The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; September 21, 2004

AC Communications, like kids in the backseat we too were in a hurry, to bring you technologies far beyond the telephone but as simple as the dial tone. At SBC, inpatient is a virtue, SBC going beyond the call, and by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. The Pew Charitable Trusts, serving the public interest with information, policy solutions, and support for civic life. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. President Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq before the UN General Assembly today. He said the effort freed the Iraqi people from an outlaw dictator. He said both Iraq and Afghanistan are moving toward democracy despite difficulties.

And he said the U.S. must not retreat in the face of violent attacks in Iraq or elsewhere. After the speech the President met with Iraqi Prime Minister Alawi, the Prime Minister said U.S. and Iraqi forces are defeating terrorists. Mr. Bush played down a CIA assessment that Iraq's immediate future could range from shaky stability to outright civil war. CIA, uh, uh, played out a several scenarios. He said that life could be lousy, life could be okay, life could be better. And they were just, uh, guessing as to what the conditions might be like. The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions. The Iraqi citizens are headed toward free elections. Later, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said the President would not face facts on Iraq.

In Jacksonville, Florida, he said Mr. Bush failed to give the UN a true picture of conditions in the country. The President really has no credibility at this point, and he has no credibility with foreign leaders who hear him come before them and talk as if everything's going well, and they see that we can't even protect the people on the ground for the election. And had I been President, we would have done this the right way. This President chose personally each time to spur in the United Nations, to spur in the help of other people, to make this more expensive to the American people, not to tell the truth. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. Republicans in Iraq beheaded a second American hostage today, a group linked to terrorist leader Abu Musov al-Sakawi posted the announcement on the Internet. The victim was Jack Hinsley of Marietta, Georgia. He was one of two American contractors kidnapped last week along with a British man. The other American, Eugene Armstrong, was killed yesterday. The kidnappers had demanded the release of Iraqi women from American-run prisons.

Also today, the U.S. military announced the death of two U.S. Marines from fighting in Western Iraq. Iran announced today it has begun the process for enriching uranium, a step that can lead to nuclear weapons. The President of Iran insisted the effort is peaceful and he threatened an outright break with the UN nuclear agency. He said, we will continue along our path, even if it leads to an end to international supervision. On the weekend, the UN agency demanded Iran halt its nuclear activities. Republican Congressman Porter Gossa, Florida, moved a step closer today to becoming head of the CIA. The Senate Intelligence Committee approved his nomination 12 to 4. It now heads to the full Senate for a vote, possibly before the end of the week. In Haiti today, rescue workers struggled to find survivors of flooding caused by Tropical Storm Jean, the death toll passed 600, an official said it could go even higher. We have a report narrated by Jason Ferrell of Independent Television News.

The northern coastal towns of Haiti are still submerged, hundreds lost their lives as a swirl of muddy waters surged across the land. From above the island almost looks like it's sinking into the ocean. The full death toll won't really be known until the waters subside and the mudslides have been cleared. What little these people had has been swept away or caked in mud, including their life source, the corn and other crops that flourish in low-lying areas. The flooding hears more severe than in other regions hit by Hurricane Gene because of the lack of trees, more than 90 percent of Haiti's forests have been chopped down for charcoal, leaving few roots and foliage to hold the water back. This is the poorest country in the Americas and this year certainly the most unfortunate. There's been political turmoil after the president was overthrown in a bloody revolt. And this is the second disastrous flood to strike the country this year. The last one killed 3,000 people.

The population of 8 million already struggled for food and shelter, now what they desperately need is drinking water and medicine. Some supplies have arrived, but interim Prime Minister Gerard Nat or two who toured the flood hit area on Sunday has called for more aid and declared three days of national mourning. The International Red Cross said today it's relief effort is being hampered by looting and other security problems. The U.S. Federal Reserve raised short-term interest rates a quarter point today as expected. The federal funds rate on overnight loans between banks rose to 1 and 3 quarters percent. It was the third increase this year after four years without one. The Fed said future heights would be gradual as inflation remains under control. Political fundraiser tried to sort out the status of campaign finance rules today over the weekend. A federal court in Washington ruled the Federal Elections Commission created an immense loophole in the 2002 campaign funding law.

The court ordered tougher regulations in several areas, but the decision could lead the existing rules in place through the November elections by the FEC rights new ones. A federal civil trial opened a day for the major tobacco companies with the government asking $280 billion in damages. The Justice Department filed the suit in 1999. It accused the companies of misleading the American public about the dangers of smoking starting in the 1950s. A non-juri trial would take place in Washington and could last six months. We'll have more on the story later in the program. On Wall Street today the Dow Jones industrial average gained 40 points to close at nearly 10,245. The Nasdaq rose 13 points to close at 1921. And that's it for the new summer tonight. Now it's on to the United Nations issue, missile defense, tobacco on trial again, and the American Indian Museum. President Bush at the United Nations, we begin with a report by Kwame Holman.

