The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; July 10, 2007

I'm Gwen Eiffel today's news, new debate on Iraq, fading public opinion for the war, corruption in China, a former surgeon general speaks out, and the end of the siege in Pakistan, tonight on the news hour. Good evening, I'm Gwen Eiffel.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Tuesday, then two takes on Iraq. Workers take to the floor to debate exit strategy, while the push and pull in Washington plays out around the country as public support for the war fades. A report from China on a food safety investigation that led to an execution, former surgeon general Richard Carmona charges the Bush administration with applying political pressure and the violent end to the siege of the Red Mosque in Pakistan. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by the world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn, and a farmer is growing soy,

and why ADN is turning these crops into biofuels. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why ADN will never stop. We're only getting started, ADN, resourceful by nature. Retirement isn't just about spending endless hours enjoying warm, tropical waters. It's not even just about leaping and jumping for joy because you plan to head smartly, and it's not even about sharing time with family and friends over a great meal whenever you want. Or is it? It's time to start thinking about tomorrow, Pacific Live, the power to help you succeed. The new AT&T, and by Chevron, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations, and 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 held fast on his Iraq war policy today and said he still believes it will work. President said he won't consider starting a pullout until the overall commander, General David Petraeus, makes his report in September, speaking in Cleveland, Mr. Bush said he will not bow to mounting pressure from Congress. I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give us assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions. That's what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going.

And that's why I will play it as a commander in chief. The President spoke as the Senate debated Democratic proposals to begin withdrawing troops. Later this week, Congress will be briefed on an interim report. It is widely expected to show Iraq's government has made little progress on meeting benchmarks. We'll have more on the war policy debate right after this new summary. A barrage of mortars and rockets killed at least three people in Baghdad's green zone today. One was a U.S. soldier. And to the north, insurgents took over an isolated village north of Bocuba in Diala province. Residents who called for help from Iraqi police said 18 locals were killed along with 25 al-Qaeda fighters. It was the latest strike at remote targets away from the center of the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad. In Pakistan today, nearly 60 people were killed when government troops stormed a besieged mosque in Islamabad. Most of the dead were pro-Taliban militants, including a radical cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who refused to surrender.

The raid came before dawn and continued for hours. Troops battled the militants within this sprawling red mosque complex. Later at a news conference, the prime minister said he had helped negotiations with end the week-long standoff. The first thing I want to say is that we are very sad. Whatever has happened at Red Mosque, many precious lives have been lost in the country and religion has suffered a great loss. U.S. officials said the Pakistani government acted responsibly. They also warned Americans in parts of the country to limit their movements. We'll have more on this story later in the program. A suicide bomber in Afghanistan blew himself up today in a marketplace filled with school children. It happened in a small town in the southern province of Urzgan. A NATO patrol was nearby at the time. At least 17 people were killed, 12 of them children. More than 50 others were wounded, including seven Dutch soldiers. The Taliban claimed responsibility, a NATO spokesman called it Shocking.

It's possible that the suicide bomber was targeting them, but this was indiscriminate. This was such a large bomb that it was obvious to anyone who was going to detonate this bomb that civilians would be killed and injured. And this shows the disregard for human life that these extremists are. They are murderers and they've carried out a despicable act. Separately, the U.S. military announced the death of an American soldier in western Afghanistan. A small plane crashed into a subdivision outside of Orlando, Florida, today, killing five people. The plane was trying to make an emergency landing. Instead, it plowed into a row of homes and touched off fierce fires. The dead included two on the plane and three on the ground, including two children. Several others were badly burned. This was another hard day for fire crews in the west. Officials warned record heat and lightning could spread fires already burning in 10 states and start new ones.

In Utah, helicopters continued dropping huge buckets of water on the largest fire in state history. And in Nevada, the state issued health warnings because of the smoke. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez faced new questions today on his past statements about the Patriot Act. In April of 2005, when the act was up for renewal, Gonzalez told a Senate hearing there has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse. But today, the Washington Post reported the FBI had by that time sent Gonzalez at least six reports of violations. It was unclear if he saw those reports before he testified. The Justice Department said today the abuses were not intentional. A White House spokesman said the president still has faith in the attorney general. A former Surgeon General charged today the Bush administration silenced him on key issues. Dr. Richard Carmona served in the post from 2002 until 2006. At a house hearing, he testified that he was barred from discussing stem cell research or his doubts about promoting abstinence in sex education.

Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees ideological, theological, or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized, or simply buried. The problem with this approach is that in public health as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political wins. The job of the Surgeon General is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party. Later a White House spokesman said Carmona got all the support he needed to carry out his mission. The president has nominated Dr. James Holsinger to be his successor. He faces a Senate confirmation hearing Thursday. We'll talk to former Surgeon General Carmona later in the program. Republican presidential candidate John McCain shook up his campaign today for the second time in a week. The Arizona Republican said he accepted with regret the resignations of his campaign manager and chief strategist, but he insisted he will stay in the race.

