Bringing you quality local television since 1954, you're watching KCTS 9.
Two hundred and sixty-eight thousand jobs were added to the nation's private payrolls in April, but the unemployment rate rose to nine percent.
Good evening. I'm Jim Larri.
And I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the NewsHour tonight, New York Times reporter David Leonhart walks us through today's mixed
economic numbers and what they mean for the recovery.
Then Jeffrey Brown examines the widening rich-poor income gap among Americans.
Ray Suarez looks at the secretive world of the military's elite special operations forces.
Since 9-11, they really became the tip of the spear in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
And Mark Shields and David Brooks analyze the week's news.
That's all ahead on tonight's NewsHour.
Major funding for the PBS NewsHour has been provided by...
I mean, really, where would we be without small businesses?
We need small businesses.
They're the ones that help drive growth.
Like electricians, mechanics, carpenters.
To strengthen our communities.
Every year Chevron spends billions with small businesses.
That goes right to the heart of local communities, providing jobs, keeping people at work.
They depend on us.
The economy depends on them.
And we depend on them.
During its first year, the humpback calf and its mother are almost inseparable.
She lifts her calf to its first breath of air, then protects it on the long journey
to their feeding grounds.
One of the most important things you can do is help the next generation.
At Pacific Life, we offer financial solutions to accomplish just that.
Your financial professional can tell you about Pacific Life, the power to help you succeed.
And by BNSF Railway.
Intel.
Sponsors of tomorrow.
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems
at home and around the world.
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.
After a week of Osama bin Laden, the economy moved back to the top of the news today.
The April jobs report showed healthy gains, but also a rise in the unemployment rate.
President Obama talked up the report during a day trip to the Midwest.
Today, we found out that we added another 268,000 private sector jobs in April.
The president plugged that good news from the jobs report at an auto transmission plant
in Indianapolis.
The gain in private sector jobs was based on a survey of businesses by the U.S. Labor
Department, and it was stronger than expected.
It also offset the loss of 24,000 government jobs, mostly at the local level.
That made a net gain of 244,000 jobs nationwide in April.
In fact, the economy has now added more than 200,000 positions for three months in a row,
the best period in five years, all of which had the president saying, we are regaining
our footing.
The fact is that we are still making progress.
And that proves how resilient the American economy is and how resilient the American
worker is, and that we can take a hit and we can keep on going forward.
But a separate Labor Department survey of American households found the unemployment
rate ticked up to 9 percent in April, from 8.8 percent in March.
It was the first time the rate had risen since last November.
And the number of underemployed Americans rose to 15.9 percent.
With that in mind, the head of the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, Keith Hall, counseled
caution today at a congressional hearing.
We haven't yet seen some things that we'd like to see in a strengthening recovery.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner went further.
He issued a statement saying, while any improvement is welcome news, job growth in America is
still nowhere close to what it should be.
Still, there were signs this week of economic momentum, rising retail sales and factory
output.
And that could give hope to the 13.7 million Americans still unemployed.
The jobs report initially sent Wall Street sharply higher.
But as the day went on, the stock market gave back most of those gains.
The Dow Jones industrial average gained 54 points to close above 12638.
The Nasdaq rose more than 12 points to close at 2827.
For the week, the Dow lost 1.3 percent.
The Nasdaq fell 1.6 percent.
And we take a closer look at the jobs numbers now with David Leonhardt, economics writer
and columnist for The New York Times.
His work won a Pulitzer Prize last month.
And congratulations for that, David.
Thank you.
It's good to have you back with us.
So, should we be more encouraged or more worried as a result of this report?
I would say encouraged.
I mean, a lot of it depends on what your expectations were coming in.
I was concerned that this could be a disappointing report, because we have had a series of disappointing
reports over the last six weeks or so.
Oil prices are rising.
We still have debt problems in Europe.
And so I think there was some reason to worry that the slowdown in economic growth in this
country, which has undeniably happened over the last few months, would translate to less
hiring.
And, instead, although we don't have a huge burst of hiring, hiring has continued to pick
up speed.
So I think this was more good news, certainly, than bad news.
But you still have the naysayers out there focusing on the fact that the unemployment
rate went up based on this other survey of households.
Help us understand that discrepancy.
Yes, it's really confusing.
I mean, reporters all over the country today, I think, are trying to write stories that
explain both of these things.
And it's hard, because there actually is no good explanation for both of these things.
The Labor Department conducts two different surveys.
One produces the job growth estimate, the 244,000 new jobs last month, and one produces
the unemployment rate.
And there's no way they can both be right for last month.
Over a longer term, they could both be right.
But there's no way they can both be right last month.
And so what's happening is the Labor Department goes out and asks people, are you working?
That produces the unemployment rate numbers.
They also ask businesses, how many people do you employ?
That second survey, the survey of businesses, is much larger.
And so when in doubt, we should believe it over the household survey.
And most economists do believe, in fact, that last month it was right.
And that the rise in the unemployment rate is really just a catch-up.
The unemployment rate fell artificially quickly in the last few months.
And so you can think of this as sort of a correction.
So you're saying, don't spend a lot of time trying to reconcile these two?
No.
They're not reconcilable.
That's exactly right.