Now for a toast to you and your service. During his annual visit to the United Nations today, President Bush included a lunchtime salute to Secretary General Kofi Annan. What the pleasantries did not obscure fundamental disagreements between the two men on Iraq. Earlier in the day, Annan, who last week called the war on Iraq illegal, told the gathering of international diplomats and other leaders that the rule of law is at risk around the world. Every nation that proclaims a rule of law at home must respect it abroad. And every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home. Yes, the rule of law starts at home. But in too many places, it remains elusive, hatred, corruption, violence, and exclusion. Go without redress, the vulnerable, lack-effective recourse, and the powerful manipulate laws to retain power and accumulate wealth.

At times, even the necessary fight against terrorism is allowed to encroach unnecessarily on civil liberties. President Bush, in contrast, defended his decision to go to war despite the objections of many UN members, and he scolded UN Security Council members who he said hesitated to confront Saddam Hussein. The Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say serious consequences for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world. The President also linked terrorists in Russia, Spain, and elsewhere as proof his policy is the correct one. As we've seen in other countries, one of the main terrorist goals is to undermine, disrupt and influence election outcomes.

We can expect terrorist attacks to escalate as Afghanistan and Iraq approach national elections. The work ahead is demanding. But these difficulties will not shake our conviction that the future of Afghanistan and Iraq is a future of liberty. The proper response to difficulty is not to retreat. It is to prevail. Mr. Bush urged UN members to support Iraq's new interim government, and promised the U.S. would continue to back its allies in Iraq and in Afghanistan. He proposed that the UN could help reach his goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere by creating a democracy fund, and he urged more help for poor nations, particularly those hit by the AIDS pandemic. Campaigning in Florida today, Democratic nominee John Kerry reacted to the President's UN speech, saying Mr. Bush had lectured rather than led. The President failed to level with the world's leaders.

Moments after Khufianan and the Secretary-General talked about the difficulties in Iraq, the President of the United States stood before a stony-faced body, and barely talked about the realities at all of Iraq. After lecturing them, instead of leading them, to understand how we are all together with a stake in the outcome of Iraq, I believe the President missed an opportunity of enormous importance for our nation and for the world. He does not have the credibility to lead the world, and he did not, and will not offer the leadership in order to do what we need to do to protect our troops, to be successful, and win the war on terror in an effective way. Senator Kerry also said President Bush's management of the war and its aftermath had been arrogant and incompetent. Onward now with Glenn Eiffel. Now two views on President Bush and the world, William Harrop is a retired career foreign

service officer and ambassador to five countries. He's a founding member of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, a group opposing the President's reelection. Kenneth Edelman served in the Pentagon and State Department during the Ford and Reagan administrations. He's now a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises Secretary Rumsfeld. Welcome to you both, gentlemen. Ambassador Harrop, you listen to the President's speech today. Let's go to a point by point. What was your take on what he had to say about Iraq, President? Well, I thought, on Iraq, it was pretty much the same sort of speech he's been giving in the campaign. That is to say, a Pollyanna view a very positive outlook, not really acknowledging the tremendous difficulties that are taking place there and the insurgency, the opposition to American occupation, the loss of American forces, the dealt with us of being able to get to an election in January. He did not really give any of that sense at all. It was all very positive and upbeat.

And Mr. Edelman, what did you make with the President's speech, specifically about what he had to say about Iraq and the justification for going to war there? Well, I thought it was a very brave speech of President Bush's, but I think Bush is a brave foreign policy leader in the sense of trying something very new. Something that's democracy in the world, especially in the Arab world, is something that distinguishes this presidency from every President that has been in the past, Democrat, and Republican, and who Bill Harrop and others serve so well. And capably, the fact is that this President really believes that democracy is the way to push the Arab countries in order to diminish the threat to terrorism of us all. And I think that is a big gamble in history, but I think it's a gamble we're thinking. Mr. Harrop, is it a gamble worth taking? Well, you know, I think it shows a lack of understanding of the Arab world and of the culture that we're dealing with there, the traditions of the history of that whole part of the globe.

I think it's most unlikely that anyone can bring about a move toward democracy by force of arms, by coming in and winning a war, to posing, getting rid of an evil leader, and then turning a country to democracy. I don't think it'll work, and I don't think that Iraq will be a beacon for democracy in the region as the President says that he hopes. Mr. Edelman, is there any evidence that's what's happening? Yeah, let me take that on, because I don't think it's right to say that of all the world, community, only the Arab countries are not able to elect their own leaders or to have freedom of speech, or to have freedom of religion, or have freedom of assembly, or to have basic human rights. That's a view that somehow the Arabs are different. Listen, today there are 22 members of the Arab League, except for Iraq. Every single one of them has an illegitimate, unelected government, okay? The last time an international organization like that existed was the Warsaw Pact, and that was under Soviet tutelage.

