Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
CIA Years Away From Needed Changes?; Pentagon Says 20,000 Troops Must Remain in Iraq
Aired April 14, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, a dramatic admission by CIA Director George Tenet. Tenet says the CIA is years away from being fully ready to battle radical Islamist terrorists.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: It will take us another five years to have the kind of clandestine service our country needs.
DOBBS: 9/11 Commission member Timothy Roamer is our guest.
Airstrikes on Fallujah. U.S. Marines are ready to advance into the city. And the Pentagon has decided 20,000 American troops must remain in Iraq longer than originally planned.
And in "Making the Grade," our special report tonight on education in America. Discipline is breaking down in our schools. Our children are paying the price.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, April 14. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
CIA Director George Tenet today said it will take five years to completely rebuild the CIA's clandestine service to fight radical Islamist terrorists. Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that the end of the Cold War led to a sharp reduction in CIA manpower and capital investment. FBI Director Robert Mueller also testified before the commission today. Mueller said he is in the midst of a restructuring of the FBI.
We have two reports tonight, national security correspondent David Ensor with a report on George Tenet's testimony, and justice correspondent Kelli Arena on Robert Mueller's testimony.
We begin with David Ensor -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Lou, as you say others, the director of central intelligence said it was because of the budget cuts in the '90s after at the end of the Cold War that the CIA has not had the clandestine service it needs and will not for another five years.
But he faced pointed questions from the commissioners about the failure of intelligence represented by those attacks on September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (voice-over): George Tenet was put on the defensive by a staff report from the commission, charging that the director of central intelligence -- quote -- "did not develop a management strategy for the war against terrorism before 9/11."
TENET: When the staff statement says the DCI had no strategic plan to manage the war on terrorism, that's flat wrong.
ENSOR: One commissioner pointed to the phrase in the now famous PDB, presidential daily brief, of August 6, 2001, that says -- quote -- "we have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft."
JOHN LEHMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: All the king's horses and all the king's men in CIA could not corroborate what turned out to be true and told the president of the United States almost a month before the attack that they couldn't corroborate these reports. That's an institutional failure. And I'm here to tell you, there are going to be very real changes made.
ENSOR: In fact, President Bush said just Tuesday night that he is open for suggestions from the 9/11 Commission. The commission is considering whether to propose giving Tenet's successor more real power, hiring and budget power over the other intelligence agencies besides the CIA. That power is currently held by the secretary of defense.
TENET: All I want to focus on is, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I've done it one way. It ain't the perfect way. And within the structure that I lived with, and the power and persuasion and cajoling is absolutely important, because, at the end of the day, you still have to lead. You can all the authority you want. It may not matter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: The commission's leaders say they do expect to recommend changes in the intelligence community structure. They're hoping to talk privately with senior officials to seek the kind of innovative ideas that might not come out in a public hearing -- Lou.
DOBBS: David, thank you -- David Ensor.
FBI Director Robert Mueller today strongly defended his agency during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mueller said the FBI has made counterterrorism its top priority.
Justice correspondent Kelli Arena has the report -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, he said that and a lot more all in an effort to convince commissioners that the FBI is up to the job of collecting, analyzing, disseminating and acting on domestic intelligence, now, that in response to the suggestion that perhaps a new organization like Britain's MI5 may be in order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: I do believe that creating a separate agency to collect intelligence in the United States would be a grave mistake. Splitting the law enforcement and the intelligence functions would lead both agencies fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: The commission laid out a series of problems that it says still exist at FBI, a shortage of linguists and agents who can help surveil terrorists. Today's report says that analysts are used for menial chores like emptying trash cans. One senior official was even quoted as saying that, on a scale of one to 100, the FBI's knowledge of Islamic extremists was about 20.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Can you fix it? Because the FBI is absolutely essential to this whole war we're talking about. And if you can't fix it, then we've got to make some recommendations and structural changes that may be able to fix it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: Mueller assured commission members that change was well under way, citing new information-sharing capabilities, better training and a clear promotion path for agents who specialize in intelligence rather than casework.
He said the report issued which was critical of the FBI was just a snapshot in time of six field offices and that he is sure that the bureau has the confidence of the American people, that is, once you get outside of Washington -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kelli, thank you very much -- Kelli Arena.
Later in the broadcast, I'll be talking with one of the 9/11 Commission members, Timothy Roemer, who will give us his assessment of the testimony of both George Tenet and Robert Mueller.
In Iraq tonight, the cease-fire between U.S. Marines and insurgents in Fallujah has all but collapsed. American fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships launched airstrikes against insurgent positions. The Marines commander, General John Mattis (ph).
, said it's hard to have a cease-fire when the enemy is firing at his troops. Also tonight, there is a report that an Italian hostage in Iraq has been killed.
Jim Clancy reports from Baghdad -- Jim.
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was disturbing news that came as Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news channel based in Qatar, reported that its Baghdad office received a videotape depicting the death of one of four Italian hostages.
Now, videotape of the four hostages was released a little bit earlier this week. Al-Jazeera says it is not going to air the video because, in its words, it is too graphic. CNN has not viewed the videotape. We cannot vouch for its authenticity. The Italian government says it has no confirmation that one of these four Italian hostages was killed.
The blame on a voice track contained on the videotape went to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for refusing to pull his troops out of Iraq, as demanded. It also contained the threat to kill more of those Italian hostages until and unless that demand was met.
On the ground here in Iraq, in Fallujah, more gunfire today, U.S. jets flying over ahead, as well making airstrikes, a truce that is sometimes on, sometimes off, and new information coming out that may indicate some of those inside the city definitely do not want the negotiations process to go ahead. The Iraqi Governing Council member who is mediating in that case, who's been going to Fallujah says he has escaped two assassination bids this week.
Meantime, the Marines continue to ratchet up the pressure there to hold on to all of the perimeter around Fallujah to try to prevent the escape of the foreign fighters they believe are inside. A lot of Iraqis want them to keep that pressure up.
Also, we have supply lines under pressure, across Iraq, more vehicles hit, Lou, in another day of attacks on those convoys, although much fewer than at this time last week. Najaf, in southern Iraq, where Muqtada al-Sadr is seeking sanctuary from an arrest warrant charging him with murder, he backed down today. U.S. troops are outside the city. Muqtada al-Sadr saying he's going to leave the case in the hands of religious leaders in the community to sort it out and drop his demand that those U.S. forces pull back.
Once again, a lot of people in Iraq looking on, they see both the situation in Fallujah and al-Sadr himself as being longtime sources of trouble, Lou, in this country. They believe, if those problems are left unattended, that the situation may only get worse -- back to you.
DOBBS: Jim, thank you -- Jim Clancy reporting live tonight from Baghdad.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today approved a plan to keep a much higher number of American troops in Iraq than the Pentagon had originally intended. Officials said 20,000 troops will have to stay in Iraq for another three months. That's twice as many troops as military commanders suggested earlier in the week.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the last time the Pentagon extended tours of duty for combat troops in Iraq was in November.
At that time, they promised that they would only have to serve a year in the war zone. But now, with an insurgency raging in Fallujah, with a possible 'nother combat operation about to start in Najaf, the Pentagon has said it cannot keep that promise. So today, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has approved a request from General John Abizaid to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq for, as you said, up to three months longer. They include the 1st Armored Division, as well as the 2nd Armored Cavalry regiment from Fort Polk, Louisiana, that was supposed to be coming home soon.
In addition, some National Guard units as well are being told they have to stay, some military police units, altogether about 19,000. Pentagon officials say that the original number that we reported, about 10,000 troops based on comments made by General John Abizaid, was never the original number. It was originally about 15,000, got up to about 19,000 as they looked at all the capability they felt they needed to provide him.
But, again, they say whatever the commanders say they need, they'll get, and now the Pentagon is looking at a plan for three months down the road, how they might have to replace these extra troops with other additional troops. Those decisions won't be made probably for another couple of weeks -- Lou.
DOBBS: It seems, Jamie, there are a number of important questions here. One, is this effectively the Pentagon admitting that they don't have the reserves for troops in Iraq based in Europe and the United States can be sent, rather than extending the tours of the troops are already there?
MCINTYRE: Well, I think the feeling is, if they sent -- they do have troops that they could send, but that would upset the very delicate balance of rotation schedule they have worked out for the next several years. Clearly, the United States doesn't have enough troops that they can do these sorts of things without any stress on the force. There is stress, and I think they feel that it's better to preserve a long-term schedule of rotation with some short-term fixes, rather than throw the whole schedule into a mess.
They're trying to keep as much predictability as they can in the lives of the soldiers.
DOBBS: Is there any kind of indication there at the Pentagon that they're creating morale problems for the troops in Iraq and perhaps they're creating a potential problem with Congress, a number of members calling, as you well know, for a significant increase in the size of the U.S. military to remove some of the stress?
