|
CNN LOU DOBBS MONEYLINE
U.S. Officials Suspect Terrorists Planning More Attacks
Aired May 14, 2003 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Wolf, thank you very much, and good evening, everyone.
Trail of terror. U.S. officials say radical Islamist terrorists are planning more attacks following the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia. National security correspondent David Ensor reports.
Flashpoint Korea. A growing nuclear threat from North Korea. Questions about the future of U.S. troops in South Korea. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and Joel Wit of the Center for Strategic and International Studies will debate whether we should have U.S. troops in South Korea.
And crime of the times? None of "The New York Times" editors has taken responsibility for the false reporting of one of their journalists. Tonight we'll have a special report.
President Bush and President Roh of South Korea are discussing the nuclear standoff with North Korea. The United States says North Korea has a secret nuclear weapons program.
The two presidents are also discussing the future of the 37,000 U.S. troops who are now based in South Korea. They will hold a joint news conference in the rose garden at the White House. That is scheduled for 6:30 Eastern time. We'll be bringing it to you live in this broadcast.
Also tonight, an important news conference in Texas. Police there are investigating a gruesome discovery this morning and one that could have national security implications. Eighteen people, including one infant, are dead. They suffocated after being locked in the back of a tractor trailer truck. They are believed to be illegal immigrants who were smuggled in to the United States. As many as 100 people were that truck.
The truck's driver has been taken into custody. Let's go live now to Gary Tuckman in Victoria, Texas. Gary?
GARY TUCKMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, we stand in the parking lot now where this was all discovered early this morning. People packed into the back of a truck like animals. We're being told there may have been as many as 140 people inside that truck.
Between 40 and 80 are gone. After the truck was opened and authorities came, they still can't find those people, but 18 people are dead, 17 were found dead here on the scene, 14 of them in the back of the truck. They suffocated to death. Three of them were found on the ground and, as you said, one of them was a baby.
We're being told a man is in custody. This man's name is Tyrone Williams. He is the owner of the truck, we're told by authorities, although they are telling us if he was driving the truck. We're told he is from Schenectady, New York. He is a permanent member of the United States, originally from Jamaica.
At this point, authorities continue to look for people who are missing, but we're being told that seven people are in the hospital, and as we speak, the sheriff here in Victoria County, Texas, is about to hold a news conference.
Lou, we're go back to you. As soon as the news conference starts, we will show some of it to you. Back to you, Lou.
DOBBS: Ok, Gary, thank you very much. When that news conference does begin, we'll be going to the Sheriff Ratcliff there in Victoria, Texas, to bring us the very latest from the authorities investigating that gruesome discovery.
The news conference is starting. This is Sheriff -- let's listen in.
(SHOW INTERRUPTED FOR LIVE EVENT)
DOBBS: Now this is Dexter, Dexter Eaves, who is making it pretty clear he is not going answer many questions on this, as I said, gruesome discovery, 18 people killed, suffocating in the back of this tractor trailer truck in Victoria, Texas. Forty-four others are in the hospital or shelters.
Let's go to Gary Tuchman in Victoria. Gary, are you there? Ok. Gary Tuckman I'm told is not in position yet. We'll be coming back to this just as soon as it suggests that there will be any more information forthcoming. Again, that is Dexter Eaves speaking from Victoria, Texas.
Turning now to the investigation of the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia. A team of FBI agents traveling to Saudi Arabia spent the day cooling its heels in Germany. Officials say the FBI team had to break off the journey because of what is being called by some officials a bureaucratic glitch on the part of the Saudi Arabians.
The White House said the agents will, indeed, be allowed to move on to Saudi Arabia. They're expected now to arrive in Riyadh tomorrow.
Eight Americans among the 34 people killed when terrorists attacked three housing complexes in Riyadh. Seventeen Americans still in the hospital being treated for their injuries.
U.S. officials today said they have information that radical Islamist terrorists are planning more attacks in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. National security correspondent, David Ensor, reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the wake of the bloody attacks in Riyadh, which the Bush administration says bore the hallmarks of al Qaeda, officials say there's intelligence suggesting there could be additional terrorist attacks soon.
ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY : It does show that they indeed remain a threat, and that's why this administration is working so diligently to first, prosecute this war against al Qaeda everywhere.