The fact is that the rest of the world is undergoing a democratic revolution, including in Africa, Asia for sure Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and South America, and only the Arab world is locked into this idea that they have totalitarian, authoritarian governments, and somehow traditional diplomats say that's acceptable. I don't think in this day and age that is acceptable. It's hard to me. That goes to another point, Mr. Ambassador, that the President made in his speech today, which is this notion that democracy can be spread in the way that the United States is undertaken in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Is that something which, given what's been happening in places like Russia and Belarus, is that something which is correct? I don't think that's realistic. I think democracy must come from within. I think people must begin to move toward democracy with internal political evolution. I don't think it can be imposed from without, which is what we're trying to do here. I also must take real exception to Ken's remark that there is suggestion that there is

democracy in Iraq, but not in the rest of the Arab world. We are a long way from elected democracy in Iraq, a long, long way, and I would think that we'll be very, very lucky indeed if the elections are held and held successfully in January. Mr. Edelman, what do you think about the whole election to be held in January? Let me make two points. Number one is that the Iraqis today have more freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of political organization than any Arabs in the world today. Second point, how it may. The Bill Herrop says, well, you can't buy military force imposed democracy. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is, and what the President is saying is, by military force, you can remove the obstacles to democracy. There is no way that the people of Afghanistan are going to have a democratic government under the Taliban. There is no way that the Germans are going to have a democratic government under Hitler. There is no way that the Iraqis are going to have a democratic government or any movement

towards democracy under Saddam Hussein. So these wars eliminate these disastrous tyrants that they have and allow the people the rights to then go and have a democratic system. Now listen, if Bill Herrop is saying it's not a sure thing in Iraq, he's absolutely right. It's not a sure thing in Iraq, but was it a sure thing that there would be no democracy under Saddam Hussein? Yes. Was there a sure thing that there'd be torture under Saddam Hussein? Yes. Let's move on to another major point. The President made in his speech today in Pastor Herrop, which was this idea that terrorism around the world can be linked under the rubric under the umbrella of what the President's trying to accomplish in the international stage. He talked about Afghanistan, and he immediately, seamlessly talked about Iraq, and he talked about what happened in Russia as examples of warnings to international bodies of how white terrorism should be, the number one issue on their plates. Was that a valid argument that you heard today? No, I don't.

I think it's vicious. You know, Iraq is really Mr. Bush's war, and I think we should call it that. Mr. Bush's war, there was no threat in the United States. There were no weapons in mass destruction. There was no linkage to al-Qaeda or to the attacks upon America on September 11, 2001. It's Mr. Bush's war, and I don't think it is a war against terrorism in any way or against terrorists. They were not there. In fact, in November of 2001, two months after 9-11, the State Department website gave a list of those countries in which al-Qaeda was active or had relations. And Iraq was very specifically not included. I think everyone knew that Iraq was not really involved with al-Qaeda. I don't think that there is a, these linkages exist. And I think that we have to get a coalition of countries together who are willing to work together against terrorism, against the, against the, what nourishes terrorism. I don't think that the United States under President Bush, and the way he has alienated allies and the Muslim world alike, I don't think he's going in a position to exert the

kind of leadership which is required to oppose terrorism. Mr. Edelman, your response? I would say that there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism. There's no doubt about that. They were funding the Palestinians who blow up innocent Israeli children, where Bill Herrips are so wonderfully as ambassador. It's for sure that the people who tried to blow up the world trade center in 1993 went to Iraq afterwards, and were given sanctuary. It's for sure that Abu Nidal, one of the worst terrorists in the world, lived for many years in Baghdad. It's for sure that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the ex-president of the United States, President George Herbert Walker Bush. So he was involved in terrorism. Now the links to al-Qaeda, Bill Herrips, absolutely right. There are a lot more things if they existed all than we thought before. But you know, you have to judge a president not on what we know now, but what we were reasonably convinced was right at the time. Sorry.

Finish, please. At the time, there wasn't anybody that I ever met that doubted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There wasn't anybody that I ever doubt that he absolutely hated the United States and would stop at nothing to do harm the United States. Ambassador Herrip, the president was very reasonably tough on the United Nations today, basically saying, you've got to be what you say. He said this before. He said it directly to them today. And certainly in the context of the fact that the United Nations did not support the decision to go to war on Iraq, was he gearing his remarks in your opinion to an international audience or a domestic audience? I think the remarks were mainly to the United States in the campaign. It was also a speech internationally. But unfortunately, the United States has held now in such low esteem because of his unilateral activities because of its invasion of Iraq before inspections had completed the job of concluding that there were no weapons of mass destruction and before the Security Council could authorize that move, that he's lost the support. If you noticed in the speech today, there was the spattering of polite applause.