MCINTYRE: Well, there is clearly a lot of friction on those points. You know, if you talk to the troops there, the ones who have to stay, they say that they're certainly willing to stay and understand and why they have to stay. Of course, they sort of have to say that, too. After all, they don't have much choice.
You see a lot more of the morale being reflected by some of the family members. In fact, we learned today that one of the wives of one of the National Guardsmen actually started a petition campaign to try to get her husband's unit home earlier. She says he's been away from home since March of 2003. So it's creating a lot of stress. The Pentagon is worried that it could create problems down the road with recruiting. And it has increased tensions with Congress over this debate on the size of the military.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Senator John Kerry today said there is a -- quote -- "smarter way" to accomplish the mission in Iraq. The Democratic presidential candidate told reporters in New York that the coalition should make the United Nations a full partner in Iraq. Senator Kerry said that would relieve the burden on American troops, relieve the cost on taxpayers, and raise the chances of success in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Why doesn't the president just come out and say, I want the U.N. to be a full partner and the resolution that we pass will turn authority over to them? That's the argument right now, is whether or not we're prepared to turn the authority over and whether or not they're prepared to come in without the authority. That's the fight. And the question is why the president won't do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator Kerry also said success in Iraq is the goal of not only the United States, but also Arab and European nations.
Next, I'll be talking with 9/11 Commission member Timothy Roamer.
Also a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Israel. We'll have a live report from the White House, and I'll be talking with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon.
In "Broken Borders" tonight, astonishing new details about the way the government is protecting one of our key border crossings from terrorists. We'll have a special report for you.
And in "Face-Off" tonight, as the fighting in Iraq escalates, two very different views tonight on whether the United States should hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As we reported, the directors of both the CIA and FBI today testified before the 9/11 Commission.
My next guest is a member of the commission. Tim Roemer served as Democratic congressman from Indiana from 1991 until last year, joining us tonight from Washington.
Good to have you here.
TIMOTHY ROEMER, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: The bald statement by CIA Director George Tenet, five years to put together an effective clandestine service for the CIA. Your reaction?
ROEMER: It's a long time, Lou, with al Qaeda coming at us. It's too long.
Certainly, what Director Tenet is saying that it takes time to recruit the right people with the diverse skills and the language skills and these are difficult targets to penetrate when you're going after al Qaeda or a jihadist group in the Philippines or Malaysia or somewhere. That's the work of these agencies. It can't be just satellites and birds in the sky that cost $100 million and expect to get these targets some of the ways that we did on the old Soviet Union.
This is a lethal, agile, dynamic threat coming at us, and we have to do that work well. And we have to make sure that we're putting the emphasis on that development. He's got a big task ahead of him. And we have to do it quicker than five years.
DOBBS: I assure you, I'm neither ingenuous or disingenuous or naive here. You're going to have to take my word for that. But the idea that the CIA, the United States, the world's superpower, cannot -- and it's been 2 1/2 years, as you well know, since 9/11 -- have an effective plan already in operation to hit an effective level of clandestine work sooner than five years is frankly stunning.
ROEMER: Lou, having served on the joint inquiry for 13 or 14 months, and now on this 9/11 Commission, it makes your heart almost stop, the degree of some of the institutional and systemic problems in the FBI and the CIA.
We found the last couple days that too oftentimes they could not connect the dots. They did not share information with one another. They did not put enough emphasis on recruiting the right kind of translators. They did not have enough language speakers in these areas. And they blew opportunities. And the CIA, they followed some people, some killers, murderers, terrorists, to Kuala Lumpur, photographed them there in Kuala Lumpur. Two of them were the hijackers that eventually come into the United States, but when these people go from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok, they don't follow them.
That's like the local sheriff in my hometown of South Bend, Indiana, following serial murderers to the border of Michigan and just saying goodbye and not handing them off to law enforcement in the next state. Those are problems and we have to fix them. The 9/11 Commission is five Democrats and five Republicans trying to look at how we fix these institutional problems, how we get, as you and I were talking about, into the weeds to try to make sure not only the structures and the boxes are right, but how do we make sure these good people at FBI and the CIA get the right training to go after this new threat?
DOBBS: During the heightened terrorist alert of the summer of 2001, in your questioning today, George Tenet acknowledged that he did not talk directly to the president of the United States. Does that not strike you as peculiar at best?
ROEMER: It strikes me as more than peculiar. It's confusing and a little puzzling and a little shocking.
George Tenet is the person, not Dick Clarke, who is the counterterrorism adviser to the president, who never advise the president in the seven or eight months that he's there. But Dick Clarke doesn't get the opportunity. George Tenet is supposedly in there every day, at least telling the president about the warnings that day. Once they get this PDB on August 6 talking about bin Laden determined to strike in the United States, what Director Tenet said today was, he didn't talk to the president again the rest of that month until the principals meeting on September the 4th.
I don't get it. I don't understand that miscommunication.
DOBBS: Obviously, all Americans are deeply anxious, awaiting the report of the commission and the recommendations, the findings of the commission. But one thing, all partisanship aside, the tremendous failings of both the CIA and the FBI and the management of those two agencies, it is striking, is it not to you issue as a commissioner, to listen to the men, and obviously Director Mueller was not the head -- had been the head of the FBI for only a week on 9/11. Tenet had been there four years.
To hear them talk almost casually about the management, the need for management changes and the restructuring of their organizations, are you taken aback at all by the lack of passion? And is it just that they are so constrained and so well controlled that it's there, but we don't see it?
ROEMER: I really believe, Lou, that, having been in this for so long, and having visited with the families that have been so devastated by this, having been to ground zero a couple of days after 9/11, having visited the Pentagon the night that it was attacked, as Tom Paine said, these are the days that try men's souls.
We have got to stop playing the blame game, even though it's shocking at times to see some of the problems -- there's a lot of blame to go around -- and get this situation corrected fast. We cannot go by this 1947 National Security Act, that had our posture protecting the United States from the former Soviet Union. It's a new threat. It's a different threat. Let's get this 9/11 Commission report out there.
And, finally, let me just end on this. President Bush said yesterday that he wanted to work with the 9/11 Commission. He wanted to work with our recommendations. That is a great sign and a positive sign. I hope we can work together to get something accomplished.
DOBBS: And critically important.
Tim Roemer, thank you for being with us.
ROEMER: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, one of this nation's busiest border crossings could be missing some guards as soon as tomorrow. We'll have a special report in "Broken Borders" next.
Also, President Bush endorses Israel's controversial plan to close some Israeli settlements and leave others open. We'll have a report from the White House next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Homeland Security is the largest domestic federal agency in the country, and what you may not know is that it employs thousands of private security guards to protect federal property, including our ports. One of those contracts is about to expire, and that could mean changes at one of the nation's busiest border crossings.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 100 private security guards help protect three border crossings in the San Diego area, where some 160,000 people cross every day. The private security guards work for a company called U.S. Protect. And they help government customs and border officers under a contract with the Department of Homeland Security.
But, as of midnight tomorrow, government funding for that contract will stop. U.S. Protect says there aren't enough government border patrol officers to do the job right, and they claim their private contractors have seized nearly 800 weapons in the last week at those crossings.
LESLIE KACIBAN, U.S. PROTECT: If the contract's not renewed on April 15, at midnight April 15, it will severely impact the commerce and stretch of the capabilities of the existing law enforcement personnel there, not from the fact that they're not capable of doing it. They just won't have the manpower to do it.
PILGRIM: Using private security guards to protect federal property isn't unusual; 15,000 private security guards protect federal buildings all over the country.
But border protection a different job entirely. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says only federally screened, federally trained people should do these jobs; 42,000 government employees work at the country's borders, as they put it, to look for terrorists and terrorist weapons.
Up until now, Customs and Border Protection has paid part of the cost of the private security work force contract in San Diego. But today, they told us they don't want to continue it, saying, Customs and Border Protection do not want anyone but federal officers doing inspections and decided not to contribute to the contract.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Custom officials say they have the personnel that are perfectly capable of taking care of the volume of traffic at those ports of entry. They say the border security will not be compromised -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, that's something of a contradiction, because the Border Patrol and ICE have said that they do not have adequate man power to protect our borders and ports. And 2 1/2 years later, we're in a situation where we have private security at our border crossings and ports?
PILGRIM: Private security is not a new situation. It's been going on for decades.
(CROSSTALK)
PILGRIM: Now they really want to change, so that so that everything is federally...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: ... 2 1/2 years after September 11?
PILGRIM: Exactly, Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much.
Just ahead here, a major shift in U.S. policy announced as President Bush meets with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. I'll be talking with Israel's ambassador to this country.
The transfer of sovereignty back to Iraqis now less than 2 1/2 months away, a debate over that handover deadline in tonight's "Face- Off."
