Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
U.S. Troops Storm Samarra; Bush, Kerry Blast Each Other on Iraq
Aired October 01, 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.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the Battle for Samarra. U.S. troops storm a major insurgents' stronghold in Iraq. More than 100 insurgents are killed. We'll have an exclusive report.
One day after their presidential presentations, President Bush and Senator Kerry blast each other on Iraq again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENT CANDIDATE: We're talking about winning and getting the job done right!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will never submit America's national security to an international test.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Both candidates say nuclear terrorism is the most serious threat facing this country, but President Bush and Senator Kerry sharply disagree on what should be done. Nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione is my guest.
Also tonight, a dramatic eruption on Mount St. Helens. The volcano shoots a huge column of steam and ash thousands of feet into the air.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EVELYN ROELOFFS, SEISMOLOGIST: Well, this is the first such event that we had in over a decade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: We'll have a live report from Mount St. Helens.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, October 1. Here now for an hour of news, debate, and opinion, sitting in for Lou Dobbs who is on vacation, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening.
Tonight, more than 5,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops are fighting fierce street battles in the insurgent stronghold of Samarra. More than 100 insurgents have been killed; dozens of others, captured. One American soldier has been killed. The assault could be the start of a major U.S. offensive to retake cities controlled by insurgents.
CNN's Jane Arraf is with U.S. troops in Samarra and has an exclusive report. Her photographer is Alfredo De Lara.
(VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Jane Arraf joins us live from Samarra now.
Jane, U.S. and Iraqi troops have been involved in some very heavy fighting in Samarra, which we just saw some of. That fighting is still going on now?
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I am having trouble hearing.
PILGRIM: Jane, can you hear me? Is that fighting still going on now?
ARRAF: Ah, there we go, Kitty. Yes, it is. We were in the center of the city just a couple of hours ago, and there was still scattered gunfire going on, and that's expected to go on for some time. They're basically going street to street, and this really is urban warfare.
They can't take tanks into these neighborhoods, and there are still small hotels, still public buildings, still homes where these gunmen are holed up, and they keep firing on them. The U.S. on its side is determined that it is going to root out every insurgent there before it leaves again -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Following the troops very closely, and we see from the video just how close you are. How long was this going on?
ARRAF: It was absolutely extraordinary. It started after midnight. We were flown here in a Black Hawk that weaved its way through the air to avoid missiles and fire from the ground. After landing, we were put into a Bradley.
All night long, they went slowly towards the edge of the city going sector by sector, neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street, being shot at along the way. But when they reached the middle of the city close to the shrine, that's when the real fighting started. Some of the battles lasted for two hours as we were crunched down with U.S. soldiers, as they took fire from small hotels nearby.
Now the street's absolutely deserted. The only sounds really were the gunfire ringing through those streets, and it just went on for hours. It is continuing -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: It looks like the troops just had no idea what was around the next corner from the video we're seeing here?
ARRAF: They were expecting threats at every corner. It was extremely dangerous for anyone out in the streets today. In fact, there were people caught in the crossfire. We saw people wounded. We saw people running away who were at risk of being shot. It was a terrifying situation.
These troops -- and unlike the ones we saw in Najaf who were very much on a defensive posture, this is a major offensive. This is a major offensive that they have launched, and they are determined to keep shooting until they get the gunmen, who they say have provoked all of these unprovoked attacks against them and against Iraqi security forces -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jane, what was the role of the Iraqi troops in this operation?
ARRAF: Very interesting. We first saw them as we rolled into the city. Towards the edge, the Iraqi National Guard appeared, and they were used to secure buildings.
We were outside, for instance, the mayor's office in one neighborhood. Once U.S. soldiers had determined that there was no imminent threat, Iraqi National Guard moved in to secure the buildings and hold them to make sure that gunmen couldn't come back, insurgents couldn't come back.
The most interesting part of it, though, was today near that holy shrine, and, again, this place is sacred. Two of the 12 Imams are buried there, and many Shias believe that the mystical 12th Imam will return on judgment day to that spot, extremely important.
U.S. forces had a role in this, Special Forces particularly, but Iraqi forces have the most visible role. Doors to the mosque were blasted open, and Iraqi special forces rushed in, engaging the insurgents, rounding them up, seizing weapons.
The face of this, the face of the taking of the shrine was very much an Iraqi one, and Iraqi Special Forces we spoke to made clear to tell us that this was Iraqi, it was not American.
PILGRIM: Jane, how much resistance was there from the insurgents?
ARRAF: Quite a lot. Now these are people -- this is quite an entrenched insurgency in the city, part of the reason that the United States came back here in full force. It had agreed, you'll recall, after the transfer to sovereignty that it was going to pull out of the city. It wasn't going to patrol anymore. The Iraqis could do that.
They say that after they pulled out, the insurgents took hold, and what we saw today were really very persistent attempts to hide in alleyways, jump from rooftop to rooftop and shoot at the soldiers who were moving through the streets.
These appear to be people who were not afraid to die, and, in fact, they did die in great numbers. The United States says it killed more than 100 suspected insurgents while taking only one loss of life itself so far. It's an extremely determined group. They believe that perhaps 50 of these might be foreign fighters, for instance, out of more than 300, and those are particularly -- those tend to be people who are particularly well trained and determined -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jane, thanks very much for that report. Stay safe.
Jane Arraf reporting.
American aircraft tonight launched an air strike on another insurgent stronghold, Fallujah. Now witnesses say at least four people were killed. The military has launched a series of air strikes on Fallujah in recent weeks. The United States says those strikes have targeted insurgent safehouses and meeting places.
Iraq today dominated the election campaign, one day after the presidential presentations in Florida. President Bush accused Senator Kerry of, quote, "confusing contradictions on Iraq." The president today campaigned in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, both key battleground states.
Elaine Quijano is covering the president's campaign and joins me now from Manchester, New Hampshire -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kitty.
President Bush topped off his usual stump speech both here in Manchester, New Hampshire, as well as an earlier stop today in Allentown, Pennsylvania, with a kind of post-debate rebuttal to Senator John Kerry's arguments.
Now here the president called the debate revealing, saying that it continued to show a pattern of contradictions and inconsistencies by Senator Kerry. Mr. Bush said the Massachusetts senator has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the war on terror and said John Kerry has no plan to win in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The cornerstone of Senator Kerry's plan for Iraq is to convene a summit. That's what he said. Now, look, I've been to a lot of summits. Since I've been your president, I've been honored to be at summits throughout the world. I've never been to a meeting that has deposed a tyrant or brought a terrorist to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now Senator Kerry maintains that the president has damaged the U.S.'s standing in the world. The senator arguing the country needs a fresh start, new credibility in global affairs.
Meantime, President Bush continuing to focus his attention on key battleground states. Tomorrow, he heads to Ohio to do some campaigning there -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much.
Elaine Quijano.
Senator Kerry today renewed his offensive against President Bush. Senator Kerry said the president misled the American people about going to war in Iraq.
Frank Buckley is covering the Kerry campaign and reports from Tampa, Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KERRY: Did you watch that debate last night?
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senator John Kerry rallied a crowd of thousands of supporters at the University of South Florida, continuing the debate the day after rebutting critical comments from President Bush like this one.
BUSH: One of the things I've learned in the White House is that there's enormous pressure on the president. You cannot wilt under that pressure.
BUCKLEY: Kerry fired back.
KERRY: Well, Mr. President, nobody's talking about leaving. Nobody's talking about wilting and wavering. We're talking about winning and getting the job done right!
BUCKLEY: Kerry also seized on the president's criticism of his proposals for improving Homeland Security.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going it pay for all of these promises. It's like a huge tax gap and -- anyway. That's for another debate.
BUCKLEY: A debate that Kerry was already taking up.
KERRY: My friends, this is the president who created a tax gap by providing a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in Homeland Security and the United States. Let's get real!
BUCKLEY: Kerry's strategists say the tax gap criticism is a metaphor for the campaign's focus in the days ahead as it pivots from foreign policy to domestic issues. Bush, Kerry will say, has consistently made the wrong choices.
KERRY: But when this president had an opportunity to lower your taxes and to lower the cost of seniors by letting Medicare go out and actually negotiate for bulk purchasing, this president chose the drug companies.
BUCKLEY (on camera): Kerry's strategists say they don't believe the poll numbers will change immediately as a result of the debate, but they do believe that Senator Kerry's performance in the debate will cause undecided voters to give Senator Kerry a fresh look, just as the discussion in the campaign turns to domestic issues. That debate set for next Friday.
Frank Buckley, CNN, Tampa, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: President Bush has just arrived back at Andrews Air Force base in Maryland, after campaigning today in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. The president is scheduled to travel to Ohio tomorrow, which is another key battleground state in this election.
A new audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant calls for more attacks against the United States and its allies. Al Jazeera television says the tape was made by Ayman al-Zawahiri. The tape also acknowledges that al Qaeda's leaders could be killed or captured. The speaker says radical Islamists should carry on fighting, even if their leaders are killed.