It was not – there was no enthusiasm for President Bush in that room. And I think that it's going to be very hard for him to provide the leadership that America only America can provide because we're the only country with the strength to do that leading. And he can't do it, I'm afraid, and the speech today really showed that. Mr. Adelman doesn't matter whether he gets polite applause or even any kind of endorsement from the United Nations. I spent two and a half years as Ronald Reagan's – one of Ronald Reagan's ambassadors to the United Nations. And I don't remember the place going crazy when Ronald Reagan addressed the General Assembly. They certainly weren't hanging from the ramp there, and it didn't remind me of a rock concert in any way. Reagan was not very popular in the world community. Reagan right now, we know, had a historic role and proved to be a wonderful President. You have to measure these things in, you know, in historical framework. I think the number one historical obligation that this presidency faces is to go and destroy the terrorist network and to a way to war on terrorism.

And there's a lot of mistakes along the way, but by God it's brave to try to do that. And you don't do that by empty UN resolutions. When the President said today that there were 17 resolutions against Iraq and the Saddam Hussein broke 17, and the 17th one by unanimous consent said there were the serious consequences unless he can form some of these resolutions. Without serious consequences, the whole United Nations becomes a laughing style. I find it really just to what I really have to answer that. More on terrorism, Iraq was not part of the war on terrorism. It simply was not, it was not involved in international terrorism, and it was no threat to the United States. The first duty of a President of the United States is to keep his country out of war unless absolutely necessary, not to lose 1,050 of our young people, not to spend $200 billion that could be spent on other things. You know, that was not a war against terrorism. He manufactured terrorism by going to Iraq. Well, let me ask you both to follow up on this, because obviously this is a political

year, and there is a political impact on all of this, Mr. Edelman did Kerry, John Kerry said today that he did not feel that the President in his speech to the United Nations leveled with the world's leaders. What's your response to that? I don't know anything in the speech that was not leveling. It could have been that there was a lot of old things said again, but not leveling. I just don't understand it. What was it that, and the President's speech that was wrong? He did not mention, he did not mention the situation in Iraq. He behaved as though everything was going perfectly in Iraq, as though democracy was on the way. Everything was going to work out just fine. There was no acknowledgement of the daily losses, the daily losses of both Iraqi citizens and American forces. I think it was a pretense. Okay. Okay. He did mention Iraq belt, so that's not right to say he doesn't mention Iraq. Number two is, I don't think in a speech like this, you should give a latest, news broadcast. And the news from Iraq has not been good. I agree with that.

It has been bad. But what you want to do is to get everybody to help the situation. We have an enormous stake in making that succeed. The world has enormous stake in making that succeed. And for these other countries to sit on their hands and to say, well, you know, that it's none of our business is just wrong. It's a fight against, from terrorism against civilization. Under proper leadership, the other countries would come along with the United States. They've not been offered the kind of leadership provided it, which would bring them along. We have lost the respect of other countries by our unilateral behavior. And I think that that's a big part of the problem of not getting the support we need. And that will have to be the last word. Bill, Harrap and Ken Edelman. Thank you both very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Still to come on the news hour tonight, missile defense, the big tobacco trial, and the new American Indian Museum. Within days now, the United States will be ready to activate a massive missile defense

system. We have a report from Jeffrey K at KCET Los Angeles. Alaskans proudly call their state America's last frontier. And here are 100 miles south of Fairbanks in Central Alaska, an army base once slated for closure is now on the frontier of defense technology and scientific know-how. At Fort Greeley, the United States is deploying a controversial multi-billion dollar weapons program. When declared operational, the system is supposed to fulfill a long-time dream of some military planners to protect America from long-range ballistic missile attacks. Army Major General John Holly is in charge of building the system at Fort Greeley. He says since the United States has no way of shooting down incoming missiles, the need for a missile defense system is obvious. If somebody came into your house and was going to kill your family, are you going to

stand there and watch them? Or are you going to watch that happen? Or are you going to try to do something about it? That's the kind of scenario we're in today. Holly says the system could be operational by the end of this month, with up to five intercepting missiles in their silos. Here's how the system is supposed to work. If a nation such as North Korea were to launch a missile at the United States, a global web of advanced sensors, satellites, and radars, now in various stages of development, to detect and track it. Commanders would order Fort Greeley soldiers to launch an intercept a missile. At its tip is a device called a kill vehicle. As it approaches the target above the atmosphere, the kill vehicle would separate from the interceptor. Then using its own thrusters and sensors, it would home in on the enemy missile, striking it at about 15,000 miles per hour.