And later here, our series of special reports, "Making the Grade." Tonight, we continue with a look at discipline in our nation's schools, or lack of it.
That report and a great deal more still ahead. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush today met with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and signaled a major policy shift toward Israel. President Bush said he would support Sharon's plan to keep some Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It is a change Palestinian officials quickly denounced and called unacceptable. Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president gave the Israeli prime minister what he came for: a strong endorsement that significantly reshapes the U.S. approach toward Israeli-Palestinian peace.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are historic and courageous action.
KING: Prime Minister Sharon plans to remove Israeli settlements and military outposts from Gaza, and some settlements and military installations in the West Bank. But Mr. Sharon vows to keep several major settlements the Palestinians say must be abandoned.
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: My plan will create a new and better reality for the state of Israel.
KING: The president insisted his endorsement is not meant to prejudice any future Israeli-Palestinian peace talk. But Palestinians reacted angrily.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and deciding to give Crawford, Texas to China.
KING: And Bush is now on record taking Israel's side on 2 major issues. In this letter to Prime Minister Sharon, Mr. Bush wrote that new realities on the ground make it unrealistic to expect the final outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the 1949 borders, a key Palestinian negotiating point.
And the delicate right of return issue for Palestinian refugees, Mr. Bush wrote, the only just, fair and realistic answer is to create a new Palestinian state and agree on the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
The White House also backed away from blanket criticism of Israel's new security barrier and now says the fence just must be temporary.
It was a day the embattled Israeli prime minister desperately needed. Many members of his own Likud party oppose the plan, and selling it back home without a strong Bush endorsement would have been difficult, if not impossible.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now, the White House says it is significant that such a hard-line Israeli prime minister is now prepared to unilaterally give land back to the Palestinians. But Lou, given the angry Palestinian reaction, even though Mr. Bush credited his friend Mr. Sharon with trying to revive a dead peace process, even with the president's endorsement today, the Palestinian reaction indicates there would not be negotiations any time soon.
DOBBS: John, the White House can't be surprised by the Palestinian reaction. But in this age of flip-flops and a presidential election year, the president's withdrawal from the criticism of the fence or the wall represents a major shift, and suggesting that Israel could hold six blocks of territory within the West Bank is a major shift, is it not?
KING: It is a major shift. White House officials throughout the day have tried to note that the president did say all of this is back on the table if there ever is a round of final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it certainly changes the momentum.
In the final status negotiations as of yesterday, you would have had Israel trying to justify keeping land that was the Palestinians. Now the United States is already said Israel can have it for now, so, at a minimum it changes the dynamics of the negotiation.
Israel has a much stronger hand, given that the United States has blessed it, keeping settlements and the United States said the refugees should not come back to Israel, should only go a new Palestinian state. The president says all that is negotiable later, but he certainly, the Palestinian's would say, clearly taking sides now.
DOBBS: John King, senior White House correspondent, thank you, John.
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Daniel Elan was with the prime minister and President Bush throughout the day. He joins us tonight from our studios in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us, Mr. Ambassador.
DANIEL AYALON, ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Lou. Good to be here.
DOBBS: This has to be all that you, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, could have possibly asked for from the president, is it not?
AYALON: Well, Lou, I think it is an important day. I think it was a good day for Israel, for the United States policy. Hopefully a good day for the region.
We live in a region which is in bad need of good news, and I think that what President Bush called the bold and courageous move initiative by Prime Minister Sharon can create a historic opportunity.
And you have to see what is happening. Israel, for the first time is giving up land. We are granting land to the Palestinians. They will have control and contiguity in Gaza. We are leaving and evacuating settlements in the West Bank, which was really the heartland of Jewish civilization.
DOBBS: But at the same time...
AYALON: This hopefully will have them understand that by terror and violence and incitement they will not get anything, but if they are serious, if they start making good on their own commitments and obligation, we can jump-start the road map and we are willing to move ahead. DOBBS: It's been generally regarded, Mr. Ambassador, as you well know, that the road map could not proceed would be dealt a severe blow if the United States took a position, taking a position, and all credit to Israel from withdrawing from Gaza certainly is in order, and for the Sharon plan, but to maintain six blocks within the West Bank, and half the current population of Israeli settlers in those six blocks unilaterally, sounds like precisely what the road map did not need in the eyes of those critics?
AYALON: Well, I think there was a realization here of the opportunity. And the opportunity is changing the dynamics. And I think that now the Palestinians should take the opportunity, they do not have this excuse of occupation quote, unquote anymore. Let's see what they're doing.
And the president said, we're not prejudging the outcome of a final settlement, but there is a recognition here, I think, that in light of the great risks that Israel is taking, by giving up this tangible essence, territory, moving up -- moving out Israeli communities in some places, there are third generation that has to be uprooted.
It's very painful for us to decide we need to have this assurance that our security will not be compromised, and I think that the American blessing to this was a part and parcel for the whole plan. And I think in that respect, it was very important it is to support it, because now we are changing dynamics and hopefully, hopefully, the Palestinians, and our neighbors will realize that new era can come to the region.
DOBBS: We all, of course, want new dynamics that lead to peace and to resolution in the area. But one of the breathtaking aspects of this, Mr. Ambassador, is the fact that it is received the approval of the Bush administration. The president, this plan, before the approval of the Israeli people or even the Likud party, breathtaking in its pace in that regard, and unusual, is it not?
AYALON: Well, I think -- I think the United States realized that for us to take these risks. We needed to have assurances, and what better assurances are to be getting than from our best friend and ally, the United States.
And I think realizing that, we will do the moves that we are doing and hopefully the Palestinians will change their own behavior. And by the way, I don't think there is anything new regarding these two issues of refugees or final borders. We have always stated that just as Israel was the home of Jewish refugees, that future Palestinian states should be the home of Palestinian refugees. It's all very normal, very logical.
DOBBS: Always, Mr. Ambassador, perhaps not the word, Israel is not always, of course, a recognized the need for the Palestinian states' creation, either. But we take your point, and we appreciate your time as always, Mr. Ambassador. Daniel Ayalon, thank you very much.
AYALON: Thank you.
DOBBS: That brings us to the topic of tonight's poll question, "Do you support Sharon's plan to keep some Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Yes or no." Cast you vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.
Just ahead here: drugs and weapons, they're on the rise in our nation's schools. We'll take a look how some schools are tackling this disturbing trend and trying, trying to bring back discipline to the American classroom, as we continue our special report, "Making the Grade."
And the transfer of power in Iraq, our next two guests will debate the deadline of June 30 in tonight's "Face Off." Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush last night repeated his commitment to hand sovereignty back to Iraqis on the 30th of June. That planned transfer of power is the subject of tonight's face-off. Christopher Preble is the director of foreign policy studies at CATO. He says the handover is largely symbolic but an important first step towards U.S. withdrawal. Shibley Telhami, however, says pulling out doesn't send the right message and the governing council will not be truly sovereign. He's the Anwar Sadat professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland. They both join us tonight from Washington, D.C.
Gentleman, thank you very much. Let me begin with you if I may. June 30, symbolic? Is it critical that that transfer be met or not on the 30th of June?
CHRISTOPHER PREBLE, DIRECTOR, FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, CATO: I think the Bush administration has invested so much political capital in that date, a date that I'll admit was probably at the outset largely symbolic, and certainly the day itself was somewhat arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary anymore, and I think the Iraqi people expect this to be the first demonstration of the American administration's willingness and intention to hand power over to the Iraqis.
DOBBS: Even if we don't know to whom we're handing over power?
PREBLE: Right. And I think that's a mark against the Bush administration for not having that in place before this time. But again, they're the ones who invested so much into the June 30 date and I think to back out on that commitment would really send a very, very bad message to the Iraqi people.
DOBBS: Professor, your thoughts?
SHIBLEY TELHAMI, PROF., PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT, UNIV. OF MARYLAND: First of all, I believe that the transfer will be real, I think I'd support it first. And I think it's not an issue of the date, whether you delay it or not is not going to make a difference. I think it's the nature of the transfer. The reality of it is that very little is going to change on the ground. American forces will be there, the government will be largely American appointed. The rest of the world is going to see it that way, highly dependent on the U.S., and the costs that we might be paying is that by focusing on this as if it is a major transfer of authority will distract from some of the responsibilities that we'll continue to have and also from exploring some real options that are immediately needed.
DOBBS: Like what?
TELHAMI: For example, one of the things that we should do is to have a different authority transferring the sovereignty. I think between now and the time that there is a sovereign Iraqi government, there should be a U.N. Bremer. One of the problems is when you have a U.S. Bremer, very few people are going to have faith in the legitimacy of whatever government emerges, so you need to have a different transitional authority to decide who governs.