Last week McCain reported lackluster fundraising and robust spending has left him with less than $2 million in his campaign coffers. The former head of China State Food and Drug Administration was executed today for corruption. He was convicted of approving fake medicines in exchange for bribes. The government announced his death amid growing safety concerns over tainted Chinese products. We'll have more on this story later in the program. On Wall Street today, stocks fell sharply on new worries about earnings and the housing market. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 148 points to close at 13,501. The Nasdaq fell more than 30 points to close at 26.39. The Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Doug Marlett died today. He was killed when the car in which he was a passenger went off the road in Mississippi early this morning. Marlett's editorial cartoons lampooned political figures from both parties for newspapers in Charlotte and Atlanta.

He also created the popular cartoon strip Kudzu about rural southern life. Doug Marlett was 57 years old. We'll have more on his work at the end of the program tonight. Any now and then, the Senate's war debate, eroding public opinion, China's corruption and safety problems, a dose of politics with your medicine, and a violent ending in Pakistan. Should we stay or should we go? The Senate reignited that debate today, New Zara congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reports. How many more explosive devices are going to blow up in the faces of our troops before we start bringing them home? The Senate Democrats pushing for a redeployment of troops from Iraq expect the situation there will only get worse. U.S. troops continue to die 29 so far this month as the sectarian violence their policing continues.

The Congressional Research Service says the war is costing $10 billion a month. And a White House report later this week is expected to conclude that Iraqi leaders have not met a series of benchmarks required by Congress. Michigan Democrat Carl Levin is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Without setting a date to begin a phased reduction of troops and a phased redeployment of troops, there is much too little pressure on the Iraqi leaders to do what only they can do, which is to work out a political settlement. Levin and fellow Democrat Jack Reed of Rhode Island are offering the most closely watched amendment to a $650 billion defense bill now on the Senate floor. It would require reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Iraq beginning 120 days after the bill is enacted. It also would set a goal to withdraw most combat troops by next spring. Some would stay for counter-terror operations and to train the Iraqi military. There is evidence with a new strategy that we can defeat and destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

But some Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham just back from Iraq said adopting the Levin proposal would be a mistake at a time when Army General David Petraeus's counter-insurgency plan in Iraq is succeeding. Now, Senator Levin, a dear friend, wants to say we are going to leave in March of late or 120 days from now, I can't remember how the amendments were but it basically is a statement by the Congress that we're going to undo the surge. The surge comes to an end. We begin to leave and we leave a force behind that will do a couple of things. Train the Iraqi Army and police force. Well we tried that for four years. Training and during a war is a little different than training when you're not at war. Still, several Senate Republicans have broken with President Bush on the war in recent days. The longer we delay the planning for redeployment, the less likely it is to be successful. Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold said those defections long overdue will lead to more.

It's meaningful. It's just tragically slow, irresponsibly slow, that these senators have known for a very long time, that the situation is a disaster. The many American troops have died in a situation that doesn't make sense. I can't believe people have waited this long. But of course, the fact that a number of Republican senators have said look, we can't even wait till September for a change in policy is significant. It means that this war is going to end. The only question is how long would it take and how much nonsense do we have to listen to from the White House in the process? However, most Senate Republicans aren't ready to accept timelines for troop withdrawals. Iowa's Chuck Grassley among them, he said he'll wait for guidance from one man. I've got to ignore what the President's saying. I've got to ignore what my colleagues are. I think we have a bond with Petraeus, not just Chuck Grassley, but a lot of senators do. And I think we ought to general Petraeus, since we voted 81 to zero to send him over there to have some confidence in him.

Will it work or not? We don't know. But we've got to wait for his report and then make a judgment at that time. But senators from both sides of the aisle acknowledged the American people's increasing dissatisfaction with the war. Today's Gallup poll showed that more than seven in ten surveyed were in favor of removing nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by April of next year. Delaware Democrat Joe Biden said those numbers will not improve without a change in policy. If we don't start bringing home combat forces within the next few months, get them out of the midst of a civil war. We will have so sour the American people on the ability to do even the things that need be done, that this President and next President will be left with absolutely no option, absolutely no option, but to withdraw totally from that area and let the ships forward they may. I've seen this movie before, Madam President. I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America.

