captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehrer: 268,000 jobs were added to the nation's private payrolls in april, but the unemployment rate rose to 9%. good evening. i'm jim lehrer. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight, "new york times" reporter david leonhardt walks us through today's mixed economic numbers and what they mean for the recovery. >> lehrer: then, jeffrey brown examines the widening rich-poor income gap among americans. >> woodruff: 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. >> lehrer: 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, where would we be without small businesses? >> we need small businesses. >> they're the ones that help drive growth. >> like electricians, mechanics, carpenters. >> they 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. and 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.

>> woodruff: 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. >> woodruff: 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 keep on going forward. >> woodruff: but a separate labor department survey of american households found the unemployment rate ticked up to 9% in april from 8.8% in march. it was the first time the rate had risen since last november, and the number of "under- employed" americans rose to 15.9%. 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's we'd like to see in a strengthening recovery. >> woodruff: 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 the gains. the dow jones industrial average gained 54 points to close above 12,638. the nasdaq rose more than 12 points to close at 2,827. for the week, the dow lost 1.3%; the nasdaq fell 1.6%. 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. >> lehrer: congratulations for that, david. >> thank you. >> woodruff: good to have you back with us. should we be more encouraged or worried as a result of this reported. >> i would say encouraged. a lot depends on your expectations coming in. i was concerned this could be a disappointing report because we've had a series of disappointing reports over the last six weeks or so. oil prices are rising. we still have debt problems in europe. so i think there was some reason to worry that the slowdown in economic growth in this country which sun deniably happened over the last three months would translate to less hiring. and instead we don't have a huge burst of hiring, hiring has continued to pick up speed. so i think this more good news certainly than bad news. >> woodruff: 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. >> yeah, it's really confusion. i mean reporters all over the country today i think were trying to write stories that explain both of these things. it is hard because there

actually is to 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 longer term they could both be right but there's no way they can both be right last month. 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 dow 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 artificialically-- artificially quickly and so you can think of this as sort of a correction. >> so you are saying don't spend a lot of time trying to reconcile these too. >> no, they are not reconcileable. that exactly right. 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 is not actually what happened last month. there is no story that makes both of these thins true for last month. >> take us david leonhardt inside these numbers. what do we see here, where are jobs grows, what sector, what groups of people? >> that is 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 is by cutting workers. >> again just to get back to these, i call them naysayers, people who are still looking at the glass as half full, you know, they will still say well, the growth in the last quarter was week. they'll point out that you know, you had surprisingly high jobless claims. >> right. >> coming out just yesterday. they'll talk about

manufacturing slowing down. why aren't those things a counterweight to some of what you are seeing. >> they are to some extent. i will happily do two-bits of naysaying myself. the first would be that we do see some worrisome signs. you mentioned the jobless claims numbers. that is a much narrower survey than this report but it's also more recent. this monthly 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 it is narrower. but maybe not. maybe next's month report will be bad because of the reason we talked about. the high oil prices, the debt problems in europe, the state and local budget cuts. i think the first reason to are be worried 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 of a healthy economy. at the rate of 240, 250,000 jobs a month, we are not going to be there in years.

>> which makes folks who look the a these numbers say yes, we can cheer for a day or two but the long run still looks grim for so many people. >> that's right. and so to the extent that we really want to have hope that things could can 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-- 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 are encouraged is 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 many of these people who are left unemployed by the great recession. and who very much want to be working again. >> woodruff: and i noticed you posted today on your web site, on the place where you write on-line, you showed a graph what what unemployment, employment 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 does

that chart and has been doing it every month it is an amazing chart. you see just how much deeper this downturn was and other downturns. you also see that things started to get better early and they sort of went in a jagged line where they didn't bet better. so part of the fear about now is that we could be, we are at least at risk of repeating that. because we're recovery from financial crises tends to be slow and uneven. so the reason i left today's numbers encourage kd is that it looks like things are still getting better. >> woodruff: david leonhardt, "new york times", thank you again for being with us. >> thank you, judy. >> lehrer: still to come on the newshour: the growing disparity between rich and poor; the u.s. military's special ops forces; and shields and brooks. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: al qaeda 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. >> america is celebrating the kill of osama bin laden but it will be a temporary celebration. after the martyrdom of osama billions, trillions of osamas will be born.

