Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Congress Nears Agreement on Intelligence Reform; Bush to Focus on North Korea at APEC Summit
Aired November 19, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, we'll tell you why Congress can't reach a deal to pass sweeping intelligence reforms. Intelligence committee chairman, Senator Pat Roberts; intelligence committee vice-chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller are my guests.
Freedom under fire. A top U.S. senator now demands a federal shield law to defend the right of journalists to protect their confidential sources.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We in my opinion are entering a very, very dangerous territory indeed for democracy.
DOBBS: Senator Christopher Dodd is my guest tonight.
And a showdown with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear weapons and ambitions. President Bush seeks support from Asian and Pacific leaders to deal with both countries.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that Iranians still have much more to do.
DOBBS: We'll have a live report from the APEC summit in Santiago, Chile.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, November 19. Here now for an hour of news, debate, and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, House and Senate negotiators are making a final push to agree to sweeping intelligence reforms recommended by the September 11 Commission. One of the final obstacles to agreement is whether to include measures that would bar illegal aliens from obtaining driver's licenses.
Supporters of those measures say tough laws are required, because the 19 terrorists who hijacked airliners on September 11 easily obtained driver's licenses.
Congressional correspondent Joe Johns has the report -- Joe.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the Intelligence Reform Bill obviously has gotten a lot of help from the administration over the last several days during these negotiations. And we are told by both sides that there is an agreement in sight.
Now, we've been told that, however, for several days now, and the talks continue. Obviously, there are big land mines in this legislation on both sides.
Probably the key thing is that national intelligence director that's being created in the legislation, and whether he or she will be given full control over the huge national intelligence budget.
The House Republicans obviously have pushed very hard during all of this to make sure that the Defense Department is able to control at least part of its budget, and that has been one of the sticking points.
Of course, it's not clear right now how far along they've gotten. There have been some suggestions out of that conference that they will be able to include at least a little bit of money in there for the Defense Department to control.
Now, as you mentioned, the other issue that we've heard about -- we don't know how many different sticking points there are, but there is that issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States. Should they be allowed to get driver's licenses?
Republicans, led by Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, say no. They say no because, as you mentioned, many of those 9/11 hijackers were able to obtain driver's licenses.
On the other side of the coin, a number of folks in the United States Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, have said there's a much larger issue here, and it's an issue of safety on the road.
They say illegal immigrants ought to be given driver's licenses, simply because it makes the roads safer. They say if an illegal immigrant driving without a license hits a U.S. citizen who is duly registered, that U.S. citizen has to pay -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's hard to imagine Democrats or Republicans, Joe, suggesting that, frankly, pandering to illegal alien interests and their constituencies and to suggest that allowing driver's licenses to that constituency must take greater precedence over national security and the safety of the public at large from terrorism.
JOHNS: Well, clearly that is the case the Republicans are making here on Capitol Hill. Again, the folks over in the Senate side, who have been fighting for that provision, say there's a policy argument here, and there's an issue of the greater good. The greater good, they say, is safety on the road in the United States.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Joe Johns reporting live from Capitol Hill.
Later here, I'll be talking with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and the vice-chairman of that committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, about the negotiations on this intelligence reform legislation and whether a deal can be reached.
President Bush arrives in Chile for a summit with Asian and Pacific leaders. At the top of his agenda, the nuclear ambitions of two countries in the so-called axis of evil: North Korea and Iran.
White House correspondent Dana Bash is in Santiago and has the report for us -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, you know, this of course is the president's first trip abroad since winning re-election, where outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration believes Mr. Bush won a mandate for an aggressive foreign policy.
And although APEC is historically a place where leaders meet to talk about economic issues, the president will focus, as he has in the past several years, on issues of terrorism and security.
And certainly topping that list for him, Bush officials say, will be restarting the talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, trying to, of course, get them to stop those ambitions.
Now, interesting to note that probably no foreign policy approach would have changed more immediately if Senator Kerry had won than on North Korea. Senator Kerry favored bilateral, one-on-one negotiations with the U.S. and Pyongyang. But that, of course, has been vehemently rejected by President Bush.
He instead has favored ongoing six-party talks with North Korea's neighbors to try to get them to stop their nuclear program. But there have been three rounds in about two years, and really not much to show for it.
So Mr. Bush will have a series of one-on-one meetings tomorrow with leaders that are involved in these talks, one-on-one meetings with leaders of China and South Korea, Japan and Russia.
And what comes from those meetings will be interesting to watch, because some of the leaders, for example, the president of South Korea, has said leading up to this summit that he believes that President Bush's hard line stance has really been hurtful, that it hasn't gotten them far enough.
Of course, that stance being that if North Korea wants the food aid and security assurances that they say they want, then they first have to dismantle, verifiably, their nuclear ambitions. So it will be interesting to see what comes of these talks tomorrow.