DOBBS: Would you both at least agree on this, that the June 30 handover is an appropriate display with the United States of its commitment to return sovereignty to the Iraqis whether perfect or not, and secondly, that the only exit strategy that is really relevant here is success with whatever form of government follows that transfer?
TELHAMI: Lou, I'm not so sure that's the way the rest of the world is going to see it. I think, frankly, the rest of the world may want to see it as legitimizing American presence. In reality, American troops will remain, in reality, we are not only trying to get an Iraqi government, but an Iraqi government that we still, we like. And I think we want democracy but we want democracy with some of our own appointees in place, in charge, and that's the problem.
DOBBS: Mr. Preble.
PREBLE: Which is why the handover of sovereignty must be only a first step. It must be immediately followed a demonstration of what the United States intentions are long-term, and those include withdrawal of U.S. military forces. No one is arguing for the long- term stationing of forces, so why don't we talk now about how long we expect them to be there. This must be the first step, but it can not be the last step. I agree with the professor. If it is just a first step center, then it is largely symbolic and will be interpreted the wrong way.
DOBBS: There is no guess that by every account that the U.S. forces will be in Iraq for the long-term, that is for years to come, I think everybody understands that. Let me ask you both quickly, because we have very little time remaining. Why has there been such acquiescence on the part of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other states in the region, why in your judgment has the United States not made more effort to bring their imprimatur into the resolution of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately stability?
TELMANI: Let me give you one reason, not only the Arab countries but a lot of countries around the world... DOBBS: But I mean specifically the Arab countries, because they're approximate first.
TELMANI: There are two reasons. First, I think they really can't do much frankly, except provide legitimacy. On the legitimacy business, I think deep down they had two fears. One fear is that if the U.S. succeeded too quickly, remember, some of the people here were saying this is the first of many including possibly Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran. If the U.S. succeeds too quickly and is seen to be the way to go then they're fearful they might be next. On the other hand, they don't really want Iraq to collapse. They're fearful that the militants will win and that will haunt them. So in between, they're reluctantly cooperating and they're not too unhappy with the level of American trouble in Iraq.
DOBBS: Chris Preble, you get the last word here.
PREBLE: I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I think that the Bush administration is sending very mixed signals and there is every reason why the other Arab governments are dragging their heels a little bit because it's not clear to them what is in their best interest over the long term, other than most people agree chaos in Iraq is not in everyone's interest and yet that's exactly the direction we seem to be going.
DOBBS: Christopher Preble, thank you very much. And Shibley Telhami, thank you both gentlemen, for being with us.
Up next. "Making the Grade." Our special report on education in America. Tonight discipline in our schools, and we'll have reaction to the president's news conference from three of the country's leading political journalists. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight in our series of special reports, "Making the Grade," we focus on discipline in our schools. Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mountainview High School is a place for second chances. It's an alternative school in Fairfax county, Virginia. Students who were expelled from other schools for fighting or drug use may end up here. C.J. Grish has been getting into trouble since the fifth grade.
C.J. GRISH, HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR: Just random stuff like cursed out a teacher, get up and act out in class, to getting in fights.
SYLVESTER: Bullying behavior is a growing problem in the nation's schools. According to recent surveys, nearly one in three high school students was in a fight during the previous year. Just under 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school grounds. KATHLEEN PORTER, FORDHAM FOUNDATION: If you can't create an orderly environment that's conducive to learning, teachers can't effectively instruct students, then teachers can't effectively instruct students, students can't learn.
SYLVESTER: Although 22 states allow corporal punishment in public schools, many districts have been moving away from the practice. Under the threat of lawsuits, educators are trying peer mediation, time-outs and alternative schools like Mountain View.
(on camera): One difference between alternative and traditional schools is class size, here, there are only 270 students in the entire school. Compare that to other schools in Fairfax County, which could have as many as 4,000 students.
MEREDITH SHONEBARGER, HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR: Classes are smaller, so you're able to do your work and concentrate on that, and the teachers are a huge help, because I'm actually become friends with teachers and not enemies.
SYLVESTER: Smaller class size reduces discipline problems, and that means devoting more resources to education.
TERESA ZUTTER, DIR. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA: I think it's a case of pay me now or pay me later, that as a society, if we don't invest in the kids now, when they're young, when we can reach them, when we still have influence and have a relationship with them, we will definitely pay for generations to come.
SYLVESTER: The immediate payoff will be graduation day for these students. Most would have dropped out of school if they did not have an alternative. Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Fairfax County, Virginia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Quick look at some of your thoughts tonight.
David Rieger of Mudelein, Illinois writes "Lou, your assessment of Rummy-speak was right on target. You mean to tell me you understand economics and political spin, immigration issues and you actually stand up for American workers?" We try.
Jesse Corbell of Cola, South Carolina, "how can the coalition need more than a 113,000 troops to handle the few Iraqi insurgents that our president said are causing the trouble. The numbers don't add up.
And Michael of Niwot, Colorado, "Lou, I've never been real good at math. Do you think I can get a job at the Pentagon?"
We love hearing from you, e-mail us at loudobbs@CNN.com.
Still ahead, I'll be joined by three of the country's top journalists. We'll be talking about President Bush's first prime time news conference of the year. How did he do? We'll find out. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now to talk about how well the president did in his prime-time news conference. Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent "L.A. Times." Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent "TIME" magazine. And Roger Simon, political editor, "U.S. News and World Report." Thanks for being here.
Ron, let's start it right out, you said last night Bush has to show he's developed a strategy to bring stability to Iraq. Did he do that?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "L.A. TIMES": Short answer, no. He spent a lot of time trying to convince the American public that Iraq is important to our security, and indeed the long range stability of the region and the world. The problem, Lou, is that isn't problem. People accept the idea Iraq is important, it's important to be successful there. They're not sure he has a plan to do that, however. And on that front he had nothing now to say.
In fact, on several issues: what kind of government we'd have after June 30, how many troops we might need to quell the disturbances? He deferred to others, Mr. Brahimi, General Abizaid. So, I don't think it was overall, a performance likely to reach the people who are dubious.
DOBBS: Karen, you said the president would have to focus on Iraq's future. Your thoughts?
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, I sure didn't hear it. And certainly, he was also all trying to convince the country that he -- he was resolute. That slice of the American public that is increasingly questioning the war is not questioning his resolve, they're questioning his judgment. And I just didn't -- I didn't hear anything with the specificity that was required to really address those questions.
DOBBS: Roger, the president talking about staying the course, there's really no one saying cut and run in Iraq. What is the political efficacy on that position on the part of the president?
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: The president spent a lot of time last night sort of setting up strong man and knock him down as you say, no one is saying cut and run. In fact, the president's position on what we do now in Iraq is virtually indistinguishable from Senator Kerry's position. Which is we're going to stay there until the last drop of somebody's blood, either ours or the other guys.
But as Ron also mentioned tonight, he seemed oddly not in command and control which is what presidents are supposed to be. Time after time, he deferred major decisions to others, including the key decision of how many troops? He said we're going to give the generals whatever they ask for. That it a policy, as we learned in Vietnam, that is fraught with peril. DOBBS: Let me ask you, Ron, just on the cosmetics of it all, because theater is occasionally more than important to presidents and their re-election. How did he do?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I thought that it was a kind of performance that, like many things President Bush does, will reassure those who support him and offputting to those who don't. The resolve that was on display, the determination, has been his strongest asset with the public since 9/11. But there is a thin line between being determined and being dogmatic or being resolved and being rigid. And I think that for many of those skeptical of the way things are going in Iraq what they may have heard is less determination than a refusal to reconsider the course.
TUMULTY: Might I add, whoever picked that tie should be fired. At a moment with this kind of seriousness, the last thing you want is a tie that goes psychedelic under the TV lights.
DOBBS: The tie, the setting, whatever it may be, the president did not know did not have an answer for your biggest mistake. But I thought it was interesting one would ask the question to begin with, didn't you?
BROWNSTEIN: The press was clearly trying to repair damage to its own reputation for previous press conferences and wasn't tough and tried to be tough last night. Bush seemed oddly unprepared as you said, he stammered like a Miss America contestant who is asked her policy for world peace. It was a simple question, he could have deflected it.
DOBBS: Roger Simon, Karen Tumulty, Ron Brownstein, as always our thanks.
That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Please be with us tomorrow, former CIA James Woolsey will be our guest. I'll speak with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California, who for some time has said more American troops are needed around the world and in Iraq.
Thanks for being with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is 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
Aired April 14, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, a dramatic admission by CIA Director George Tenet. Tenet says the CIA is years away from being fully ready to battle radical Islamist terrorists.
GEORGE TENET, CIA DIRECTOR: It will take us another five years to have the kind of clandestine service our country needs.
DOBBS: 9/11 Commission member Timothy Roamer is our guest.
Airstrikes on Fallujah. U.S. Marines are ready to advance into the city. And the Pentagon has decided 20,000 American troops must remain in Iraq longer than originally planned.