I mean, there is some months you can say, oh, well, the unemployment rate went up because
more people flowed into the labor force.
When you dig into the numbers, that's not actually what happened last month.
So there is no story that makes both of these things true for last month.
Take us, David Leonhard, a little bit inside these numbers.
What do we see here?
Where are jobs growing?
In what sectors?
What groups of people?
That's another reason for optimism.
The Labor Department has a set of industry categories.
And every one of them added jobs last month, with one exception.
The exception was the government.
Manufacturing added jobs, retail added jobs, health care added jobs, this category called
information added jobs.
The government cut jobs.
And that's mostly because of cuts at the state and local level.
They're grappling with budget deficits.
Most of them have rules that say they must balance their budgets.
And the way they do that in part is by cutting workers.
And again, just to get back to these, I call them naysayers, people who are still looking
at the glass as half full.
They will still say, well, the growth in the last quarter was weak.
They'll point out that you had surprisingly high jobless claims coming out just yesterday.
They'll talk about manufacturing slowing down.
Why aren't those things a counterweight to some of what you're seeing?
They are, to some extent.
I mean, I'll happily do two bits of naysaying myself here.
The first would be that we do see some worrisome signs.
You mentioned the jobless claims numbers.
That's a much narrower survey than this monthly employment report, but it's also more recent.
So this monthly employment report basically refers to mid-April.
Some of these weekly jobless numbers go into late April.
And they do look worrisome.
Now maybe they'll just end up being a blip because, again, it's narrower.
But maybe not.
Maybe, in fact, next month's report will be bad because of the reasons we talked about,
the high oil prices, the debt problems in Europe, the state and local budget cuts.
So I think the first reason to be worried is, we still could have a real slowdown this
spring the same way we did last spring.
The second reason to be worried is, no matter what, we have such a long, long way to go
in order to get back to anything that looks like a healthy economy.
And at the rate of 240, 250,000 jobs a month, we are not going to be there in years.
Which makes folks who look at these numbers say, well, yes, we can cheer for a day or
two, but the long run still looks grim for so many people.
That's right.
So to the extent that we really want to have hope that things could be improving, it's
not how much job growth we had last month.
It's that the amount of job growth continues to increase.
And so if we, six months from now, are still here talking about 240,000 new jobs, that
won't be good.
Part of the reason we're encouraged is that we had more job growth last month than the
month before and more the month before than the month before that.
And we really need to keep going with this pace of improvement in order to start putting
back to work.
So we need to keep going with any of these people who were left unemployed by the Great
Recession and who very much want to be working again.
And I noticed you posted today on your Web site, the place where you write online, you
showed a graph of what unemployment has looked like over the last couple of years.
And you really do see, when you look at that, that, yes, it was really, really bad, but
it's getting better.
The trend line is better.
Yes.
My colleague Katherine Rampel does that chart, and she's been doing it every month.
It's an amazing chart.
You see just how much deeper this downturn was than other downturns.
And you also see that things started to get better early last year, and then they sort
of went in a jagged line where they didn't get better.
And so part of the fear about now is that we could be, we are at least at risk of repeating
that, because recoveries from financial crises tend to be slow and uneven.
And so the reason I left today's numbers encouraged is that it looks like things are still getting
better.
David Leonhardt, The New York Times, thank you again for being with us.
Thank you, Judy.
Thank you.
Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, the growing disparity between rich and poor, the
U.S. military special ops forces, and shields and Brooks.
But first the other news of the day.
Here's Hari Sreenivasan.
Al-Qaida issued its own confirmation of Osama bin Laden's death in a statement posted on
militant Web sites today.
The terror network warned of new attacks to avenge bin Laden.
It said Americans' blood will be mingled with their tears.
The Web site statement promised a final audio message from bin Laden will be issued soon.
It said he made the recording a week before his death.
Bin Laden apparently hoped to stage attacks on American cities at major holidays.
The Associated Press reported today he had a kind of wish list, but no specific plans.
It cited officials who have seen intelligence material seized at his compound in Pakistan.
And a Pakistani intelligence official said one of bin Laden's wives has told interrogators
she lived at the compound for five years.
She said she never left the top two floors of the house.
Anti-American protests broke out in parts of Pakistan today over the killing of bin
Laden.
Hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties demonstrated in several cities and burned
American flags.
The protesters held posters of bin Laden and warned of what's to come.
MAN, Turkish President of the United States America is celebrating the killing of Osama
bin Laden, but it will be a temporary celebration.
After the martyrdom of Osama, billions, trillions of Osamas will be born.
Also today, Pakistani intelligence officials said a U.S. drone aircraft strike killed at
least 15 people.
They said a barrage of missiles hit a vehicle in north Waziristan near the border with Afghanistan.
It was the first reported drone attack since the U.S. raid that killed bin Laden.
NATO has announced the death of another soldier in Afghanistan.
It happened in a roadside bombing in the south, but there were no other details.
114 coalition troops have been killed since the beginning of the year.
This Friday brought a new wave of bloodshed in the uprising across Syria.
Security forces opened fire on huge crowds of protesters, killing at least 30.
The demonstrators were demanding the end of President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
We have a report narrated by Jonathan Miller of Independent Television News.
In this, the latest day of defiance.