And of course, Lou, although the president wants to talk about security, they understand at the White House that they're going to get an earful on some economic issues, particularly the weak U.S. dollar. That fact that that is hurting, some of these leaders believe, their exports and their economies.
But Bush officials say that there is no intention at this point to change the policy on the dollar -- Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much. Dana Bash reporting live from Santiago, Chile.
And of course, preeminent amongst those leaders he'll be meeting with is the premier, Wen Jiabao, of China.
In Washington tonight, there is an escalating dispute about the reliability of intelligence on Iran. Earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads for ballistic missiles.
But today, sources told CNN that there are doubts about the reliability of the intelligence that Secretary Powell was relying upon.
National security correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Knowledgeable sources tell CNN there are questions about the reliability of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear program that Secretary of State Powell spoke of. But at the State Department, there is no backing down.
ADAM ERELI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: The secretary did not misspeak. The secretary knows exactly what he was talking about.
POWELL: I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information that suggests that the Iranians are also working on designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile.
ENSOR: The likely missile in question, a Shahab III, tested in October by Iran.
U.S. officials are angered by a "Washington Post" article saying Powell's information came from an unvetted single source, a walk-in, with more than 1,000 pages of Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike.
KENNETH POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: It makes collecting against Iran, it makes protecting this source, and it makes recruiting other sources infinitely harder. And this is a hard enough topic as it is.
ENSOR: The questions about Powell's comments on intelligence evoked memories of his testimony on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the U.N. before the war, weapons that have not been found.
The questions came after an Iranian opposition group, whose supporters demonstrated in Washington Friday, offered evidence, it said, that Iran is working on nuclear weapons at a newly discovered site, something Tehran hotly denies. Critics of the European-Iranian agreement, an exchange of trade incentives for suspension of uranium enrichment, are putting their cards on the table in a run-up to next week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy board in Vienna.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: I do think there's a lot of rock throwing at this agreement right now. And I think we have to look at that information very carefully and remember what happened in Iraq when we do that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENRON: But Iran, too, is not helping matters much. Western diplomats in Vienna Friday say that Iran is rushing to convert some yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride, which is used both in the making of nuclear power and nuclear bombs. They're doing that prior to Monday, the day Iran has promised to suspend enrichment activities -- Lou.
DOBBS: In terms of uranium hexafluoride, David, its primary purpose, obviously, would be for a weapons system, according to the experts with whom, certainly, I've talked.
This also, as you suggests, brings up, obviously, some resonance from the September -- the February 5 testimony and appearance by Secretary Powell before the United Nations in 2003. Yet also, disturbingly, raises the specter of the conflict between the intelligence community and the administration.
Is -- is that a source for these questions that are arising about this statement by Colin Powell?
ENSOR: You know, the statement -- if you believe "The Washington Post" report -- and I have no reason not to -- there was one single source for the information that Secretary Powell gave that -- suggesting that certain activities were going along.
Now maybe that's a good source, and maybe it isn't. But, certainly, people in the intelligence community are not happy to see that kind of information based on a single source going out, given the history with Iraq -- Lou.
DOBBS: So, at this point, the political energies being expended by the intelligence community have not been brought to heel nor perhaps, one could argue, should they. But this is just a continuation of where we were in the months preceding the presidential election, isn't it?
ENSOR: You know, I actually -- I'm a little less suspicious. I basically think -- and you're asking my opinion here.
DOBBS: Yes, sir.
ENSOR: I basically think that the intelligence community just is uneasy about an official going out and talking about intelligence when they've only got one source. Given what happened, they want to be double sure that people understand this is what it is. It's a single source. Maybe a good one, maybe not. But, you know, to rely on it to make policy, they're uneasy about that.
DOBBS: And I guess I'm also uneasy, I share your concern about that, but also uneasy about the fact that -- how are we to know whether or not the secretary had only one source in all of this? We'll find out in the days and weeks ahead, I'm sure, in part thanks to your reporting.
David Ensor.
As always, thank you.
There are new details tonight about links between al Qaeda and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi. Intelligence officials now blame Zarqawi's group for the worst terrorist attacks in Iraq and the beheading of several Western hostages.
Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr has that report for us -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Lou.
Well, it was one of the major reasons for going to war, these types of links in Iraq with al Qaeda, and now it may all actually be true.
The number two man at the U.S. Central Command, General Lance Smith, speaking to Pentagon reporters today, said there is now a belief, not certainty, but a belief that senior al Qaeda leaders are attempting to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian- born terrorist who has been claiming responsibility now for so much of the violence that has occurred in Iraq over recent months.
Let's have a very quick listen to what General Smith had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. GEN. LANCE SMITH, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I think there are attempted communications between Zarqawi and bin Laden. Whether or not they've been successful, because of the huge distances involved in those lines of communication, I would say that they probably have not been. But we know for a fact that there are attempted communications between them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: What the -- General Smith went on to say, again, is not confirming, but they -- that the communications have not been successful, but that they do believe these attempts have occurred. And what they believe is that the al Qaeda may be offering Zarqawi philosophical guidance or congratulating him on his recent statements of loyalty to the al Qaeda organization -- Lou.
DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much.
Barbara Starr reporting from the Pentagon.
In Iraq today, U.S. and Iraqi troops launched a series of raids rounding up suspected insurgents after military victory in Falluja. Iraqi troops in Mosul killed 15 insurgents. They captured 13 others.
In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi troops raided a mosque after a cleric delivered a sermon criticizing the U.S.-led offensive in Falluja. Iraqi National Guardsmen killed two Iraqis who opened fire on them.
Elsewhere in Baghdad, a suicide car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen at a checkpoint. Ten other people were wounded in the attack.
Meanwhile, six NATO countries tonight have refused to send military instructors to Iraq to help train Iraqi forces. Those countries are Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Greece.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is facing a barrage of criticism tonight from an unexpected quarter: his own staff. U.N. workers are increasingly angry at the way Kofi Annan and other senior U.N. officials are managing the institution.
Richard Roth is here tonight with a report -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this week, Bush administration officials and members of the U.S. Congress sharply criticized U.N. Secretary General Annan on issues ranging from oil-for-food to Iraq.
Today, indirectly, it was the turn of the U.N.'s own staff. Annan, who was in Nairobi observing a diplomatic gain on the Sudan crisis, came very close back home to being cited for a no confidence vote in his leadership by the U.N. staff council.
After a closed-door debate, the staff union possibly realizing the impact, if, indeed, voted no confidence, or perhaps under pressure, backed away from one member's proposal and instead adopted a measure expressing great concern in senior management of the U.N., though Annan was not named specifically.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROSEMARIE WATERS, U.N. STAFF UNION PRESIDENT: What we have in the resolution, we have removed the names, the titles of individuals, and we have said that we're distressed by the pattern of senior officials being exonerated when there are very serious violations against them, and we think this needs to be looked at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The staff council is unhappy the way top U.N. officials accused of misconduct are eventually exonerated. In at least two cases, Kofi Annan thought the evidence did not support the allegations against the U.N.'s own internal watchdog, and, in the case of the director of the U.N.'s refugees agency, maybe there wasn't just enough legal proof. The U.N. doesn't see any legal impact from the vote by the staff union and wants to talk about their complaints.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRED ECKHARD, U.N. SPOKESMAN: The idea is to keep dialogue going and see if we can't sort out our differences so that it isn't necessary to adopt resolutions saying they have no confidence in senior management. We'd certainly like them to have more confidence in us, and we hope that we can achieve that through dialogue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: It is interesting that the U.N. staff council is turning on Annan's U.N. management team since the secretary general is a career nearly 40-year U.N. employee. At the end of the day, the staff union said it had full confidence in Kofi Annan.
However, the six-plus outside investigations of the oil-for-food program may determine much more how much confidence the staff and member countries will have in Annan, who has about two years left in his term -- Lou.
DOBBS: To call Kofi Annan a beleaguered U.N. secretary general is an understatement at this point.
ROTH: It's another bad day for the U.N., and Annan today had to say he was shocked. There are some 30 perhaps U.N. peacekeepers and civilian employees now accused of sexual misconduct and abuse of women and young girls in the U.N.'s Congo mission.
DOBBS: And some of those investigations now over six months in duration without conclusion.
Thank you very much.
Richard Roth, our U.N. correspondent.
Still ahead here tonight, new concerns about food safety in this country. Congressmen are working to repeal legislation that would require country-of-origin labels on meat and produce sold in this country. They're trying to do this, as it were, in the dark of night. We'll shed some light on that with our special report.
And will Congress reach a deal on intelligence reform? I'll be joined by the chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and the vice-chairman of the committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Concerns tonight about the origins of food in this country. House Republicans, at least some of them, are hoping to repeal legislation that requires country-of-origin labels on meat and produce sold in this country. That law is now 2 years old, but it has not yet been implemented.
Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Shoppers can read the nutritional labels on food to find out what's in it, but they can't easily find out where it's from. A 2002 law requiring country- of-origin labels be placed on meat, fruits and vegetables have never been implemented and may be erased off the books altogether.
REP. TIM JOHNSON (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: They know the origins of their auto parts, their T-shirts, but, for some reason, the United States almost standing alone among industrialized nations in the world does not allow consumers to know the origins of meat or other kinds of food products.
SYLVESTER: Some Republicans want to include a measure in the appropriations bill that would remove the mandatory labeling requirement. Supporters of the labeling rule argue it gives consumers a choice to decide whether they want to buy American meats, fruits and vegetables or foreign imports.
KATHERINE OZER, NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION: It seems particularly ironic that as -- on the eve of Thanksgiving, with another report of possible mad cow, that the Congress over a weekend session is probably going to go in and strike this one provision that is one of the tools to better know where our food comes from.