And in "Making the Grade," our special report tonight on education in America. Discipline is breaking down in our schools. Our children are paying the price.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, April 14. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
CIA Director George Tenet today said it will take five years to completely rebuild the CIA's clandestine service to fight radical Islamist terrorists. Tenet told the 9/11 Commission that the end of the Cold War led to a sharp reduction in CIA manpower and capital investment. FBI Director Robert Mueller also testified before the commission today. Mueller said he is in the midst of a restructuring of the FBI.
We have two reports tonight, national security correspondent David Ensor with a report on George Tenet's testimony, and justice correspondent Kelli Arena on Robert Mueller's testimony.
We begin with David Ensor -- David.
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Lou, as you say others, the director of central intelligence said it was because of the budget cuts in the '90s after at the end of the Cold War that the CIA has not had the clandestine service it needs and will not for another five years.
But he faced pointed questions from the commissioners about the failure of intelligence represented by those attacks on September 11.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR (voice-over): George Tenet was put on the defensive by a staff report from the commission, charging that the director of central intelligence -- quote -- "did not develop a management strategy for the war against terrorism before 9/11."
TENET: When the staff statement says the DCI had no strategic plan to manage the war on terrorism, that's flat wrong.
ENSOR: One commissioner pointed to the phrase in the now famous PDB, presidential daily brief, of August 6, 2001, that says -- quote -- "we have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft."
JOHN LEHMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION MEMBER: All the king's horses and all the king's men in CIA could not corroborate what turned out to be true and told the president of the United States almost a month before the attack that they couldn't corroborate these reports. That's an institutional failure. And I'm here to tell you, there are going to be very real changes made.
ENSOR: In fact, President Bush said just Tuesday night that he is open for suggestions from the 9/11 Commission. The commission is considering whether to propose giving Tenet's successor more real power, hiring and budget power over the other intelligence agencies besides the CIA. That power is currently held by the secretary of defense.
TENET: All I want to focus on is, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I've done it one way. It ain't the perfect way. And within the structure that I lived with, and the power and persuasion and cajoling is absolutely important, because, at the end of the day, you still have to lead. You can all the authority you want. It may not matter.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: The commission's leaders say they do expect to recommend changes in the intelligence community structure. They're hoping to talk privately with senior officials to seek the kind of innovative ideas that might not come out in a public hearing -- Lou.
DOBBS: David, thank you -- David Ensor.
FBI Director Robert Mueller today strongly defended his agency during his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mueller said the FBI has made counterterrorism its top priority.
Justice correspondent Kelli Arena has the report -- Kelli.
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, he said that and a lot more all in an effort to convince commissioners that the FBI is up to the job of collecting, analyzing, disseminating and acting on domestic intelligence, now, that in response to the suggestion that perhaps a new organization like Britain's MI5 may be in order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT MUELLER, FBI DIRECTOR: I do believe that creating a separate agency to collect intelligence in the United States would be a grave mistake. Splitting the law enforcement and the intelligence functions would lead both agencies fighting the war on terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: The commission laid out a series of problems that it says still exist at FBI, a shortage of linguists and agents who can help surveil terrorists. Today's report says that analysts are used for menial chores like emptying trash cans. One senior official was even quoted as saying that, on a scale of one to 100, the FBI's knowledge of Islamic extremists was about 20.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS KEAN, CHAIRMAN, 9/11 COMMISSION: Can you fix it? Because the FBI is absolutely essential to this whole war we're talking about. And if you can't fix it, then we've got to make some recommendations and structural changes that may be able to fix it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARENA: Mueller assured commission members that change was well under way, citing new information-sharing capabilities, better training and a clear promotion path for agents who specialize in intelligence rather than casework.
He said the report issued which was critical of the FBI was just a snapshot in time of six field offices and that he is sure that the bureau has the confidence of the American people, that is, once you get outside of Washington -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kelli, thank you very much -- Kelli Arena.
Later in the broadcast, I'll be talking with one of the 9/11 Commission members, Timothy Roemer, who will give us his assessment of the testimony of both George Tenet and Robert Mueller.
In Iraq tonight, the cease-fire between U.S. Marines and insurgents in Fallujah has all but collapsed. American fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships launched airstrikes against insurgent positions. The Marines commander, General John Mattis (ph).
, said it's hard to have a cease-fire when the enemy is firing at his troops. Also tonight, there is a report that an Italian hostage in Iraq has been killed.
Jim Clancy reports from Baghdad -- Jim.
JIM CLANCY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was disturbing news that came as Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news channel based in Qatar, reported that its Baghdad office received a videotape depicting the death of one of four Italian hostages.
Now, videotape of the four hostages was released a little bit earlier this week. Al-Jazeera says it is not going to air the video because, in its words, it is too graphic. CNN has not viewed the videotape. We cannot vouch for its authenticity. The Italian government says it has no confirmation that one of these four Italian hostages was killed.
The blame on a voice track contained on the videotape went to Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for refusing to pull his troops out of Iraq, as demanded. It also contained the threat to kill more of those Italian hostages until and unless that demand was met.
On the ground here in Iraq, in Fallujah, more gunfire today, U.S. jets flying over ahead, as well making airstrikes, a truce that is sometimes on, sometimes off, and new information coming out that may indicate some of those inside the city definitely do not want the negotiations process to go ahead. The Iraqi Governing Council member who is mediating in that case, who's been going to Fallujah says he has escaped two assassination bids this week.
Meantime, the Marines continue to ratchet up the pressure there to hold on to all of the perimeter around Fallujah to try to prevent the escape of the foreign fighters they believe are inside. A lot of Iraqis want them to keep that pressure up.
Also, we have supply lines under pressure, across Iraq, more vehicles hit, Lou, in another day of attacks on those convoys, although much fewer than at this time last week. Najaf, in southern Iraq, where Muqtada al-Sadr is seeking sanctuary from an arrest warrant charging him with murder, he backed down today. U.S. troops are outside the city. Muqtada al-Sadr saying he's going to leave the case in the hands of religious leaders in the community to sort it out and drop his demand that those U.S. forces pull back.
Once again, a lot of people in Iraq looking on, they see both the situation in Fallujah and al-Sadr himself as being longtime sources of trouble, Lou, in this country. They believe, if those problems are left unattended, that the situation may only get worse -- back to you.
DOBBS: Jim, thank you -- Jim Clancy reporting live tonight from Baghdad.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today approved a plan to keep a much higher number of American troops in Iraq than the Pentagon had originally intended. Officials said 20,000 troops will have to stay in Iraq for another three months. That's twice as many troops as military commanders suggested earlier in the week.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, the last time the Pentagon extended tours of duty for combat troops in Iraq was in November.
At that time, they promised that they would only have to serve a year in the war zone. But now, with an insurgency raging in Fallujah, with a possible 'nother combat operation about to start in Najaf, the Pentagon has said it cannot keep that promise. So today, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has approved a request from General John Abizaid to keep 20,000 troops in Iraq for, as you said, up to three months longer. They include the 1st Armored Division, as well as the 2nd Armored Cavalry regiment from Fort Polk, Louisiana, that was supposed to be coming home soon.
In addition, some National Guard units as well are being told they have to stay, some military police units, altogether about 19,000. Pentagon officials say that the original number that we reported, about 10,000 troops based on comments made by General John Abizaid, was never the original number. It was originally about 15,000, got up to about 19,000 as they looked at all the capability they felt they needed to provide him.
But, again, they say whatever the commanders say they need, they'll get, and now the Pentagon is looking at a plan for three months down the road, how they might have to replace these extra troops with other additional troops. Those decisions won't be made probably for another couple of weeks -- Lou.
DOBBS: It seems, Jamie, there are a number of important questions here. One, is this effectively the Pentagon admitting that they don't have the reserves for troops in Iraq based in Europe and the United States can be sent, rather than extending the tours of the troops are already there?
MCINTYRE: Well, I think the feeling is, if they sent -- they do have troops that they could send, but that would upset the very delicate balance of rotation schedule they have worked out for the next several years. Clearly, the United States doesn't have enough troops that they can do these sorts of things without any stress on the force. There is stress, and I think they feel that it's better to preserve a long-term schedule of rotation with some short-term fixes, rather than throw the whole schedule into a mess.
They're trying to keep as much predictability as they can in the lives of the soldiers.
DOBBS: Is there any kind of indication there at the Pentagon that they're creating morale problems for the troops in Iraq and perhaps they're creating a potential problem with Congress, a number of members calling, as you well know, for a significant increase in the size of the U.S. military to remove some of the stress?
MCINTYRE: Well, there is clearly a lot of friction on those points. You know, if you talk to the troops there, the ones who have to stay, they say that they're certainly willing to stay and understand and why they have to stay. Of course, they sort of have to say that, too. After all, they don't have much choice.