A suicide bomber exploded a massive bomb inside a mosque in Pakistan today. Officials said the bomb was an act of terrorism designed to destabilize Pakistan, a key U.S. ally. The bomb killed at least 28 people. More than 50 people were wounded. Now the mosque was packed with more than 1,000 worshipers. Police defused a second bomb outside the mosque.
Still ahead tonight, President Bush and Senator Kerry agree on one thing: Nuclear weapons are the most pressing threat to our national security. Weapons expert Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will join us.
Then who won the first presidential presentation:? Four leading political journalists will share their view.
And eruption. Mount St. Helens blows her top for the first time in nearly two decades. That story and absolutely stunning pictures coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: President Bush and Senator Kerry both say terrorists armed with nuclear weapons are the biggest potential threat facing this country, but the candidates staked out very different strategies to deal with that threat in last night's presidential presentations.
Well, National Security Correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): No major errors, but analysts detect some stretching of the truth by both men. Take the efforts to secure Russia nuclear materials. Senator Kerry said he can get the job done in just four years.
KERRY: At the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years, and we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
ENSOR: The day after, pro-Bush experts and even some who support Kerry are saying good goal, but not a realistic timetable.
PETER BROOKS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: You have to have the cooperation of the Russian Federation because that's where a lot of this material is, and there have been some problems with cooperation.
ENSOR: On Russian loose nukes, the president responded with a specific, some say misleading, claim of increased spending.
BUSH: We have increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Not exactly. The president has increased by 35 percent the program to dispose of our own plutonium, but he's increased by only 9 percent the budget for dealing with the loose nukes in Russia, and that only because Congress has actually add money.
ENSOR: But Senator Kerry is also being called misleading by Bush supporters when he complained the Iraq war distracted the president while North Korea acquired nuclear weapons.
KERRY: And meanwhile, North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages.
BROOKS: That assertion does not hold water. This goes -- the fact is that the intelligence community has estimated that North Korea had weapons well back into the 1990s.
ENSOR: Kerry defenders insist the senator must have meant that North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal, but that is not what he said.
On North Korea, Bush argued, Kerry's proposal for bilateral talks with North Korea would cause international talks to collapse.
BUSH: It's precisely what Kim Jung-Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It means that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jung-Il to get rid of its weapons.
CIRINCIONE: The president is just wrong when he asserts that direct talks with the North Koreans would upset our allies in the six- party talks. In fact, each of them, Japan, South Korea, Russia and particularly China, have asked the president to have those face-to- face negotiations.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: And, in fact, the China "People's Daily" reported that when a top Chinese official met with Mr. Bush in July of last year, he specifically asked the president to have bilateral talks with North Koreans about their nuclear programs. So, clearly, it wasn't a problem for the Chinese if those bilateral talks had gone ahead -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much.
David Ensor.
Well, my guest agrees with President Bush and Senator Kerry that nuclear proliferation is the most serious threat facing this country. Joining me now is Joseph Cirincione. He's the director of Nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Joe is the author of "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Very nice to see you again.
CIRINCIONE: My pleasure, Kitty.
PILGRIM: Let's got to the Russia loose nukes. It seems to have the most hot-button appeal to everyone. It's one thing that everyone worries about. Where do you stand on this and the statements that were made last night, Joe?
CIRINCIONE: Well, the difference really between the two candidates is one of timetable and resources. The president is trying to secure the nuclear material in Russia, but he takes a 13- or 15- year timetable to get it all done.
Kerry says he wants to get it down in four years. That would be a challenge, but that's the kind of goal you have to set. We're in a race to secure that material before the terrorists can get their hands on it.
We know Osama bin Laden has tried to get some of this material. We've got to lock it up before they get to it.
PILGRIM: Joe, you've spent a lot of time studying this. How likely is it that terrorists could get a hold of, say, a loose Russian nuke?
CIRINCIONE: This is our greatest nightmare. We know they're trying to do this. We know that many of the materials are protected in Russia by little more than a padlock and a guard that works during the day.
If they could get their hands on highly enriched uranium, that's the hardest part. Building the bomb is actually easy. Delivering it to the United States is almost foolproof. All they have to do it put it in their cargo container to get it to Lower Manhattan.
This is why we have to stop them from getting their hands on the material in the first place. This is a job we can and must do.
PILGRIM: All right. Let's move on to North Korea, another great worry, and many say not much progress has been made, and yet there have been many overtures. In fact, the United States presented an offer to North Korea in June. It was rejected. Where do we stand on containing the North Korean nuclear threat?
CIRINCIONE: We're not containing it at all. In the last four years, we've moved from a program that was completely frozen, where there was inspectors there, cameras, as Senator Kerry pointed out, everything was under lock and seal, and, in the last four years, they've unlocked the fuel rods, kicked out the inspectors, unplugged the cameras, taken those fuel rods out of their pools. They say they've reprocessed them and turned that material into what we think could be as many as eight nuclear bombs. So whereas they had two -- enough material for two bombs at the beginning of this administration, they have now quadrupled that in the last four years. Now the administration's policies have been totally ineffective in stopping them from acquiring that capability.
PILGRIM: Now we've had a series of six-way talks with the regional countries. They haven't seemed to yield much. Do you think bilateral talks are a better bet?
CIRINCIONE: Well, the president did a good job setting up the six-party talks. This is right. President Bush is right. This is the way to go about this problem, bring the allies in, bring China in.
But all of our allies are telling us that, within that process, what's necessary is for the U.S. to have face-to-face negotiations with North Korea. I'm convinced that these negotiations could cut a deal with North Korea. This is a poor, isolated country. Having nuclear weapons doesn't solve their basic problems.
They've got no place else to turn. We can structure a deal that they can't refuse, and, if they do, at least we will know that their true intentions are not to negotiate, but to acquire these weapons, and we'll have the support of the other countries in taking harsher, more direct methods.
PILGRIM: We have to go to Iran. We have just a few minutes. Iran, a very big threat, a great worry of the United States, but, actually, Europe has diplomatic relations with Iran, is actually trying a softer approach. Which do you favor, Joe?
CIRINCIONE: Right. We've imposed sanctions on Iran, but the Europeans still deal with them. The European Union met and had a breakthrough agreement back in November. The U.S. should have joined the effort at that time. There was a moment to actually cut a deal with the Iran. We let it pass.
It's much harder now. But I think this combination of soft power, the threat of European sanctions, and greater U.S. flexibility could still stop the Iranian program before it develops a nuclear weapon three to five years hence.
PILGRIM: Is this top priority after the election, or should we be doing it now?
CIRINCIONE: The reason both candidates said this was our number one priority is because these are cutting issues that are going to develop in the next two years.
The next administration's going to have to deal with these immediately, or we're going to have a Middle East that has not just an Israeli nuclear arsenal and an Iranian bomb, but that many other countries reconsider their nuclear options, and we face a Middle East with three, four, possibly five nuclear nations with the existing tensions. That's a recipe for nuclear war. That's why it's the number one national security issue.
PILGRIM: All right. Thank you very much.
Joe Cirincione.
CIRINCIONE: My pleasure.
PILGRIM: And that does bring us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou, and we will bring you the results later in the broadcast.
Also ahead, much more reaction to the candidates' first so-called debate, and we'll talk to four of the country's top political journalists about how President Bush and Senator Kerry should tweak their strategies before the next contest. That's next.
And a blast of ash from the top of Mount St. Helens for the first time in almost two decades. Why scientists say it could be just the beginning.
And then Heroes. How one Iowa National Guardsman survived his wounds from Iraq and returned to home to what he called a rewarding lesson.
Those stories and much more still ahead here tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: An astonishing sight today atop Mount St. Helens. The volcano erupted for the first time in almost two decades, sending steam and ash thousands of feet into the air.
Katherine Barrett reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHERINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mount St. Helens erupted for the first time in 18 years Friday, coughing up clouds of steam and ash.
TOM PIERSON, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: This is one small explosion. It could be the first of a string of these explosions.
BARRETT: Scientists have been expecting this kind of volcanic activity for days. The mountain has been rumbling with small to moderate earthquakes every 20 seconds or so. And, earlier, researchers said they noticed part of the glacier that wraps around the crater's bulging lava dome was cracking. PETER FRENZEN, MONUMENT SCIENTIST: These are cracks that are up to six feet across, some of them. They are deep enough to show blue glacial ice. So some of them are fairly deep.
BARRETT: The lava dome has shifted several inches in the past three days. All signs that a volcanic event was likely.
Experts say further explosions could hurl rocks up to three miles away. Ash could fly thousands of feet in the sky. Still nothing like the catastrophic erupt in May 1980 when Mount St. Helens blasted an area roughly the size of Chicago and killed 57 people.
ROELOFFS: We saw no gas which implies that nothing new has come up. So we're really quite confident that there is not the supply of fresh magma that would cause this to build into a major eruption.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BARRETT: That said, scientists will certainly be keeping a close watch on this reawakened giant for days and weeks to come -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks you very much.
Katherine Barrett.
Earthquakes leading up to the devastating 1980 eruption began almost two months before. Well, joining me now on more of what could happen next on Mount St. Helens is Tom Pierson, and he is a scientist at the United States Geological Survey.