SYLVESTER: Small- and medium-sized farmers and ranchers support the mandatory labeling, but the larger livestock and feed processors have resisted the change. They cite a U.S. Department of Agriculture study that said the benefits would be small and the implementation costs would range from $582 million to $3.9 billion for the first year alone.
TOM SCHATZ, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE: There will be a cost in terms of additional regulation, additional bureaucracy. There will be inspections of the labeling itself, and that will be a cost to consumers and taxpayers.
SYLVESTER: The bipartisan Government Accountability Office dismissed early USDA cost estimates as wildly inflated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association declined interview requests. The massive omnibus spending bill has to be passed before the holiday recess and can only be voted up or down with very little debate -- Lou.
DOBBS: This is, as we suggested here, Lisa, Congress trying to do its work in the dark of night. Is there any likelihood that they will be successful and be able to repeal these country-of-origin requirements?
SYLVESTER: Right now, it does appear to have the support of the House Republican leadership, and that's a big key thing. There have -- it was a letter sent to a number of the key appropriators in this case to see if they might be able to stop this from happening -- Lou.
Lisa Sylvester -- thank you very much -- reporting from Washington.
Coming up next here tonight, Congress nearing the end of its lame-duck session. That massive intelligence reform legislation is still stalled in conference committee. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller join me next.
And then the invasion of millions of illegal aliens. One American community wants to give its police more authority to arrest them. The police, however, are fighting that proposal. Our special report is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: In just a moment, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller will join us.
But, first, let's take a look at some of the top stories tonight.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is recovering tonight after surgery in a Washington hospital. The secretary of state nominee had uterine fibroid surgery. Her doctors call it a success. She is resting comfortably and is expected to leave the hospital tomorrow.
A popular Dutch politician today called for a five-year ban on non-Western immigrants in the EU. The parliament members said the Netherlands' democracy is under threat, partly because of radical Islamist immigrants who do not follow Dutch values. The parliament figure is one of several Dutch representatives living under state protection following the brutal murder of a Dutch filmmaker who was critical of Muslim culture.
Thousands of red locusts today swarmed into southern Israel. Agricultural officials went on high alert and sprayed crops across the region. Those locusts swarmed through Cairo earlier this week.
On Capitol Hill tonight, House and Senate negotiators are working to reach a last-minute compromise for a sweeping intelligence reform bill proposed by the 9/11 commission. The final agreement hinges at this point, as best we can determine, whether states will be allowed to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
I'm joined now by Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us.
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (R), VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R), CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Nice to be with you, Lou. Thank you.
DOBBS: What is -- Mr. Chairman, what is your best information at this point on how successful the conferees will be in coming through with this legislation?
ROBERTS: Well, I think I can speak on behalf of both my distinguished friend and myself in saying that hope springs eternal. This has taken too long. What we're really doing is talking about an immigration issue. It's a very important issue.
But we ought to go ahead with the basic bill of setting up a national intelligence director and a national terrorist threat center. Those are the two basics that we ought to get done.
I've suggested and I think also Jay has suggested a lot of us have a lot of different things we'd like to put in a bill, but now we're down to the cause of whether we have a bill or not, and we must pass a bill. So I would like to get rid of some of the obstructionism -- maybe that's too strong a word -- and certainly let's get a bill.
These other issues are important. But I hope we can still get a bill, even at this late date.
DOBBS: Senator Rockefeller, do you concur in all respects?
ROCKEFELLER: I do in most respects concur with Pat Roberts. I think it's important that we have the overall structure of a national intelligence director who takes 15 agencies, intelligence agencies, all of whom are sort of on their own, some of them share information, some of them don't, most of them don't, and that we have a counterterrorism center on a national basis, and that is in a sense the bulwark of the bill.
There is -- however, the 9/11 commission said it was extremely important for Congress to be able to do proper oversight, and I want to see some provisions in the bill which reflect on our ability to do oversight of the intelligence community.
That bill is being hammered out right now, either successfully or unsuccessfully, in the speaker's office, and neither pat Roberts nor I know exactly what the result will be. But the midnight bell will give us the result.
DOBBS: Senator Roberts, as we listen to senator Rockefeller say that neither of you knows the status on that very important role, other efforts to provide greater insight by -- oversight rather by Congress over intelligence have been pushed back. The fact you two gentlemen, preeminent in your positions in that role, don't know doesn't seem to at least me to auger well for expanded oversight.
Senator, your thoughts?
ROBERTS: Well, we'd like to be there and not on the sidelines, but we have been offering advice to the big four doing the primary consultation. Let me make a promise to you. Under Jay Rockefeller and Pat Roberts, the intelligence committee is going to do oversight.
This past year we have had over 140 hearings, that's 60 percent more than the previous Congress. We conducted the WMD review. We will do the oversight. What we can do is pass this bill in its basic form. It's not the bill that I would want in completion and certainly not the one that, say, Jay would want. But let's at least get a bill. And then incrementally let the two intelligence committees the next session of Congress add on to the bill as we should.
