The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer : WETA : September 14, 2001 7:00pm-7:59pm EDT

Good evening on this day of remembrance. I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, we'll have the details of the day, an update of the investigation, interviews with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Senators Bob Graham and Chuck Hagle, plus the thoughts of Paul's you go and mark shields. Their last is our Friday night analysis team. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara has been provided by. Imagine a world where no child bakes for food. While some will look on that as a dream, others will look long and hard and get to work. ADM, the nature of what's to come. And by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you.

The nation remembered the victims of terror today and began marshaling the forces of retaliation. President Bush declared a national emergency to respond to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. He ordered up to 50,000 reservists to active duty for homeland defense and recovery operations. Congress approved $40 billion for those missions and the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons. He determined planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks. The House was expected to approve the same resolution on Saturday. In the investigation, search crews recovered the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the hijacked airliner that struck the Pentagon and the Justice Department identified 19 hijackers who seized that plane, plus the two that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect in orchestrating the attacks. He is harbored by Afghanistan, but that country's ruling

Taliban militia warned today of revenge if it is attacked. By the investigation continued, Americans observed a day of remembrance for up to 5,000 people killed in the attacks. At the National Cathedral in Washington, President Bush said the country was now united by a kinship of grief and a steadfast resolve. He then flew to New York to see the recovery efforts and to thank rescue crews. Bad weather hampered their work today, but the area's major airports reopened. They'd been closed again overnight after security incidents. Most other airports were open, but Logan International in Boston and Reagan National in Washington remained closed. Nationwide, fewer than half the regular commercial flights took off. And now a newsmaker interview with the Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, it

will be conducted by Margaret Warner. And Mr. Wolfowitz is the number two man at the Pentagon. He also served in the Defense Department during the first Bush administration and played a major role in planning the Gulf War. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. First, our condolences on your losses at the Pentagon. Appreciate that. It's a pretty grim. Let's start with the news today. The President authorizing the Pentagon to call up up to 50,000 reservists for homeland defense. He said, what do they need it for? A variety of things. Perhaps the most important and I think in greatest the numbers is mobilizing international guard units so that we can maintain air defense protection over the country and particularly over crucial locations, major cities. We're going to have, I think, significant draw on the National Guard and Reserve in helping to deal with the colossal tragedy in New York City, everything from mortuary services to helping the New York authorities in

various municipal functions. That's basically the kind of thing we're talking about. How many U.S. cities, even conflicting reports on this, are being protected essentially by the stepped up surveillance? I don't want to give a number, but the fact is we have capability to respond very quickly. If there were another incident reported, we responded awfully quickly. I might say on Tuesday, and in fact we were already tracking in on that playing the crash in Pennsylvania. I think it was the heroism of the passengers on board that brought it down, but the Air Force was in a position to do so if we had had to. What were the rules? Were the rules of engagement, would they have allowed the Air Force to shoot down a civilian jetliner if it had appeared headed for a target? I think, again, I don't want to get into rules of engagement, but I think it was pretty clear at that point that that airliner was not under the pilot's control and that it was heading to do major damage. Ultimately, it's the president's decision on whether to take

an action as fateful as that. Thankfully, I mean, we really have to say what an incredible thing, and there's been so many great Americans doing great things and the people in that plane are clearly among them. Does use government have reason to believe that some terrorists members have perhaps the same group or affiliated with them are still in the United States and they're still intending violent acts against Americans? I think we have to operate on the assumption that there may still be people from that group in this country. I think we have to operate on the assumption that we haven't seen the end of this kind of terrorism, but we also have to, I think, understand that what we've saw on Tuesday completely transforms the problem. We've got to think a new about this. The policies of the last 20 years, whether you think they were carried out effectively or ineffectively, obviously don't work. This is not going to be a problem solved by locking somebody up and putting them in jail. It's not going to be solved by some limited military

action. It's going to take, as the president has said, and Secretary Rumssell has said, abroad and sustained campaign against the terrorist networks and the states that support those terrorist networks. Secretary Rumssell and the president have both used essentially the same term, the 21st century battlefield, a war of the 21st century, from where you sit the military side of that, what is that war going to look like? Well, first of all, it has to involve more than the military. And when we talk about the full resources of the nation, we mean, obviously, our military resources, which are awesome and can be made even more awesome. We're talking about our intelligence capabilities, which are impressive and can be made more impressive. But we're also talking about our economic strength. We're talking about our diplomatic strength. We're talking about, I think, the most important weapon we have is the political will of this country. And I think we'll find, once again, as has happened before in history, that evil people, because of the way they think, misread our system as one that's weak, that can't take casualties,