Protesters claim thousands demonstrated in 63 towns and cities across Syria.
Some even waved Turkish flags, thanking their neighbor for its tough stance against Assad.
It's by far the biggest, most widespread day of protest so far.
Daraa, hearthstone of the revolt, from which some tanks and troops withdrew yesterday,
remains ringed with steel.
Unable to enter Daraa, thousands of protesters converged on Tafas, eight miles northwest.
Government tanks surround Banias, as well as El Rastan and Homs, where soldiers fired
randomly into crowds.
After Friday prayers, spontaneous protests erupted in Damascus Old City and the suburbs
of Barzeh, Almidan and Saqba.
There was a huge demonstration in the city of Hama, which was also met with gunfire.
Other protests reported in Aleppo, Syria's second city, in Qamishli in the Kurdish northeast,
as well as in Daruzzar and Abu Kamal.
In Damascus, as they poured out a Friday prayer, as they chanted, he who kills his own people
is a traitor, and they welcomed martyrdom in the face of Bashar al-Assad's bloody repression.
International media are banned from Syria.
Every day, activists post amateur video on the Internet.
It can't be authenticated.
These tanks, apparently filmed today, just outside Homs.
There were snipers on rooftops.
Homs, the site of the bloodiest clashes, 15 protesters reportedly killed.
Activists claim some soldiers opened fire on state security men to protect demonstrators,
reportedly killing several.
The watching worlds condemned the bloodshed, but it's apparently powerless to stop it.
In Syria itself, the thirst for freedom is now greater than the fear this police state's
instilled.
Human rights groups estimate that more than 580 Syrian civilians and 100 soldiers have
been killed since the uprising began seven weeks ago.
In Yemen, hundreds of thousands of people turned out again to demand that President
Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.
He has refused to resign despite three months of protests.
Demonstrators on both sides filled the streets of the capital city, Sanaa, but the opposition
crowd far exceeded the president's supporters.
Police in Memphis, Tennessee, went door to door today urging people to leave their homes
in the face of rising floodwaters.
About 1,000 homes were involved.
Officials warned the rising Mississippi River and its tributaries could leave them underwater
in the next few days.
The Coast Guard also closed a five-mile stretch of the Mississippi to barge traffic.
Flooding in the Mississippi Delta has already broken high water records in place since the
1930s.
The theater marquees on Broadway will dim tonight in honor of playwright director Arthur
Lawrence.
He died Thursday at his home in New York City.
In 1957, Lawrence wrote the book for West Side Story.
The classic musical gave Romeo and Juliet a new spin about rival New York street gangs.
Two years later, he wrote Gypsy based on the life of stripper Gypsy Rose Lee.
Lawrence also directed on Broadway and wrote the screenplay for The Way We Were in 1973.
Arthur Lawrence was 93 years old.
Those are some of today's major stories.
Now back to Jim.
Jim McDonough, The Washington Post, The Washington Post.
The jobs numbers for April were released on the same day today as a new report that finds
executive pay is soaring once again.
Jeffrey Brown picks up that part of the story.
The Associated Press, which released the study on CEO compensation, put it this way.
In the boardroom, it's as if the Great Recession never happened.
CEO pay, including salaries, bonuses and stock options, was up 24 percent last year to a
level higher than 2007, just before the recession hit.
The 10 highest-paid executives made a combined $440 million.
Six of them came from the world of media and entertainment, including the heads of Viacom
and CBS.
The study came a day after the Fortune 500 list was released, showing corporate profits
increased by 81 percent last year, or more than $300 billion.
And we look more at pay, profits and jobs now with Deborah Wint Smith, president and
CEO of the Council on Competitiveness, a nonpartisan group that works with business, universities
and labor to enhance American competitiveness.
And Vinita Anand, she studies corporate governance and other issues as chief research analyst
in the AFL-CIO Office of Investment.
Welcome to both of you.
DEBORAH WINT SMITH, AFL-CIO Office of Investment, ABC News, Like Economic Development
Newsroom, CBS Newsroom, strengthen.
Deborah Wint Smith, I will start with you.
Start with the CEO pay issue.
What explains the fast rise and quick return to pre-recession levels?
I think one of the main issues is that we're seeing tremendous success of U.S. corporations
in terms of their profits, their revenue and their share value.
So, that is a good sign.
And that shows that we are continuing to rebound from the recession, and that we are really
going to see increased productivity and standard of living that ultimately comes from this
wealth generation.
Benita Anand, a good sign to see these hikes in CEO pay?
Well, actually, as shareholders, and we are shareholders representing workers through
the pension plans, we are very worried because CEOs and the rich have gotten richer in the
United States, whereas everybody else has been left behind.
The disparity has grown so that in 1980, CEOs made about 42 times the pay of an average
worker, and in 2010, it was 324 times.
So that's a huge jump.
And it's as if the recession never happened.
You quoted the AP numbers, and our own database we launched earlier last month, Executive
Pay Watch showed that 299 of the S&P 500 CEOs made a collective $3.4 billion, and that could
support 103,000 workers making average wages.
Well, Deborah Winsmith, that reflects what a lot of people wonder.
We just heard a segment where we talked about slower growth and a lot of people feeling
pain for a long period of time.