The kill vehicle itself just 44 inches long, and weighing 140 pounds carries no explosives. There's no warhead in our kill vehicle. It is strictly a kinetic energy collision in space, and the result of that kinetic energy is such that it causes the opposing warhead to disintegrate. Bear in mind, we have a threat to the GFC. As of a newly formed unit, the Alaska Army National Guard's 49th Space Battalion are training to operate the anti-missile system. As they do, construction crews at Fort Greeley are building launch silos. What's happening here is they're drilling out the holes that will ultimately have silos put in them, following that work. They will be ready to accommodate the ground-based interceptors that will be in place here. By the end of 2005, the military hopes to have 16 anti-missile launches deployed at Fort Greeley, and another four placed at Vandenberg Air Force Base on the Central California

Coast. For over 20 years, the Pentagon has been researching and developing a missile defense program. In 2002, President Bush ordered that a system be built and in place by the end of this year. Even as construction of the National Missile Defense System moves ahead here in Central Alaska, fundamental questions persist, namely, is it worth the cost? Is the testing adequate, and perhaps most importantly, can it really protect the United States against a missile attack? We're not talking about early developmental testing now. We're talking about deployment, deploying supposedly an operational system. But so far, the system has no demonstrated capability to deal with a real missile threat. Philip Koyle was a longtime Pentagon inside. From 1994 to 2001, he was Assistant Secretary of Defense, running the office that oversees the testing and evaluation of America's new weapons.

In his last months at the Pentagon, and since, Koyle has emerged as a leading critic of the missile defense program. He says the U.S. is building a system that hasn't been adequately tested and that won't deliver the security it support his promise. This is like deploying a new military aircraft without the wings and the tail and the landing gear. And worse, without testing, to see if this new military aircraft could actually work. Since 1997, the military and private contractors building the system, mainly Boeing and Raytheon, have conducted eight missile versus missile tests over the Pacific. Target rockets launched from California have been pitted against intercepting missiles carrying the kill vehicle launched from the Marshall Islands 4800 miles away. The Defense Department says the kill vehicle has successfully found and destroyed enemy

targets in five out of the eight tests. But Koyle contends those tests have been tightly choreographed to disguise the system's shortcomings. The tests that have been done have been more scripted than a modern political convention. The defender of the defending missile system has known exactly when the enemy missile surrogate was launched. Has known what the trajectory was going to be. They've been able to plot out in advance where the two are going to hit. They know what the reentry vehicle looks like and what the other objects in the target cluster look like. One way to think about this is if I throw a rocket you and I tell you exactly how I'm going to throw it and give you plenty of warning you might be able to bat it away. That's the way the tests have been done so far. I disagree.

Every one of our flight tests has been against a progressively more difficult target array in front of us and they've been against some very sophisticated targets. Now are they the most complex that someone could imagine? No, but we're providing an initial limited capability, not an objective capability. So it's good enough for right now and the test data that we're getting is extremely useful and will build confidence over time. We will continue to fly against progressively more difficult targets every mission. But a flight test scheduled for this month has been delayed until later in the year because of a computer glitch. Coil says such problems show that the Bush administration has a misplaced priority, emphasizing quick deployment instead of more rigorous testing. Since the president made his decision to deploy the system in Alaska, the priority and resources have gone to construction at Fort Greeley, concrete and rebar silos on the ground, many buildings, millions of dollars worth of construction.

And there haven't been any flight intercept tests since the president's decision. That's where the money should have gone, you say. That's what I would say, yes. This is not like a fighter aircraft where you build five, put them on the shelf. This is one of a kind system. And so we're in a situation where I've got to build it before I can complete all of the necessary testing. In his real action campaign, President Bush expresses confidence in the missile defense program. Before he took office, the president championed it, promising increased research and development. His administration has spent more than $25 billion on missile defense. We want to continue to perfect the assistance that we say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America in the free world. You fire, we're going to shoot it down. That's not correct. The system doesn't have the capability to do that without all of the aides and artificialities that we've had in the tests so far.

So for the president to say, bring them on, we have a defense that's misleading to Americans and could be provocative to our enemies. The government accountability office, the research arm of Congress, has called for more realistic tests and democratic presidential nominee John Kerry once a more modest and cautious approach to the program. Yes, we must build missile defense and invest in missile defense, but not at the cost of other pressing priorities. We cannot afford to spend billions to deploy rapidly and unproven missile defense system. Not only is it not ready, but it's the wrong priority for a war on terror with the enemy strikes with a bomb in the back of a truck or a vial of anthrax in a suitcase. General Holly acknowledges a deployed system will not mean a failed safe one. This is not a perfect system that we are building today.

We will have a limited capability and I would stress a limited capability, but it will be a credible limited capability. One reason for the limited capability is that important components are in the process of being upgraded or developed. The missile defense agency is building a floating radar station the size of two football fields to track enemy missiles. It's putting sea-launched interceptors aboard Navy Aegis Cruises, and it's developing an airborne laser system to shoot down enemy rockets shortly after launch. The total cost of developing, building, and operating a U.S. anti-missile shield could climb to well over a trillion dollars. Now big tobacco back on trial Ray Suarez has the story.