can't take bloodletting, can't carry out a sustained operation, Hitler made that mistake. The Japanese made that mistake. It looks like the people on Tuesday made that mistake. Of course, many in the public and even on Capitol Hill and in the military have up to now also thought the United States people wouldn't accept casualties. Are you saying that the way you read it, there is really a new mood in the country now. First of all, I reject the idea that we don't accept casualties. We went into the Gulf War 10 years ago, ready to take significant casualties. The fact that it was miraculously low, I blessed, but the American people were ready for it. But obviously, there's a different mood. And obviously, there's an understanding. I mean, let's understand, just at the Pentagon alone, more Americans were killed last Tuesday than in the Gulf War. And that's a pale shadow. What happened to New York? We think when the numbers come in, we'll find that more Americans were killed on Tuesday than any single day in American history since the American Civil War. Worse than any single day

of World War I, any single day of World War II. It's massive. And I think that focuses the mind. It makes you think in a different way. It makes you think anew. And if it doesn't do that, then people also ought to think that given some of the weapons, kinds of weapons, these terrorists are after what we saw in September 11th could be just the beginning. We've got to put it into it. So go back, though, to the military side. And I take your point about the economic and the diplomatic side, as well, and Secretary Powell's here last night and talked about some of that. But from the military side, give us an idea. Well, first of all, I'll tell you what isn't going to work. I mean, we had two embassies blown up a few years ago, and we responded with some cruise missiles that took out some targets of questionable value. Obviously, it did nothing to prevent the problem. I think the President is the one who's ultimately got to decide what are the military options that make sense. I can tell you that at the Defense Department, both as senior civilian advisors and senior military advisors, are really thinking,

hate to use a Pentagon jargon, but thinking outside the box, recognizing that the assumptions that went into military plans on September 10th just don't apply anymore. And that one has to think about, if necessary, larger forces, one has to think about accepting casualties, one has to think about sustained campaigns, one has to think about broad possibilities. And we're trying to present that full range of possibilities of the President. He's the one, and I must say I've been very impressed in the discussions I've heard him in just in the last few days at his grasp of the breadth of the effort that's required. When you speak about broad possibilities, you were known, at least at the Pentagon during the Gulf Wars, an advocate for having gone further, not quitting, not stopping the war when we did, perhaps going all the way to Baghdad. Are you talking about going so far as occupying a foreign country? Well, I mean, if we want to get in the history, I never thought we needed to occupy Baghdad. I do think, and I think former President Bush

himself has said, that if he had known Saddam Hussein was going to survive that massive defeat, he might have kept the war going a bit longer. I think his people were on the verge of overthrowing him. And that's something to remember in general, that most of the regimes that support terrorism against us support terrorism against their own people, basically. They rule by terror. And one of our greatest allies against them, whether it's in Iraq or many other parts of the world, are going to be their own people. And as we develop strategies, our target is not the people, our target are the regimes. And the people are very often going to be our ally. So if you, if I were a leader of a country that, well, I don't want to put it that way, we're on the continuum of supporting terrorists, which certainly we would all agree Afghanistan does, to harboring them, to maybe tolerating them. Where on that continuum does it foreign country now have to be concerned about perhaps not just diplomatic and economic action by the U.S. but military action?

Oh, well, let me put it this way. As you point out correctly, I think every country in the world is examining where they are in that continuum today. And if they tolerate it or don't are not sufficiently cooperative in police work, I'm sure they're thinking about what the Americans are going to come in asking and what the FBI and Justice Department are going to be looking for. If they're over at the other end where they have been actively financing and training and providing logistics, intelligence support to these terrorist networks, I would hope every one of them is thinking about getting out of the business and getting out quickly. And that's what a strategy has to look at is how the objective, I think, has got to be very ambitious. And I think the President has stated as an ambitious objective and as Winston Churchill commented the day after Pearl Harbor that dictators underestimate American strength, but America is like a great boiler and once it gets fired up, the energy that it generates is enormous.