And thanks very much for joining us.
Tom, can you hear me?
PIERSON: I can hear you.
PILGRIM: OK. Let me quick you. It's been rumbling like some kind of B-movie for days. What happens next?
PIERSON: Well, the build-up of the seismic activity is our clue that something is getting ready to happen, and today it happened. Right after that explosion, the seismic activity, the earthquakes actually stopped for a while, and now they're starting to slowly build back up again. So we're going to watch it closely and see what happens.
PILGRIM: How long did that eruption last, and did you learn anything from it? Was anything surprising about it?
PIERSON: Well, it actually was very similar to what we were predicting. A lot of my USGS colleagues have seen eruptions like this in the past, these kind of steam explosions, and it's the kind that often precedes somewhat larger eruptions. So it was predicted to be that size, and we always learn something from these eruptions.
PILGRIM: So there's no chance this could just blow over? PIERSON: Well, there's always a chance it could just stop. That always is a chance for a volcano, but, with the amount of energy released we had in the earthquakes building up to this, we suspect that probably something else is going to happen as it builds back up again.
PILGRIM: We went from 1857 to 1980 and now. Why does it start up? What makes it start?
PIERSON: Well, batches of magma come up kind of on their own schedule from deep in the crust. And we know that in 1998 we had a small batch of magma move up to very shallow depths below Mount St. Helens and it gave off some gas and then it just sat there for the intervening six years. And for some reason, it just decided to get active now.
PILGRIM: Is there any worry about life or loss of life?
PIERSON: No. We're not expecting any danger to people because no one lives very close to the volcano. We have visitor centers that the Forest Service has here at the National Volcano Monument, and those are far enough away that they're quite safe for people to come and visit.
PILGRIM: Now, you've been standing on a platform fairly far away. I guess it's about five miles away? What kind of seismic activity are you expecting? What has been going on, and what do you predict?
PIERSON: Well, up till -- up till the explosion today, we were getting earthquakes up to a magnitude of about 3.3 which is just barely large enough to feel if you are standing somewhere close by. I don't believe anyone has felt those earthquakes here, just five miles away. And we would expect somewhat similar activity to build back up if -- I mean, earthquakes of that size to build back up if in fact that's what it is going to do.
PILGRIM: Tom, this is your life's work. Is this exciting to you? Are you going to sleep at all while this is going on?
PIERSON: No, this is pretty exciting. It really is. You don't get too many chances to see the act of processes at work. Often we're just studying in earth deposits down in some river valley somewhere and this is the chance to see it in action, so it's a lot of fun.
PILGRIM: How does this compare to other things you have seen? It looks very spectacular to us!
PIERSON: It was spectacular. I've never seen a really big eruption. So this ranked right up there with among the best for me.
PILGRIM: Well, we would say, have fun, but maybe it's a little more serious than that. But anyway, have fun. Thank you very much, Tom Pierson of the U.S. Geological Survey. Thank you.
Let's go back to the election campaign now. Senator Kerry has just arrived in Kissimmee, Florida and that's for a rally at the civic center there. Florida again will be one of the mostly, closely watched states on November 2. And tomorrow, Senator Kerry is scheduled to make campaign stops in Orlando, and then he will return to Washington.
Well, joining me now for more reaction to the candidates' first so-called debate are the four -- are four of the country's top political journalists. Joining me in New York is Marcus Mabry, the chief correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine. In Washington, joined by Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine. Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times." And Roger Simon, political editor for "U.S. News & World Report."
And thank you all for being here. Let's go to the polls first. And we've had a few. Many caution us not to read too much into very early polls. CBS, ABC, and -- we'll put up CNN/"U.S.A. Today." We see a slight lead for Kerry. What do you make of this? Let's go to Roger first, Roger?
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT: Well, it's more than a slight lead. It's 53/37. But you are right not make too much of it except that the poll results are in line with almost everyone's impression that I have talked to or read about today was just that Kerry had a very good night and George Bush had a somewhat less than good night, but generally held his own. But still, the evening went to John Kerry. Expectations were pretty low for him if you remember. And he did very well.
PILGRIM: Ron, big distinction made between responsible leadership, irresponsible leadership. Everyone trying to pin irresponsible ticket on everyone else. Where do you stand on this?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I'm against responsible leadership. Foursquare. Look, I think what really happened last night could be important if the trend can be sustained. What I mean by that is that for the most of the past two months, the presidential election has been primarily about President Bush and his allies arguing about the deficiencies, what they see as the deficiencies in John Kerry's personal qualities whether he was up to being president. They made that case pretty forcefully again last night. I thought the president did pretty well at that. But overall, the focus last night was much more on President Bush's performance, particularly if Iraq. And on that front, the country is much more closely divided. In our "L.A. Times" poll last week, we were back to a 52 percent negative rating on his handling of Iraq, 52 percent negative on the economy. To the extent John Kerry can keep the focus on Bush's performance rather than the questions that the Republicans have raised about his own sort of personal qualities, we have the ingredients for a closer race.
PILGRIM: Karen, how much of this momentum comes from just underdog status that he did reasonable well, and everyone is surprised?
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, I do think that he did more than reasonably well. And in some ways we spent a lot of time on this program talking about some of the gimmicks that have been put into this debate, one of which that Kerry had fought and continued to fight going right into the debate was that little stoplight looking device in front of him.
I think in the end, that little timing clock may have been John Kerry's single best friend in this debate. Because what we saw, especially those of us who have seen a lot of John Kerry on the stump and been in interviews with him, it's just a far crisper presentation. At least that I am accustomed of seeing with him.
I'm now hoping that maybe I could carry something like that into my next interview with him. Because he does definitely come across much more clearly when he can focus like that.
PILGRIM: Well, we journalists love deadlines and so to have it right in front of you in red and green. Marcus?
MARCUS MABRY, "NEWSWEEK": I thought it was interesting. The Republicans really won it. The first debate which is traditionally the most watched of the debates to really be about foreign policy. That's the president's strong point. Most disconcerting for the Bush campaign today has to be the fact that on his strong point, the president actually did not do as well as John Kerry. And as one of the earlier experts said, it's really interesting the fact that Iraq finally has become an issue. The president's confidence has become an issue and as you said, Kitty, as long as John Kerry can keep hammering on that theme for the next four and a half weeks of irresponsible leadership and he really started opening that theme last night when he talked there's a difference between being consistent and right and being consistent and wrong is just not good enough.
If he can stick to that, the president being irresponsible leadership and he can carry it out to the debates on the economics, the debates on the deficit, the debates on the environment, you do that. You carry through every single theme. I think that really becomes a problem for the White House. And finally, for the first time, this is the way it's always been, an incumbent's re-election is actually about the incumbent. The Republicans had done a great job of making this an election about John Kerry, which is really unprecedented.
PILGRIM: Ron, do you think...
BROWNSTEIN: I am sorry.
PILGRIM: Sure.
BROWNSTEIN: I just want to add one thought there real quick, which was I agree with that and I think what is interesting about last night was we saw a debate not only about the substantive issues, but about how a president should pursue his goals. I think the public got a sense of two very different definitions of what leadership is. President Bush over and again said that -- he was unwavering in saying a president should be unwavering. He repeatedly said that was the key to leadership. Not changing position. John Kerry argued that you have to be able to adapt to circumstances, and new facts and at times change your position in response to them. I thought it was very interesting toward the end of the debate, obviously where he said, look, what President Bush is telling you is if you have four more years, you will have four more years of the same. That is the kind of the weak spot in what has been a very strong argument for President Bush, resolve.
PILGRIM: Let me ask you, Roger, do you think there was enough of a distinction made between the disparate Iraq policies that the voter actually has a choice?
SIMON: I think they do. I think they sense the differences between the two men. John Kerry disputes everything about the war, getting into the war. A, believes the war has been mismanaged based on a miscalculation and that the American people have been misled. I think I've got his three Ms correctly on that one. And George Bush obviously believes the war was justified. Whether there's not -- whether there's weapons of mass destruction, which there are clearly not. Or not. And that's a major difference between the two men. Where there is not a major difference is what to do now? John Kerry and George Bush are still going to pursue this war. John Kerry says he'll pursue it more competently than George Bush, George Bush disputes that.
PILGRIM: Karen, which post-war strategy struck you as the most coherent?
TUMULTY: Quite frankly, I don't think that either one of them was all that coherent. If what you are looking for is a step by step plan, something that resembles a true timetable for getting the troops out, John Kerry continued to say basically that the most important thing that he would bring to the table is essentially a new dynamic, a new leader who would, therefore, be more credible in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. There's a lot of dispute among foreign policy experts, as to whether in fact that would produce what John Kerry says it would produce, which is more participation by the allies, more troops and more money.
PILGRIM: Marcus, you can find no end of experts to tell you that the post-war strategy on Iraq is incoherent at this point. And it may not be able to be fixed. Do you think any candidate has a strong suit in going down this route or pick another topic to excel?