So what's the other side of the positive sign that you're seeing in CEO pay growth?
Well, putting aside CEO pay growth, I think what we really need to look at is the fact
that what's going on in the global economy is a fundamental restructuring.
We have really left a 20th century non-high-skilled economy.
The jobs of the future are requiring entirely different skill sets, so the disparity we're
seeing in income is often directly linked to educational levels and skills levels.
We can't in the United States compete on low wages or standardized products or services.
We have to compete on this higher value work.
Now the fact is the American worker is 10 times more productive than a worker in China.
In the long run, that is fantastic, but of course it means that automation, the use of
all these new technological capabilities that drive this productivity does displace workers
who don't have those skills and where we don't need those types of performance anymore in
the workplace.
So really what we need to be focused on is how do we transition to this new economy?
How do we have the education, the skills and the training so we can really capitalize on
our entrepreneurship, our innovation, our great research and development?
Because we can't really be looking back, we have to look forward.
Vanita Anand, a new economy?
Well, you know, Jeff, we've been talking about a new economy since the 1980s.
We've been talking about how the United States has left behind manufacturing and moved into
service and now into the information age in the 21st century.
But the fact of the matter remains that what you're seeing is almost 14 million people
are still unemployed, as Judy said a little while ago.
And as David Leonhardt said a little earlier in the show, that if the jobs continue to
grow at the rate they're growing, we're in a really troublesome spot.
So it's not education, it's not that we lack the technical skills, it's the fact that companies
are not hiring.
In 2010, they had a record $1.9 trillion of cash on their balance sheets.
They're not using it to create jobs.
Well, that goes, Deborah Winsmith, that also goes to this other study we cited, the Fortune
500 and the huge growth in corporate profits.
And yet there's still, we heard it again just now, we've been hearing it for months, it's
better on jobs, but there's still a reluctance to hire.
Well, first of all, I want to say that we are really a great manufacturing nation.
And there's a big recognition at the Council on Competitiveness, we're working on this,
that we have to not only maintain our manufacturing prowess, we have to lead this whole new change
in how things are designed, built, logistics, supply chain.
This is a tremendous opportunity for our country.
But you know, the issue of corporate profits, companies sitting on, you know, over $1.5
trillion, where are they investing it?
Are they investing it in the United States?
There is a global race for the best investment, the best high-value activity, and so what
is the environment for that capital?
You know, we had some very powerful data at the Council about three years ago that the
value of profits U.S. companies make outside the United States is three times the value
of all our exports.
But are they bringing that money back?
Well, they're facing double taxation, we're facing the highest corporate tax rate in the
world, a very tough regulatory environment.
So are the jobs going to be here or are these jobs going to be around the world where there's
tremendous demand and also where there's a growing middle class?
You know, 80 percent of all middle-class consumers will be outside the United States by 2020.
So we have to make sure that we are not hobbling our company's determination of their investment
by things that put us uncompetitive against the rest of the world.
Let's not compete on the cost of capital and on wage structure.
Let's compete on innovation and high skills.
And one thing I want to add, we have a tremendous shortage of middle skills.
Do you know a skilled welder in this country without a college degree but high technical
skills makes $100,000 a year, and we're begging for them?
Well, I mean, it's interesting, Vanita, and there's a lot of things you'd agree on about
the kinds of things that need to be done.
But you're saying you're worried in the meantime that this is all exacerbating income inequality.
Yes.
Actually, in 2009, income inequality rose to levels that we saw before the Depression.
The top 20 percent of Americans controlled 90 percent of all wealth.
In the meanwhile, the median household wealth fell to about $62,000.
So what we're seeing is the divide is continuing to grow.
And the reason for that is very largely that the rich are getting richer.
CEOs are continuing to make more money.
Last year, as AP said, 24 percent increase, we said 23 percent increase.
But the fact remains is the average worker who had a job got a 3.3 percent raise, and
many people didn't even get a raise.
So while I agree with Deborah, I think she's right in one sense.
We need to bring jobs back to the United States.
But we also need to have the government help.
The government has to help create jobs.
We have to invest in the infrastructure.
We won't get up to the levels we saw in the Clinton administration otherwise.
We had a 3.5 percent unemployment rate.
Does anybody remember that?
All right.
I don't know the answer to that, but we will continue this discussion.
Vanita Anand, Deborah Wynn-Smith, thank you both very much.
Thank you.
Now to those special military units that brought down Osama bin Laden.
Ray Suarez has that.
Hello, Fort Campbell.
The end of an eventful week found the president praising troops at Fort Campbell, Kentucky,
under a very public victory in the long war against al Qaeda.
Thanks to the incredible skill and courage of countless individuals, intelligence, military,
over many years, the terrorist leader who struck our nation on 9-11 will never threaten
America again.
But elsewhere, on the sprawling base, well beyond the camera's reach, the president earlier
met with members of the special operations team that killed bin Laden.
It was a chance for me to say on behalf of all Americans and people around the world,
job well done.
Among them, operators from the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, often called SEAL
Team Six, and pilots from the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, nicknamed Nightstalkers,
along with comrades from other so-called special missions units, like the Army's Delta Force,
they work for the secretive Joint Special Operations Command, or JSOC.