And when we commit ourselves to an ambitious goal, we can achieve it. But that doesn't mean there is a single solution for each one of these pieces. How careful does the United States have to be to not provoke a backlash, particularly in the Muslim world? I mean, isn't it possible that Osama bin Laden on some level wanted to provoke the United States? They don't seem to have covered their tracks very well. It seems to that whoever the perpetrators were, they've already been many of them at least identified on the planes. Is there a danger for the United States that it might take actions that just inflame anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world? Well, I think there's a danger of that. I think there's, they'd like nothing more than to provoke us into an attack that proves totally ineffective is, unfortunately, most of our responses of the last 20 years have been. And these people have thought a lot. I think we have to think about the fact that they've painted such bright targets in certain respects. Maybe they want us to hit

them. Maybe they don't want us to hit one that isn't painted quite as bright as that. But on the broader point, I think it is very important. We had a number of memorial services at the Pentagon today and one of them was by our Muslim employees. This is not an Islamic act that was conducted. I'm not wrong. There are only two significant figures in the Muslim world who have praised this attack, Saddam Hussein being one in the leader of Hamas being another, even Yasser Arafat, even the Syrians. I think even Gaddafi has distanced himself from it. I'm not sure. But I was in the US ambassador in Indonesia. It's the largest Muslim population in the world. I know every Indonesian that I know has got to be shocked at people claiming that this is justified by the Muslim religion. Every religion has its extremists. And these are religious extremists that we're dealing with. But one of our greatest allies in that struggle has got to be the hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not believe that that's the face of Islam. All right, Mr. Secretary,

thanks very much. Thank you. For the record, I inadvertently referred to Paul Wolfowitz, was the deputy secretary of state. Of course, he's the deputy secretary of defense. Now, the specifics of this day of remembrance, Kwami Holman begins. Just before noon, much of official Washington past and present gathered at the National Cathedral, part of a nationwide day of prayer. Among the hundreds and attendants, former President Clinton and former Vice President Gore, former President Ford Carter and Bush, President Bush and his entire cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Congressional leadership. Absent was Vice President Cheney, who has been at Camp David since yesterday.

The multi-faith service included words from Islamic, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant leaders. Today, we gather to be reassured that God hears the lamenting and bitter weeping of Mother America, because so many of her children are no more. Let us now seek that assurance in prayer for the healing of our grief-stricken hearts, for the souls and sacred memory of those who have been lost. Let us also pray for divine wisdom as our leaders consider the necessary actions for national security, wisdom of the grace of God that as we act, we not become the evil we deploy. With broken and humble hearts, and with tears in our eyes, we turn to your Lord to give us comfort,

help us in our distress, keep us together as people of diverse faiths, colors and races, keep our country strong for the sake of the good and righteousness, and protect us our Lord from all evil. I have been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer, totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept by faith that God is sovereign and he is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. We all watched in horror as planes crashed into the steel and glass of the World Trade Center. Those majestic towers built on solid foundations

were examples of the prosperity and creativity of America. When damaged, those buildings eventually plummeted to the ground, imploding it upon themselves. Yet underneath the debris is a foundation that was not destroyed. Now we have a choice, whether to implode and disintegrate a motion and spiritually as a people and a nation, or whether we choose to become stronger through all of this struggle to rebuild on a solid foundation. And I believe that we're in the process starting to rebuild on that foundation. That foundation is our trust in God. That's what this service is all about. On Tuesday our country was attacked with deliberate and massive cruelty.

We have seen the images of fire and ashes and bent steel. Now come the names, the list of casualties. We are only beginning to read. They are the names of men and women who began their day at a desk or in an airport, busy with life. They are the names of people who faced death and in their last moments called home to say be brave and I love you. They are the names of rescuers, the ones whom death found, running up the stairs and into the fires to help others. We will read all these names. We will linger over them and learn their stories and many Americans will weep. America is a nation full of good fortune. It was so much to be grateful for, but we are not spared from suffering.

In every generation the world has produced enemies of human freedom. They have attacked America because we are freedom's home and defender and the commitment of our fathers is now the calling of our time. At the president's request services and remembrances were held across the country. At Chicago's O'Hare airport travelers simply observed a moment of silence. America's loss was shared around the world in Berlin, New Delhi, India and Rome. At St. Paul's Cathedral in London, Queen Elizabeth and Prime Minister Tony Blair joined 2,000 others to remember the American victims of terrorism. At about 4 this afternoon,

the president arrived in New York, first getting a view from a helicopter of the World Trade Center site, then touring the area with New York's elected officials. The president personally thanked some firefighters, police officers and other recovery workers than addressed the teams through a bulwark. It's on fended knee, in prayer for the people who live for last year, for the workers who work here, for the families who work. This nation stands with the good people of New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut. As we mourn the loss of thousands of our citizens, I can hear you!

I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. The nation, the nation sends its love. The president was expected to be at Camp David by tonight. Ray Suarez has more on today's difficult rescue effort in New York.