>> sreenivasan: 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 osama 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. >> reporter: in this, the latest day of defiance, activists 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. deraa, the hearthstone of the revolt, from which some tanks and troops withdrew yesterday, remains ringed with steel. unable to enter deraa, thousands of protestors converged on tafas, eight miles northwest. government tanks surround banias, as well as al-restan and homs, where soldiers fired randomly into crowds. after friday prayers, spontaneous protests erupted in damascus' old city, and the suburbs of barzeh, al-midan, 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 dayr as zawr and abu kamal. in damascus, as they poured out of friday prayers, 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 protestors reportedly killed. activists claim some soldiers opened fire on state security men to protect demonstrators, reportedly killing several. the watching world's condemned the bloodshed, but is apparently powerless to stop it. in syria itself, the thirst for freedom is now greater than the fear this police state's instilled. >> sreenivasan: 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 a thousand homes were involved. officials warned the rising mississippi river and its tributaries could leave them under water 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 laurents. he died thursday at his home in new york city. in 1957, laurent 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. laurents also directed on broadway, and wrote the screenplay for "the way we were"

in 1973. arthur laurents was 93 years old. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jim. >> lehrer: the jobs numbers for april were released on the same day as a new report that finds executive pay is soaring once again. jeffrey brown picks up that part of the story. >> brown: the associated press, which released the study on c.e.o. compensation, put it this way: "in the boardroom, it's as if the great recession never happened." c.e.o. pay, including salaries, bonuses, and stock options, was up 24% last year to a level higher than 2007, just before the recession hit. the ten 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% last year, or more than $300 billion.

we look more at pay, profits, and jobs now with deborah wince- smith, president and c.e.o. of the council on competitiveness, a non-partisan group that works with business, universities, and labor to enhance american competitiveness; and vineeta anand studies corporate governance and other issues as chief research analyst in the afl-cio office of investment. welcome to both of you. >> thank you. >> suarez: i will start with you, start with the c.e.o. pay issue, what explains the fast rise and quick return to prerecession levels? >> well, 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 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. >> brown: vineeta, a good sign in seeing the hikes in the c.e.o. pay. >> well, actually as share holders and we are shareholders representing workers through the pension plans, we are very worried because c.e.o.s 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 c.e.o.s 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 is 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 c.e.o.s made a collective 3.4 billion dollars. and that could support 103,000 workers making average wages. >> brown: deborah wince-smith that reflects what people wonder. we heard a segment that talks about slower growth and people feeling pain for a long period of time. so what's the other side of the positive sign that you are seeing in c.e.o. pay growth? >> well, putting aside c.e.o. pay growth, i think what we really need to look at is the fact that what is going on in the global economy is a fundamental restructuring. we've really left a 20th century nonhigh skill kd 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.

you know, we can't in the united states compete on low wages or standardized products and services. we have to compete on this higher value work. now the fact is the american worker is ten 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 any more 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. >> brown: vineeta anand, a new economy. >> we have been talking by a a new economy since the

1980s, we have talked about how the united states left behind manufacturing and into service, and now in the information age in the 21st century. but the fact of the matter remains that what you are seeing is almost 14 million people are still unemployed as judy said a little while ago and as david leonhardt said 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 is not education. it's not that we lack the technical skills. it's the fact that companies are not hiring. in 2010 they had 1.89 trillion dollars of cash on their balance sheets. they are not using it to create jobs. >> brown: that goes deborah wince-smith, that goes to this other study we cited, the fortune 500 and the huge