ENSOR: U.S. officials say there's intelligence information about Kenya, seen at the resort attack last year, about the Philippines, dealing with the Muslim insurgency there, and in Southeast Asia, particularly Malaysia, where a new State Department travel advisory warning of possible attacks like the one in Bali, Indonesia, against locations where westerners congregate.
U.S. officials say there's also intelligence suggesting additional attacks are possible in Saudi Arabia. Saudi officials say they're getting tough.
NAIL AL JUBEIR, SAUDI EMBASSY: The death and destruction of civilians is simply unacceptable, and we'll make it sure that those who were behind it will pay the ultimate price.
ENSOR: U.S. officials say the Riyadh attacks may be what 9/11 was for the United States, a wake up call for the Saudis. Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Bob Graham, said he hopes the Saudis get the message.
SENATOR ROBERT GRAHAM (D), FLORIDA: They have been an uneven and unpredictable ally in the war against terror.
ENSOR: Saudi officials are reportedly focusing in on this man, Kahlid Muhammed Wasalen Al Jahani (ph) as the possible ring leader. A tape of him holding a Kalashnikov and promising to die in a martyrdom terror operation was found in an al Qaeda safe house in Kabul and made public in January of last year.
(on camera): U.S. officials say Al Jahani did, indeed, make his way back to his homeland and may have played a key role in the Riyadh attacks, but they are also looking at a couple of other al Qaeda operatives as a possible mastermind.
David Ensor, CNN, Washington.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, today said Baghdad has not fallen into anarchy since the end of the war against Saddam Hussein. U.S. commanders in Iraq also insist that coalition forces are firmly in control. Senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JAMIE MCINTYRE, SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Baghdad, U.S. commanders deny "The New York Times" report suggesting U.S. troops would soon shooting looters on sight but did promise tough new tactics to restore law and order.
MAJOR GENERAL BUFORD BLOUNT, 3RD INFANTRY DIVISION COMMANDER: We are aggressively arresting looters now and holding them for a period of time, usually around three weeks right now.
MCINTYRE: On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to imply that could include deadly force.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: The forces there will be using muscle to see that the people who are trying to disrupt what's taking place in that city are stopped and either captured or killed.
MCINTYRE: Rumsfeld faced sharp questioning from Democrat Robert Byrd.
SENATOR ROBERT BYRD (D), WEST VIRGINIA: The news reports out of Iraq are using words such as turmoil, chaos, and even anarchy to describe the situation in Baghdad.
RUMSFELD: I think the characterization of anarchy is not accurate. It's a headline writer's phrase. We were told today that maybe two-thirds to three-quarters of the city is stable.
MCINTYRE: In response to criticism the U.S. has failed to secure suspected nuclear sites and mass graves, Rumsfeld argued it's unrealistic to expect perfect security everywhere at once.
RUMSFELD: We cannot make a country that has been badly treated and abused and a people that have been badly treated and abused for decades, we can't make it right, we can't make it like the United States in five minutes. And we know that.
MCINTYRE: And Rumsfeld insisted recent personnel changes, including the arrival of top civilian administrator, Paul Bremer, in Baghdad are not in response to problems.
BYRD: I hope that the recent shakeup in the civilian leadership of the U.S. occupation authority will help the situation and will not amount to merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
RUMSFELD: There is no shakeup. This has been part of the plan since the very outset.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: As for the big question, where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had a familiar refrain that he believes they will only be found when someone tells the U.S. where they are. Lou?
DOBBS: And, Jamie, the defense secretary says there's been no shakeup. The two top officials, U.S. officials in Iraq in Baghdad, are on their way out, and new management in place and on its way. What does he mean?
MCINTYRE: Well, you know, in fact, if you count a few more down, it looks like four or five top people have been brought back. The Pentagon is sticking to its story that this was part of the plan all along, and that it doesn't reflect any problem, that Jay Garner and Barbara Bodine and Margaret Tutwiler, among others, were only scheduled to be there a short time.
It certainly doesn't look that way on the face of it and Rumsfeld having a tough sell trying to make that argument this is just business the way it was supposed to be.