But Arizona Republican John McCain, a former prisoner of war, said senators should not legislate according to polls as they did during the Vietnam wars. This war is divided this nation in the most terrible way. I saw it once before. I saw it once before a long time ago. And I saw it defeated military, and I saw how long it took a military that was defeated to recover. And I saw it divided nation, beset by assassinations and riots, and a breakdown in a civil society. That's why we need, in my view, to try to come together, and I don't know how we do that. But to try to come together in the most beginning with the respecting each other's views and so that we can come together and hopefully in the tragedy of Iraq and at the same time ensure America's security. Senators will go on the record with their positions when votes on troop withdrawal timelines

are taken later this week. That USA Today Gallup poll showing American strongly favoring a timeline for US troop withdrawals is just the latest indication of a steady slide in support for the presidency rock policies. For more on that trend, we're joined by Reika Basu, a columnist for the Du Boin Register, Rod Dreir, a columnist for the Dallas Morning News, who also writes for a beliefnet.com, and Ruben Navarate, a syndicated columnist and editorial writer at the San Diego Tribune. Rod Dreir, I'd like to ask you, we just heard the number, seven in ten Americans say they favor removing troops by April. Also 62% say they would like to see that there was mistake to go to Iraq in the first place. What are you hearing? Well, I'm hearing more and more of this sort of thing down here in Texas, which has been what President Bush's base is obviously, and even conservatives are saying privately more and more of us publicly that this war is a catastrophe and it's going to be a

catastrophe for the GOP in 2008. I think that the war is at this point unwinnable and as long as the president refuses to consider any other option rather than just staying with the course, it's going to become more and more untenable to stay in Iraq in any way. And I think that you're seeing more and more Republicans saying this openly and many more are saying privately. Let me be clear about this, were you originally a supporter of the war? I was. I was at National Review in the year, marching up to the war. I was a big supporter of the war, and I was wrong. I foolishly trusted this administration, not only its case for the war, but its competence, and I was badly wrong. And I don't see the reason that we should continue to exacerbate that error by continuing to stay on an Iraq, following a failed policy in a war that we cannot win. Rick Abbasu, you were originally against this war, and you remained so, but you were

working in Iowa and Des Moines where there is so much discussion going on right now among candidates today, I guess you saw, had visits both from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talking about this. Have you seen an ever-load evolution in the discussion about the war? I think I've seen a real discernible shift actually in the way that people are feeling about it. When I first started writing against the war, which was before the war even started, I would say that my male ran about seven to three in favor of the war. And I think it's now flipped completely. I think it's now something like seven against and three in support, which is very interesting because it sort of mirrors the national numbers that you just showed. Iowa tends to be a very trusting, very law-abiding state, where people really put their faith in government and believe that government is acting responsibly. Once you elect someone, you entrust them to make the decisions, and I think that Iowans are very afraid of terrorism, and initially thought we should get behind this war effort

because it was fighting terrorism. I see increasing frustration on the part of ordinary Iowans, and particularly troop families who really feel that we're not getting anywhere, that it's time to get out, that it's dragging on endlessly, that troops are being redeployed two and three times, that this was never part of the bargain. And as far as the presidential candidates go, the Democrats are just drawing huge crowds. And I think the number one issue that people are concerned with is actually this question of the war, any time, whether it's Barack Obama or John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, when they say it's time to get out of Iraq, you should see the kind of responses and standing ovation that they get. People really, really want to hear that point of view articulated. Ruben Naperate, you are in San Diego, where there is a big military presence. How has the discussion evolved there? Well, go ahead. It's interesting. You would think there might be a bubble here in San Diego with regard to the military talk about, in the sense that there's a lot of loyalty or troops and what the troops

try to do there. But I think what you see is that loyalty is limited to the troops. It's certainly not directed at the administration or these policies anymore. Have you seen that in San Diego? You see a lot of anxiety and a lot of frustration about what's not being accomplished. Have you seen that change since you've been there? I think there has been a change, but I think this sense that the public has had of discontent with the war actually goes back a while. This isn't really a headline for today. It's been around. It's been this way for about a year or so. What strikes me is that Bush just doesn't seem to care about this, no matter what Congress is saying, no matter what the public is saying, he's steadfast, he's going to do it. He's going to stay in there as long as he thinks we need to stay there. But let me ask you this. I'm curious about whether people in your area in San Diego, it's not a question of when to go. President now says that there should be a change and there is going to be some withdrawal. The question is, how? And I wonder whether there's a distinction that's being made among the people you talk

to between how one goes or whether one goes. Yeah, I don't think they know how yet. I think most people understand that these are, this is a series of choices, all of them bad. There are no good choices. I think that they're looking for leadership, they're looking for leaders to come forward with a workable plan out of Iraq. The data that comes along, they'll be delighted to embrace that. They want to, they want out. But I don't think they have worked out the details about what they leave behind once they leave. Roger, when you move in circles in Dallas, what sort of sense do you have that people are making a distinction between how one leaves or whether one leaves, for instance, in Washington, there's lots of discussion that there should be some sort of withdrawal, but not a precipitous one. Do people make those distinctions in Dallas? I think they do. I think we're hearing a lot of people are, I certainly am in the conservative circles. I move in, talking about the need to not rush right out. I'm probably more in favor of leaving more quickly than most of my conservative friends are, but we don't want to leave a huge mess behind.