DOBBS: I want to move to the issue of a national intelligence director. But before doing that, because, Senator Roberts, you mentioned the immigration issue, as you styled it. I would like to put up on the screen for our viewers to see from page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report, their views about the importance of identification. If we could see that screen right now.
And there it is. That screen from page, again, 390 reads, "the recommendation is that the secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification is no longer just a problem of theft." In point of fact, it goes on to say that they are necessary to check whether those stopped are terrorists.
To describe this as an immigration issue suggests to me that that very important part of this 9/11 commission, you're perfectly willing to throw away...
ROBERTS: I'm not throwing it away.
DOBBS: If I misspoke, you can correct me. Let me add, the 9/11 committee, the families committee, says that without it, they don't feel that the Senate and the House are honoring the full recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Now, Senator Roberts?
ROBERTS: I suppose there are probably members of the family and members and probably members of the 9/11 commission that object if we included all 41 recommendations. I'm talking about the article to either get a bill or not to get a bill. Not the best possible bill, but the best bill possible.
Now on immigration, Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman and the Senate have already given in regards to immigration more money for ID's, for identification, more people on the border. We all know we need that. And we know we need to improve that.
What I'm talking about now is whether we get a bill or not.
And if we don't get a bill, I'm talking about -- if there's another tragedy in this country and we have not really performed our duty in terms of an intelligence reform bill that both of us have started, I can tell you where the fingers of responsibility will be pointed. DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this if we have another situation, and God help us should we, the fact of the matter is, if we have another 19 hijackers secure aircraft in this country bearing false driver's licenses, how will you gentlemen feel?
ROBERTS: I'm not trying to minute muse that at all. All I'm saying is that we have 26 states that now allow illegal aliens to have driver's licenses. What I'm saying is that the Senate conferees have given on that issue to the degree that I think we have a final product that we ought to be able to agree to and speak to the issue you're talking about and we can get a bill.
ROCKEFELLER: Lou, let me make the point, you're focused on the licenses. And you have every reason to be. But I think what pat and I are saying is that that is something that can be done and is in the full jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. That's not just Washington talk, that's fact. It can be done next year.
On the basic business of intelligence reform, national intelligence reform and coordination, the full authority over the budget by the national intelligence director, that is something that we really do have to do. And frankly, we've sort of had to do it in a week. That's not enough time. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman have spent all day, every day in the speaker's office trying to work something out.
We've had frankly two obstructionists in the House. This this past -- passed unanimously almost in the Senate. It's not a partisan matter at all, it's a matter of two individuals. Two individuals who are trying to stop it for their own reasons. And it doesn't make sense.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, that has to be the final word here. We thank you, as always, for sharing your insight and perspective. Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jay Rockefeller, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Coming up next here, an immigration battle over a proposal that would allow local police to arrest illegal aliens. We'll have a special report on the growing immigration crisis in this country.
Also tonight: freedom under fire. One U.S. senator is fighting to protect the first amendment. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut will join me next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight in "Broken Borders," some local officials are trying to crack down on illegal aliens. In one New York community, the county executive wants to give police officers there the power to make arrests for immigration violations. But that proposal has divided the community in what is now a bitter battle. Bill Tucker reports from Suffolk County, New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The failure to enforce security at the borders is having a direct impact on Suffolk County, New York.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They want you the taxpayer to pay for illegal activity.
TUCKER: County officials, overwhelmed with illegal immigration, have cracked down on contractors hiring illegal aliens. And now they're looking at ways to enforce immigration law.
STEVE LEVY, SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE: We're trying to get, number one, authority from the feds to ask these questions and to obtain proof whether the person is here properly.
TUCKER: It's what's known officially as the 287-G authority under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And only two states currently use it, Florida and Alabama. It allows, not requires, officers to determine an arrested individual's immigration status. In Suffolk County, it's prompted charges of racism and hate.
(on camera): It's very unusual for a local government to take on an issue of immigration enforcement. And it's an issue which has upset the local police.
(voice-over): They don't want to enforce immigration. It distracts they say from local policing.
JEFF FRAYLER, SUFFOLK CO. POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSN: If his goal is to detain serious criminals, it doesn't matter whether they're undocumented aliens or they are residents of the United States. Whatever status they have, they can be arrested and detained by police.
TUCKER: The issue is complicated by a history of racial violence in the county. Last year, the community of Farmingville, the home of Mexican immigrants was fire bombed. Three years earlier, in the same community, two immigrants were badly beaten and stabbed.
NADIA MARIN-MOLINA, THE WORKPLACE PROJECT: It's not just sort of words. It's not just proposals that are being studied. It's something that has a real effect. Because people start to take things into their own hands.
TUCKER: For supporters of immigration enforcement, the bottom line is the law.