DOBBS: A curious sales effort at that. Turning to the reports in "The Washington Times", the two Apache helicopters were fired upon by a North Korean laser or lasers almost two months ago, what do we know more about that?
MCINTYRE: Well, not much. I exchanged e-mails with some of the folks in Korea today to talk about that incident, and they tell me they still have nothing more than the fact that the laser warning signals went off inside the helicopters, indicating that perhaps a laser range finder or some sort of targeting device might have illuminated the aircraft.
No one was hurt. There was no damage. So, they're downplaying the incident. Now, factor in in the Clinton administration, conservatives complain that they said that Democrats were downplaying because they didn't want to have a confrontation with North Korea, but with the hard line Bush administration in office, it's hard to make that argument. At this point, they say they're not really sure what kind of a laser was used this incident.
DOBBS: Well, then let's not make that argument, Jamie, not that either you or I would, but let's do talk about the fact that the Pentagon, it would seem, would have a responsibility to those troops to know what kind of laser was, indeed, turned upon those two Apache helicopters and perhaps answer why it took two months for this to become public knowledge.
MCINTYRE: Well, "The Washington Times" reports suggested it was some kind of a blinding laser weapon. The sources I have talked to say they are not able to confirm that, and they believe it may be something much more benign, and they are simply not making a big deal about it.
If it was a laser range finder, or other kind of spotting device, it probably didn't pose much of a threat to the helicopters, and they say those kinds of lasers have been used before along the DMZ.
DOBBS: Ok. Jamie McIntyre, thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Well, despite assurances from Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that security in Baghdad improving, that at least two-thirds of the country is, as he put it, stable, law and order is the top priority for the organizations that will help rebuild Iraq. CNN today talked with some of those organizations about their continuing concerns. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Baghdad is a city where some say the main commercial enterprise is looting, and any plans of restoring normalcy seem to be taking a backseat to security concerns.
GARY HUFBAUER, INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS: When you get the kind of chaos we are seeing in Baghdad today, you are not going to do any reconstruction. I mean, all the -- anything that's moving is being looted. The first order of business is, obviously, to establish a minimal amount of law and order in Baghdad. And, until that's done, nothing else will happen.
PILGRIM: For example, two CARE trucks were hijacked.
MARGARET HASSAN, CARE: We did lose two vehicles in the space of about 18 hours. The status in Baghdad is a status of insecurity, I would say. And people are not comfortable. There isn't a civil administration in place. There isn't proper law and order, and looting continues.
ERIC SCHWARTZ, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Public security is the critical enabler for anything and everything that the United States and the international community wants and needs to do in post- conflict Iraq, and public security has been sorely lacking in the post-war period.
PILGRIM: Some institutions are hanging back to wait for assurances of security. World Bank President James Wolfensohn said yesterday the bank is willing to send a team into Iraq to assess reconstruction needs when security permits. The bank today estimating that may be a few more weeks.
Some reconstruction work has started. Bechtel today said operations drudging the port of Umm Qasr were going well, and they hired 50 Iraqis and plan to hire 300. But one of their first activities is not in the normal range of business. They have to send divers down to clear the water of unexploded ordinance.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Now Bechtel will begin to tackle restoring power, water and bridges and will work with the military to restore the airport as soon as possible. They say they hope to start the major projects within a couple of weeks. Lou?
DOBBS: This is certainly taking, remarkably, a long time to get into position here to begin this rebuilding. This cannot please, certainly, President Bush, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, one assumes Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
Bechtel is the leading contractor here. How many people do they have in Iraq? PILGRIM: That's right. We talked to them today. They have 50 senior managers, but they are still basing them in Kuwait, and they go in and out on day trips. They say they hope to move 50 to 75 people in for major projects in a couple of weeks but not quite yet.
DOBBS: Fifty to 75 people?
PILGRIM: Right. Major senior managers to assess the needs and start projects. They are going to build most of the infrastructure, and they also are going to put in their own prefab housing and offices. They are going to just drop it in place.
DOBBS: Doesn't sound like they have incentive bonuses built into that contract, does it? Kitty, thank you very much. Kitty Pilgrim.
Still ahead here, a news conference by President Bush and President Roh of South Korea at the White House coming up. In a matter of moments, we'll have live coverage for you.