I think the dividing line is on whether or not people have hope that the United States can make any difference at all in preventing Iraq from going into an even more savage civil war. I am too pessimistic on that. I don't think we can't. Rebecca Basu, I want to talk to you about timing as well. One of the things that the Bush administration has been saying is that we should wait until General Petraeus makes his report in September. Do you sense that there is patience for that? We've seen some senators here in Washington who have said they're not as patients. I sense that there's complete lack of patience with that, actually. I think people are really fed up and they want it to be over now. And among the people who I talk to and hear from, I don't think it's really that clearly thought out how we should get out. I think there is some sense of responsibility towards the Iraqi people that we shouldn't just abandon them to their fate, whatever that is. But I think the sense is that we are making matters a lot worse, that our presence there is provoking a lot more terrorism than stopping it. So we just need to get out now.

And I think that that's actually why so many people are flocking to hear presidential candidates ideas about this, because I think they just really want to hear a plan articulated. I guess I want to. I was just going to say that our paper did a poll, the Iowa poll, back a couple of months ago, in which we surveyed the public sentiment about optimism versus pessimism around the country's future and the general direction it was headed in. And 64% of Iowans said that they felt that the country was headed in the wrong direction. And the number one reason for that was the Iraq War. And if you compare that to 2001, December 2001, it was exactly the opposite. Three quarters of the public thought that the U.S. was headed in the right direction and felt supportive of where we were going in terms of responding to September 11th attacks. So things have really, really shifted. Let me ask Rupa Navarate about that. I wonder if in San Diego there have been similar measures taken also of which way public opinion is going that's broader than just that anecdotal.

I think that the sense, as I said earlier, that we continue to be very loyal to the troops. You're talking about an area of the country where about a tenth of the casualties that we've incurred in Iraq has come from people who have come from people who were stationed here in San Diego, Camp Pendleton, Marines from Camp Pendleton. And so it's very difficult to be here in San Diego and not feel an immediate poll over the area and a sense that this is not some detached wars and places being fought by somebody else as kids. This is something that impacts this area very dramatically. But at the same time, I think that there is, again, a general frustration that's discernible. I don't think it's all that different from where it was a year ago, but I don't see Americans finding any exit door. I think that they want leadership on this case. I don't think Democrats are benefiting from it here, frankly. Not long ago, Hillary Clinton was booed by folks from moveon.org here at a convention in San Diego because they thought she had been too supportive of the war effort. So I don't see a clear benefit for Democrats either, frankly. Do you have any sense, Ruben, again, that there is a, that the precipitous question

is playing out at all, whether there's an argument, especially among military families, that leaving too soon would mean that the people they've lost died in vain. I think a greater concern going is sort of what happens after we leave. I'm not big on this Republican soundbite that, you know, rather the better to fight to the terrorists in Iraq than to fight them here at home. But if you really think about that, if in fact, the Democrats and others are correct that we've made the situation worse, if there are, in fact, more terrorists now in Iraq than there were before, what's the argument for simply leaving? The assumption must be that if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. I don't think most San Diegoans believe that, and that's why we're ambivalent about this. Again, just lots of bad choices, no easy answers. Unless we can be guaranteed somehow that if we leave Iraq, they're not going to follow us home. I don't think San Diegoans feel comfortable with that bargain. Rod Dreyer, when you talk to individuals, people in Dallas who maybe have loved ones who may be fighting. Do you have... Do you hear that sort of angst, that sort of ambivalence, or do you hear anger? Oh, I hear it both.

I think Ruben is exactly right that one reason that a lot of people are afraid to back away from this war is a fear of dishonoring the country and a fear of backing away from the troops. But I got to tell you, next week, my brother-in-law leaves for Baghdad for a 15-month tour in Baghdad, and it's causing credible anguish and anxiety. We want to be patriotic in my family, and all these military families want to be patriotic, but at the same time, you have to wonder, what is the endgame? What is the point here? What is the sacrifice that our loved ones are having to make on the field and baguette and our loved ones back home are making? What is it all for? Is it going to make a better Iraq? Is it going to make us safe for America? And I think we trusted the President for a long time that it was making a difference. I just don't think the trust is there, and a lot of people are wavering, and it's only going to get worse. Rod Dreyer, Reika Basu, and Ruben Navarete. Thank you all very much. Thank you. The execution of a corrupt food and drug regulator in China, we have a report from Lindsey Hill, some of independent television news.