You see a lot more of the morale being reflected by some of the family members. In fact, we learned today that one of the wives of one of the National Guardsmen actually started a petition campaign to try to get her husband's unit home earlier. She says he's been away from home since March of 2003. So it's creating a lot of stress. The Pentagon is worried that it could create problems down the road with recruiting. And it has increased tensions with Congress over this debate on the size of the military.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Senator John Kerry today said there is a -- quote -- "smarter way" to accomplish the mission in Iraq. The Democratic presidential candidate told reporters in New York that the coalition should make the United Nations a full partner in Iraq. Senator Kerry said that would relieve the burden on American troops, relieve the cost on taxpayers, and raise the chances of success in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Why doesn't the president just come out and say, I want the U.N. to be a full partner and the resolution that we pass will turn authority over to them? That's the argument right now, is whether or not we're prepared to turn the authority over and whether or not they're prepared to come in without the authority. That's the fight. And the question is why the president won't do that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Senator Kerry also said success in Iraq is the goal of not only the United States, but also Arab and European nations.
Next, I'll be talking with 9/11 Commission member Timothy Roamer.
Also a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Israel. We'll have a live report from the White House, and I'll be talking with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon.
In "Broken Borders" tonight, astonishing new details about the way the government is protecting one of our key border crossings from terrorists. We'll have a special report for you.
And in "Face-Off" tonight, as the fighting in Iraq escalates, two very different views tonight on whether the United States should hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: As we reported, the directors of both the CIA and FBI today testified before the 9/11 Commission.
My next guest is a member of the commission. Tim Roemer served as Democratic congressman from Indiana from 1991 until last year, joining us tonight from Washington.
Good to have you here.
TIMOTHY ROEMER, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR NATIONAL POLICY: Thanks, Lou.
DOBBS: The bald statement by CIA Director George Tenet, five years to put together an effective clandestine service for the CIA. Your reaction?
ROEMER: It's a long time, Lou, with al Qaeda coming at us. It's too long.
Certainly, what Director Tenet is saying that it takes time to recruit the right people with the diverse skills and the language skills and these are difficult targets to penetrate when you're going after al Qaeda or a jihadist group in the Philippines or Malaysia or somewhere. That's the work of these agencies. It can't be just satellites and birds in the sky that cost $100 million and expect to get these targets some of the ways that we did on the old Soviet Union.
This is a lethal, agile, dynamic threat coming at us, and we have to do that work well. And we have to make sure that we're putting the emphasis on that development. He's got a big task ahead of him. And we have to do it quicker than five years.
DOBBS: I assure you, I'm neither ingenuous or disingenuous or naive here. You're going to have to take my word for that. But the idea that the CIA, the United States, the world's superpower, cannot -- and it's been 2 1/2 years, as you well know, since 9/11 -- have an effective plan already in operation to hit an effective level of clandestine work sooner than five years is frankly stunning.
ROEMER: Lou, having served on the joint inquiry for 13 or 14 months, and now on this 9/11 Commission, it makes your heart almost stop, the degree of some of the institutional and systemic problems in the FBI and the CIA.
We found the last couple days that too oftentimes they could not connect the dots. They did not share information with one another. They did not put enough emphasis on recruiting the right kind of translators. They did not have enough language speakers in these areas. And they blew opportunities. And the CIA, they followed some people, some killers, murderers, terrorists, to Kuala Lumpur, photographed them there in Kuala Lumpur. Two of them were the hijackers that eventually come into the United States, but when these people go from Kuala Lumpur to Bangkok, they don't follow them.
That's like the local sheriff in my hometown of South Bend, Indiana, following serial murderers to the border of Michigan and just saying goodbye and not handing them off to law enforcement in the next state. Those are problems and we have to fix them. The 9/11 Commission is five Democrats and five Republicans trying to look at how we fix these institutional problems, how we get, as you and I were talking about, into the weeds to try to make sure not only the structures and the boxes are right, but how do we make sure these good people at FBI and the CIA get the right training to go after this new threat?
DOBBS: During the heightened terrorist alert of the summer of 2001, in your questioning today, George Tenet acknowledged that he did not talk directly to the president of the United States. Does that not strike you as peculiar at best?
ROEMER: It strikes me as more than peculiar. It's confusing and a little puzzling and a little shocking.
George Tenet is the person, not Dick Clarke, who is the counterterrorism adviser to the president, who never advise the president in the seven or eight months that he's there. But Dick Clarke doesn't get the opportunity. George Tenet is supposedly in there every day, at least telling the president about the warnings that day. Once they get this PDB on August 6 talking about bin Laden determined to strike in the United States, what Director Tenet said today was, he didn't talk to the president again the rest of that month until the principals meeting on September the 4th.
I don't get it. I don't understand that miscommunication.
DOBBS: Obviously, all Americans are deeply anxious, awaiting the report of the commission and the recommendations, the findings of the commission. But one thing, all partisanship aside, the tremendous failings of both the CIA and the FBI and the management of those two agencies, it is striking, is it not to you issue as a commissioner, to listen to the men, and obviously Director Mueller was not the head -- had been the head of the FBI for only a week on 9/11. Tenet had been there four years.
To hear them talk almost casually about the management, the need for management changes and the restructuring of their organizations, are you taken aback at all by the lack of passion? And is it just that they are so constrained and so well controlled that it's there, but we don't see it?
ROEMER: I really believe, Lou, that, having been in this for so long, and having visited with the families that have been so devastated by this, having been to ground zero a couple of days after 9/11, having visited the Pentagon the night that it was attacked, as Tom Paine said, these are the days that try men's souls.
We have got to stop playing the blame game, even though it's shocking at times to see some of the problems -- there's a lot of blame to go around -- and get this situation corrected fast. We cannot go by this 1947 National Security Act, that had our posture protecting the United States from the former Soviet Union. It's a new threat. It's a different threat. Let's get this 9/11 Commission report out there.
And, finally, let me just end on this. President Bush said yesterday that he wanted to work with the 9/11 Commission. He wanted to work with our recommendations. That is a great sign and a positive sign. I hope we can work together to get something accomplished.
DOBBS: And critically important.
Tim Roemer, thank you for being with us.
ROEMER: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, one of this nation's busiest border crossings could be missing some guards as soon as tomorrow. We'll have a special report in "Broken Borders" next.
Also, President Bush endorses Israel's controversial plan to close some Israeli settlements and leave others open. We'll have a report from the White House next.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Homeland Security is the largest domestic federal agency in the country, and what you may not know is that it employs thousands of private security guards to protect federal property, including our ports. One of those contracts is about to expire, and that could mean changes at one of the nation's busiest border crossings.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than 100 private security guards help protect three border crossings in the San Diego area, where some 160,000 people cross every day. The private security guards work for a company called U.S. Protect. And they help government customs and border officers under a contract with the Department of Homeland Security.
But, as of midnight tomorrow, government funding for that contract will stop. U.S. Protect says there aren't enough government border patrol officers to do the job right, and they claim their private contractors have seized nearly 800 weapons in the last week at those crossings.
LESLIE KACIBAN, U.S. PROTECT: If the contract's not renewed on April 15, at midnight April 15, it will severely impact the commerce and stretch of the capabilities of the existing law enforcement personnel there, not from the fact that they're not capable of doing it. They just won't have the manpower to do it.
PILGRIM: Using private security guards to protect federal property isn't unusual; 15,000 private security guards protect federal buildings all over the country.
But border protection a different job entirely. U.S. Customs and Border Protection says only federally screened, federally trained people should do these jobs; 42,000 government employees work at the country's borders, as they put it, to look for terrorists and terrorist weapons.
Up until now, Customs and Border Protection has paid part of the cost of the private security work force contract in San Diego. But today, they told us they don't want to continue it, saying, Customs and Border Protection do not want anyone but federal officers doing inspections and decided not to contribute to the contract.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Custom officials say they have the personnel that are perfectly capable of taking care of the volume of traffic at those ports of entry. They say the border security will not be compromised -- Lou.
DOBBS: Well, that's something of a contradiction, because the Border Patrol and ICE have said that they do not have adequate man power to protect our borders and ports. And 2 1/2 years later, we're in a situation where we have private security at our border crossings and ports?
PILGRIM: Private security is not a new situation. It's been going on for decades.
(CROSSTALK)
PILGRIM: Now they really want to change, so that so that everything is federally...
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: ... 2 1/2 years after September 11?
PILGRIM: Exactly, Lou.
DOBBS: Kitty, thank you very much.
Just ahead here, a major shift in U.S. policy announced as President Bush meets with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. I'll be talking with Israel's ambassador to this country.
The transfer of sovereignty back to Iraqis now less than 2 1/2 months away, a debate over that handover deadline in tonight's "Face- Off."