It was day four of the rescue and recovery effort in Lower Manhattan and as the day began, rescue workers faced yet one more problem, rain. The rain flooded some streets, turned dirt and dust into muck and slowed recovery efforts overall. Obviously everyone is concerned about the impact or the weather on the relief and recovery efforts and there's no question that they're hampered by it, things have to proceed more carefully, more cautiously. At the same time they're going on because there is still a strong hope that we'll be able to recover people and find people and save them. For days the crews worked in choking dust, dangerous fumes, and really terrible heat. And these were all challenges as the hours dragged on and on. Over night a tremendous rainstorm moved through the area, bringing temperatures 20 degrees lower than earlier in the week.

When you ask the question what difference did it make on the work itself, you get different answers. Some of the men coming off the site say the cooler temperatures made it easier to work and the rain cut down on the asbestos laden dust, but there was a downside. Made it worse, stopped a lot of guys from working, it made the steel slippery in a hazard and it's a big mess, man. Now you're not even dealing with mud and you know, murk and it's horrible. Dave Gutierrez is an upstate New York fire captain. Materials weather, everything's getting passed out in five gallon pales, so it makes the pales heavier as the material gets wet. City officials said there were even more problems to contend with. Crews looking for survivors had their hopes raised falsely by hoax calls. One woman said she received a cell phone call from underneath the rubble where her husband supposedly a port authority officer was trapped with nine other people.

She caused an extreme amount of panic at the site. I was there, I witnessed this, I saw it. And it was all fake. This is extremely dangerous. We have thousands of people working at that site. They hear something of that nature, they get hopeful, they get aggressive and they're working in the hole. The information travels extremely fast and it could cause someone to be hurt very, very badly. New cranes head down to the fallen buildings to aid in the recovery work. When the workers at the crash site can pull apart the rubble more quickly, there are dozens of dump trucks ready to carry away more debris and army of construction workers ready to get to work on the excavation and legions of utility workers trying to get this key location reconnected to the city.

There's a major central office switch here and it was damaged during the aftermath of the explosion, not the initial blast, but due to flooding and water it flooded the switch. So it took out a lot of facilities and they just desperately trying to reroute that traffic through and it's just a time consuming process. The crowds outside the makeshift missing persons unit have thinned in the rain and cold. This wall of the missing puts faces on the 4,700 still unaccounted for since Tuesday. There are a scant 184 confirmed fatalities. Just the chance of finding survivors sends a steady stream of fresh volunteers forward and is unleashed a flood of affection from ordinary New Yorkers. Still to come on the news hour tonight, an investigation update, Senators Graham and Hegel, and the last act of Shields in Gigo. Spencer Michaels has our investigation story.

The names of the alleged terrorists who took part in Tuesday's aeroplane attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were announced today in Washington. At a news conference, the FBI said 19 people were involved. All were ticketed passengers and many were believed to have had pilots training. On American Airlines Flight 11, which destroyed the World Trade Center's north tower, there were five hijackers. When United Airlines Flight 175, which destroyed the World Trade Center's south tower, five hijackers, five hijackers were also aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and on United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside, there were four hijackers. The FBI has requested that anyone with information about these individuals call their local FBI or a toll-free number 1-866-4835137. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also forwarded a list of more than 100 names to numerous law enforcement organizations. These are the names of individuals. The FBI would like to talk to because we believe they may have information that could be helpful to the investigation. The FBI was reluctant to give details of its investigation other than to indicate how large it was. As of today, we have 4,000 special FBI special agents who are working on the case. In various offices around the country and on various aspects of the investigation, and we have 3,000 support employees also on the investigation. 20 FBI League Ed Offices are running down leads overseas, and all 56 FBI offices around the country are engaged in the investigation. Today, we have had more than 36,000 total leads.

Of those, over 30,000 have come in off the internet. 3,800 have been received on the FBI hotline, and another 2,400 have been generated through the various field offices. Early today, searchers probing blackened rubble at the Pentagon found key electronic flight data and voice recorder black boxes from the hijack jetliner that slammed into the building Tuesday. FBI agents from the evidence response team recovered both black boxes from the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon. The condition of the black boxes, the voice recorder was described as somewhat damaged on the exterior, the data recorder was described as being charred on the exterior. I am told by those who know about these things that really doesn't mean anything at this point, that those boxes must be downloaded and the data taken off to determine whether or not any real damage has occurred, and I do not know what the status of the boxes are right now,

other than the fact that they are now part of the federal investigation into this horrible incident. The boxes were taken to the National Transportation Safety Board, but the FBI said that so far it had learned nothing from the voice data recorder. Last night in New York, authorities detained at least 10 people of Middle Eastern descent in two separate groups at Kennedy and LaGuardia airports. The action shut down all three New York area airports and led to a night of media reports that another hijack attempt had been thwarted. At a news conference in New York this morning, the FBI said investigators determined none of the detainees had any connection to the terrorist attacks. The reporting that has been going all night, I can definitively tell you, is inaccurate. We were out at both airports last evening. We did talk to approximately a dozen individuals. We have only one individual left that who is still being questioned by the task force.