Making arguments kicked off today in the federal government's massive lawsuit against the tobacco industry for fraud and racketeering. At stake is a potential fine of two hundred and eighty billion dollars, a son that could drive some tobacco companies into bankruptcy. The case was first filed five years ago. It's the second time that tobacco industry has faced such a massive government lawsuit in 1998, the industry settled numerous state lawsuits at a total cost of two hundred and forty-six billion dollars. For more about the case and why tobacco was brought back to trial, I'm joined by Myron Levin, a Los Angeles Times reporter who's been covering the case from its genesis under President Clinton. Well, why is it back if it was first filed five years ago and then not pursued? Well, it was pursued. These things take a long time to get to trial and when it was originally filed the centerpiece of the case where medical cost recovery claims, similar to the ones that the states filed, those were dismissed fairly early on and what was left in the case was

racketeering claims which were sort of on the back burner and that is now what the case is and it's taken years of legal discovery. Some three hundred depositions have been taken of various prospective witnesses. So it takes a long time to bring a case like this. Are they using Rico law that was originally formed to go after organized crime operations? What is the Justice Department saying that tobacco companies did? Well, I mean they're basically portraying them as kind of an outlaw enterprise that built this huge market of smokers based on deceptions and lies dating back to the 1950s. This is what their claim is and that when the first serious studies linking smoking and lung cancer began to become publicized with sort of electrifying effect on smokers in the 1950s that the industry sort of huddled up and figured out how to deal with this terrible

public relations problem and since then has distorted or lied about the risks of smoking, about the addictiveness of smoking, denied falsely that they targeted kids to replace smokers who quit or died and so on. That's what the government's claim is of all about. What does the government have to do to make a charge of fraud and racketeering rather than just sharp or reprehensible business practices stick? Well, the judge and the appeals courts will be ultimately, we'll decide that but basically they have logged thousands of exhibits including many internal documents, some of which have surfaced in other cases, in which tobacco scientists and executives are bluntly affirming things they're denying to the public about the risks of smoking. I mean they have documents in the opening statements today, the government spent five

hours and they used a lot of documents about for instance addiction where people in the industry are talking about how smoking is an addictive habit and nicotine is addictive back in 1961. So they said things, they knew not to be true, that's the fraud part of the case. That's the fraud part of the case and that once they had people smoking, for example, they introduced filters and light or very low tar cigarettes to try to reassure people with the way those were marketed that this was a reasonable alternative to quitting, people were addicted, therefore they did not want to quit if they could rationalize keeping on and this is the government's claim. Now a lot of these things sound familiar from previous big tobacco trials, information about marketing to kids, information about manipulating the level of nicotine inside the product. Is this really just a rerun of a lot of things that we've learned over the years into tobacco trials? Well, it is sort of a kitchen think of the alleged sins of the tobacco industry. There's broader actually than in any other case that's come before because the Justice

Department is tethered to an individual, for example, has lung cancer and therefore can only produce evidence that is relevant to what happened to that person. They can go after everything that the companies ever did and so, for example, they're putting in, it looks like a lot of evidence about secondhand smoke and representations that were made about the hazards or lack of hazards of that. We haven't really seen much of that before. So there will be new documents and new allegations in the case, but much of it is familiar, I think. For its part, what are these major tobacco companies? Household names really are J. Reynolds, Laura Lard, Philip Morris. What are they saying in their defense? Are they denying that they did these things that are alleged in the complaint? They're saying basically that, well, nobody would argue that this tobacco industry didn't make mistakes or should have owned up to things earlier than it did, perhaps, but that you can't really call what they did a fraudulent conspiracy that some of the things they said and did over the years, dating back to the 50s, were reasonable or

defendable based on what was going on at the time. And furthermore, the sort of as a two-pronged argument, they say, even if you don't agree and you think you're honored that this was a conspiracy, the only way that you can use the RICO law to make us discourage this gargantuan sum of $280 billion. Is if you find that this is money that will be used to commit fraud in the future. This is, the government, the Justice Department does not agree with this. This is the lynch pan, according to the industry. And so that even if the judge would say, yes, you lied, cheated, and stole, we still don't forfeit this money unless it would be used to commit fraud in the future. As we signed this agreement with the States in 1998, settling that litigation, we have a new level of candor, we have restrained our marketing practices. Therefore, there's no serious risk of future fraud, therefore, there's no need for a federal court to intervene and put us under control.