After the disastrous 1980 attempt to free hostages in Iran, JSOC was formed to use the
top special forces units of the U.S. military, and today is a vital tool in the American
arsenal.
This was not the first or fifth or tenth or twentieth time that JSOC has conducted secret
operations in Pakistan without the knowledge of the Pakistani government.
National Journal's Mark Ambender writes about intelligence and national security matters,
and to the extent possible, JSOC.
Since 9-11, the units have turned into an army, a secret army within an army.
They have incorporated intelligence elements, logistical elements, technological and development
elements, and they really became the tip of the spear in the war against al-Qaeda and
the Taliban.
Since 9-11, JSOC has handled among the highest profile and sensitive operations.
In 2003, JSOC operatives killed Saddam Hussein's sons and captured the Iraqi leader himself.
In 2006, JSOC tracked down al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed
in a U.S. airstrike, and in 2009, snipers from SEAL Team Six killed Somali pirates holding
an American mariner off the Horn of Africa.
But JSOC's tactics in Iraq also led to revelations of detainee abuse and torture by American
forces under the command of General Stanley McChrystal, who later led the war in Afghanistan.
Over the last decade of war in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, JSOC has quadrupled in size,
from 1,000 to 4,000 personnel, as it's been asked to perform more and more tasks.
CIA Director Panetta said Tuesday on the news hour the high operational tempo gave policymakers
confidence they could do this job.
These teams conduct these kinds of operations two and three times a night in Afghanistan.
JSOC now works intimately with the CIA on both intelligence and operational matters.
Though it operates in near total secrecy, its missions are national security priorities.
And that's created a quandary, says Ambinde.
Let's be very clear what happened.
The U.S. violated the sovereignty of a country to carry out targeted assassination of someone.
Now, 98 percent of us, including myself, think it was exactly the right thing to do, right
thing to do.
But it absolutely has the potential to and probably should increase the public debate,
or at least the public's knowledge of this entity called JSOC.
For more on special operations and the SEALs, we turn to former SEAL Team Six member, retired
Navy Commander Ryan Zinke.
He's now a Montana state senator, and former Army Special Forces officer, retired Colonel
Colliv Sepp.
He also served in civilian special operations posts in the Pentagon.
He's now an assistant professor at the Navy Postgraduate School.
And, Senator, let me start with you.
Just a short time ago, Vice President Biden called the units that pulled off this operation
in Afghanistan some of the most capable fighting forces in the history of the world.
Who are they?
How do you end up training, being picked for one of these units?
What you're seeing is these two Tier One forces which really represent the best of
the Navy and the Army.
On the SEAL side, it takes five years to, in order to become what a young man says,
I want to be a Navy SEAL.
That process alone is a long and arduous journey.
It represents about a 90 percent attrition rate.
And then when you're finally a member of a SEAL team, is that you'll have to do a couple
deployments under your belt to show that you're a superior performer, and then you're either
asked or request an interview with SEAL Team Six, in which you go to another selection
course of which 50 percent fail.
So really when you're talking about the caliber of these individuals, both in dedication and
skill level, it really represents the best of the best.
And by the time you become a member of that team, I guess you're no longer a real youngster
either.
What's the average age in a unit like Team Six?
Well, we used to call it the old man club.
When I was active, it was, we were about 34, 35 years of age on average.
Well, you know, you have to understand too, these guys have been fighting in war for over
ten years.
They are hardened combat veterans.
They've conducted operations in hundreds of compounds.
And they're experienced.
They know what they're doing.
This is a routine operation.
And you know, for these guys anyway, they know what they're doing.
They're pros.
Colonel Sepp, what can these units do that conventionally trained forces can't or are
not assigned to do?
Well, Senator Zinke answered part of that question in describing how they're selected
for these missions.
There are simply operations, military operations that are directed by the president that require
a very high degree of assurance of success and to minimize risk, there will always be
risk, by putting together people and teams that, you know, they're physically powerful,
highly intelligent, and then have a body of experience and maturity that attend to that
and then are connected to all the support systems, the aviation units that move them,
the intelligence structures that prepare their understanding of their target for them.
These are truly national mission forces.
Well, let's, I'd like to get some more examples from both of you of the kinds of things that
these men are taught to do that conventionally trained people just wouldn't learn in basic
training as generations of American service people have experienced.
Colonel?
The historical piece would be, explain some of this.
The Sante raid into North Vietnam in 1970, that is the idea of being able to go deep
into the heart of an enemy country right next to their capital and attempt a rescue of prisoners
that are held at a prison camp is the modern model for the capabilities that these special
mission units are supposed to be able to provide for the president.
Senator, some examples?
When you look at weapons of mass destruction or a hostage takeover at Killularo or any
of those high profile missions where you cannot fail, I think that this is the force.
This is the force the president would call on.
They are constantly in training.
They are war hardened.
They're a very expensive force to run as well.
The resources that are brought to bear with these forces are phenomenal.
The other thing to understand is that for every one seal that was in the ground in the
compound there's 200 or 300 supporting cast members that are also doing the job from intelligence
collection to bringing the fuel, loading the ammunition.
These guys have a lot of great people behind them that are supporting the effort.