Also, U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula. We'll have the debate the pros and cons of the presence of the U.S. military. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, Joel Wit of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, two different views on whether the U.S. Military should be there at all.
Then, the tax cut, how much is enough? The question on the Senate floor. We'll be joined by the minority whip, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, later in the broadcast.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Stocks down for a second straight day, down modestly. The Dow losing 31 points. The NASDAQ fell almost five points. The S&P 500 down three points on the day.
Weak retailing numbers. Technology earnings factors in the decline. Christine Romans is here with the details on Wall Street for the day. Christine?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the S & P is down about two percent from its best levels, indeed, so watching the market as it moves off its spring rally, and as we have seen on these small pullbacks, declining stocks are just barely beating out advancing issues. Volume average, retail stocks bearing the brunt of it today after that retail report.
The fireworks, Lou, were in the bond market. The long bond up more than two points in price, bringing the yield to the lowest on record at 4.49 percent. Yields tumbling for the 10-year, the 5-year, the 2-year notes.
Meanwhile, money in taxable money funds in yielding a record low, seven-tenths of one percent. So, everyone's asking what's going on here? You have both stocks and bonds in an uptrend, the dollar moving lower, and investors scratching their heads.
If stocks are predicting a stronger economy in the second half, why are the bonds still rallying? A lot of people taking note of this new relationship between stocks and bonds, and they say, Lou, something's got to give.
DOBBS: Well, in both cases, the suggestion is that those markets forecast the future. Which one's right?
ROMANS: I don't know.
DOBBS: You don't know?
ROMANS: I can't see into the future.
DOBBS: We pay you all this money, and you don't know?
ROMANS: Well, we do know that since 1998, stocks and bonds have been moving inversely pretty much day-to-day, and that has changed. That relationship has broken.
DOBBS: All right. Christine, we'll, as you say, we'll find out what happens and not rely on anyone's forecast. Christine Romans, thank you.
Well, it has now been 527 days since Enron filed for bankruptcy, 65 executives charged, 15 of them from Enron. No one's gone to jail.
Checking in on the national debt, at $6,460,317,177,178.10, your family's share of that debt is still -- it hasn't risen above $70,000. So, you can breathe a sigh of relief.
Coming up next, we'll be going live to the White House, a news conference by President Bush and President Roh of South Korea.
Also, tens of thousands of U.S. troops on the Korean peninsula are in harm's way. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and Joel Wit of the Center for Strategic and International Studies on whether those troops should remain there.
And later, editors at the Gray Lady are red in the face over the Jayson Blair scandal. Peter Viles will have a special report for us on the fallout at "The New York Times" and what may lie ahead. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The crisis at "The New York Times" widened today as the newspaper's entire staff held an emergency meeting about the Jayson Blair scandal. This comes as federal prosecutors are considering whether that fired reporter broke the law when he deceived his readers and his employers. Peter Viles reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER VILES, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The unmistakable look of a management in crisis. The publisher and top editors of "The New York Times" refusing comment as they rushed into an emergency staff meeting. The topic, the Jayson Blair scandal, how it happened, who's responsible, and whether executive editor, Howell Raines, can survive it.
R. W. APPLE, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": I think that people are very discouraged by this but not downhearted.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Can the current group of editors stay in their jobs?
APPLE: That's way above my pay grade.
VILES: "The Times" laid out Blair's sins in great detail Sunday, but that report raised questions about management's role. How is it that in April of last year, the Metro editor wrote an e-mail saying, quote, "We have to stop Jayson from writing for 'The Times' right now." Yet, no one stopped him, and no one in management is taking responsibility for it.
PAUL COLFORD, "THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS": It was kind of curious to a lot of people that within these pages, the publisher went out of his way to say, We're not going to look for scapegoats, this was just, in effect, one rotten apple, when in the previous pages, it was pointed out that all of the warning signs were there, and they just weren't acted upon.
VILES: Another issue, race. Managing editor Gerald Boyd says it played no role in Blair's hiring and promotion, yet "Times" columnist William Safire wrote in "The Times" that Blair was, quote, "given too many second chances by editors eager for this ambitious black journalist to succeed."