So RICO, the racketeering, influenced corrupt organization act, requires that, in effect, the corrupt organization still exists with the cigarette companies, if I understand this, saying we're not that those kinds of players anymore. So even if we did these things in the past, we don't do that anymore. You're saying that. But you see, that's their definition of what the law says and what the law means. Today was the government's turn, and they gave five hours of opening statements, and they concluded at the end by saying, hey, if you obtain money by fraudulent means, you have to give it back. You have to surrender it. So we don't have to prove anything more than that you did all these bad things. What we're going to, because they're obviously worried that the industry's interpretation of the law might be correct, and that unless they can hook the behavior in the past to ongoing and likely future misconduct that they won't prevail. We're just about at the end of our time, but you refer to tens of thousands of documents and articles of evidence.

How long is this trial going to take? Well, it's going to take supposedly each site is three months to present their testimony. But even that is there's a streamlined procedure going on here where testimony is pre-filed in a transcript form, and then you move right into cross-examination of witnesses. So it's going to be a marathon, even despite this step to bring some economy to it. And I will live in, thanks for being with us. Finally tonight, celebrating a new home for the treasures and culture of American Indians, an arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports, it was a scene of drums and dancing, music and singing everywhere, an extraordinary gathering of tribes on the national mall in Washington this morning, the day of the fall equinox, weathered faces and smiling children.

A panoply of costumes and colors among the thousands who joined in a native nation's procession, all in celebration of the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, an institution that gives a new architectural look to the nation's capital and makes a new statement to American society as a whole. The real import of this museum is that it is a symbol and a metaphor almost for a convergence of histories that is actually taking place now as a much larger matter. Richard West, a southern Cheyenne chief who grew up in Oklahoma, is director of the museum. What we want to do at the National Museum of the American Indian is try to address the complexity of native experience and life. It's many layers, and in that way begin to address some of the stereotypes. Lots think we're simply an ethnographic remnant of something that was here before, but there isn't here very much now for the 35 million indigenous people throughout the hemisphere.

Of course, we think we're here right now outside dramatic curves and overhanging layers. Inside a large open rotunda spirals up to the sky, a work by Susan Point of the Coast Salish tribe of British Columbia welcomes visitors nearby stands a new 20 foot totem pole by Carver Nathan Jackson of the Tlingit tribe in Alaska. Some 8,000 of the museum's total collection of 800,000 objects are on display, with constant links between the distant past and the present. A dog that you made in Mexico around 500 AD next to another by a charity artist in 1972. Diane Moccasins made in Oklahoma in 1870, beaded chioa sneakers from New Mexico just this year. The modernist sculptures of New Mexico artist Alan Houser, an Apache who died in 1994, and elegant 15th century gold masks.

Many of these were melted down to make European coins and sorts. Curator Paul Chach Smith. Why are you looking at European coins in an Indian museum? We're showing how Inca Gold turned into Spanish coins and coins from a number of other countries as well. It really was the first moment of globalization in contact of 1492. Remarkably, most of the objects here come from the collection of one man, George Gustav High, an eccentric New York banker and oil heir who saw his first Indian on a visit to Arizona in 1897. High was an enthusiast at a time when a rich man could buy native valuables on the cheap and buy the box car. He was working in exactly the era, but he loved the stuff. It was never quite clear how much he really thought about the people who made the stuff. That's kind of an interesting dichotomy that occurred among lots of collectors of that era. Today, the stuff is considered a living part of the native tradition, and museum officials

say thousands of pieces from the collection have been repatriated to tribes. And the emphasis at the museum is precisely on the people who made the objects in the past and on those who continue today, even if some now live in cities and many face decidedly non-traditional issues such as the pros and cons of casinos. Our effort in a methodical, disciplined, rigorous, and scholarly way is to inject and infuse all of our representation and interpretation of native peoples and cultures with the first person voice of the native peoples themselves. I mean, they tell their story. They tell their story, and most stories in the past have been told in the third person, and there's nothing wrong with that. We've learned a great deal from that. But the party missing at the table of conversation about native cultures and people's present and past has been the voice of the native person himself. The museum's exterior too has been carefully crafted to speak to native culture.

The landscape features a wetlands area, an important native crops like corn squash, Donna House, a Navajo, is a landscape architect and botanist. The outside is an extension of the exhibit. It is an exhibit. It is who we are. From the native perspective, one should you see the line between the building and the earth. That line shouldn't be well. The basic design for the museum was by architect Douglas Cardinal, a Canadian blackboard, before he left the project in Middle Eagle dispute in 1998. The outer shell is made of casoda limestone from Minnesota. The color and dramatic curves are meant to suggest a natural landscape, architect Dwayne Bluespruce. The form of the building is really organic and curvilinear because we wanted this building to appear as if it's an abstraction of a natural rock formation that's been carved by wind and water over time.