MABRY: Well, I think you're going to have to say something about Iraq because it the greatest problem we have facing the nation today. The problem is, though, there is no good answer. Neither candidate has really given us details on what they would do.
The fact as John Kerry said, he'll bring in allies. The fact is, we all know, Russia and France two of the largest armies who could come help us on the ground in Iraq aren't going to be coming. However you can get things like you can get NATO help which he has talked about, which is more feasible and more reasonable.
I think it is a problem for the president. I think as long as we keep seeing more and more deaths every day from Baghdad and it's harder and harder to cover for us of us in the media who have reporters there, I think that's a problem there. But the other issue is, it's interesting to see that today, we see a lot of the news is dominated by the fact that once again, we are on the move in Iraq.
We're on the move in cities like Fallujah and Samarra, places that were no-go zones previously for the American military and our Iraqi allies. It'll be interesting to see if we see more of an uptick in our (ph) going after Iraqi insurgents in places that we had actually ceded territory to them.
PILGRIM: Let me pose this question to you, and it's not entirely fair, but do you think many voters did not watch the debates that the actual spin of the debate, the analysis of the debate will have more impact with the voters than the actual debate. And let's start with you, Ron.
BROWNSTEIN: Well traditionally, the aftermath has been important. In 2000, many people thought that Al Gore won the first debate with President Bush, but he certainly lost the aftermath when the Bush campaign raised questions about some of his assertions, and charged they weren't factually correct. And also there was a backlash against his demeanor, his sighing. We saw a little bit of that last night from President Bush in a way that worried Republicans.
So, yes, it will, I think, reverberate through the campaign. I don't think it will be that decisively tilted one way or the other. There wasn't a big, obvious gaffe. But I do think Republicans are a little worried how people will react as the discussion of President Bush's demeanor filters out over the next few days.
PILGRIM: Karen?
TUMULTY: And that's true. And even though, you know, most of the country did not actually watch the debates, these clips of President Bush's facial expressions are going to be shown over and over and over again. In the end, will probably reach a lot more people than actually saw the debate itself.
And that does have a tendency to exaggerate, even, the true effect of these things. So you're right. The spin is at least as important as the actual performance in the debate itself.
PILGRIM: Roger, do we risk talking this to death?
SIMON: Actually, not this time. We do that a lot, but not this time. I think it was a very interesting evening. I think it was a very quick 90 minutes. And I think this year the trend will be reversed. And the audience actually will build as the debates go on. Or at least at the second debate next Friday.
I think we'll have a larger audience than yesterday's debate, simply because there's so much talk and so much buzz. And frankly, so much interest at the watercoolers and the Starbucks, and every place else about what happened last night. And I think that's a good thing.
PILGRIM: Well, we're going to have to leave it there. And thanks very much for talking about it with me. Roger Simon, Karen Tumulty, Ron Brownstein and Marcus Mabry, thanks very much.
And tonight's thought is on debates. "I have serious doubts about the value of debates in a presidential election. They tend to be a test of reaction time, rather than a genuine exposition of the participants' philosophies and programs." And those words are from the 34th president of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower.
Well, here's a reminder now to vote in tonight's poll. "Do you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States?" Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll bring the results a little bit later in the broadcast.
Coming up, China's unfair advantage over American competitors and the devastating impact on working people across this country. We'll have a special report.
And in "Heroes," a young soldier find a lifelong friend and new respect for his career and his family while serving this country in Iraq.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Exporting America" tonight, China's unfair advantage over American companies. Congress is fighting back against Chinese currency manipulation. But efforts in Congress may not go far enough to help American workers. Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Go to any clothing store, and you can see the impact of China's trade policy: lots of made in china labels. One factor that's driving China's export boom is its fixed currency. That makes Chinese products significantly cheaper than those made in America.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: Every Chinese export has about a 25 percent unfair advantage. You can debate all the other issues: How much they should pay for labor, whether China should have environmental rules, whether child labor should be allowed. But there's no debate here.
SYLVESTER: Lawmakers filed a petition asking the bush administration to bring a complaint before the World Trade Organization. A similar petition was made by the AFL-CIO three weeks ago. The U.S. Trade Representatives Office dismissed that case less than five hours after it was filed. This time the request does not include trade sanctions if China refuses to budge.
The lawmakers say they're trying to compromise, offering something more acceptable to the Bush administration. But small and medium-sized manufacturers say any petition needs teeth to back it up.
BILL HICKEY, PRES. LAPHAM-HICKEY STEEL: You have to have a stick. The Chinese have access, almost unlimited access to the best market in the world, the United States. Somebody has to be able to say to them, you have to play on the same playing ground, we have to have the same rules.
SYLVESTER: Critics saying offering a so-called watered down version allows Congressional members to take credit for doing something, getting a jab in at the current administration without having to alienate big business.
ALAN TONELSON, U.S. BUSINESS & INDUSTRY COUNCIL: The leadership in both parties and the 2 presidential candidates don't want to talk about this issue. They don't want to talk about it, in part because they're not so sure that they disagree so strongly with this trade policy and they need the financial backing for their campaigns of big business.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The Bush administration has not reached a decision on the latest request to complain to the World Trade Organization. Senator Schumer and other lawmakers say they are prepared to push a bill through Congress with sanctions against China if the administration fails to act -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester.
Still ahead here tonight, "Heroes." How two Iowa National Guardsman formed a special bond while they were under attack in Iraq. Their remarkable story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Heroes" tonight, a lifelong bond formed on the battlefields of Iraq, Sergeant Peter Beaver (ph) saved his friend's life using skills he didn't expect to use, and in the process, he earned a friend for life and a renewed sense of purpose. Casey Wian has his story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Last month I was on the engine and this month I was on an ambulance.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Peter Beaver is pleased with his new job with the fire department in Mason City, Iowa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a buddy of mine, Chad Hayes. Chad served with me in Iraq.
WIAN: Beaver and Hayes share a special bond, one that goes beyond their mutual love of motorcycles. Both served with the Iowa National Guard in Iraq, driving trucks. Both cheated death and both mourned the loss of a mutual friend who wasn't so lucky.
Beaver didn't expect to use his paramedic skills in Iraq but when mortars rained down on their barracks and Hayes was close to death, Beaver went to work. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as I saw Chad, the blood in my veins literally ran cold.
WIAN: Beaver stabilized Hayes and rode with him in a helicopter to Baghdad, saving his life.
SPC. CHAD HAYES, IOWA NATIONAL GUARD: I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't from him being there and being able to give me the first aid -- the aid.
WIAN: A month later, it was Beaver who was injured.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We ended up taking a round right through the cab of our truck. And my truck partner of 10 months and good friend was killed in that attack.
WIAN: Beaver suffered a concussion and temporarily lost his hearing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ended up getting -- taking a round or a piece of shrapnel right through my left hand. Ended up breaking two bones in there. Ended up taking another shot to my right knee and then a "Forest Gump" injury, I took one right to my left -- left cheek.
WIAN: Beaver recovered and came home to Iowa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess the magnitude of that really hit me. When I got home and realized that, you know, my wife wasn't a widow and my son wasn't an orphan.
WIAN: The ordeal and the death of Josh Knowles (ph) has brought Beaver and Hayes closer together and given Beaver a renewed sense of purpose for his life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have kind of made a life out of serving others. I mean, I don't -- you don't get rich by being a soldier. You don't get rich by being a paramedic. Your reward is more in serving and helping other people. And that's kind of what I have dedicated my life to.
WIAN: Both Beaver and Hayes intend to stay in the National Guard. Casey Wian, CNN, reporting.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: We wish them luck.
Coming up next, we'll share some of your thoughts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Let's take a look at some of your thoughts.
Tejas Baxi of Cumberland, Rhode Island writes, "the failure of the government to clamp down on illegal aliens sends the wrong message to millions of people like myself who came into this country legally, pay taxes, and contribute to society. It's almost as if we're being told that coming legally to the United States was a mistake."
Marina of Brockton, Massachusetts writes, "the U.S. government is more concerned about prescription drugs from Canada than it is about illegal aliens from Mexico. I really don't understand that."
And Donna of Singer's Glen, Virginia. "I wonder how many people realize that if the CEOs are paid a reasonable salary, our jobs would not have to be outsourced for the companies to remain profitable."
We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@CNN.com. Do send us your name and address and each of you whose e-mail is read on the broadcast, receives a free copy of Lou's new book, "Exporting America."
Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Here are the results of tonight's poll. 82 percent of you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States. 18 percent do not.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us on Monday, "Vanity Fair" editor-in-chief Graydon Carter will join Lou to talk about his new book, "What We've Lost."
For all of us here, have a wonderful weekend. 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 October 1, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, the Battle for Samarra. U.S. troops storm a major insurgents' stronghold in Iraq. More than 100 insurgents are killed. We'll have an exclusive report.
One day after their presidential presentations, President Bush and Senator Kerry blast each other on Iraq again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN F. KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENT CANDIDATE: We're talking about winning and getting the job done right!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will never submit America's national security to an international test.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: Both candidates say nuclear terrorism is the most serious threat facing this country, but President Bush and Senator Kerry sharply disagree on what should be done. Nonproliferation expert Joseph Cirincione is my guest.