WILLIAM MCGOWAN, AUTHOR, "COLORING THE NEWS": Blair got way ahead, way fast, and I don't think a white reporter at that tender stage of his or her career would have been able to keep a job at the "Times," much less be on the doorstep of being named to the national staff.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VILES: "Times" reporters left this meeting this afternoon, Lou, saying that this is a matter they want to keep inside the family. But it's not going to be entirely possible, because, as you pointed out, the U.S. attorney here in New York has begun an investigation, looking into -- and this is very unusual to investigate a newspaper -- looking into whether the newspaper may have violated the law or Jayson Blair may have violated the law in these deceptions contained in his articles, Lou.
DOBBS: Pete, it is peculiar, I guess is the best word to use here, to see the top editors of "The New York Times" walking into a meeting doing something like saying, No comment. It didn't look like professional courtesy.
VILES: Yes, it wasn't professional courtesy. And I'll you frankly, having covered a lot of court cases, it was the same exact feeling, waiting for someone to shout a question out at them, knowing they were not going to answer, even though they very well could have stopped, chatted with us, told us what's going on at the paper. This, apparently, is not the time for that at "The New York Times."
DOBBS: OK. Peter Viles, thank you very much.
And that brings us to the subject of our poll tonight. The question, Who is responsible for the scandal at "The New York Times," Jayson Blair, the editors, the publishers, or all of the above? Cast your vote at cnn.com/moneyline. We'll have the preliminary results later in this broadcast.
The results of last night's poll, the question, How much confidence do you have in the FBI's investigation into the Saudi bombings? Fourteen percent said a lot, 25 percent of you said some, 61 percent of you said little to none. We will have to wait to see what the actual result is, because the FBI investigative team is holed up now in Germany waiting permission to get into Saudi Arabia.
Turning from terrorism to another major threat to this country's national security, North Korea. It has nuclear weapons and a million- strong army facing U.S. and South Korean troops. The United States has maintained a military presence in South Korea since the Korean War 50 years ago.
And today, 37,000 U.S. troops are still based in South Korea. They include the 2nd Infantry Division and two Air Force wings.
Joining me now, two guests with different views on U.S. force in Korea. Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, believes it is time to withdraw those troops. Joel Wit, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says U.S. forces should remain there, though perhaps in smaller numbers.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us.
DOUG BANDOW, SENIOR FELLOW, CATO INSTITUTE: Happy to be on.
JOEL WIT, SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES: Hi.
DOBBS: Let's -- we're talking about 37,000 troops facing terrific odds. Let me turn to you, if I may, first, Joel. This -- the purpose of those troops, is it symbolic in South Korea?
WIT: Well, I think it is symbolic. It's symbolic of our continuing commitment to the security of South Korea. But no one should believe that those 37,000 troops are going to have to confront all of the million-strong army of North Korea. U.S. forces will be reinforced, and South Korea also has a substantial military.
DOBBS: And if I may, Doug, why would you want to remove them, if they're that important?
BANDOW: For a couple of reasons. The first is, the South can defend itself. I mean, we're now 50 years away from the Korean War. They've got twice the population. They've got, like, 40 times the GDP. It's the 12th-largest economy on earth. It really is time for them to defend themselves.
The second reason, frankly, is, those troops keep us entangled there. Without those troops, you wouldn't have that same sense that America has to deal with the nuclear issue. People would first look at South Korea, they'd look at Japan, they'd look at China. It'd be much more a regional issue. It wouldn't be the first place you'd go is to the United States.
DOBBS: Is that true, Joel? Do you think that the United States would be, as it has in many cases, been put in the position of this North Korean nuclear threat being an American problem, rather than a Korean problem or a Chinese problem?
WIT: Well, first of all, I think most people would agree that the United States has very basic economic and security interests in Northeast Asia. And as a result of that, we need to be very careful about how we deal with the threat of North Korea in the region. That is the main problem in the region. And U.S. forces are there to deter North Korean attack.
Nevertheless, I would not say that they have to be there forever, nor do they have to be there in the numbers they're there now. But I would disagree with Doug, in that I don't think withdrawing all of them rapidly would have a good effect. I think it would have a bad affect on stability and peace in the region.
DOBBS: Well, as you both know, President Roh, campaigning, actually called for the removal of U.S. forces. There is a strong anti-American sentiment in South Korea. Much of it understandable, given some of the frictions and unfortunate incidents that have occurred there.