growth in corporate profits. and yet thereis still, we heard it again just now. we've been hearing it for months. it's better on jobs but still a reluctance to hire. >> well, first of all i want to say that we are really a great manufacturing nation. and there is 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. this is a tremendous opportunity for our country. but you know, the issue of corporate profits, of 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 have 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 are 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 is tremendous demand. and also where there's a growing middle class. you know, 8 o-- 80% of all middle class consumers will be outside the united states by 20/20. so we have to make sure that we not hobling. our company's determination of their investment by things that put us uncompetitive against the rest rft world. let's not compete on the cost of capitol and on wage structure. let's compete on invasion and high skills. and one-- innovation an high skills. 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. and we're begging for them. >> vineeta, there are a lot of things you would agree on about the kinds of things that need to be done. and you're worried in the meantime that this is all exacerbating income inequality. >> yes, actually in 2 o-- 2009 income inhe ballity rose to levels that we saw before the depression. the top 20% of americans controlled 90% of all wealth. in the meanwhile, the median household wealth fell to about 62,000 dollars. so what we think is the divide is continuing to grow. and the reason for that is very largely that the rich are getting richer. c.e.o.s are continuing to make more money. last year as ap showed 24% increase, we said 23% increase can. but the fact remains is the average worker who had a job got a 3.3% 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% unemployment rate. does anybody remember that? >> brown: all right. i done know the answer to that but we will continue this discussion. vineeta anand, and deborah wince-smith, thank you both very much. >> woodruff: now, to those special military units that brought down osama bin laden. and to ray suarez. >> suarez: the end of an eventful week found the president praising troops at fort campbell, kentucky, after 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 american again. >> suarez: but elsewhere on the sprawling base, well beyond the cameras' 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." >> suarez: 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 "night stalkers". 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 j-soc. j-soc was created after the disastrous 1980 attempt to free the hostages in iran. after that, a joint agency using the top special forces units of the army, navy and air force was formed. 30 years later, it is an essential component of american military power. >> this was not the first time or fifth or tenth or 20th time that j-soc has conducted secret ops in pakistan without the knowledge of pakistan's government. >> suarez: "national journal's" marc ambinder writes about intelligence and national security matters, and to the extent possible, j-soc. >> since 9/11, the units have turned into an army, a secret army within an army. they've incorporated intelligence elements, logistical, technological and development elements. and they really became the tip of the spear in the war against al qaeda and the taliban. >> suarez: since 9/11, j-soc has handled among the highest profile and sensitive operations.

in 2003, j-soc operatives killed saddam hussein's sons and captured the iraqi leader himself. in 2006, j-soc tracked down al qaeda's leader in iraq, abu musab al-zarqawi, who was killed in a u.s. air strike. and in 2009, snipers from seal team six killed somali pirates holding an american mariner off the horn of africa. but j-soc'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, j-soc 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 newshour 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. >> suarez: j-soc 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 has created a quandary, says ambinder. >> let's be very clear about what happened-- the u.s. violated the sovereignty of a country to carry out a targeted assassination of someone. now, 98% of us, including myself, think it was the exact right thing to do, right thing to do. but it absolutely has potential to-- and probably should-- increase the public debate or the public's knowledge of this entity called jsoc. >> suarez: for more on special operations, we turn to former seal team 6 member retired and a half eye commander ryan zinke, now a montana state senator and former army special forces officer retired colonel

kalev sepp, he also served in civilian special operations posts in the pentagon. he's now an assistant prove ster-- professor at the navy postgraduate school. and senator, let me start with you. just a short time ago vice president biden call kd 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? >> well, what you are seeing is two tier 1 forces which really represent the best of the navy and the army. on the field side, it takes five years to, in order-- on the seal side it takes five years for when a man says i want to be a navy seal, that process alone is a long and arduous journey. it represents about a 90% attrition rate. and then when you're finally a member of a seal team, is that you have have a couple deployments under your belt, show you that are a superior performer and then are you