All other 10 have been released and have been on their way. The New York area's three major airports were opened by noon today after an 18-hour shutdown. Now more on what Congress is doing and to Elizabeth Farnsworth. As we reported earlier, Congress approved a $40 billion package today for recovery efforts in New York, increased transportation security, and the counter-terrorist effort. Also, the Senate approved a use of force resolution. And members have been receiving briefings about the progress of the terrorist attack investigations. We talk about all that now with two senators, Democrat Bob Graham of Florida, he's chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Graham, what can you add to the information we just heard about the investigation? The investigation is proceeding in an expedited manner as indicated those who were responsible for the hijackings have now been identified and a web of people around those will be

interviewed to determine who the next circle of individuals who committed this horrific act. Senator Graham, are you getting the briefings? You're getting the information you need and the briefings there was some complaining yesterday that people in Congress weren't getting full briefings. In my opinion, the first priorities of the investigation now are to determine if there are any survivors to move as expeditiously as possible to answer the questions as to whether there will be future chapters after Tuesday and if so to take protective actions and to continue the investigation to determine with the greatest possible specificity who was responsible for these terrible tragedies. So you are getting the briefings or you aren't? We are getting briefings, but my judgment, those three previous items are the priorities for the same people who would be giving us briefings. Senator Hagel, anything to add here?

No, I think Senator Graham has said it exactly right. Let's keep our priorities straight. I don't think 535 members of Congress need briefings every three hours. We have charged the president, the executive branch, the FBI, CIA, all who are part of that to get this job done. And that's where I would like to see him focus. So I am perfectly pleased and satisfied with the kind of material information briefings we're receiving. On the use of force resolution, Senator Hagel, give us an idea of how the language was arrived at and tell me what it authorizes in your view. Well, the language was crafted as a result of the White House, representatives of the President's administration, the House's Senate, bipartisan effort coming together with a common objective. And that is to show the unity that we need to show to the American people and to the world that this administration with the support of the President's Cabinet and the Congress is

going to do what's required and what's necessary to get the facts, the information, be secure with those facts and information, and then deal with the punishment that will, in fact, be coming. And in addition to that, deal with a long-term aspect of what we are about here. I think it's important the American public understand this is not a short-term effort. This is, an effort that's going to require a tremendous amount of coalition building from the free world to deal with the scourge of terrorism and a commitment to go as long as we need to go to drive a stake to the heart of terrorism. That's what this resolution essentially does and it gives the President the tools, the support to do that. Senator Graham, how is it unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which many people who voted for it later came to believe was too general. I noticed there's this word, harbored. It authorizes force not only against nations or persons

who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks, but also harbored those who did. It goes in two additional ways. One, it extends beyond those who actually committed the acts to sovereign nations, which provided support, financing, safe havens for the terrorists, and it allows the President to take preventive action by those persons who committed the acts on September the 11th. If we have evidence that they are about to strike again, I was not in the Congress when the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed from some of the more senior members of the Senate who were, their complaint seemed to be not with the resolution itself, but the fact that in the implementation of the resolution, the intent of Congress was exceeded and therefore they urge that there be consistent oversight of the use of this resolution to avoid what happened at the beginning of the Vietnam War. Now Senator Graham, I want to raise

a couple of things that Secretary Wolfowitz said. He said, given some of the weapons they have, speaking of the terrorists, this could just be the beginning. Could you comment on that? Yes, there has been a concern since Tuesday. That Tuesday was not a one-event book, that this is a situation which we may be facing subsequent chapters by the same people who committed the acts on Tuesday, but they would not necessarily and probably would not be using the same methods of hijacking planes. And so we have been on high alert for a potential follow-on series of actions that could take any form from car bombs to attacking other forms of transportation. Senator Hakel on that? Well, Senator Graham is right. I think we have to remember that terrorism comes in all forms. It's asymmetrical. Terrorism strikes always, where we least expect it, where we are most vulnerable.