ALLAN BINDER, SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE: When you're a nation of laws, the integrity of the law and its enforcement is paramount. And otherwise you're not a nation of laws.
TUCKER: Suffolk County officials would like to see that lesson practiced at the federal level.
Bill Tucker, CNN, Suffolk County, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll. "Do you believe police officers should have the power to make arrests for immigration violations?" Yes or no. Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Coming right up, I'll be joined by three of the country's top journalists. We'll be talking about a number of issues and stories that broke this week, including a rising threat to the freedom of the press.
Several journalists under fire, one of them facing jail time for refusing to reveal confidential sources. Senator Christopher Dodd is taking action to protect journalists. He's also my guest, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We reported here last night on what is nothing short of a mounting assault on the freedom of the press. A dozen reporters nationwide have been prosecuted to varying degrees for failing to reveal confidential sources. One of those reporters, Jim Taricani, now faces six months in prison.
Joining me now to talk about these troubling cases is Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who is introducing a bill that would create a federal shield law to protect journalists from having to reveal those confidential sources.
Senator Dodd joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Good to have you with us.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
DOBBS: Senator, the idea of a shield law, is it your sense that this can be implemented anytime soon?
DODD: Well, certainly not in the remaining hours of this Congress. But I'm going to introduce it tonight. And we'll reintroduce it on the 4th of January, and my hope is in the next Congress, during this period of break between now and January, we can round up some co-sponsors and make the case.
Now, I think if we make the case, Lou, with all due respect to you and your colleagues about reporters, this is far more important than protecting reporters.
DOBBS: Right.
DODD: It's about making sure that the public would have access to information they would probably not otherwise get if they had to depend solely on governmental sources to give them the information. So it goes far beyond protecting reporters, as important as that is.
DOBBS: And that's a terrific point, Senator, because what the best of us do is bring information to the public that is critical to the governance of our society. The idea that 31 states have such shield laws, is that helpful to an effort at a federal level? DODD: Very, very, very helpful. The fact that 31 states, both red and blue states, if you will, have adopted strong shield laws, we've worked over the last number of weeks with lawyers and others who are far more knowledgeable about this area of the law than I'll ever be, taking the best of these various laws and putting together what we think is a sound federal law.
As it is today, you could end up with a patchwork of decisions, all over the country, depending upon which jurisdiction the case was brought. There needs to be some clarity on this, and we think a federal shield law is critically important. Madison said, by the way, Lou, some 220 years ago, that popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring is but a prologue to a farce, a tragedy, or both. And that's what we're talking about here.
If we're going to have popular government, you need popular information. You cannot just rely -- you think of Enron, you think of Abu Ghraib prison scandal, you think of Iran-Contra, Watergate. All of these matters might have remained totally away from the public had it not been for leaks, confidential sources, and reporters aggressively pursuing information without having to reveal who those sources were. The public would be greatly disserved if we were to shut this down by scaring off sources from sharing information with the fourth estate.
DOBBS: Senator, you see the First Amendment and the shield law as inextricably intertwined then?
DODD: I do, absolutely. This is very much what the founders had in mind. And in fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth century England, you had to be licensed to be a journalist. Very restrictive laws. Look at the totalitarian governments -- the Nazis, the communists in the Soviet Union, all controlled the press, all denied freedom of speech.
We've been marked by many great contributions, not the least of which has been freedom of speech, freedom of press. Jefferson said if you had to make a choice between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he'd choose the latter, in many ways. That's been a hallmark of our society.
DOBBS: Senator Christopher Dodd, we thank you very much. Thanks for being with us.
DODD: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Coming up next, I'll be joined by three of the country's very best journalists to talk about this week in the news, the president's first international trip since reelection, and words of warning tonight on the economy and nuclear threats. All of that and a great deal more still ahead here. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush has just arrived in Santiago, Chile for the APEC summit with Asian and Pacific leaders. Air Force One now coming down the apron, taxing toward the facilities there. And top of the agenda of course for the president, North Korea's nuclear ambitions and trade deficits.
Joining me now, three of the country's best political journalists. In Washington, Roger Simon, "U.S. News and World Report." In Miami, Ron Brownstein, "Los Angeles Times." And joining me from New York here, Steve Shepard, who runs "Businessweek" magazine.
Let me start with you, Roger. This meeting in Santiago, in which he will be -- the president will be meeting with a number of leaders, how important is this? Or is this more, as they say, symbolic?
ROGER SIMON, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Well, there's always some guaranteed minimum result before a president will go to a summit conference. The real work is done by people called sherpas, who know a lot and do heavy lifting, which is why they're called sherpas. So there will be some trade agreement, there will be some agreement on terrorism.
But what George Bush really wants and needs is to restart the six-party talks with North Korea, which is why he's going to spend a lot of time with at least four members of those talks -- South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. And he wants to come out of there with some kind of agreement by China to put pressure on North Korea to come back to the table.