either asked or request an interview with seal team 6. at which you go to another selection course of which 50% fail. so really when are you talking about the calibre of these individuals, both in dedication and skill level, it really represents the best of the best. >> suarez: and by the time you become a member of that team, i guess you are no longer a real youngster either. what is the average age in a unit like team 6. >> well, we used to call the old man club. when i was active it was, we were about 34, 35 years of age, on average. but you know, you have to understand too is that these guys have been fighting the war for over ten years. they are hardened combat veterans. they have conducted operations it in hundreds of compounds. and they are experienced. they know what they are doing. this is a routine operation. and you know, for these guys anyway, they know what they are doing, they're pros. >> suarez: 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 are 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, are physically powerful, highly intelligent and then have a body of experience and maturity that attend to that. and that 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. >> suarez: well, let's-- i would 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-- the historical piece would be explain some of this. the raid into north vietnam in 1970, that is the idea much being able to go deep into, you know, the heart of an enemy country right next to their capitol and attempt to rescue of prisoners that are held at a prison camp is the modern model for the capabilities that these mission, that these special mission units are supposed to be able to provide for the president. >> suarez: senator, some examples? >> when you look at weapons of mass destruction or hostage take over, achille laurel 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 are a very expensive force to run as well. i mean, the resources that are brought to bear with these forces are-- are phenomenal. the other thing to understand is that for every one seal that was on the ground on the compound there's 200 or 300 supporting cast members that are also doing the job from intelligence collection to bringing the fool, loading the ammunition, i mean these guys have a lot of great people behind them that are supporting the effort. >> suarez: senator, are you surprised at all that we're even having this conversation? in this week's "time" magazine there is a quote to a report frere a former seal, i can't say a word about team 6, there is no team 6. and yet here are you and i talking about it. >> well, i was, quite frankly, shocked that the early confirmation by senior officials that used the term seal team 6. and in previous operations it's been special operations,

and occasionally will you break it down to army special forces or navy special forces. but i think this is the first time that we have had early confirmation of seal team 6. and of course when that happens is the public wants to know who is seal team 6. and of course richard cinco in books and pretty soon with the technology available today you are able to find, you know, senator ryan zinke in white fish, montana, as a former member. >> suarez: colonel, do the j sock units from the various branches of the services work together at all or under j sock 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. elements of it tend to be pure, only in the sense of

where they are recruited from and formed. the, there is an army special mission unit. there is this navy seal special mission unit. there is aviation units from the army and air force. but in the-- over the past ten years the duration in intensity and demands of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and in other locations around the world, and the counterterrorism polices that these special missions have, have driven them to work together as a whole, as a complete team. >> suarez: i'm glad you brought up the operational tempo because it is reported there is very high demand for the skills that are embedded in j soc. 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 overside? >> they, the unit is under very direct control of the

national executive authority of the united states. it is-- they are, although they maintain a very tight classification of, you know, the capabilities of the unit, 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 or kill bin laden inside pakistan. >> suarez: senator zinke, same question. >> 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. but when you look at the complexity of the operations that face these troops, i mean 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, you know, in foreign countries down to detail about almost a room to room clearance, well w you know, 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 qukted. >> suarez: senator zinke, colonel sepp, gentlemen, thank you both. >> thank you. >> well thank you, it's been a pleasure. >> lehrer: and finally tonight, the analysis of shields and brooks-- syndicated columnist mark shields, "new york times" columnist david brooks. mark, did you know about seal team 6 until a few days ago. >> no. >> lehrer: did you, david? >> no, i did not. >> lehrer: it's fascinating.