Also tonight, a dramatic eruption on Mount St. Helens. The volcano shoots a huge column of steam and ash thousands of feet into the air.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EVELYN ROELOFFS, SEISMOLOGIST: Well, this is the first such event that we had in over a decade.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PILGRIM: We'll have a live report from Mount St. Helens.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, October 1. Here now for an hour of news, debate, and opinion, sitting in for Lou Dobbs who is on vacation, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: Good evening.
Tonight, more than 5,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops are fighting fierce street battles in the insurgent stronghold of Samarra. More than 100 insurgents have been killed; dozens of others, captured. One American soldier has been killed. The assault could be the start of a major U.S. offensive to retake cities controlled by insurgents.
CNN's Jane Arraf is with U.S. troops in Samarra and has an exclusive report. Her photographer is Alfredo De Lara.
(VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Jane Arraf joins us live from Samarra now.
Jane, U.S. and Iraqi troops have been involved in some very heavy fighting in Samarra, which we just saw some of. That fighting is still going on now?
JANE ARRAF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I am having trouble hearing.
PILGRIM: Jane, can you hear me? Is that fighting still going on now?
ARRAF: Ah, there we go, Kitty. Yes, it is. We were in the center of the city just a couple of hours ago, and there was still scattered gunfire going on, and that's expected to go on for some time. They're basically going street to street, and this really is urban warfare.
They can't take tanks into these neighborhoods, and there are still small hotels, still public buildings, still homes where these gunmen are holed up, and they keep firing on them. The U.S. on its side is determined that it is going to root out every insurgent there before it leaves again -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Following the troops very closely, and we see from the video just how close you are. How long was this going on?
ARRAF: It was absolutely extraordinary. It started after midnight. We were flown here in a Black Hawk that weaved its way through the air to avoid missiles and fire from the ground. After landing, we were put into a Bradley.
All night long, they went slowly towards the edge of the city going sector by sector, neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street, being shot at along the way. But when they reached the middle of the city close to the shrine, that's when the real fighting started. Some of the battles lasted for two hours as we were crunched down with U.S. soldiers, as they took fire from small hotels nearby.
Now the street's absolutely deserted. The only sounds really were the gunfire ringing through those streets, and it just went on for hours. It is continuing -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: It looks like the troops just had no idea what was around the next corner from the video we're seeing here?
ARRAF: They were expecting threats at every corner. It was extremely dangerous for anyone out in the streets today. In fact, there were people caught in the crossfire. We saw people wounded. We saw people running away who were at risk of being shot. It was a terrifying situation.
These troops -- and unlike the ones we saw in Najaf who were very much on a defensive posture, this is a major offensive. This is a major offensive that they have launched, and they are determined to keep shooting until they get the gunmen, who they say have provoked all of these unprovoked attacks against them and against Iraqi security forces -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jane, what was the role of the Iraqi troops in this operation?
ARRAF: Very interesting. We first saw them as we rolled into the city. Towards the edge, the Iraqi National Guard appeared, and they were used to secure buildings.
We were outside, for instance, the mayor's office in one neighborhood. Once U.S. soldiers had determined that there was no imminent threat, Iraqi National Guard moved in to secure the buildings and hold them to make sure that gunmen couldn't come back, insurgents couldn't come back.
The most interesting part of it, though, was today near that holy shrine, and, again, this place is sacred. Two of the 12 Imams are buried there, and many Shias believe that the mystical 12th Imam will return on judgment day to that spot, extremely important.
U.S. forces had a role in this, Special Forces particularly, but Iraqi forces have the most visible role. Doors to the mosque were blasted open, and Iraqi special forces rushed in, engaging the insurgents, rounding them up, seizing weapons.
The face of this, the face of the taking of the shrine was very much an Iraqi one, and Iraqi Special Forces we spoke to made clear to tell us that this was Iraqi, it was not American.
PILGRIM: Jane, how much resistance was there from the insurgents?
ARRAF: Quite a lot. Now these are people -- this is quite an entrenched insurgency in the city, part of the reason that the United States came back here in full force. It had agreed, you'll recall, after the transfer to sovereignty that it was going to pull out of the city. It wasn't going to patrol anymore. The Iraqis could do that.
They say that after they pulled out, the insurgents took hold, and what we saw today were really very persistent attempts to hide in alleyways, jump from rooftop to rooftop and shoot at the soldiers who were moving through the streets.
These appear to be people who were not afraid to die, and, in fact, they did die in great numbers. The United States says it killed more than 100 suspected insurgents while taking only one loss of life itself so far. It's an extremely determined group. They believe that perhaps 50 of these might be foreign fighters, for instance, out of more than 300, and those are particularly -- those tend to be people who are particularly well trained and determined -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Jane, thanks very much for that report. Stay safe.
Jane Arraf reporting.
American aircraft tonight launched an air strike on another insurgent stronghold, Fallujah. Now witnesses say at least four people were killed. The military has launched a series of air strikes on Fallujah in recent weeks. The United States says those strikes have targeted insurgent safehouses and meeting places.
Iraq today dominated the election campaign, one day after the presidential presentations in Florida. President Bush accused Senator Kerry of, quote, "confusing contradictions on Iraq." The president today campaigned in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, both key battleground states.
Elaine Quijano is covering the president's campaign and joins me now from Manchester, New Hampshire -- Elaine.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Kitty.
President Bush topped off his usual stump speech both here in Manchester, New Hampshire, as well as an earlier stop today in Allentown, Pennsylvania, with a kind of post-debate rebuttal to Senator John Kerry's arguments.
Now here the president called the debate revealing, saying that it continued to show a pattern of contradictions and inconsistencies by Senator Kerry. Mr. Bush said the Massachusetts senator has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the war on terror and said John Kerry has no plan to win in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: The cornerstone of Senator Kerry's plan for Iraq is to convene a summit. That's what he said. Now, look, I've been to a lot of summits. Since I've been your president, I've been honored to be at summits throughout the world. I've never been to a meeting that has deposed a tyrant or brought a terrorist to justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now Senator Kerry maintains that the president has damaged the U.S.'s standing in the world. The senator arguing the country needs a fresh start, new credibility in global affairs.
Meantime, President Bush continuing to focus his attention on key battleground states. Tomorrow, he heads to Ohio to do some campaigning there -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much.
Elaine Quijano.
Senator Kerry today renewed his offensive against President Bush. Senator Kerry said the president misled the American people about going to war in Iraq.
Frank Buckley is covering the Kerry campaign and reports from Tampa, Florida.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KERRY: Did you watch that debate last night?
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senator John Kerry rallied a crowd of thousands of supporters at the University of South Florida, continuing the debate the day after rebutting critical comments from President Bush like this one.
BUSH: One of the things I've learned in the White House is that there's enormous pressure on the president. You cannot wilt under that pressure.
BUCKLEY: Kerry fired back.
KERRY: Well, Mr. President, nobody's talking about leaving. Nobody's talking about wilting and wavering. We're talking about winning and getting the job done right!
BUCKLEY: Kerry also seized on the president's criticism of his proposals for improving Homeland Security.
BUSH: I don't think we want to get to how he's going it pay for all of these promises. It's like a huge tax gap and -- anyway. That's for another debate.
BUCKLEY: A debate that Kerry was already taking up.
KERRY: My friends, this is the president who created a tax gap by providing a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans instead of investing in Homeland Security and the United States. Let's get real!
BUCKLEY: Kerry's strategists say the tax gap criticism is a metaphor for the campaign's focus in the days ahead as it pivots from foreign policy to domestic issues. Bush, Kerry will say, has consistently made the wrong choices.
KERRY: But when this president had an opportunity to lower your taxes and to lower the cost of seniors by letting Medicare go out and actually negotiate for bulk purchasing, this president chose the drug companies.
BUCKLEY (on camera): Kerry's strategists say they don't believe the poll numbers will change immediately as a result of the debate, but they do believe that Senator Kerry's performance in the debate will cause undecided voters to give Senator Kerry a fresh look, just as the discussion in the campaign turns to domestic issues. That debate set for next Friday.
Frank Buckley, CNN, Tampa, Florida.
(END VIDEOTAPE) PILGRIM: President Bush has just arrived back at Andrews Air Force base in Maryland, after campaigning today in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. The president is scheduled to travel to Ohio tomorrow, which is another key battleground state in this election.
A new audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant calls for more attacks against the United States and its allies. Al Jazeera television says the tape was made by Ayman al-Zawahiri. The tape also acknowledges that al Qaeda's leaders could be killed or captured. The speaker says radical Islamists should carry on fighting, even if their leaders are killed.
A suicide bomber exploded a massive bomb inside a mosque in Pakistan today. Officials said the bomb was an act of terrorism designed to destabilize Pakistan, a key U.S. ally. The bomb killed at least 28 people. More than 50 people were wounded. Now the mosque was packed with more than 1,000 worshipers. Police defused a second bomb outside the mosque.
