand, is considering proposals to renew funding for more PBS programming for the so- called "Ready to Learn" Project. That's a decision to be made. Where does that stand?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, right now public broadcasting is waiting for the Department of Education to release requests for proposals for this grant program, the Ready to Learn program. And they have restructured it considerably. And PBS may be competing against other parties for money that -- for a program that it has run by itself for about ten years now.

TERENCE SMITH: And this is millions of dollars?

KAREN EVERHART: This is about $22 million a year for programming and content tied to children's programs.

TERENCE SMITH: So is this in some jeopardy or at stake here because of this dispute?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, it may be. The people at PBS say they are moving forward with the Department of Education. They are going to clarify the terms under which they work, and they're being very positive about putting the -- making a good step forward in this next phase of their relationship. But it has yet to be seen how the Department's going to react to that initiative.

TERENCE SMITH: That's my question. How has the Department reacted? Are they now satisfied with what's been done?

KAREN EVERHART: It's unclear whether they're satisfied or not. They haven't really spoken out about it.

TERENCE SMITH: Finally, PBS has -- Pat Mitchell again has appointed an independent panel to look into standards at PBS. What is this expected to do?

KAREN EVERHART: Well, it's an editorial review committee, and it includes prominent journalists and a few station managers, and they're looking at the guidelines for PBS content for the primetime programs. They're reviewing standards that haven't been updated since 1987 or so. So the feeling is it's way overdue to look at those again.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Karen Everhart, thank you very much.

KAREN EVERHART: Thank you.

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major developments of this day: Bombings around Baghdad killed at least thirty-five Iraqis, and the U.S. Military reported five more American deaths. And a federal advisory group found VIOXX, Celebrex and Bextra can increase the risk of heart trouble. But it recommended the Food and Drug Administration allow the painkillers to be sold to those who need them. 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.