And later here, our series of special reports, "Making the Grade." Tonight, we continue with a look at discipline in our nation's schools, or lack of it.
That report and a great deal more still ahead. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush today met with Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon and signaled a major policy shift toward Israel. President Bush said he would support Sharon's plan to keep some Jewish settlements in the West Bank. It is a change Palestinian officials quickly denounced and called unacceptable. Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president gave the Israeli prime minister what he came for: a strong endorsement that significantly reshapes the U.S. approach toward Israeli-Palestinian peace.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These are historic and courageous action.
KING: Prime Minister Sharon plans to remove Israeli settlements and military outposts from Gaza, and some settlements and military installations in the West Bank. But Mr. Sharon vows to keep several major settlements the Palestinians say must be abandoned.
ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: My plan will create a new and better reality for the state of Israel.
KING: The president insisted his endorsement is not meant to prejudice any future Israeli-Palestinian peace talk. But Palestinians reacted angrily.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's like meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and deciding to give Crawford, Texas to China.
KING: And Bush is now on record taking Israel's side on 2 major issues. In this letter to Prime Minister Sharon, Mr. Bush wrote that new realities on the ground make it unrealistic to expect the final outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the 1949 borders, a key Palestinian negotiating point.
And the delicate right of return issue for Palestinian refugees, Mr. Bush wrote, the only just, fair and realistic answer is to create a new Palestinian state and agree on the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.
The White House also backed away from blanket criticism of Israel's new security barrier and now says the fence just must be temporary.
It was a day the embattled Israeli prime minister desperately needed. Many members of his own Likud party oppose the plan, and selling it back home without a strong Bush endorsement would have been difficult, if not impossible.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: Now, the White House says it is significant that such a hard-line Israeli prime minister is now prepared to unilaterally give land back to the Palestinians. But Lou, given the angry Palestinian reaction, even though Mr. Bush credited his friend Mr. Sharon with trying to revive a dead peace process, even with the president's endorsement today, the Palestinian reaction indicates there would not be negotiations any time soon.
DOBBS: John, the White House can't be surprised by the Palestinian reaction. But in this age of flip-flops and a presidential election year, the president's withdrawal from the criticism of the fence or the wall represents a major shift, and suggesting that Israel could hold six blocks of territory within the West Bank is a major shift, is it not?
KING: It is a major shift. White House officials throughout the day have tried to note that the president did say all of this is back on the table if there ever is a round of final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But it certainly changes the momentum.
In the final status negotiations as of yesterday, you would have had Israel trying to justify keeping land that was the Palestinians. Now the United States is already said Israel can have it for now, so, at a minimum it changes the dynamics of the negotiation.
Israel has a much stronger hand, given that the United States has blessed it, keeping settlements and the United States said the refugees should not come back to Israel, should only go a new Palestinian state. The president says all that is negotiable later, but he certainly, the Palestinian's would say, clearly taking sides now.
DOBBS: John King, senior White House correspondent, thank you, John.
Israel's ambassador to the United States, Daniel Elan was with the prime minister and President Bush throughout the day. He joins us tonight from our studios in Washington, D.C. Good to have you with us, Mr. Ambassador.
DANIEL AYALON, ISRAEL'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Lou. Good to be here.
DOBBS: This has to be all that you, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon, could have possibly asked for from the president, is it not?
AYALON: Well, Lou, I think it is an important day. I think it was a good day for Israel, for the United States policy. Hopefully a good day for the region.
We live in a region which is in bad need of good news, and I think that what President Bush called the bold and courageous move initiative by Prime Minister Sharon can create a historic opportunity.
And you have to see what is happening. Israel, for the first time is giving up land. We are granting land to the Palestinians. They will have control and contiguity in Gaza. We are leaving and evacuating settlements in the West Bank, which was really the heartland of Jewish civilization.
DOBBS: But at the same time...
AYALON: This hopefully will have them understand that by terror and violence and incitement they will not get anything, but if they are serious, if they start making good on their own commitments and obligation, we can jump-start the road map and we are willing to move ahead. DOBBS: It's been generally regarded, Mr. Ambassador, as you well know, that the road map could not proceed would be dealt a severe blow if the United States took a position, taking a position, and all credit to Israel from withdrawing from Gaza certainly is in order, and for the Sharon plan, but to maintain six blocks within the West Bank, and half the current population of Israeli settlers in those six blocks unilaterally, sounds like precisely what the road map did not need in the eyes of those critics?
AYALON: Well, I think there was a realization here of the opportunity. And the opportunity is changing the dynamics. And I think that now the Palestinians should take the opportunity, they do not have this excuse of occupation quote, unquote anymore. Let's see what they're doing.
And the president said, we're not prejudging the outcome of a final settlement, but there is a recognition here, I think, that in light of the great risks that Israel is taking, by giving up this tangible essence, territory, moving up -- moving out Israeli communities in some places, there are third generation that has to be uprooted.
It's very painful for us to decide we need to have this assurance that our security will not be compromised, and I think that the American blessing to this was a part and parcel for the whole plan. And I think in that respect, it was very important it is to support it, because now we are changing dynamics and hopefully, hopefully, the Palestinians, and our neighbors will realize that new era can come to the region.
DOBBS: We all, of course, want new dynamics that lead to peace and to resolution in the area. But one of the breathtaking aspects of this, Mr. Ambassador, is the fact that it is received the approval of the Bush administration. The president, this plan, before the approval of the Israeli people or even the Likud party, breathtaking in its pace in that regard, and unusual, is it not?
AYALON: Well, I think -- I think the United States realized that for us to take these risks. We needed to have assurances, and what better assurances are to be getting than from our best friend and ally, the United States.
And I think realizing that, we will do the moves that we are doing and hopefully the Palestinians will change their own behavior. And by the way, I don't think there is anything new regarding these two issues of refugees or final borders. We have always stated that just as Israel was the home of Jewish refugees, that future Palestinian states should be the home of Palestinian refugees. It's all very normal, very logical.
DOBBS: Always, Mr. Ambassador, perhaps not the word, Israel is not always, of course, a recognized the need for the Palestinian states' creation, either. But we take your point, and we appreciate your time as always, Mr. Ambassador. Daniel Ayalon, thank you very much.
AYALON: Thank you.
DOBBS: That brings us to the topic of tonight's poll question, "Do you support Sharon's plan to keep some Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Yes or no." Cast you vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll have the results for you later in the show.
Just ahead here: drugs and weapons, they're on the rise in our nation's schools. We'll take a look how some schools are tackling this disturbing trend and trying, trying to bring back discipline to the American classroom, as we continue our special report, "Making the Grade."
And the transfer of power in Iraq, our next two guests will debate the deadline of June 30 in tonight's "Face Off." Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush last night repeated his commitment to hand sovereignty back to Iraqis on the 30th of June. That planned transfer of power is the subject of tonight's face-off. Christopher Preble is the director of foreign policy studies at CATO. He says the handover is largely symbolic but an important first step towards U.S. withdrawal. Shibley Telhami, however, says pulling out doesn't send the right message and the governing council will not be truly sovereign. He's the Anwar Sadat professor of peace and development at the University of Maryland. They both join us tonight from Washington, D.C.
Gentleman, thank you very much. Let me begin with you if I may. June 30, symbolic? Is it critical that that transfer be met or not on the 30th of June?
CHRISTOPHER PREBLE, DIRECTOR, FOREIGN POLICY STUDIES, CATO: I think the Bush administration has invested so much political capital in that date, a date that I'll admit was probably at the outset largely symbolic, and certainly the day itself was somewhat arbitrary, but it's not arbitrary anymore, and I think the Iraqi people expect this to be the first demonstration of the American administration's willingness and intention to hand power over to the Iraqis.
DOBBS: Even if we don't know to whom we're handing over power?
PREBLE: Right. And I think that's a mark against the Bush administration for not having that in place before this time. But again, they're the ones who invested so much into the June 30 date and I think to back out on that commitment would really send a very, very bad message to the Iraqi people.
DOBBS: Professor, your thoughts?
SHIBLEY TELHAMI, PROF., PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT, UNIV. OF MARYLAND: First of all, I believe that the transfer will be real, I think I'd support it first. And I think it's not an issue of the date, whether you delay it or not is not going to make a difference. I think it's the nature of the transfer. The reality of it is that very little is going to change on the ground. American forces will be there, the government will be largely American appointed. The rest of the world is going to see it that way, highly dependent on the U.S., and the costs that we might be paying is that by focusing on this as if it is a major transfer of authority will distract from some of the responsibilities that we'll continue to have and also from exploring some real options that are immediately needed.
DOBBS: Like what?
TELHAMI: For example, one of the things that we should do is to have a different authority transferring the sovereignty. I think between now and the time that there is a sovereign Iraqi government, there should be a U.N. Bremer. One of the problems is when you have a U.S. Bremer, very few people are going to have faith in the legitimacy of whatever government emerges, so you need to have a different transitional authority to decide who governs.