Still ahead tonight, President Bush and Senator Kerry agree on one thing: Nuclear weapons are the most pressing threat to our national security. Weapons expert Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will join us.
Then who won the first presidential presentation:? Four leading political journalists will share their view.
And eruption. Mount St. Helens blows her top for the first time in nearly two decades. That story and absolutely stunning pictures coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: President Bush and Senator Kerry both say terrorists armed with nuclear weapons are the biggest potential threat facing this country, but the candidates staked out very different strategies to deal with that threat in last night's presidential presentations.
Well, National Security Correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): No major errors, but analysts detect some stretching of the truth by both men. Take the efforts to secure Russia nuclear materials. Senator Kerry said he can get the job done in just four years.
KERRY: At the current pace, the president will not secure the loose material in Soviet Union -- former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in four years, and we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists.
ENSOR: The day after, pro-Bush experts and even some who support Kerry are saying good goal, but not a realistic timetable.
PETER BROOKS, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: You have to have the cooperation of the Russian Federation because that's where a lot of this material is, and there have been some problems with cooperation.
ENSOR: On Russian loose nukes, the president responded with a specific, some say misleading, claim of increased spending.
BUSH: We have increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president.
JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE: Not exactly. The president has increased by 35 percent the program to dispose of our own plutonium, but he's increased by only 9 percent the budget for dealing with the loose nukes in Russia, and that only because Congress has actually add money.
ENSOR: But Senator Kerry is also being called misleading by Bush supporters when he complained the Iraq war distracted the president while North Korea acquired nuclear weapons.
KERRY: And meanwhile, North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages.
BROOKS: That assertion does not hold water. This goes -- the fact is that the intelligence community has estimated that North Korea had weapons well back into the 1990s.
ENSOR: Kerry defenders insist the senator must have meant that North Korea has increased its nuclear arsenal, but that is not what he said.
On North Korea, Bush argued, Kerry's proposal for bilateral talks with North Korea would cause international talks to collapse.
BUSH: It's precisely what Kim Jung-Il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It means that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Jung-Il to get rid of its weapons.
CIRINCIONE: The president is just wrong when he asserts that direct talks with the North Koreans would upset our allies in the six- party talks. In fact, each of them, Japan, South Korea, Russia and particularly China, have asked the president to have those face-to- face negotiations.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENSOR: And, in fact, the China "People's Daily" reported that when a top Chinese official met with Mr. Bush in July of last year, he specifically asked the president to have bilateral talks with North Koreans about their nuclear programs. So, clearly, it wasn't a problem for the Chinese if those bilateral talks had gone ahead -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much.
David Ensor.
Well, my guest agrees with President Bush and Senator Kerry that nuclear proliferation is the most serious threat facing this country. Joining me now is Joseph Cirincione. He's the director of Nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Joe is the author of "Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction."
Very nice to see you again.
CIRINCIONE: My pleasure, Kitty.
PILGRIM: Let's got to the Russia loose nukes. It seems to have the most hot-button appeal to everyone. It's one thing that everyone worries about. Where do you stand on this and the statements that were made last night, Joe?
CIRINCIONE: Well, the difference really between the two candidates is one of timetable and resources. The president is trying to secure the nuclear material in Russia, but he takes a 13- or 15- year timetable to get it all done.
Kerry says he wants to get it down in four years. That would be a challenge, but that's the kind of goal you have to set. We're in a race to secure that material before the terrorists can get their hands on it.
We know Osama bin Laden has tried to get some of this material. We've got to lock it up before they get to it.
PILGRIM: Joe, you've spent a lot of time studying this. How likely is it that terrorists could get a hold of, say, a loose Russian nuke?
CIRINCIONE: This is our greatest nightmare. We know they're trying to do this. We know that many of the materials are protected in Russia by little more than a padlock and a guard that works during the day.
If they could get their hands on highly enriched uranium, that's the hardest part. Building the bomb is actually easy. Delivering it to the United States is almost foolproof. All they have to do it put it in their cargo container to get it to Lower Manhattan.
This is why we have to stop them from getting their hands on the material in the first place. This is a job we can and must do.
PILGRIM: All right. Let's move on to North Korea, another great worry, and many say not much progress has been made, and yet there have been many overtures. In fact, the United States presented an offer to North Korea in June. It was rejected. Where do we stand on containing the North Korean nuclear threat?
CIRINCIONE: We're not containing it at all. In the last four years, we've moved from a program that was completely frozen, where there was inspectors there, cameras, as Senator Kerry pointed out, everything was under lock and seal, and, in the last four years, they've unlocked the fuel rods, kicked out the inspectors, unplugged the cameras, taken those fuel rods out of their pools. They say they've reprocessed them and turned that material into what we think could be as many as eight nuclear bombs. So whereas they had two -- enough material for two bombs at the beginning of this administration, they have now quadrupled that in the last four years. Now the administration's policies have been totally ineffective in stopping them from acquiring that capability.
PILGRIM: Now we've had a series of six-way talks with the regional countries. They haven't seemed to yield much. Do you think bilateral talks are a better bet?
CIRINCIONE: Well, the president did a good job setting up the six-party talks. This is right. President Bush is right. This is the way to go about this problem, bring the allies in, bring China in.
But all of our allies are telling us that, within that process, what's necessary is for the U.S. to have face-to-face negotiations with North Korea. I'm convinced that these negotiations could cut a deal with North Korea. This is a poor, isolated country. Having nuclear weapons doesn't solve their basic problems.
They've got no place else to turn. We can structure a deal that they can't refuse, and, if they do, at least we will know that their true intentions are not to negotiate, but to acquire these weapons, and we'll have the support of the other countries in taking harsher, more direct methods.
PILGRIM: We have to go to Iran. We have just a few minutes. Iran, a very big threat, a great worry of the United States, but, actually, Europe has diplomatic relations with Iran, is actually trying a softer approach. Which do you favor, Joe?
CIRINCIONE: Right. We've imposed sanctions on Iran, but the Europeans still deal with them. The European Union met and had a breakthrough agreement back in November. The U.S. should have joined the effort at that time. There was a moment to actually cut a deal with the Iran. We let it pass.
It's much harder now. But I think this combination of soft power, the threat of European sanctions, and greater U.S. flexibility could still stop the Iranian program before it develops a nuclear weapon three to five years hence.
PILGRIM: Is this top priority after the election, or should we be doing it now?
CIRINCIONE: The reason both candidates said this was our number one priority is because these are cutting issues that are going to develop in the next two years.
The next administration's going to have to deal with these immediately, or we're going to have a Middle East that has not just an Israeli nuclear arsenal and an Iranian bomb, but that many other countries reconsider their nuclear options, and we face a Middle East with three, four, possibly five nuclear nations with the existing tensions. That's a recipe for nuclear war. That's why it's the number one national security issue.
PILGRIM: All right. Thank you very much.
Joe Cirincione.
CIRINCIONE: My pleasure.
PILGRIM: And that does bring us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States? Yes or no. Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou, and we will bring you the results later in the broadcast.
Also ahead, much more reaction to the candidates' first so-called debate, and we'll talk to four of the country's top political journalists about how President Bush and Senator Kerry should tweak their strategies before the next contest. That's next.
And a blast of ash from the top of Mount St. Helens for the first time in almost two decades. Why scientists say it could be just the beginning.
And then Heroes. How one Iowa National Guardsman survived his wounds from Iraq and returned to home to what he called a rewarding lesson.
Those stories and much more still ahead here tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Sitting in for Lou Dobbs, Kitty Pilgrim.
PILGRIM: An astonishing sight today atop Mount St. Helens. The volcano erupted for the first time in almost two decades, sending steam and ash thousands of feet into the air.
Katherine Barrett reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KATHERINE BARRETT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mount St. Helens erupted for the first time in 18 years Friday, coughing up clouds of steam and ash.
TOM PIERSON, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY: This is one small explosion. It could be the first of a string of these explosions.
BARRETT: Scientists have been expecting this kind of volcanic activity for days. The mountain has been rumbling with small to moderate earthquakes every 20 seconds or so. And, earlier, researchers said they noticed part of the glacier that wraps around the crater's bulging lava dome was cracking. PETER FRENZEN, MONUMENT SCIENTIST: These are cracks that are up to six feet across, some of them. They are deep enough to show blue glacial ice. So some of them are fairly deep.
BARRETT: The lava dome has shifted several inches in the past three days. All signs that a volcanic event was likely.
Experts say further explosions could hurl rocks up to three miles away. Ash could fly thousands of feet in the sky. Still nothing like the catastrophic erupt in May 1980 when Mount St. Helens blasted an area roughly the size of Chicago and killed 57 people.
ROELOFFS: We saw no gas which implies that nothing new has come up. So we're really quite confident that there is not the supply of fresh magma that would cause this to build into a major eruption.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BARRETT: That said, scientists will certainly be keeping a close watch on this reawakened giant for days and weeks to come -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right. Thanks you very much.
Katherine Barrett.
Earthquakes leading up to the devastating 1980 eruption began almost two months before. Well, joining me now on more of what could happen next on Mount St. Helens is Tom Pierson, and he is a scientist at the United States Geological Survey.