>> truly fascinating. and i mean talk about a great segment, fascinating spokespersons. i mean they were compelling. >> lehrer: yeah, you mean the two men themselves. >> yeah. >> lehrer: you o tell that they were ready to. >> they were. >> lehrer: if called upon they could go now. >> i often think the military is really the one institution that has hire regard and we have loss of faith in all these institution. and why is that. and that 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 any more. and there are pros and cons to tearing people down but it does lead to this sort of understatement-- understated sense of service and commitment to something other than themselves and an aversion to publicity which is admirable. >> lehrer: and the ideas 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. >> we have done well in most institutions in celebrating

the individual, not so of the team. >> i just think, i agree with you. they do break down. but what they put in its place is a sense of your dependence upon each other. and they submerge rampant individualism which are society too often celebrates. >> exactly. >> lehrer: what about ray's questn, though, about skrult knee, about oversight, about oversight s there a danger that these guys are so good and so at the command of the president that other people may not knows what's going on until it's too late? >> well, i think in this particular instance, they did nv the leadership-- they did inform the leadership, the congress. >> i thought the point of scrutiny that senator made about watching did bring to it a level of civilian control and oversight that was unimaginable in an earlier era. >> lehrer: 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 is certainly enhanced. he made a brave decision. he stood by it. and i think the reputation of america feels better because it has been a long time since we've had something function really well. >> lehrer: just like that. >> and even for president obama it has been a long time since he has done something popular, whether you agree or not with estimate-- stimulus or health care or gm, they were not popular. he did something ripp popular and 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 with 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 went down a little. and i think the economy will

still be the central way he will be judged. >> lehrer: do how do you feel, mark? >> i think it has changed. and i think it's changed-- there was a agreeing narrative, jim, that was getting traction, that the president was the professor in chief, that he was too nuance, that he was leading from the rear, perhaps too cerebral, and a question of maybe not ready to pull the trigger, to make the bold stand. this was a-- a decisive. it was cool. it was bold. and i agree. i mean that it was a success. and we have been yearning for success. we've been dying for success. but i also think it's important just historically. since world war ii with the possibility 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've had vietnam.

you had korea, you had mogadishu, you had the iranian hostages. i mean there really hasn't-- and this was-- . >> lehrer: in pure political. >> in pure political, you know, in a decisive act. and the recognize flition 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. >> lehrer: 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 a right way. it's really not up to us but how people in at rab world are going to receive it and according to the report and what they did was secretary clinton and gates called around and said what do you guys think of this. and there was nobody in that region who thought it would 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. >> lehrer: mark? >> i agree. i think 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 have got to do it. got them out, show him. i thought he showed that there was a gloat-free zone, we're to the going to dot self-congratulatory celebration dance in the end zone of spiking the ball, i think is how he put it. this served no positive purpose at all other than to satisfy maybe the pur yent interest of some people-- pure yent interest for people. >> a little graphic celebration. did go to new york. >> i know, but there wasn't a mission accomplished aspect to it. it wasn't strut on an aircraft carrier. >> lehrer: do you disagree with that? >> i don't blame him. he had a big victory. he went to new york. he went to the base. he took a little stroll. you about i think that's fine. president, he's running a campaign. i do think there is

something a little ambivalent. the debate has really begun stirring with how the information was gathered. and i do think that attorney general mccasey had a piece in the journal today saying it was bothered through water board earn-- boarding and i don't know the answer because the experts are testifying 100% on both sides on this issue. so i don't know. but that's the debate that will be interesting to see how it affects. >> lehrer: now going to you, as a tortured segue to say speaking of debated-- 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. >> reporter: 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 foracting 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. >> holman: 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 done 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. >> holman: but the views of libertarian texas congressman ron paul highlighted the divide within the g.o.p. 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. >> holman: 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 long-shot 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 will never be legal for kids to smoke pot or buy pot. it will never be legal to smoke pot or do harm to others. >> holman: 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?" ( laughter )