What is the -- if you could not agree on removing all of the troops, or at least some of them, can you agree that it doesn't make much military sense to have those 37,000 troops in harm's way of that -- of the artillery blitz that would occur should North Korea decide to strike?
BANDOW: Well, the focus of the troops, in the past, at least, has been essentially a trip wire. Now, the American military doesn't like that designation, but frankly, the idea is, you have troops along the DMZ, so some of them get killed. It ensures the U.S. is involved. It pulls us in immediately.
You know, that doesn't strike me as making sense today. Whatever you think of that trip wire role 20 years ago, 40 years ago, it's hard to justify that today.
WIT: Well, Lou, one of the things that's going on now, and you hear a lot of this coming out of the Pentagon, is that we're going to change our military strategy in Korea, pull back the troops, reduce the numbers of forces. And the reason we can do that is because of technological changes in military technology, and all of the developments that you saw operating in Iraq, which make it possible to reduce the forces, move them back, and still have them operate in an effective manner.
DOBBS: Is there any question here in the minds of either -- both of you that the South Koreans are capable of defending themselves, that the United States does play only a symbolic role, and that if we were, to use your expression, Doug, if they are simply there as a trip wire, it's almost unconscionable of us to keep those troops there? These seem to me to be compelling arguments. Joel?
WIT: Well, I think at the moment, it is something of an exaggeration to say that the South Koreans can defend themselves. Under the existing war plan, eventually 500,000 American troops would pour into Korea in the event of a conflict.
So I think in order for South Korea to be able to defend itself without American help, it's going to need to do a lot of building up of its military capabilities. And that should happen over the next few years.
BANDOW: The problem, of course, is, it won't happen as long as we keep the troops there, because they don't have to. We have to recognize the incentive that we have created. This today is a very rich country with enormous capabilities. We really need to encourage them to step up to the plate, and that will happen only if they see the U.S. is stepping back.
DOBBS: Joel, you get the last word.
WIT: Well, you know, I agree with Doug on one score, and that is that we do need to push the South Koreans more. And I think part of this process of gradually drawing down American forces will be to push the South Koreans to spend more money on their own forces. And indeed, this year they are requesting an increase in their defense budget for precisely that reason.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. We appreciate you both being with us.
When we continue, President Bush and South Korean President Roh are scheduled to hold a news conference, that conference at the White House is scheduled to begin in just a matter of moments. We'll be bringing it to you live.
Also, the Democrats' view of the president's plan for tax cuts and their own. Senate minority whip Senator Harry Reid joins us next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush, President Roh of South Korea now moving into position at the Rose Garden at the White House. Let's listen in.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... the president of South Korea to Washington, D.C., and the Oval Office, and now the Rose Garden.
I have been really looking forward to this visit. We have had several phone calls where we have discussed important issues, and now we've had a chance to discuss important issues face to face.
I have found the president to be an easy man to talk to. He expresses his opinions very clearly, and it's easy to understand. One thing is for certain, we'll work to have the best possible relations between our countries, and it's based upon close consultation on a wide variety of issues.
There's no question in my mind we'll have the kind of personal relationship where we will consult freely to solve major problems.
DOBBS: Going to have a press conference. Is Dana Bash ready to talk about...
BUSH: We of course discussed the need to have a nuclear weapons- free Korean peninsula. I assured the president we will continue to work with achieve a peaceful solution. We're making good progress toward achieving that peaceful resolution of the issue of the Korean peninsula in regards to North Korea.
We talked about other issues. One of the important issue is to make sure we continue working closely on economic issues. I have confidence in regards to the South Korean economy. I believe South Korea will continue to be an engine for economic growth and vitality.
And I look forward to working with the president to continue to foster very strong bilateral relations.
So, Mr. President, I'm glad you're here. Welcome.
DOBBS: President Bush, President Roh of South Korea, concluding extensive talks, as the president said, on the nuclear weapons issue in North Korea, the standoff with the North Koreans. And, of course, economic considerations as well. South Korea an important trading partner, as well as ally, of the United States.
Let's go now to our White House correspondent, Dana Bash. Dana, the -- did the presidents, those two presidents, say anything new about this standoff with North Korea?