Executed today, just six weeks after sentencing, the former head of China's Food and Drug Administration, who took more than 400,000 pounds in bribes to license poor quality and fake medicines. Police raid a counterfeit pharmaceutical factory in Guangdong Province. Officials often turn a blind eye to backstreet factories like this. Jiang Xiaoyu's rapid execution was a message from the central government to Chinese and foreign consumers who worried that medicines made in China could be ineffective, or even lethal. The few corrupt officials of the State Food and Drug Administration are the shame of the whole system, and their scandals have revealed some very serious problems. I think we need to reflect seriously on what lessons we can draw from such cases. We should step up our efforts and food and drug supervision to ensure safety for the people. The further you get away from Beijing, the more opaque things get, and at a provincial and

municipal level, the corruption, the influence of the people who are involved, quite often officials themselves are involved, involvement of state-owned enterprises. It makes it a very, very, very difficult environment. That's boiling in pharmaceutical in southern China, they're worried about their reputation and their profits. They make world health organisations approved drugs for malaria, each blister pack carefully marked with a hologram. But the counterfeiters have now made 14 generations of hologram, each one more difficult to distinguish from the real thing, and fake Guilin anti-malarials are turning up all over Southeast Asia. They use laser technology, you can't see the writing from the front, it has to be torn apart and put under strong lights to read. In northern Cambodia, near the border with Laos and Thailand, malaria kills.

Children are susceptible, especially now in the rainy season. Those who've come to the provincial hospital are getting the proper treatment, but often poor families can't afford the transport. This woman told me all her children had come down with malaria after working in the Hadi fields. She crossed two rivers to get here. But sometimes she said she just buys whatever drugs are available in the village. Every day the medical assistant rides out into the countryside to treat minor ailments and provide health education. He knows the damage fake drugs can do. I think very dangerous, the patient do not only lose the money, but also the health, the illness becomes worse, and then finally die. I think that these people should be the criminal of people, because they kill the people intentionally, they kill the people.

He showed me the village store, where medicines are sold alongside vegetables, candles and cooking utensils. This one is an anti-malorean medicine, this one, from China. Steroids are here, antibiotics and sleeping pills, the cheaper the drug, the less likely it is to be real, and people often ask for the cheapest available. The owners of village stalls like this, know nothing of the drugs they're selling. They've no idea whether they're real or fake. And the problems especially acute in remote areas, where people are very poor, in Southeast Asia, and increasingly in Africa. The manufacturers of the fake drugs are making millions, and investigators say, on many occasions, the trail leads back to China. Last year, Cambodian health workers found counterfeit quail-in pharmaceutical anti-malareals. The fakes on the right have slightly different packaging.

We can't say for sure where they're made. We've seen a huge amount of Taiwanese money going into China, backing the manufacturer of counterfeits, and we are talking hundreds of millions of dollars going into the setting up of manufacturing, bribing officials to prevent the rating of those happening, setting up the networks and exploiting those networks, paying off the freight forwarders, the customs officials to get the product from where it's being manufactured out into the international community. As more unsafe drugs and food stuffs are smuggled to Europe and the U.S., China's reviewing the licenses of 170,000 medicines, many approved under the former drugs boss. But fake pharmaceuticals are part of a growing and increasingly sophisticated organized crime network, which one execution and a few raids are not going to break. Now charges of political pressure from a former surgeon general, Judy Woodruff, has

the role of the United States Surgeon General become overly politicized. That was the focus of an oversight and government reform committee hearing in the House of Representatives today. Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General in the Bush Administration until last year, testified that he dealt with political interference during his tenure. And Dr. Carmona joins me now. Dr. Carmona, good to see you. Thanks. Nice to see you again. The job of the U.S. Surgeon General is broadly speaking to be the chief public health educator for the United States. What does that really mean? Well, it's one of the job descriptions, but really the Surgeon General's job is to protect promote and advance the health, safety and security of the nation. As simple as that. Simple as that, but very difficult to execute in a very partisan environment. At this hearing today, it was not only you, but it was your democratic and your predecessors of both democratic and republican administrations who spoke of conflicts with the administration. But you said your experience was worse under this administration.

What did you mean? Well, let me put it in context. It really wasn't me. It was my predecessors who, after I was in office a few months, went to them for counsel for mentoring and mentioned to them that struggle I was having. And they recounted to me all the struggles that they had and said that is the way the Surgeon General position has been for some time. But what we see is that you have it worse than any of us. And this is coming from several Surgeon Generals who preceded me. And what were they basing that on? What was happening to you? Other observations that the Surgeon General was not allowed to speak out on health issues when needed, based on the best science, to deliver the best science, that often policy or spokespersons in government would be talking about given issues without appropriate scientific due diligence. And they were very concerned about that and had called me a number of times when I was in office. Now, for example, when the subject of stem cell research came up, you did. You talked about trying to speak out about the science. What happened?