Senator, are you surprised at all that we're even having this conversation?
In this week's Time magazine there's a quote to a reporter from a former seal.
I can't say a word about Team Six.
There is no Team Six.
And yet here are you and I talking about it.
Well I was quite frankly shocked at the early confirmation by senior officials that used
the term Seal Team Six.
In previous operations it's been special operations and occasionally you'll break it down to Army
special forces or Navy special forces.
But I think this is the first time that we've had early confirmation of Seal Team Six.
And of course when that happens is the public wants to know who is Seal Team Six.
And of course Richard Marcinko and books and then pretty soon with the technology available
today you're able to find Senator Ryan Zinke in Whitefish, Montana as a former member.
Colonel, do the JSOC units from the various branches of the services work together at
all or under JSOC do they remain very much Navy, Army, Marine distinct units?
Oh the strength of the Joint Special Operations Command is the cohesion that these units have
in working with each other.
Strengths of it tend to be pure only in the sense of where they're recruited from and
formed.
There is an Army special mission unit.
There is this Navy Seal special mission unit.
There's aviation units from the Army and Air Force.
But in the over the past ten years the duration and intensity and demands of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and in other locations around the world and the counter terrorism missions
that these special missions have have driven them to work together as a whole, as a complete
team.
I'm glad you brought up the operational tempo because it's reported that there's very high
demand for the skills that are embedded in JSOC.
We have a long tradition of civilian oversight of the military in this country.
Is that weakened at all by a unit that seems a little bit beyond the reach of that civilian
oversight?
The unit is under very direct control of the National Executive Authority of the United
States.
Although they maintain a very tight classification of the capabilities of the unit, who the membership
are, what their tools and weapons and support capabilities are, in fact they're under very
tight review and control.
And the evidence of that is the president's direct role in ordering this mission to capture
Kilbin Laden inside Pakistan.
Senator Zinke, same question.
Well I don't think so.
I think the technology is moving so rapidly forward.
One is you do need a force like this and the demands on special operations forces have
increased and will continue to increase.
When you look at the complexity of the operations that face these troops, it's no surprise that
you do need years of experience.
And the fact that the President of the United States can look and observe on operations
in foreign countries down to detail about almost a room to room clearance, well I think
should give one pause both that A, you can command and control it from further away,
and B, that the level of scrutiny I think has never been more intense and more relevant
and clear in operations that are being conducted.
Senator Zinke, Colonel Sepp, gentlemen thank you both.
Thank you.
It's been a pleasure.
And finally tonight the analysis of Shields and Brooks indicated columnist Mark Shields,
New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Mark, did you know about SEAL Team 6 until a few days ago?
No.
Did you, David?
No, I did not.
It's fascinating.
It's truly fascinating and I mean talk about a great segment and fascinating spokespersons.
I mean they were compelling.
Yeah the two, you mean the two men themselves.
You could tell that they were ready to go.
They were.
They called upon it.
They could go now.
I often think why the military really is the one institution that is, that has high regard
and we've had a loss of faith in all these institutions and why is that?
And one theory I think is that they really tear people down.
It's not about ego in the military.
They tear down the ego before you build up towards service to something else.
And we actually have very few institutions that do that anymore and they're pros and
cons to tearing people down but it does lead to this sort of understated sense of service
and commitment to something other than themselves and an aversion to publicity which is admirable.
And the idea is both of them said that they function as teams and that's where the breaking
down goes and then you come back together.
You go down there as individuals.
You come out as a team.
And we've done well in general.
Most institutions in celebrating the individual not so much the team in the life.
No, I just think I agree with you.
They do break down but what they put in the place is a sense of your dependence upon each
other and they submerge rampant individualism which our society too often celebrates.
What about Ray's question though about scrutiny, about oversight?
Is there a danger that these guys are so good and so at the command of the president that
other people may not know what's going on until it's too late?
Well, I think in this particular instance the word did inform the leadership position
in Congress but I thought the point of scrutiny that the senator made about watching this
did bring to it a level of civilian control and oversight that was unimaginable in an
earlier era.
All right, to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, David, do you agree with the conventional
wisdom that that forever has changed, not forever, but has changed the way Americans
view President Obama?
Yeah, no, I really don't think so.
I think his reputation has certainly enhanced.
He made a brave decision.
He stood by it.
And I think the reputation of America feels better because it's been a long time since
we've had something function really well.
Because of guys like us.
Guys like that.
Yeah.
President Obama, it's been a long time since he's done something popular.
Whether you agree or not with stimulus or healthcare or GM, they were not popular.
And now he's done something really popular and he did a difficult thing and enhanced
his authority.
But will it transform his view?
I'm doubtful because this is not central to his presidency.
The economy and other things are central to his presidency.
And when you look at his standing, it's gone up significantly in the last week and it's
gone up in his handling of terror.
But overall views about the economy, despite these numbers, have not gone up.
And his handling of the economy in some polls was flat and in some polls it's went down
a little.
And I think the economy will still be the central way he'll be judged.
How do you feel, Mark?
I think it has changed.
And I think it's changed.
There was a growing narrative, Jim, that was getting traction.
That the president was the professor in chief.
That he was too nuanced.
That he was leading from the rear.
That perhaps too cerebral.