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they didn't say anything new per se. But what the president -- what President Bush did say was very important for President Roh to hear, and more importantly for his constituents, the people of South Korea, to hear, and that is that he believes that the North Korean nuclear issue can be resolved peacefully.
That is a key -- really the major concern for South Korea right now is the fact that they're worried about the security of South Korea because of the standoff, of the tension between North Korea and the United States and North Korea and other neighbors, because of the nuclear problem. You know, they didn't get into the nitty-gritty of it. The differences that the two countries do have and had to deal with that, and that is primarily to engage or not to engage. But that particular statement from President Bush is exactly what President Roh wanted to hear.
DOBBS: And Dana, I don't know how much is protocol, how much etiquette, but this was the most positive, certainly, I've heard President Bush speak of the issue. He's saying there has been good progress in the negotiations with the North Koreans. Did that surprise you at all?
BASH: It didn't really surprise me, in that that the president is, just like you said, a lot of it is protocol. They want to make sure to talk about the positive, and not necessarily talk about negative things that may or may not have come out of the initial talks that happened, really, for the first time in six months, just a couple of weeks ago in Beijing.
But the two countries do have some serious issues between the two of them on how to deal with North Korea. President Roh really does prefer that President Bush get behind having a more direct consultation with North Korea. He feels that is the way to get North Korea to stand down on its nuclear progress.
And then you were talking earlier with some guests about the issue of the troops, the nearly 40,000 troops that are on the DMZ in between North and South Korea.
That is another issue that South Koreans, although they had protested having them there, and as you mentioned, President Roh did run on the fact that he had wanted he them out of there, he is -- they're concerned, now that the nuclear crisis has escalated, about taking those troops out, because they are worried that could be a signal to North Korea that military action could be imminent.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much. Dana Bash, our White House correspondent. Thank you.
The Senate today began its debate on the scaled-back version of the president's tax cut proposal. The Senate version would limit tax cuts to $350 billion over the next 10 years. It would cut the president's proposed $400 billion tax cut on dividends to $81 billion.
Senators are -- both Republicans and Democrats, are introducing dozens of amendments to that bill today. A vote could come as early as tomorrow. The House passed a $550 billion tax cut last week.
Joining me now, a Senate Democrat who's played a key role throughout this tax cut debate. Senator Harry Reid is the Senate minority whip. Today he introduced two amendments to the tax legislation, one of them designed to protect Social Security.
Senator Harry Reid joins us from Capitol Hill. Senator, good to have you with us.
SEN. HARRY REID (D), MINORITY WHIP: Thank you very much, Lou.
DOBBS: We're going to a tax cut. Care to tell us what you think the ultimate form will be?
REID: Well, we're going to find out for sure tomorrow. I think we all have a pretty good inkling what's going to happen. We have offered a number of amendments. There will be a lot more amendments offered. This is a very unique procedure quagmire we find ourself in in the Senate. It's not one of those times when there's unending debate. Debate will end.
We're going to finish debate on the measure tonight. And tomorrow morning at 9:15, we'll start voting. And there could be as many as 25 or 30 votes, so it could take all day to vote tomorrow. And I think when the final vote is cast, I think the president's tax cut will go through. There's a number of us feel that that's not the best thing for the country, but one thing that I know how to do is to count votes.
DOBBS: And indeed you do, senator, that's part of your job for the minority there. Any hope of any of those amendments getting through from the Democratic side?
REID: I think we have some opportunity to pass some of the amendments. As I stated on the Senate floor today, when my Social Security amendment was up, it's a relatively simple amendment, straightforward. It said that we should do away with the dividend tax cuts for the elite of this country and apply those monies to Social Security rather than rob the Social Security trust fund and put it into those monies for the dividend tax cut.
But I said there that it was like lemmings going over the cliff. Everyone walked down, even though they know that we should do something to preserve Social Security, and voted against this amendment to save the billions of dollars that will go to the elite of this world with the tax cut.
So I think that I can pretty well understand what's going to happen. I think Republicans will vote in unison against anything we try to do to change the bill.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen in conference. You know, there's a fight between the Republicans in conference as to what should happen. But I think I'd like to be more optimistic and hope that better judgment will prevail, but what I saw today, I don't think so.