DOBBS: Would you both at least agree on this, that the June 30 handover is an appropriate display with the United States of its commitment to return sovereignty to the Iraqis whether perfect or not, and secondly, that the only exit strategy that is really relevant here is success with whatever form of government follows that transfer?
TELHAMI: Lou, I'm not so sure that's the way the rest of the world is going to see it. I think, frankly, the rest of the world may want to see it as legitimizing American presence. In reality, American troops will remain, in reality, we are not only trying to get an Iraqi government, but an Iraqi government that we still, we like. And I think we want democracy but we want democracy with some of our own appointees in place, in charge, and that's the problem.
DOBBS: Mr. Preble.
PREBLE: Which is why the handover of sovereignty must be only a first step. It must be immediately followed a demonstration of what the United States intentions are long-term, and those include withdrawal of U.S. military forces. No one is arguing for the long- term stationing of forces, so why don't we talk now about how long we expect them to be there. This must be the first step, but it can not be the last step. I agree with the professor. If it is just a first step center, then it is largely symbolic and will be interpreted the wrong way.
DOBBS: There is no guess that by every account that the U.S. forces will be in Iraq for the long-term, that is for years to come, I think everybody understands that. Let me ask you both quickly, because we have very little time remaining. Why has there been such acquiescence on the part of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other states in the region, why in your judgment has the United States not made more effort to bring their imprimatur into the resolution of Iraqi sovereignty and ultimately stability?
TELMANI: Let me give you one reason, not only the Arab countries but a lot of countries around the world... DOBBS: But I mean specifically the Arab countries, because they're approximate first.
TELMANI: There are two reasons. First, I think they really can't do much frankly, except provide legitimacy. On the legitimacy business, I think deep down they had two fears. One fear is that if the U.S. succeeded too quickly, remember, some of the people here were saying this is the first of many including possibly Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran. If the U.S. succeeds too quickly and is seen to be the way to go then they're fearful they might be next. On the other hand, they don't really want Iraq to collapse. They're fearful that the militants will win and that will haunt them. So in between, they're reluctantly cooperating and they're not too unhappy with the level of American trouble in Iraq.
DOBBS: Chris Preble, you get the last word here.
PREBLE: I wouldn't disagree with that at all. I think that the Bush administration is sending very mixed signals and there is every reason why the other Arab governments are dragging their heels a little bit because it's not clear to them what is in their best interest over the long term, other than most people agree chaos in Iraq is not in everyone's interest and yet that's exactly the direction we seem to be going.
DOBBS: Christopher Preble, thank you very much. And Shibley Telhami, thank you both gentlemen, for being with us.
Up next. "Making the Grade." Our special report on education in America. Tonight discipline in our schools, and we'll have reaction to the president's news conference from three of the country's leading political journalists. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight in our series of special reports, "Making the Grade," we focus on discipline in our schools. Lisa Sylvester reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mountainview High School is a place for second chances. It's an alternative school in Fairfax county, Virginia. Students who were expelled from other schools for fighting or drug use may end up here. C.J. Grish has been getting into trouble since the fifth grade.
C.J. GRISH, HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR: Just random stuff like cursed out a teacher, get up and act out in class, to getting in fights.
SYLVESTER: Bullying behavior is a growing problem in the nation's schools. According to recent surveys, nearly one in three high school students was in a fight during the previous year. Just under 9 percent of students reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school grounds. KATHLEEN PORTER, FORDHAM FOUNDATION: If you can't create an orderly environment that's conducive to learning, teachers can't effectively instruct students, then teachers can't effectively instruct students, students can't learn.
SYLVESTER: Although 22 states allow corporal punishment in public schools, many districts have been moving away from the practice. Under the threat of lawsuits, educators are trying peer mediation, time-outs and alternative schools like Mountain View.
(on camera): One difference between alternative and traditional schools is class size, here, there are only 270 students in the entire school. Compare that to other schools in Fairfax County, which could have as many as 4,000 students.
MEREDITH SHONEBARGER, HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR: Classes are smaller, so you're able to do your work and concentrate on that, and the teachers are a huge help, because I'm actually become friends with teachers and not enemies.
SYLVESTER: Smaller class size reduces discipline problems, and that means devoting more resources to education.
TERESA ZUTTER, DIR. ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA: I think it's a case of pay me now or pay me later, that as a society, if we don't invest in the kids now, when they're young, when we can reach them, when we still have influence and have a relationship with them, we will definitely pay for generations to come.
SYLVESTER: The immediate payoff will be graduation day for these students. Most would have dropped out of school if they did not have an alternative. Lisa Sylvester, CNN, Fairfax County, Virginia.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Quick look at some of your thoughts tonight.
David Rieger of Mudelein, Illinois writes "Lou, your assessment of Rummy-speak was right on target. You mean to tell me you understand economics and political spin, immigration issues and you actually stand up for American workers?" We try.
Jesse Corbell of Cola, South Carolina, "how can the coalition need more than a 113,000 troops to handle the few Iraqi insurgents that our president said are causing the trouble. The numbers don't add up.
And Michael of Niwot, Colorado, "Lou, I've never been real good at math. Do you think I can get a job at the Pentagon?"
We love hearing from you, e-mail us at loudobbs@CNN.com.
Still ahead, I'll be joined by three of the country's top journalists. We'll be talking about President Bush's first prime time news conference of the year. How did he do? We'll find out. Stay with us. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me now to talk about how well the president did in his prime-time news conference. Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent "L.A. Times." Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent "TIME" magazine. And Roger Simon, political editor, "U.S. News and World Report." Thanks for being here.
Ron, let's start it right out, you said last night Bush has to show he's developed a strategy to bring stability to Iraq. Did he do that?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "L.A. TIMES": Short answer, no. He spent a lot of time trying to convince the American public that Iraq is important to our security, and indeed the long range stability of the region and the world. The problem, Lou, is that isn't problem. People accept the idea Iraq is important, it's important to be successful there. They're not sure he has a plan to do that, however. And on that front he had nothing now to say.
In fact, on several issues: what kind of government we'd have after June 30, how many troops we might need to quell the disturbances? He deferred to others, Mr. Brahimi, General Abizaid. So, I don't think it was overall, a performance likely to reach the people who are dubious.
DOBBS: Karen, you said the president would have to focus on Iraq's future. Your thoughts?
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Well, I sure didn't hear it. And certainly, he was also all trying to convince the country that he -- he was resolute. That slice of the American public that is increasingly questioning the war is not questioning his resolve, they're questioning his judgment. And I just didn't -- I didn't hear anything with the specificity that was required to really address those questions.
DOBBS: Roger, the president talking about staying the course, there's really no one saying cut and run in Iraq. What is the political efficacy on that position on the part of the president?
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: The president spent a lot of time last night sort of setting up strong man and knock him down as you say, no one is saying cut and run. In fact, the president's position on what we do now in Iraq is virtually indistinguishable from Senator Kerry's position. Which is we're going to stay there until the last drop of somebody's blood, either ours or the other guys.
But as Ron also mentioned tonight, he seemed oddly not in command and control which is what presidents are supposed to be. Time after time, he deferred major decisions to others, including the key decision of how many troops? He said we're going to give the generals whatever they ask for. That it a policy, as we learned in Vietnam, that is fraught with peril. DOBBS: Let me ask you, Ron, just on the cosmetics of it all, because theater is occasionally more than important to presidents and their re-election. How did he do?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I thought that it was a kind of performance that, like many things President Bush does, will reassure those who support him and offputting to those who don't. The resolve that was on display, the determination, has been his strongest asset with the public since 9/11. But there is a thin line between being determined and being dogmatic or being resolved and being rigid. And I think that for many of those skeptical of the way things are going in Iraq what they may have heard is less determination than a refusal to reconsider the course.
TUMULTY: Might I add, whoever picked that tie should be fired. At a moment with this kind of seriousness, the last thing you want is a tie that goes psychedelic under the TV lights.
DOBBS: The tie, the setting, whatever it may be, the president did not know did not have an answer for your biggest mistake. But I thought it was interesting one would ask the question to begin with, didn't you?
BROWNSTEIN: The press was clearly trying to repair damage to its own reputation for previous press conferences and wasn't tough and tried to be tough last night. Bush seemed oddly unprepared as you said, he stammered like a Miss America contestant who is asked her policy for world peace. It was a simple question, he could have deflected it.
DOBBS: Roger Simon, Karen Tumulty, Ron Brownstein, as always our thanks.
That's our show for tonight. We thank you for being with us. Please be with us tomorrow, former CIA James Woolsey will be our guest. I'll speak with Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher of California, who for some time has said more American troops are needed around the world and in Iraq.
Thanks for being with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is 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