And thanks very much for joining us.
Tom, can you hear me?
PIERSON: I can hear you.
PILGRIM: OK. Let me quick you. It's been rumbling like some kind of B-movie for days. What happens next?
PIERSON: Well, the build-up of the seismic activity is our clue that something is getting ready to happen, and today it happened. Right after that explosion, the seismic activity, the earthquakes actually stopped for a while, and now they're starting to slowly build back up again. So we're going to watch it closely and see what happens.
PILGRIM: How long did that eruption last, and did you learn anything from it? Was anything surprising about it?
PIERSON: Well, it actually was very similar to what we were predicting. A lot of my USGS colleagues have seen eruptions like this in the past, these kind of steam explosions, and it's the kind that often precedes somewhat larger eruptions. So it was predicted to be that size, and we always learn something from these eruptions.
PILGRIM: So there's no chance this could just blow over? PIERSON: Well, there's always a chance it could just stop. That always is a chance for a volcano, but, with the amount of energy released we had in the earthquakes building up to this, we suspect that probably something else is going to happen as it builds back up again.
PILGRIM: We went from 1857 to 1980 and now. Why does it start up? What makes it start?
PIERSON: Well, batches of magma come up kind of on their own schedule from deep in the crust. And we know that in 1998 we had a small batch of magma move up to very shallow depths below Mount St. Helens and it gave off some gas and then it just sat there for the intervening six years. And for some reason, it just decided to get active now.
PILGRIM: Is there any worry about life or loss of life?
PIERSON: No. We're not expecting any danger to people because no one lives very close to the volcano. We have visitor centers that the Forest Service has here at the National Volcano Monument, and those are far enough away that they're quite safe for people to come and visit.
PILGRIM: Now, you've been standing on a platform fairly far away. I guess it's about five miles away? What kind of seismic activity are you expecting? What has been going on, and what do you predict?
PIERSON: Well, up till -- up till the explosion today, we were getting earthquakes up to a magnitude of about 3.3 which is just barely large enough to feel if you are standing somewhere close by. I don't believe anyone has felt those earthquakes here, just five miles away. And we would expect somewhat similar activity to build back up if -- I mean, earthquakes of that size to build back up if in fact that's what it is going to do.
PILGRIM: Tom, this is your life's work. Is this exciting to you? Are you going to sleep at all while this is going on?
PIERSON: No, this is pretty exciting. It really is. You don't get too many chances to see the act of processes at work. Often we're just studying in earth deposits down in some river valley somewhere and this is the chance to see it in action, so it's a lot of fun.
PILGRIM: How does this compare to other things you have seen? It looks very spectacular to us!
PIERSON: It was spectacular. I've never seen a really big eruption. So this ranked right up there with among the best for me.
PILGRIM: Well, we would say, have fun, but maybe it's a little more serious than that. But anyway, have fun. Thank you very much, Tom Pierson of the U.S. Geological Survey. Thank you.
Let's go back to the election campaign now. Senator Kerry has just arrived in Kissimmee, Florida and that's for a rally at the civic center there. Florida again will be one of the mostly, closely watched states on November 2. And tomorrow, Senator Kerry is scheduled to make campaign stops in Orlando, and then he will return to Washington.
Well, joining me now for more reaction to the candidates' first so-called debate are the four -- are four of the country's top political journalists. Joining me in New York is Marcus Mabry, the chief correspondent for "Newsweek" magazine. In Washington, joined by Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine. Ron Brownstein, national political correspondent for the "Los Angeles Times." And Roger Simon, political editor for "U.S. News & World Report."
And thank you all for being here. Let's go to the polls first. And we've had a few. Many caution us not to read too much into very early polls. CBS, ABC, and -- we'll put up CNN/"U.S.A. Today." We see a slight lead for Kerry. What do you make of this? Let's go to Roger first, Roger?
ROGER SIMON, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT: Well, it's more than a slight lead. It's 53/37. But you are right not make too much of it except that the poll results are in line with almost everyone's impression that I have talked to or read about today was just that Kerry had a very good night and George Bush had a somewhat less than good night, but generally held his own. But still, the evening went to John Kerry. Expectations were pretty low for him if you remember. And he did very well.
PILGRIM: Ron, big distinction made between responsible leadership, irresponsible leadership. Everyone trying to pin irresponsible ticket on everyone else. Where do you stand on this?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I'm against responsible leadership. Foursquare. Look, I think what really happened last night could be important if the trend can be sustained. What I mean by that is that for the most of the past two months, the presidential election has been primarily about President Bush and his allies arguing about the deficiencies, what they see as the deficiencies in John Kerry's personal qualities whether he was up to being president. They made that case pretty forcefully again last night. I thought the president did pretty well at that. But overall, the focus last night was much more on President Bush's performance, particularly if Iraq. And on that front, the country is much more closely divided. In our "L.A. Times" poll last week, we were back to a 52 percent negative rating on his handling of Iraq, 52 percent negative on the economy. To the extent John Kerry can keep the focus on Bush's performance rather than the questions that the Republicans have raised about his own sort of personal qualities, we have the ingredients for a closer race.
PILGRIM: Karen, how much of this momentum comes from just underdog status that he did reasonable well, and everyone is surprised?
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, I do think that he did more than reasonably well. And in some ways we spent a lot of time on this program talking about some of the gimmicks that have been put into this debate, one of which that Kerry had fought and continued to fight going right into the debate was that little stoplight looking device in front of him.
I think in the end, that little timing clock may have been John Kerry's single best friend in this debate. Because what we saw, especially those of us who have seen a lot of John Kerry on the stump and been in interviews with him, it's just a far crisper presentation. At least that I am accustomed of seeing with him.
I'm now hoping that maybe I could carry something like that into my next interview with him. Because he does definitely come across much more clearly when he can focus like that.
PILGRIM: Well, we journalists love deadlines and so to have it right in front of you in red and green. Marcus?
MARCUS MABRY, "NEWSWEEK": I thought it was interesting. The Republicans really won it. The first debate which is traditionally the most watched of the debates to really be about foreign policy. That's the president's strong point. Most disconcerting for the Bush campaign today has to be the fact that on his strong point, the president actually did not do as well as John Kerry. And as one of the earlier experts said, it's really interesting the fact that Iraq finally has become an issue. The president's confidence has become an issue and as you said, Kitty, as long as John Kerry can keep hammering on that theme for the next four and a half weeks of irresponsible leadership and he really started opening that theme last night when he talked there's a difference between being consistent and right and being consistent and wrong is just not good enough.
If he can stick to that, the president being irresponsible leadership and he can carry it out to the debates on the economics, the debates on the deficit, the debates on the environment, you do that. You carry through every single theme. I think that really becomes a problem for the White House. And finally, for the first time, this is the way it's always been, an incumbent's re-election is actually about the incumbent. The Republicans had done a great job of making this an election about John Kerry, which is really unprecedented.
PILGRIM: Ron, do you think...
BROWNSTEIN: I am sorry.
PILGRIM: Sure.
BROWNSTEIN: I just want to add one thought there real quick, which was I agree with that and I think what is interesting about last night was we saw a debate not only about the substantive issues, but about how a president should pursue his goals. I think the public got a sense of two very different definitions of what leadership is. President Bush over and again said that -- he was unwavering in saying a president should be unwavering. He repeatedly said that was the key to leadership. Not changing position. John Kerry argued that you have to be able to adapt to circumstances, and new facts and at times change your position in response to them. I thought it was very interesting toward the end of the debate, obviously where he said, look, what President Bush is telling you is if you have four more years, you will have four more years of the same. That is the kind of the weak spot in what has been a very strong argument for President Bush, resolve.
PILGRIM: Let me ask you, Roger, do you think there was enough of a distinction made between the disparate Iraq policies that the voter actually has a choice?
SIMON: I think they do. I think they sense the differences between the two men. John Kerry disputes everything about the war, getting into the war. A, believes the war has been mismanaged based on a miscalculation and that the American people have been misled. I think I've got his three Ms correctly on that one. And George Bush obviously believes the war was justified. Whether there's not -- whether there's weapons of mass destruction, which there are clearly not. Or not. And that's a major difference between the two men. Where there is not a major difference is what to do now? John Kerry and George Bush are still going to pursue this war. John Kerry says he'll pursue it more competently than George Bush, George Bush disputes that.
PILGRIM: Karen, which post-war strategy struck you as the most coherent?
TUMULTY: Quite frankly, I don't think that either one of them was all that coherent. If what you are looking for is a step by step plan, something that resembles a true timetable for getting the troops out, John Kerry continued to say basically that the most important thing that he would bring to the table is essentially a new dynamic, a new leader who would, therefore, be more credible in the eyes of much of the rest of the world. There's a lot of dispute among foreign policy experts, as to whether in fact that would produce what John Kerry says it would produce, which is more participation by the allies, more troops and more money.
PILGRIM: Marcus, you can find no end of experts to tell you that the post-war strategy on Iraq is incoherent at this point. And it may not be able to be fixed. Do you think any candidate has a strong suit in going down this route or pick another topic to excel?