DOBBS: It strikes me that one of those leaders, Hu Jintao the head of China, is at a fulcrum point. Important, as Roger suggested for those six-party talks if they can be, be after North Korea said it would not attend the September meetings. Secondly, the peg of the yuan to the dollar, which is creating all sorts of problems. And a huge trade deficit with the United States which is creating further problems. What do you think will be the tone of those discussions?
RON BROWNSTEIN, LOS ANGELES TIMES: I'm sorry, I didn't know it was for me. The funny thing is that in the presidential campaign early on in the Democratic race in peculiar, the economic relationship with China really was front and center. There was a lot of talk about the question of the currency manipulation, the overall trade deficit. It didn't survive, really, as an issue into the general election. And as a result, there probably isn't as much pressure on the president on that front as there might have been if there had been a more aggressive discussion of this.
I'm kind of struck how these APEC meetings in general have moved toward the back burner. A decade ago, when this initiative first got under way, the economic relationship with both China and Japan was front and center in American politics. So was the question about whether China was becoming a more democratized or a freer society. All those issues really have been sublimated by our focus on Middle Eastern affairs. And I'm not sure this meeting is going to change that basic dynamic.
DOBBS: Do you agree, Steve? STEVE SHEPARD, BUSINESSWEEK: Not entirely. I think what Alan Greenspan said in Europe yesterday about the dollar was quite significant. And while Ron was right, it wasn't that much of an issue in the campaign, it's going to be an issue now, because we have a large and unsustainable trade deficit which is putting pressure on the dollar.
And the opportunity the president has in Chile is to talk to the Chinese about a reevaluation of the yuan gradually and a substantial reevaluation, because we have real problems.
DOBBS: It strikes me that the number of news organizations now post-election that are beginning to find words to match ideas about the importance of a trade deficit, its impact on the dollar and the risk it poses did our economic security. After the election they're suddenly taking note. And the president is taking note. Frankly, what Alan Greenspan said is counter to what he had been saying leading up to the election.
SHEPARD: It's best to have this discussion now.
DOBBS: Free of those nasty partisan politics.
SHEPARD: It's hard to get it done in the context of a campaign, because it's complicated. And what has to happen, the United States has to get Europe and Japan to grow faster so they take more exports from the U.S. We have to get the Chinese to reevaluate their currency. And we have to get the U.S. to get its own house in order, by which I mean the budget deficit. Otherwise, interest rates are going to go up. The dollar is going to weaken. And inflation will resume.
BROWNSTEIN: In particular, the Greenspan arguments on the deficit are kind of striking. After he -- if you remember all the way back to 2001, he was initially skeptical of the size of the tax cut, aligned himself with some of those who talked about a trigger mechanism, keying it to the surplus, sustaining itself, which obviously it did not as other events interceded.
To come back now and to raise these concerned sort of reminds me of a teenager who invites friends over when their parents are away for the night, then at 11:30 are upset because things start breaking. Greenspan is a little bit in that situation where some of his credibility on this issue I think has been diminished by his willingness to support repeated tax cuts even with the deficits mounting.
DOBBS: Well, I don't know that his credibility is diminished, Ron. I would agree, however, his timing is highly questionable. And perhaps some partisan consideration. His credibility on this issue I don't think, though is at all at risk.
Roger Simon, we have seen Ariel Sharon say that he will drop the issue of the PLO taking control of the terrorists and to forestall their activities as a condition of moving ahead with the road map. The Middle East, do you see the death of Arafat and the combination of the tone taken by Sharon as being hopeful for Middle East peace? SIMON: It is hopeful. We have no choice except to look for small things that are hopeful in the Mideast. It has not been a front burner subject in the first term of George Bush. The death of Arafat makes possible real progress in the Mideast.
We don't know yet which way the Bush administration is going to turn on this. We hear that Colin Powell wanted to stay on, because of the death of Arafat to try to be a moderating influence on U.S. policy, and make real progress in the Mideast, and that the president didn't indicate that he wanted Powell to stay on. So Powell is going.
There is a possibility there. All you can do in the Mideast is hope for the best based on slim possibilities.
DOBBS: General Sadler said of Falluja, after the United States and a small number of Iraqi troops secured the city, that we have broken the back of the insurgency. do you agree with that assessment, Ron?
BROWNSTEIN: They feel that militarily, obviously, they've dealt a significant blow to the insurgency. But always in these kind of guerrilla confidentials, a central question is, is your military progress paralleling a political process? Are you creating more opponents even as you destroy them?
And I think that's something we can't answer today, Lou. We don't know whether the actions that have to be taken to reduce the immediate threat of the insurgency raise a long-term resistance to our presence, or expand a long-term resistance to our presence, and in fact undermines what you've done. That's the risk of the treadmill you're always on in these kind of situations.
DOBBS: As Roger said of the Middle East, we'll take reasons for small hopes in the case of Iraq. Roger Simon, Ron Brownstein, Steve Shepherd, thank you gentleman for being here.