And therefore alert and alert society and alert intelligence network and alert military. All the dynamics that go into national security are very fundamental to this. And Secretary Wolfowitz is right, as Senator Graham said. We don't know what is yet to come, but we do know that what happened Tuesday was a very sophisticated, well-coordinated, well-financed, well-planned strike. The most unprecedented strike in the history of man, this command and control terrorist act. We must expect that there is something behind this. We must in all responsibility for what we have to do in order to protect the security of this country, assume there is something else out there. That is the only way that we can defend in the future. And I think we are taking those kinds of precautions.

Senator Hakel, when Margaret asked Secretary Wolfowitz about the projected action, she said, are you concerned about or how do you avoid provoking a backlash? And I want to ask you specifically about, for example, the situation that the Pakistani President is in. Apparently, Islamic militants have threatened Holy War if he does what he is being asked to do, but he confronts possible reaction from the United States if he doesn't do it. What is your concern in this area? How do you deal with this? Well, it's a big concern. I think Secretary Wolfowitz addressed it rather well when he referenced his time as ambassador to Indonesia, which, as he noted, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. We are going to need to cooperation of all Muslim nations. Islam is not about this kind of terror. That's very clear, and we need to cooperation of all Muslim nations, and we are seeking their cooperation, and we have received their cooperation and support. So there is a risk in this, and we must be very careful how this is played, and I think Secretary Powell addressed some of that as well as afternoon in his news conference.

And Senator Graham, how do you see the danger of a backlash? I was in Pakistan two weeks ago, met with the President and other leading officials of that nation. They are in a very difficult situation. The Taliban started in Pakistan. There are parts of the Pakistani population that feel a strong affinity for the Taliban. Pakistan has been in the United States ally for most of the period of the Cold War, and was a major staging ground for our support in Afghanistan when we were attempting to eject the Soviet Union. I am optimistic that Pakistan will give us the kind of support such as for air overflights and maybe basing for some of our operations if, in fact, Afghanistan becomes a major target. I think this raises the issue that what we're facing now is a turning of the page of America.

We are going to have a different relationship with the world than we have had in the past. We are going to have to approach terrorism with a greater degree of coordination both domestically and internationally. We are going to have to make an investment in areas that have been allowed to degrade, particularly our human intelligence, our spies, our technology of eavesdropping and our ability to analyze the tremendous amount of information that we collect. These are all going to be challenges that this new era will require. Let me interrupt you right there because I want to know if some of that $40 billion you voted today will go to that to improve intelligence specifically. And what specifically would you do first? I hope so and I anticipate under the broad category of increased national security, which was one of the priorities of the $40 billion in my opinion, intelligence is one of the highest needs. We need to make an investment in our

capacity to get a human being close to these terrorist groups so that we can have a better understanding of their capabilities and intentions before they commit another September 11th. We need to invest in the new technologies such as computer-to-computer communication. We're much information of groups like Bin Laden's as being transferred and we're having a great difficulty intercepting that information. Every day we collect enough material through our various intelligence sources to fill the Library of Congress. Now we've got to make an investment in being sure that we know which book within that library to read because that's the relevant book with the material that will give us the operational capability to avoid another September 11th. And briefly Senator Hagel we're just about out of time on the intelligence. Well Senator Graham is exactly right. We have eroded our

human intelligence capabilities significantly for the last 25 years and I think as we get the facts here and understand more and more where the gaps are and what went wrong it will lead us back much to that gap in human intelligence. We must build back that dynamic of our national security apparatus. Senator Graham and Hagel thanks for being with us. And that brings us finally to a finally for shields and jigos indicated columnist Mark Shields, Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Jago. Paul how would you rate the performance of our government's leaders in this moment of incredible crisis? I would give them very good marks both Capitol Hill and the president. I think it's really a test on foreign policy for the president above all because he is the commander in chief and I think Bush has done the things that you expect of a commander in chief. He's been

visible but president has been reassuring. No question about that. I think some of the criticism earlier that he didn't quote quote quote quickly enough back to the White House I think I find that nitpicking. I think he was there in the evening when he should have been for the Oval Office address. I don't know what the secret service was telling about the threats that really were there for him and I think his rhetoric has been appropriate to the event both both in a consoling sense for the nation, especially today at the National Cathedral, and also in terms of defining the stakes as we go out in the future on this and the real risks that we have to take and the potential for conflict. Mark, how do you feel the President is doing? Jim, I don't think the President has seized the moment. He hasn't made a connection with the people he hasn't established a sense of command. I think Tuesday was important because it was the first real crisis of George Bush's

presidency, and whether subsequent events indicate that there was a real threat or whatever, the fact that he didn't return to the White House, didn't return to Washington, and he's lacked any sense of eloquence. David McCulloch, the historian, said that great presidents basically have a great ability to communicate and to speak Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Reagan, and I was thinking of Reagan in the sense of January 28th, 1986, when the challenge went down, Ronald Reagan spoke for the nation. That's what President has to do. He said, as they wave goodbye and slip the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God, I mean, that spoke for everybody at the time. The President hasn't gotten – hasn't established the tone in the problem farm is that Paul's right is Commander-in-Chief, that's an important part of the job, but the President's also a chaplain. He's also a coach. He's also someone who has to inspire and explain, and I don't think he's done that.

And Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York, so aptly described today by Paul Aesman in the Washington Post as Winston Churchill in a Yankees cap, has filled that role remarkably well, and it's student contrast. What about today Paul's point about the President's remarks at the National Cathedral and also to the workers in New York? I thought the New York event, I'm glad he went. It just seems he's a day late each place, and I don't mean to be nitpicking on him. But I mean, he didn't – the New York thing, talking at a moment like that at a place like that through a bull sound – what the hell do you think is a bull horn, bull horn, whatever. Yeah, bull horn. Not the only problem, but the bull horn. You know, it just didn't seem a problem. I thought the National Cathedral service was moving and touching, and I thought he did better than he had done at any point up to that. Is he nitpicking?

I think saying it was 24 hours late to go to New York, I'm sorry, Mark. I do think that's nitpicking, and I thought I listened to the National Cathedral in the car, the speech in the car, a following Billy Graham who was eloquent, I thought, and brought a tear to my eye, I thought he spoke for the nation, but – and some of this – and people say he doesn't feel the screen, but it sounds like TV criticism more than it does actually, Chris's leadership, and leadership is provided in many ways, I mean, ultimately, the leadership is going to be defined here, I think, by can you marshal a coalition to do accomplish the goals that you want? Can you maintain the political support within the United States, and within the allies to do what you need to do? You would say, Mark, that there's an additional responsibility. The enormous difference – Jim, I mean, if there's anything that this country has to have learned is that it isn't an army that fights a war, it's a nation that fights a war.

What other sacrifices this president is going to ask of us? I mean, are any of us going to have to give up or opinion or greasie-o, or whatever else? I mean, is there going to be any imposition say this is collective when not just hiring these young Hessians in the volunteer forces to go out there, or are we going to ask the nation to make real sacrifices other than the inconvenience of added security at the airport? Well, you have to know what you're going to – what you want to accomplish if I sit down and say this is what the task at hand is, and right now we're in the process of trying to figure out exactly what the task at hand is, though we know the kind of conflict that we're in. And I think as far as defining that conflict and saying that these are acts of war, saying this is the first war of the 21st century, I think he's rhetorically raised the stakes for himself, but also for the country. And he's told a country that this is serious business, and that's the first active leadership. Let me ask you this, Paul. Much has been said since Tuesday that this whole situation changes dramatically and permanently the priorities of the United States.

All this talk about lockboxes and social security and tax cuts and everything that we were talking about endlessly on this program and elsewhere is suddenly off the table, forever, as far as this administration and for the president. Well, forever is a long time, but it's okay, right, but for the next while, absolutely. No question in an instant. I mean, you can see it on the Capitol Hill. It changed the priorities. John Negroponte, the president's nominee to be the UN ambassador, was going to be a fight. He slipped through the Senate. Voice vote. Social security surplus. Both parties agree. We can't possibly touch the social appropriations bill. The federal voting committee. Conventional wisdom in the city. Defense budget. No increase. Very little. Nothing. Now, $40 billion, just like that. It's going to, I mean, this makes it much easier in policy terms for Secretary Rumsfeld to get the money he wants, not just to fight this particular war on terrorism, but also to do military.

You're going to give you two points. One bipartisanship is demanded by the American people right now. That works to the president's advantage. The president has the leverage. He has the advantage. He is our one voice on foreign policy. So anybody on Capitol Hill who appears partisan in sniping or criticism is going to pay a political price. As long as the president has been criticized in any political dialogue, it's a one-sided dialogue. The president is going to prosper politically. So make no mistake about that. But will it be a day as a lifetime in politics, Jim, and a week as an eternity? And Paul is right. There's a sense of unity now. But we will return. George W. Bush was elected at a time of peace and prosperity. Eight months into his presidency, prosperity is at risk. And peace took a serious and tragic body blow on Tuesday. But I think it does change the dialogue as well away from that economic problem, which I think would have hurt Bush.