And a question of maybe not ready to pull a trigger to make the bold statement.
This was a decisive, it was cool, it was bold.
And I agree, I mean, that it was a success.
And we've been yearning for success.
We've been dying for success.
But I also think it's important if one thinks just historically, since World War II, with
the possible exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis, there has not been an unambiguous
military intelligence success on a Democratic administration in that long time.
I mean, you have had Vietnam, you had Korea, you had Mogadishu, you had the Iranian hostages.
I mean, it really hasn't.
And this was...
Just in pure political...
In pure political, but in an act of, a decisive act.
And there's a recognition in the political world that the president really did roll the
dice.
I mean, this was a high risk, high reward, but very high risk, not only to the brave
men involved, but to his own political future.
What do you think about the decision he has made not to release the photographs of the
dead Osama bin Laden?
Yeah, I agree with it.
And I think they did it in the right way.
It's really not up to us.
It's up to how people in the Arab world are going to receive it.
And according to the reporting, what they did was Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates
called around and said, what do you guys think of this?
And there was nobody in that region who thought it would help.
And so you're dealing...
It's a rare moment of American cultural sensitivity.
And so I think he made the right call.
Mark?
I agree.
I think it's...
The commander in chief aspect of the president's job was on display in the mission itself.
This was, I think, the most presidential thing he did this week was to say no.
I mean, there was a growing demand, a lot of people on the Hill saying they got to do
it and you got to get them out and show them.
And I thought he showed that there was a gloat-free zone.
I mean, he said, we're not going to do the self-congratulatory celebration dance in the
end zone, spiking the ball, I think, as he put it.
And this served no positive purpose at all, other than to satisfy maybe the prurient interest
of some people for graphic optics.
He did a little celebration.
I mean, he did go to New York and to the...
No, but I mean...
Yeah.
No, no.
But I mean, it wasn't...
There wasn't a mission-accomplished aspect to it.
He wasn't strutting on an aircraft carrier.
You disagree with that?
Well, you know, I don't blame him.
I mean, he had a big victory.
He went to New York.
He went to the base.
He took a little stroll.
But I think that's fine.
I mean, the president's running a campaign.
I do think that there's something a little ambivalent.
The debate has really begun stirring about how the information was gathered.
And I do think that Attorney General Mukasey had a piece in the journal today saying it
was gathered through waterboarding.
And I frankly don't know the answer, because the experts are testifying 100 percent on
both sides of this issue.
And so I don't know, but it'll be...
That's the debate that will be interesting to see how it affects.
Now, I'm now going to use a tortured segue to say, speaking of debates, there was the
first Republican presidential debate last night in South Carolina, and Bin Laden, the
killing of Bin Laden was a big subject in that debate.
The debate was on the Fox News Channel.
Our Kwame Holman has some excerpts.
This week's blockbuster foreign policy development consumed the early part of the first Republican
presidential debate of the 2012 cycle held last night in Greenville, South Carolina.
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty credited the president for acting against Osama Bin
Laden, but stopped his praise there.
I do congratulate President Obama for the fine job that he did in taking some tough
decisions and being decisive as it related to finding and killing Osama Bin Laden.
He did a good job, and I tip my cap to him in that moment.
But that moment is not the sum total of America's foreign policy.
And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was less taken by the president's actions.
If you look at what President Obama has done right in foreign policy, it has always been
a continuation of the Bush policies.
He's gone right by keeping Gitmo open.
He's done right by finishing the job in Iraq.
He has done right by trying to win in Afghanistan.
Those were existing policies that were in place.
But the views of Libertarian Texas Congressman Ron Paul highlighted the divide within the
GOP over the U.S. role in Afghanistan.
Now that he's killed, boy, it is a wonderful time for this country now to reassess it and
get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that hasn't helped us and hasn't
helped anybody in the Middle East.
At least half a dozen Republicans still weighing a run passed on the debate, broadcast by Fox
News.
The no-shows included those who've moved toward bids, such as Mitt Romney and Newt
Gingrich.
Those absences left a void that was filled by longshot candidates, such as former New
Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, who favors the legalization of marijuana.
I advocate legalizing marijuana.
Control it, regulate it, tax it.
It'll never be legal for kids to smoke pot or buy pot.
It'll never be legal to smoke pot or do harm to others.
And former Godfather's Pizza chief executive Herman Cain sought to play up his lack of
political experience.
I'm proud of the fact, quite frankly, that I haven't held public office before, because
I ask people, most of the people that are in elective office in Washington, D.C., they
have held public office before.
How's that working for you?
The next GOP presidential debate is scheduled for next month in New Hampshire.
And the winner was?
The winner was, I don't know, Ron Paul just on sort of a consistent world view, but Herman
Cain gets the award for turning the sow's ear into the silk purse.
He said, you know, disparaging people who held office, he sought office.
And the Republican nomination for the Senate in Georgia, he got 23 or 24 percent of the
vote against Johnny Isakson.
So it isn't like he's sort of turning his non-office holding into credentials.
I think, any time you get on the stage, it's good and you're answering serious questions.
And I think, in that sense, it's helpful to the candidates who are up there.
It was a tough week, because, as I said, their narrative about President Obama was kind of
pulled out from under them.