>> holman: the next g.o.p. presidential debate is scheduled for next month in new hampshire. >> lehrer: and the winner was? >> the winner was-- i mean ron paul is just on sort of a consistent worldview but herman cain gets the award for turning the sow's ear into the silk purpose. he said you know, disparaging people who held office, he sought office and the republican nomination with the senate in georgia. he got 23 of 24 percent of the vote against johnnie ice akson. so it isn't like, you know, sort of turning his nonoffice holding into kre deng. i think any time you get on the stage it's good and you are answering serious questions. and you know, i think in that sense it's helpful to the condition datas 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, that is 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 action and the result. tim pawlenty did as you heard in kwame's piece, mitt romney did and mitch daniels did. and newt gingrich didn't. and mrs. palin didn't. governor palin didn't. and obviously rick santorum didn't. and the others didn't but it's just, it's a rational thing to do. i mean i know it's difficult, you are up set your base is going to be angry with you if you acknowledge that the person on the other side you are running against has done anything good. but i thought that was revealing. >> lehrer: what do you make of it. >> that's actually a very good test because the people who mentioned without did are the serious candidates. and john huntsman seems to be running are. and i suspect he's a serious candidate. i i'm not sure what his odds are. but it's going to be-- the good thing about this debate is there were only five people up on the stage.

when the serious candidates come in, there is going to be a lot, and they will be very incon slus-- inconclusive and it will be hard to have a good debate with so many people that will not get the nomination up there. so you know what you by think we'll known in ten days. i have been talking. >> lehrer: ten days? >> i have been talk together candidates and i think they have a feeling that within ten days the people half in, half out will say yes i'm in or out. so i think we will know very soon by the next debate next month it will be a real debate. >> lehrer: do you think as a result of last night that take pawlenty and santorum, just to pick two, were they helped in a way that helps move them into the major candidate category with if these others do come along? >> if you want to judge by buzz, pawlenty is a major candidate, he is one of the top two. 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 a lot of other republicans say he is the dukakis in the race when the others are knocked out, he is left standing.

santorum is clearly not. he has a social conservative base but the guy got killed in pennsylvania when he tried to run for re-election. and him expanding beyond that base is hard to see. >> lehrer: do you see anything happening as a result of last night that helps any of these folks move up -- >> i think the exposure is good and the question is what affect it had among people who did watch it. i think you know, the one w i think drawback for tim pawlenty and a agree with david's assessment of him is that in that field last night he should have been more dominant i think than he was, than 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 you know, michael dukakis didn't fill up the room and 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 that and he said i'm not going to mess around. >> lehrer: when he was governor of minnesota. >> he said i was wrong and that is an indictment of mitt romney who was sort of dancing around his support for a health care that looks

like what obama did. so that was his best moment. >> lehrer: to admit mistakes is considered an ago of courage in american politics, is it not? >> john kennedy took responsibility for the bay of pigs. he went to 82%. he said two more foulups like this and i will be at 95. but people do respect somebody who will accept responsibility. and that is a lesson very rarely learned by office seekers. >> lehrer: because most of the people watching probably made a mistake or two of their own so they understand. >> true, maybe that day. >> but if you remember what president bush had a debate, he was asked in one of these town hall debate vus made a mistake. and he said in public no. and then the debate ended, he didn't say it quite that way but pore or less. when the debate ended he rushed over to the woman and he said to her privately, i want you to for example of course i made a lot of mistakes, i'm just not allowed to say that. so the rule is are you not allowed to. but i hope they all know they made mistakes. >> lehrer: okay. well, david, mark, thank you both. >> having made some. >> lehrer: did i?

>> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: the u.s. private sector added nearly 270,000 jobs in april, but the unemployment rate rose, too, to 9%. al qaeda 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 to hari sreenivasan for what's on the newshour online. hari. >> sreenivasan: 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 job 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. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. on monday, we'll look at the continuing fallout from the death of osama bin laden. i'm judy woodruff. >> lehrer: and i'm jim lehrer. "washington week" can be seen

later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online, and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thank you and good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i want to know what the universe... >> looks like. >> feels like. >> from deep space. >> to a microbe. >> i can contribute to the world by pursuing my passion for science. >> it really is the key to the future. >> i want to design... >> a better solar cell. >> i want to know what's really possible. >> i want to be the first to cure cancer. >> people don't really understand why things work. i want to be that person that finds out why. chevron. we may have more in common than you think. >> and by bnsf railway.

and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. 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. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org