And now that is secondary. I don't think he's going to get blamed as much for that. Speaking of Tuesday, a personal Paul, you were in New York. You were in the process of finding an apartment. Tell us the story of your Tuesday morning. Well, I took the six o'clock shuttle up to New York. I had some meetings and some apartment hunting in the morning. And for six o'clock. For a mind people, you have become the editor of the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. And you were getting situated. Go ahead. It's just supposed to start Monday. Yeah. Start a little early, as it is. But I was up there and I saw our offices are right next to the World Trade Center a couple hundred yards away. So I parked there at 7.30, got my coffee, went through the email, walked outside, caught a cab, curled around the west side highway, curled around the World Trade Center. It was probably about a half mile to a mile away from behind and I heard this boom. And that's when the first plane hit. And shortly thereafter, my cab driver saw it in his rear vie mirror, jumped up, said, oh my god, we both walked out and looked and we saw the gaping hole.

And then what happened to you and your colleagues in the Wall Street Journal? Well, we sort of couldn't believe what happened like everybody else looking and staring. I went up to a building, tried to get a better look. And on the way up the second one hit. So none of the phones, my cell phone didn't work. So we went to a landline called my boss Bob Bartley. And we laid out a game plan where we were going to produce the paper from our emergency. It's a long time in planning emergency plant in New Jersey. So I said, with all the bridges and tunnels closed to the Hudson, I think I'll go north. So I went north, took a train to Yonkers, took a cab from Yonkers to White Plains, rented a car, drove to New Jersey and got there and we put out a paper. Well, the other personal thing of course is this is tonight ends eight years of your collaboration of Shields and Gigo. And I wanted to tell you from our point of view, it's been a great eight years and we're

going to miss you and Mark wanted to say something nice. Well people asked me about Paul and I said, of him, and I'll say it again, this is in it's the highest praise that Boston Irishman can ever deliver. He's never forgotten where he came from. Green Bay was gone, Green Bay was gone to the best sense and he's not, there's none of the pretense of the pumposity or anything that one might associate, understandably with someone who's had such a spectacularly successful career, a Pulitzer Prize, a great pride in that because I don't know if that was the last year or that. And so I, you know, he's been a good colleague and a fair colleague and I wish him nothing but the best in New York, he'll knock him dead. He'll knock him dead and just for the record and tell everybody, I mean, the Friday night relationship ends but we're going to be on the phone to you to appear, you will always be part of this program, Paul, and you, you know, it's okay to be editor of the editorial

page and appear on this program from time to time. It certainly is from my point of view, but you're both very generous and it's been my privilege. I think Mark is pleased that I've been his straight man for eight years. Well, anyhow, our best day in my Friday, we look forward to seeing you again many, many times. It's a pleasure. Thank you very much. And we'll be back tomorrow evening Saturday and again Sunday with special editions of The NewsHour. We'll see you then and again on Monday and as always online. Tonight on most PBS stations, there will also be a special program, America responds, a two-hour national conversation hosted by Glenn Eiffel and Charlie Rose. I'm Jim Lara. Thank you and good night. Major funding for The NewsHour with Jim Lara has been provided by.

Imagine a world where we're not diminishing resources, we're growing with ethanol, a cleaner burning fuel made from corn, ADM, the nature of what's to come. By the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, this program was also made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. Video cassettes of The NewsHour with Jim Lara are available from PBS Video. Now in its 28th season, Washington Week in Review covers the major news events with Washington's top journalists next on PBS.

A few things in life are worth coming back to on television, very few things. In our house, Washington Week in Review is a tradition on Friday nights. These are civilized folks you'd want, you're living room, no shouting, no political posturing, just the top reporters in the country, the pros who actually cover the news, sharing their insights on the major stories. It's fascinating stuff. Washington Week in Review Friday nights on PBS, the most interesting conversation of the week. You know what paper cut, they split the world, they pass they split away across the universe.

I could only take it out of the world, I think it's gonna change my world, I think it's gonna change my world, I think it's gonna change my world, I think it's gonna change my world. Coming soon on PBS. Hey, hey, hey, get your wife and come on over here. Come on, you lived over eight months and nobody even knows you. I'm a little busy. I mean what, are you in the witness protection program or something? Wife is a series of surprises and now it's also a series, Life 360, coming to PBS. What's with him?

I don't know. I just made a joke about the witness protection program. Who's going to tell you the stories that hit you where you live, that make you think that change your mind? Who's going to tell you the stories that open doors, that tear down walls, that change lives? Who's going to tell you the stories that matter? Frontline. Now in its 28th season, Washington Week in Review covers the major news events with Washington's Top Journalists next on PBS.