MABRY: Well, I think you're going to have to say something about Iraq because it the greatest problem we have facing the nation today. The problem is, though, there is no good answer. Neither candidate has really given us details on what they would do.
The fact as John Kerry said, he'll bring in allies. The fact is, we all know, Russia and France two of the largest armies who could come help us on the ground in Iraq aren't going to be coming. However you can get things like you can get NATO help which he has talked about, which is more feasible and more reasonable.
I think it is a problem for the president. I think as long as we keep seeing more and more deaths every day from Baghdad and it's harder and harder to cover for us of us in the media who have reporters there, I think that's a problem there. But the other issue is, it's interesting to see that today, we see a lot of the news is dominated by the fact that once again, we are on the move in Iraq.
We're on the move in cities like Fallujah and Samarra, places that were no-go zones previously for the American military and our Iraqi allies. It'll be interesting to see if we see more of an uptick in our (ph) going after Iraqi insurgents in places that we had actually ceded territory to them.
PILGRIM: Let me pose this question to you, and it's not entirely fair, but do you think many voters did not watch the debates that the actual spin of the debate, the analysis of the debate will have more impact with the voters than the actual debate. And let's start with you, Ron.
BROWNSTEIN: Well traditionally, the aftermath has been important. In 2000, many people thought that Al Gore won the first debate with President Bush, but he certainly lost the aftermath when the Bush campaign raised questions about some of his assertions, and charged they weren't factually correct. And also there was a backlash against his demeanor, his sighing. We saw a little bit of that last night from President Bush in a way that worried Republicans.
So, yes, it will, I think, reverberate through the campaign. I don't think it will be that decisively tilted one way or the other. There wasn't a big, obvious gaffe. But I do think Republicans are a little worried how people will react as the discussion of President Bush's demeanor filters out over the next few days.
PILGRIM: Karen?
TUMULTY: And that's true. And even though, you know, most of the country did not actually watch the debates, these clips of President Bush's facial expressions are going to be shown over and over and over again. In the end, will probably reach a lot more people than actually saw the debate itself.
And that does have a tendency to exaggerate, even, the true effect of these things. So you're right. The spin is at least as important as the actual performance in the debate itself.
PILGRIM: Roger, do we risk talking this to death?
SIMON: Actually, not this time. We do that a lot, but not this time. I think it was a very interesting evening. I think it was a very quick 90 minutes. And I think this year the trend will be reversed. And the audience actually will build as the debates go on. Or at least at the second debate next Friday.
I think we'll have a larger audience than yesterday's debate, simply because there's so much talk and so much buzz. And frankly, so much interest at the watercoolers and the Starbucks, and every place else about what happened last night. And I think that's a good thing.
PILGRIM: Well, we're going to have to leave it there. And thanks very much for talking about it with me. Roger Simon, Karen Tumulty, Ron Brownstein and Marcus Mabry, thanks very much.
And tonight's thought is on debates. "I have serious doubts about the value of debates in a presidential election. They tend to be a test of reaction time, rather than a genuine exposition of the participants' philosophies and programs." And those words are from the 34th president of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower.
Well, here's a reminder now to vote in tonight's poll. "Do you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States?" Cast your vote at cnn.com/lou. We'll bring the results a little bit later in the broadcast.
Coming up, China's unfair advantage over American competitors and the devastating impact on working people across this country. We'll have a special report.
And in "Heroes," a young soldier find a lifelong friend and new respect for his career and his family while serving this country in Iraq.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Exporting America" tonight, China's unfair advantage over American companies. Congress is fighting back against Chinese currency manipulation. But efforts in Congress may not go far enough to help American workers. Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Go to any clothing store, and you can see the impact of China's trade policy: lots of made in china labels. One factor that's driving China's export boom is its fixed currency. That makes Chinese products significantly cheaper than those made in America.
SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER, (D) NEW YORK: Every Chinese export has about a 25 percent unfair advantage. You can debate all the other issues: How much they should pay for labor, whether China should have environmental rules, whether child labor should be allowed. But there's no debate here.
SYLVESTER: Lawmakers filed a petition asking the bush administration to bring a complaint before the World Trade Organization. A similar petition was made by the AFL-CIO three weeks ago. The U.S. Trade Representatives Office dismissed that case less than five hours after it was filed. This time the request does not include trade sanctions if China refuses to budge.
The lawmakers say they're trying to compromise, offering something more acceptable to the Bush administration. But small and medium-sized manufacturers say any petition needs teeth to back it up.
BILL HICKEY, PRES. LAPHAM-HICKEY STEEL: You have to have a stick. The Chinese have access, almost unlimited access to the best market in the world, the United States. Somebody has to be able to say to them, you have to play on the same playing ground, we have to have the same rules.
SYLVESTER: Critics saying offering a so-called watered down version allows Congressional members to take credit for doing something, getting a jab in at the current administration without having to alienate big business.
ALAN TONELSON, U.S. BUSINESS & INDUSTRY COUNCIL: The leadership in both parties and the 2 presidential candidates don't want to talk about this issue. They don't want to talk about it, in part because they're not so sure that they disagree so strongly with this trade policy and they need the financial backing for their campaigns of big business.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The Bush administration has not reached a decision on the latest request to complain to the World Trade Organization. Senator Schumer and other lawmakers say they are prepared to push a bill through Congress with sanctions against China if the administration fails to act -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: All right, thank you very much. Lisa Sylvester.
Still ahead here tonight, "Heroes." How two Iowa National Guardsman formed a special bond while they were under attack in Iraq. Their remarkable story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: In "Heroes" tonight, a lifelong bond formed on the battlefields of Iraq, Sergeant Peter Beaver (ph) saved his friend's life using skills he didn't expect to use, and in the process, he earned a friend for life and a renewed sense of purpose. Casey Wian has his story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
Last month I was on the engine and this month I was on an ambulance.
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Peter Beaver is pleased with his new job with the fire department in Mason City, Iowa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a buddy of mine, Chad Hayes. Chad served with me in Iraq.
WIAN: Beaver and Hayes share a special bond, one that goes beyond their mutual love of motorcycles. Both served with the Iowa National Guard in Iraq, driving trucks. Both cheated death and both mourned the loss of a mutual friend who wasn't so lucky.
Beaver didn't expect to use his paramedic skills in Iraq but when mortars rained down on their barracks and Hayes was close to death, Beaver went to work. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As soon as I saw Chad, the blood in my veins literally ran cold.
WIAN: Beaver stabilized Hayes and rode with him in a helicopter to Baghdad, saving his life.
SPC. CHAD HAYES, IOWA NATIONAL GUARD: I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't from him being there and being able to give me the first aid -- the aid.
WIAN: A month later, it was Beaver who was injured.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We ended up taking a round right through the cab of our truck. And my truck partner of 10 months and good friend was killed in that attack.
WIAN: Beaver suffered a concussion and temporarily lost his hearing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ended up getting -- taking a round or a piece of shrapnel right through my left hand. Ended up breaking two bones in there. Ended up taking another shot to my right knee and then a "Forest Gump" injury, I took one right to my left -- left cheek.
WIAN: Beaver recovered and came home to Iowa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess the magnitude of that really hit me. When I got home and realized that, you know, my wife wasn't a widow and my son wasn't an orphan.
WIAN: The ordeal and the death of Josh Knowles (ph) has brought Beaver and Hayes closer together and given Beaver a renewed sense of purpose for his life.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have kind of made a life out of serving others. I mean, I don't -- you don't get rich by being a soldier. You don't get rich by being a paramedic. Your reward is more in serving and helping other people. And that's kind of what I have dedicated my life to.
WIAN: Both Beaver and Hayes intend to stay in the National Guard. Casey Wian, CNN, reporting.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: We wish them luck.
Coming up next, we'll share some of your thoughts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Let's take a look at some of your thoughts.
Tejas Baxi of Cumberland, Rhode Island writes, "the failure of the government to clamp down on illegal aliens sends the wrong message to millions of people like myself who came into this country legally, pay taxes, and contribute to society. It's almost as if we're being told that coming legally to the United States was a mistake."
Marina of Brockton, Massachusetts writes, "the U.S. government is more concerned about prescription drugs from Canada than it is about illegal aliens from Mexico. I really don't understand that."
And Donna of Singer's Glen, Virginia. "I wonder how many people realize that if the CEOs are paid a reasonable salary, our jobs would not have to be outsourced for the companies to remain profitable."
We love hearing from you. Send us your thoughts at loudobbs@CNN.com. Do send us your name and address and each of you whose e-mail is read on the broadcast, receives a free copy of Lou's new book, "Exporting America."
Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PILGRIM: Here are the results of tonight's poll. 82 percent of you agree with President Bush and Senator Kerry that the spread of nuclear weapons is the biggest threat to the United States. 18 percent do not.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us on Monday, "Vanity Fair" editor-in-chief Graydon Carter will join Lou to talk about his new book, "What We've Lost."
For all of us here, have a wonderful weekend. 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