Even the boulders behind those booths have a story, a gift of a tribe in Quebec, they're called Grandfather Rocks. The native people see rocks and other natural elements, trees and so on, as living beings. And so these are in fact seen as elders of the landscape who are greeting people to the site. As is traditionally native buildings, the new museum opens to the east towards the rising sun. In this case, that means facing the U.S. capital. In fact, the museum is likely to be one of the last major buildings on the now crowded national mall. And the site, as director Richard West, is part of the museum's statement about the true history of this country. As a good southern Cheyenne, I think I could argue that we probably should have been as native peoples among the first people represented on the national mall in a Smithsonian Museum because we're kind of that originating element of American history or the history of this hemisphere. Instead we're the last. But in a very ironic twist of fate, we occupy the first place on the national mall.

We sit right at the head of it, right in the shadows of the national capital building. There's great poetry in that great poetry in that today, the pride of place and history was apparent among the thousands on the mall. Museum officials say they expect some 5 million visitors in the coming year. You can join an online forum about this new museum, director Richard West and museum curators will take questions on our website at PBS.org. Again the other major developments of this day, President Bush defended the invasion of Iraq in a speech to the UN General Assembly. When President nominee John Kerry said the President failed to give the UN a true picture of conditions in Iraq. militants in Iraq beheaded a second American hostage in as many days, and the U.S. Federal

Reserve raised short-term interest rates a quarter point as expected. And once again to our honor rule of American service personnel killed in Iraq. We add them as their deaths are made official and photographs become available here in silence are 14 more. We'll see you online and again here.

Tomorrow evening I'm Jim Lara, thank you and good night. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by. Years ago some predicted an nutritious meal the day would look something like this, but ADM believes breakthroughs in nutrition will continue to come from nature. But hard-healthy alternatives with foods made from soy, even vegetables that help you curb fat and lose weight.

If we are what we eat the future is looking beautiful, ADM the nature of what's to come. And by SBC communications and CID and the William and for Hewlett Foundation making grants to provide access to a high quality education for students everywhere. Through the Pew Charitable Trusts, serving the public interest with information, policy solutions and support for civic life. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you, thank you. The voices you know, the voices you trust, they're curious about the world, like you, always seeking answers. At a time when the choices we face together have never been more important, they'll

be there asking questions and providing insight so you can decide by the people election in 2004 coverage on PBS. . . .

. . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . You see it extra, extra, large. With over 95 years of commercial lending experience, we help businesses of every time grow into the next size, because it's CIT. We see what you see. And by SBC communications, like kids in the backseat, we too are in a hurry to bring your technologies far beyond the telephone, but as simple as the dial tone. At SBC, inpatient is a virtue. SBC going beyond the call, and by the Archer Daniels Midland Company, and the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world. And the Pew Charitable Trusts, serving the public interest with information, policy solutions, and support for civic life. This program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

President Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq before the UN General Assembly today. He said the effort freed the Iraqi people from an outlawed dictator. He said both Iraq and Afghanistan are moving toward democracy despite difficulties. And he said the U.S. must not retreat in the face of violent attacks in Iraq or elsewhere. After the speech the president met with Iraqi Prime Minister Alawi, the Prime Minister said U.S. and Iraqi forces are defeating terrorists. Mr. Bush played down a CIA assessment that Iraq's immediate future could range from shaky stability to outright civil war. The CIA laid out several scenarios. He said life could be lousy, life could be okay, life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like.

The Iraqi citizens are defying the pessimistic predictions. The Iraqi citizens are headed toward free elections. Later Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said the president would not face facts on Iraq. In Jacksonville, Florida he said Mr. Bush failed to give the UN a true picture of conditions in the country. The president really has no credibility at this point and he has no credibility with foreign leaders who hear him come before them and talk as if everything's going well and they see that we can't even protect the people on the ground for the election. And had I been president? We would have done this the right way. This president chose personally each time to spur in the United Nations, to spur in the help of other people to make this more expensive the American people not to tell the truth. We'll have more on this story right after the news summary. militants in Iraq beheaded a second American hostage today, a group linked to terrorist leader Abu Misab al-Sakawi

with the announcement on the Internet. The victim was Jack Hinsley of Marietta, Georgia. He was one of two American contractors kidnapped last week along with a British man. The other American Eugene Armstrong was killed yesterday. The kidnappers had demanded the release of Iraqi women from American run prisons. Also today the U.S. military announced the death of two U.S. Marines from fighting in Western Iraq. Iran announced today it has begun the process for enriching uranium, a step that can lead to nuclear weapons. The president of Iran insisted the effort is peaceful and he threatened an outright break with the UN nuclear agency. He said we will continue along our path even if it leads to an end to international supervision. Over the weekend the UN agency demanded Iran halt its nuclear activities. Republican Congressman Porter Gossa, Florida, moved a step closer today to becoming head of the CIA. The Senate Intelligence Committee approved his nomination 12-4.

It now heads to the full Senate for a vote possibly before the end of the week. In Haiti today rescue workers struggled to find survivors of flooding caused by Tropical Storm Gene.