I did speak out about it. And I basically spoke not of the politics of stem cells, but of the science, which I felt was information that the American public needed to know to be better informed, to make good decisions and to hold their elected officials accountable for the policy that they bought forward. I was discouraged at times. People told me the policy was already made. I didn't need to speak about that. And it was contrary to what the administration wanted. Who discouraged it? People within the administration who were in my chain of command who thought that it wasn't necessary for me to speak on that since there already was a policy. These are, I mean, what are some of the offices we're talking about? These are political appointees. Yes, they're all political appointees in my chain of command. How high up did it go? It goes up right through the department to the White House. So people in the White House were actually leaning on you not to say what you felt you needed to say. I think it would be best described. I think Surgeon General Koop described it this morning in his testimony where he spoke about the them and the they. Nobody steps out from the shadows and actually forces you, but there's a lot of forcing. There's a lot of coercion.

There's a lot of moving a budget, not letting you speak, preventing you from traveling that doesn't allow you to get the scope of your message out on some issues. And what was it about the stem cell message that didn't get out as a result of this? Well, the science, the American public is still in a quandary as to what's this whole thing about. The average person doesn't understand what a stem cell is. There's a lack of health literacy in our nation, so the public can't really get into this dialogue because they don't understand the complexity of stem cells. Not the faith-based approach, not the ideological or political, but the science behind stem cells. Another issue you talked about speaking out, sex education, abstinence only has been the preferred approach by many in the Bush administration when it comes to preventing teen pregnancy, preventing the spread of so-called sexually transmitted diseases, STDs. I think you said today, when you tried to talk about this, they didn't want to hear the science. What happened there? Well, they didn't.

I was discouraged. Again, the administration had already made a decision that abstinence was the way they wanted to go. And that really, that policy flew in the face of prudent science, public health science, which said that we need a more comprehensive program in relation to sexual education and not just abstinence alone. But I'll point out that it wasn't only me. My predecessor, David Satcher, wrote the first report on sexual health. And he ran into problems also in the liberal administration. This was in the Clinton administration. Yeah, Jocelyn Elders was fired because she spoke out forcefully on sexual education. So these are things that should not happen to a surgeon general. And was it worse under this administration or not? Well, again, my reference point is solely this administration. It is my colleagues who came to me. Several surgeon generals, Coop, Satcher, Novello, Julie Richmond, going back to the 70s who all said, we had to fight battles, but nobody has had it as bad in this partisan environment as Surgeon General Carmona. Let me read to you, Dr. Kamona, what a White House spokesman said today, commenting on your testimony.

He said, it's disappointing to us if he failed to use his position to the fullest extent in advocating for policies he thought were in the best interests of the nation. Well, I did the best I could with the resources I had, which, as you may notice, Surgeon General has no budget, has few staff. I'm sorry that they chose to make this comment because, really, my Surgeon General colleagues and I saw this as an opportunity to fix a broken system, not to place blame. You'll notice that the Surgeon General who spoke with me came from different administrations. They all suffered the same problems. And what we wanted to do was come together with one voice and let the American public know that they should be outraged that their Surgeon General of the United States have been marginalized and have been relegated to positions of relatively little importance by political ideology, theology, and the appropriate discourse not coming out in society. Sum it up for us again. What is it that the American people didn't get or didn't know because of this political interference?

Well, you have to look at the specific issues over time, whether it was Surgeon General Satcher, Surgeon General Coop, or myself. Well, I'm asking you here circumstances. Reports did not get out in a timely fashion. My second hand smoking report took a lot longer because of political vetting. Global health reports that I wanted to get out because of the importance of emerging infections and global problems was stymied because people wanted it to be a political document and not a scientific document and that there's many, many other examples. But the overarching issue really is our Surgeon General should be able to communicate transparently and honestly with the American public on all issues. And while you were in office, did you protest? Yes. Well, I would go within my chain of command and I tried and I tried to work through various groups within the government to move these issues forward and it depended on what the given issue was, but pretty much on a lot of these very hot button issues because they were hot button issues and a policy had already been established, they really didn't want to deal with scientific information. And yet, you chose to stay the entire four-year term.

Why? Some would say, if you were running into this kind of an adverse reaction, why did you stay? Well, Mike, let me put it this way. My experience wasn't a lot different than Surgeon General Coop and Surgeon General Satcher and the other Surgeon General who spoke today. The fact is they all had their challenges and every one of us, commiserating with one another said, there were days I wanted to quit, there were days I wanted to go home. But we recognize that our responsibility as Surgeon General was not to a political party, it was the American public, to be the doctor of the nation. And so we fought for that position because the dignity and integrity of that office of the Surgeon General is what we represented and it has never been tarnished. It is one of the most shining examples of a great America globally when we travel, that people say, wow, Surgeon General, our country should have something like that. So we recognize the importance, the preeminence of what we had and we all decided to stay in spite of the challenges because we thought we could move the agenda forward incrementally. And look at what happened with Surgeon General Coop and Surgeon General Satcher, even risking

their own security and safety in their jobs by Coop coming out on AIDS, for instance. Dr. Richard Carmona, we're going to leave it there. We thank you very much for being with us. Thank you so much. We'll see you again with you again. A bloody end to the mosque standoff in Pakistan, we begin with a report from ITN correspondent Sima Mosin in Islamabad. The order to storm the Red Mosque followed the breakdown of talks between government officials and militant leaders. Gun fire and explosions could be heard across the city, clouds of smoke, billowed from the direction of the mosque, but the Pakistani army had imposed a cordon keeping cameras in the media, well away from the scene of the fighting. Outside that cordon, parents whose children are being held hostage by the militants, worked as it became clear the weak long standoff would end in bloodshed.