Rick Santorum, of course, consistent and persisted in his indictment of him.
But one test, Jim, it's a great test, is how candidates handle something like this.
And what I did was go through and look at how each of the Republican candidates, which
one of them, praised President Obama while praising the seals and praising the act and
the result, Tim Paletti did, as you heard in Cormie's piece, Mitt Romney did, and Mitch
Daniels did, and Newt Gingrich didn't, and Mrs. Palin didn't, and Governor Palin didn't,
and obviously Rick Santorum didn't, and the others didn't.
But it's just a rational thing to do.
I mean, I know it's difficult, and you're upset, and your base is going to be angry
with you if you acknowledge that the person on the other side you're running against has
done anything good.
I thought that was revealing.
Yeah, what do you make of that?
Yeah, that's actually a very good test, because of the people you mentioned who did, those
are the serious candidates.
And I might throw in a mother.
John Huntsman seems to be running, and I suspect he's a serious candidate.
I'm not sure what his odds are.
But it's going to be, the good thing about this debate was there are only five people
up on the stage.
When the serious candidates come in, there's going to be a lot, and they'll be very inconclusive.
And it'll just be hard to have a good debate with so many of the people who are not going
to get the nomination up there.
And so, you know, but I think we'll know in 10 days.
I've been talking to some of the candidates, and I think they have a feeling that within
10 days, the people who are half in, half out have to say, yes, I'm in, yes, I'm out.
So I think we'll know very soon, and by the next debate next month, it will be a real
debate.
Do you think, as a result of last night, that, take Paulente and Santorum, just to pick two,
were they helped in a way that helps move them into the major candidate category, if
these others do, that you just mentioned, do come along?
If you want to judge by buzz, Paulente is a major candidate.
He's one of the top two.
And there are a lot of people who think he's the most likely, and I sympathize with that,
that all the other candidates have severe weaknesses.
And as a lot of Republicans would say, he's the Dukakis of the race.
When they're all knocked out, he's the guy left standing.
So Paulente is clearly a serious candidate.
Santorum is clearly not.
He has a social conservative base, but the guy got killed in Pennsylvania when he tried
to run for reelection.
And him expanding beyond that base is hard to see.
You see anything happening as a result of last night that helps any of these folks move
up the team?
I think the exposure is good.
And the question is what effect it had among people who did watch it.
I think the one drawback for Tim Paulente, and I agree with David, his assessment of
him, is that in that field last night, he should have been more dominant, I think, than
he was when he came across.
I mean, he didn't make any mistakes.
He didn't stumble.
But you would have thought that he filled up the room a little bit more.
But Michael Dukakis didn't fill up the room.
He won the nomination.
There was one good moment I thought he had where he was asked about cap and trade.
He previously supported something like the president.
And he said, I'm not going to mess around.
I was wrong.
He was governor of Minnesota.
I was wrong.
And that is an indictment of Mitt Romney, who is sort of dancing around his support for
a health care that looks like what Obama did.
And so that was his best moment.
To admit mistakes is considered an act of courage in American politics.
Well, I mean, John Kennedy admitted responsibility.
He took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs.
He went to 82 percent.
And he said, two more follow-ups like this, and I will be at 95.
But, I mean, people do respect somebody who will accept responsibility.
And that's a lesson very rarely learned by office seekers.
Because most of the people watching probably made a mistake or two of their own, so they
understand that.
Sure.
Maybe that day.
I remember when President Bush had a debate.
He was asked in one of these town hall debates, have you made a mistake?
And he said, in public, no.
And then the debate ended.
Or he didn't say it quite that way, but more or less.
And then, when the debate ended, he rushed over to the woman.
And he said to her privately, I want you to know, of course, I made a lot of mistakes.
I just am not allowed to say that.
And so the rule is, the rule is, you're not allowed to.
But I hope they all know they have made mistakes.
OK.
Well, good, Mark.
Thank you both.
We made mistakes.
I think, did I?
I didn't say a thing.
And, again, the major developments of the day.
The U.S. private sector added nearly 270,000 jobs in April, but the unemployment rate rose
two to 9 percent.
Al-Qaida issued its own confirmation of Osama bin Laden's death, but it warned of retaliation
against the U.S.
And security forces in Syria killed at least 30 protesters, as huge crowds demonstrated
against the government.
And Hari Sreenivasan for what's on the NewsHour online.
Hari?
HARI SREENIVASAN, The Washington Post, The Washington Post.
You can read Judy's blog post about how the questions keep coming on the raid on the bin
Laden compound in Pakistan.
And Paul Solman weighs in on today's jobs numbers on the Making Sense page.
Plus, on this eve of the Kentucky Derby, we begin a video series on horse racing, our
first installment, a profile of a professional jockey.
All that and more is on our Web site, NewsHour.pbs.org.
Judy?
JUDY WOODRUFF, The Washington Post.
And that's the NewsHour for tonight.
On Monday, we will look at the continuing fallout from the death of Osama bin Laden.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
JIM LERA, The Washington Post.
And I'm Jim Lera.
Washington Week can be seen later this evening on most PBS stations.
We will see you online and again here Monday evening.
Have a nice weekend.
Thank you and good night.
We'll see you next time.