DOBBS: Let's turn briefly, if we may, senator, to Yucca Mountain. Contracts being let there. Have you got any news there for us there?
REID: Well, of course we're very concerned. They're going to let a multimillion-dollar contract without putting out to bid to lawyers. We have already had the General Accounting Office and the inspector general indicate that some of the legal work done on that project in the past has been, if not illegal, certainly unethical. We feel that we have had a few people who have stepped forward and said that what is going out there as it relates to science is bad. Those people have been fired or had their jobs changed someplace else in the project.
Senator Edison (ph) and I are going to a hearing in Nevada next week -- I should say the week after next to try to get to the bottom of this.
Yucca Mountain is replete with problems. They're going to continue. But I say, Lou, that I don't think that the American people will ever allow the most poisonous substance known to man be hauled on our railways and highways in this country. I simply think it won't happen, no matter what the legislation indicates should happen.
DOBBS: Senator Reid, we know that you have been fighting Yucca Mountain for -- from its inception, and we look forward to your investigation. And thank you for your time here tonight.
REID: Lou, I enjoy your program very much. Thanks for allowing me to be on it.
DOBBS: Thank you, Senator Reid.
And a reminder to vote in our poll tonight. The question, who is responsible for the scandal at "The New York Times" -- Jayson Blair, editors, the publishers, or all of the above? Cast your vote at cnn.com/moneyline. We'll have the preliminary results coming right up.
When we return, we'll share some of your thoughts about those Texas Democrats hiding out in Oklahoma, and we'll have the preliminary results of that poll question. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In news across America tonight, 50 Texas Democrats remain holed up in Oklahoma. They're protesting a Republican plan to redistrict. Texas Governor Rick Perry has asked the Democrats to return to work. They even sent out the state patrol and the Texas Rangers trying to find those wayward Democrats.
But those Democrats insist they won't be coming back until that redistricting plan is withdrawn, which they consider patently unfair. You have to love Texas politics.
A set of missing keys is raising security concerns of a top nuclear weapons laboratory. Officials of California's Lawrence Livermore Lab say the keys could not be used to access sensitive information, but they've changed the locks anyway, which kind of makes you wonder. The news comes a week after the lab's counterintelligence chief resigned.
Basketball Hall of Famer Dave DeBusschere is dead at the age of 62. DeBusschere played for the New York Knicks from 1962 to 1973, winning two championships along the way. Now, the preliminary results of tonight's poll. The question, Who is responsible for the scandal at "The New York Times?" Seventeen percent say Jayson Blair, 11 percent the editors, 2 percent the publishers, and 70 percent said all of the above.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts, many of you wrote in about those Texas Democrats who fled to Oklahoma to avoid a vote.
Darlene Kurtz of Georgia wrote to say, "I would hope the darting Democrats paid for this getaway with their own money and not the taxes of America. Elected officials should voice and vote their opinions, not run away and hide like children."
Well, we talked with the Texas state controller's office to see who is picking up that tab. They said no receipts have come through their office yet.
Douglas Smith of California wrote to say, "Will the Democrats camped out in Oklahoma form a Texas state legislature in exile? Only in America."
You're absolutely right.
And on the mounting trade deficit and the export of American jobs overseas, Chris Filbert of Florida said, "Lou, where have all the good jobs gone? Americans should ask the Fortune 500 companies how many jobs they've outsourced to foreign lands in the past three years. Along with your Enron scorecard, you should also keep a tally of job loss due to cheap foreign labor."
You know, we thought that was such a good idea, we're going to do something along those lines in the days and weeks ahead.
And on the topic of excessive executive compensation, Sandy Hoff of Texas wrote to say, "CEO compensation should have something to do with how much he or she can influence performance. It is difficult to see how anyone sitting in a top floor corner office can possibly do $10 million worth of work in a year, risking little but falling out of his or her chair."
Well, in defense of the CEOs -- well, I'll leave the defense of the CEOs to someone else.
Thanks for your thoughts. We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@cnn.com. Please include your name and your home town.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Tomorrow, our guests include former defense secretary and regular contributor, William Cohen. And John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns will also join us.
For all of us here, good night from New York. "LIVE FROM THE HEADLINES" with Anderson Cooper coming up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