Their fears were reinforced when the military called in a fleet of ambulances that had been waiting at local hospitals for the inevitable casualties. This has been a delicate operation for the military, with women and children allegedly being used as human shields by the militants, and once inside the soldiers have discovered a series of underground tunnels linking the madrasa to the mosque. As yet more ambulances were called in, officials released the first casualty figures saying at least 50 militants from the Islamic school had been killed. The militants have our taking positions in almost every room, they're fighting for room to room, they have positioned the basement on the stairs, on the verandas. Even as he was speaking, the first wounded were being brought out, and with them reports that the militant leader and a hardcore of fighters were making a last stand in the basement of the madrasa. In the final push, that leader, a radical cleric, was killed, but analysts are warning

that the military assault could lead to more violence in Pakistan. Margaret Warner takes the story from there. And for more on today's violent end to the mosque siege, we turn to Samina Akmed, the South Asia Project Director for the International Crisis Group, a conflict prevention organization, based in Islamabad, Pakistan, she joins us tonight from Massachusetts. And Hassan Abbas, a research fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center. Obviously, he held various law enforcement posts in the Pakistan government, and is also the author of the recent book, Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism. Welcome, guests, both of you. Mr. Abbas, let me begin with you. This standoff has actually been underway for about seven days. Why did the government decide to bring it to this violent end today? I think government's hand was forced by this consistent pattern of provocative actions, and then there were negotiations, as soon as the negotiations collapsed, government decided

to take these militants head on. But do you think the negotiations, I mean, the government had said for six days, just unconditional surrender. That's what they were demanding. Then yesterday, they went into negotiations. Was that a serious attempt? If so, why did it fail? It was a last stage attempt, but I think government was ready to compromise. They offered him some sort of safe passage. They said, Malana, Abdul Rashid, Razi, can stay in a guesthouse, but then the cleric who was managing the show. But he, at the final moments, demanded that he wanted a safe passage not only for himself, but also for some foreign militants. That is the point which, according to the government's foreign militants, probably of Khan or Arab militants. And that is the time when government said, no, we cannot talk on this any further. But there's a different version of the clerics who were acting as mediators.

They say that all the modalities were finalized. They was kind of a compromise settlement. And when everything was finalized on all sides, the draft proposal was taken to Musharraf, and he amended it at the final moments. And that's when the negotiation, negotiations collapsed. So, Malana, I can tell us who these, this radical cleric, these leaders and these students really are. I mean, they've been described as pro-Taliban. What does that mean? What were their aims? The aims were to impose what they thought was their version of the Shariya Islamic Law in Pakistan. Beyond that, their aims were also regional, they believed in Malah Umer style Taliban government. They actually supported Malah Umer and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And they, this is exactly what they've touched.

The young people who studied in their mother's are to follow the Taliban style, government and Taliban style Islam. And then in Islam about itself, for months they had been waging a kind of vigilante style anti-vice campaign, is that right? And if so, why did the government tolerate that for so long? That's exactly where the problem lies. Since January, the young students, women and men have been conducting raids, occupying government officers, threatening citizens, kidnapping even policemen. And yet the government did nothing. Six months of this activity. And we see what happens now. It emboldened the militants' no end. Mr. Abbas, back to you, what has been the public reaction, at least for the first six days of this stand-off, when the U.S., I mean, when the Pakistan government and the military

were taking a very tough line? And then do you have any early read or prediction on how the public will react to this rather bloody end to it? I think initially there was support among the people. They were saying that though we may agree with some of the goals of this group of religious conservatives, but then they said that this is not the way to try to enforce the aversion through use of force by kidnapping people, by going out burning CDs of music, by threatening televisions not to telecast a certain show. So there was a clear difference of opinion among a great majority of people saying that this is not the way. Media was also very critical of these militants. So initially, they was a support among the people. But later on now that there are many casualties, I think public perception is changing. They are asking questions about the timing of this whole issue.

Why government avoided taking them on earlier on and now at this critical moment, when Musharraf is facing stiff resistance from opposition parties, when there is a movement for the for the supremacy of constitutions, what we call the supremacy of or independence of judicially relating to the chief justice crisis, when all those issues were taking place in Pakistan, people are saying Musharraf wanted to divert the attention of people from those issues and also he wanted to polish his image in the international market. So these now growing skepticism that government wanted to save women and children who were held hostage. But when the final toll has come out, there are about 100 people who are dead. Ms. Ahmed, what is your perception of whether in fact some of this criticism might be true that the Pakistan government of government Musharraf decided that this was a politically advantageous and necessary time to finally confront this group?

There are two separate issues here. One is a pro-democracy movement led by Margaret political parties, supported by the vast majority of the Pakistani population, all elements of civil society, including the media. The standoff with the Lal Masjev, the radical Madrasar and Mosque, there I think the government had other compulsions as well. Musharraf needs the support of the Islamist parties in election year, his opposition is Margaret. And I think the hesitancy in taking action for six months was partly due to this political compulsion, not necessarily because Musharraf is trying to use this crisis in this bloody end to gain credibility in the international community. That's the end result for sure. So what do you think this will do for him or to him politically? Will this at home, will this strengthen or weaken him?

It will undermine his legitimacy and his credibility. After all, this is what Musharraf has said all these years that he alone can contain and eliminate militancy and extremism. And yet in the heart of the federal capital, you see a Jihadi Madrasar with militant swarming the place and the government does nothing for six months. This hasn't helped his image at all. Hassan Abbas, of course, from the American point of view with the Bush administration cares about most about Pakistan, is as a bulwark against Islamic extremism. What is this entire incident and the way it ended say about both the strength and the will of the Musharraf government to confront radicalism? I think first of all, Washington will be quite satisfied with what Musharraf has done. But there is an increasing pressure on Musharraf from all sides. This is the worst of times for him.

Criticism, skepticism from all sides. And this was not the most appropriate time from Musharraf's perspective and as Samina said, the elections are expected in few months. This is a very tense moment for Musharraf for his support within the military, within the intelligence services and most importantly among the people. I think this crisis has created much more problems for Musharraf and his stars were I believe already fading now his very survival is at stake. All right, Hassan Abbas and Samina Ackman, thank you both. Finally tonight, remembering cartoonist Doug Marlett, Jeffrey Brown has that story. Doug Marlett once said that cartoons are a window into the human condition. The North Carolina born Marlett who joined the Tulsa Oklahoma world last year won the Pulitzer

Prize in 1988 for his editorial cartooning at both the Charlotte Observer and the Atlanta Constitution. His strip kudzu syndicated worldwide deals humorously with rural Southern life and features characters such as Reverend Will Be Done. In a 1988 news hour profile Marlett explained what makes a good cartoon. What I like in cartoons, what I like to do is to express my way of seeing things with humor and with emotion. I like cartoons that are simple and direct and get at some essence that are in a situation or in a politician that move me, that make me feel something. I like cartoons that kind of knock you back over the breakfast table. Recent cartoons showed Marlett still taking on favorite subjects daily life. iPhone, therefore I am. And politicians on all sides, in this one on Hillary Clinton, a staffer says, I told

you not to let her see her latest polls. And here, poking Rudy Giuliani, a viewer says, personally, I don't see what any of his wives saw in him. In 1996, Marlett told Jim Lehrer how he sees his role. The best cartoons are naturally anarchist in some sense and they are actually more artists than policy makers or wants or whatever and the best ones are giving their vision or their way of seeing things that's and simply holding it up and letting the world look through their eyes as it like a good athlete you trying to get the world to play your game. Mark Marlett died today in an auto accident in Mississippi, he was 57 years old. Again the other major developments of the day, President Bush held fast on his Iraq War

policy as the Senate debated Democratic proposals to withdraw troops. Later the president warned he'd veto any such plan and nearly 60 people were killed when Pakistani troops stormed a mosque held by Islamist militants after a week long standoff. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Wen Eiffel. Thank you and good night. Some say that by 2020 we'll have used up half the world's oil. Some say we already have, making the other half last longer will take innovation, conservation and collaboration.

Will you join us? The new AT&T, Pacific Life, the Archer Daniels Midland Company, the National Science Foundation, and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. And this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you. To purchase video cassettes of the news hour with Jim Lehrer, call 1-866-678-News.

I'm PBS. Good evening, I'm Wen Eiffel.

On the news hour tonight, the news of this Tuesday then two takes on Iraq. Senators take to the floor to debate exit strategy. While the push and pull in Washington plays out around the country as public support for the war fades. A report from China on a food safety investigation that led to an execution. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona charges the Bush administration with applying political pressure and the violent end to the siege of the Red Mosque in Pakistan. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lehrer is provided by the World's Demand for Energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn and a farmer is growing soy and why ADN is turning these crops into biofuels. The World's Demand for Energy will never stop, which is why ADN will never stop. We're only getting started.

ADM, Resourceful by Nature.