Still ahead, the results of our poll and a preview of what's ahead next week. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight. 89 percent of you say police officers should have the power to make arrests for immigration violations. 11 percent say not.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here next week. We begin a new series of special reports on the declining dollar and our widening trade deficit.
Monday, we focus on the most important item on the president's free trade agenda and why the Bush administration is hoping it passes while perhaps no one is looking. Please be with us.
For all of us here, have a very pleasant weekend. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" coming up next here on CNN.
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 November 19, 2004 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, we'll tell you why Congress can't reach a deal to pass sweeping intelligence reforms. Intelligence committee chairman, Senator Pat Roberts; intelligence committee vice-chairman, Senator Jay Rockefeller are my guests.
Freedom under fire. A top U.S. senator now demands a federal shield law to defend the right of journalists to protect their confidential sources.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We in my opinion are entering a very, very dangerous territory indeed for democracy.
DOBBS: Senator Christopher Dodd is my guest tonight.
And a showdown with North Korea and Iran over their nuclear weapons and ambitions. President Bush seeks support from Asian and Pacific leaders to deal with both countries.
COLIN POWELL, SECRETARY OF STATE: I think that Iranians still have much more to do.
DOBBS: We'll have a live report from the APEC summit in Santiago, Chile.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Friday, November 19. Here now for an hour of news, debate, and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
Tonight, House and Senate negotiators are making a final push to agree to sweeping intelligence reforms recommended by the September 11 Commission. One of the final obstacles to agreement is whether to include measures that would bar illegal aliens from obtaining driver's licenses.
Supporters of those measures say tough laws are required, because the 19 terrorists who hijacked airliners on September 11 easily obtained driver's licenses.
Congressional correspondent Joe Johns has the report -- Joe.
JOE JOHNS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, the Intelligence Reform Bill obviously has gotten a lot of help from the administration over the last several days during these negotiations. And we are told by both sides that there is an agreement in sight.
Now, we've been told that, however, for several days now, and the talks continue. Obviously, there are big land mines in this legislation on both sides.
Probably the key thing is that national intelligence director that's being created in the legislation, and whether he or she will be given full control over the huge national intelligence budget.
The House Republicans obviously have pushed very hard during all of this to make sure that the Defense Department is able to control at least part of its budget, and that has been one of the sticking points.
Of course, it's not clear right now how far along they've gotten. There have been some suggestions out of that conference that they will be able to include at least a little bit of money in there for the Defense Department to control.
Now, as you mentioned, the other issue that we've heard about -- we don't know how many different sticking points there are, but there is that issue of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants in the United States. Should they be allowed to get driver's licenses?
Republicans, led by Jim Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, say no. They say no because, as you mentioned, many of those 9/11 hijackers were able to obtain driver's licenses.
On the other side of the coin, a number of folks in the United States Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, have said there's a much larger issue here, and it's an issue of safety on the road.
They say illegal immigrants ought to be given driver's licenses, simply because it makes the roads safer. They say if an illegal immigrant driving without a license hits a U.S. citizen who is duly registered, that U.S. citizen has to pay -- Lou.
DOBBS: It's hard to imagine Democrats or Republicans, Joe, suggesting that, frankly, pandering to illegal alien interests and their constituencies and to suggest that allowing driver's licenses to that constituency must take greater precedence over national security and the safety of the public at large from terrorism.
JOHNS: Well, clearly that is the case the Republicans are making here on Capitol Hill. Again, the folks over in the Senate side, who have been fighting for that provision, say there's a policy argument here, and there's an issue of the greater good. The greater good, they say, is safety on the road in the United States.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. Joe Johns reporting live from Capitol Hill.
Later here, I'll be talking with the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and the vice-chairman of that committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, about the negotiations on this intelligence reform legislation and whether a deal can be reached.
President Bush arrives in Chile for a summit with Asian and Pacific leaders. At the top of his agenda, the nuclear ambitions of two countries in the so-called axis of evil: North Korea and Iran.
White House correspondent Dana Bash is in Santiago and has the report for us -- Dana.
DANA BASH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, you know, this of course is the president's first trip abroad since winning re-election, where outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell says that the administration believes Mr. Bush won a mandate for an aggressive foreign policy.
And although APEC is historically a place where leaders meet to talk about economic issues, the president will focus, as he has in the past several years, on issues of terrorism and security.
And certainly topping that list for him, Bush officials say, will be restarting the talks on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, trying to, of course, get them to stop those ambitions.
Now, interesting to note that probably no foreign policy approach would have changed more immediately if Senator Kerry had won than on North Korea. Senator Kerry favored bilateral, one-on-one negotiations with the U.S. and Pyongyang. But that, of course, has been vehemently rejected by President Bush.
He instead has favored ongoing six-party talks with North Korea's neighbors to try to get them to stop their nuclear program. But there have been three rounds in about two years, and really not much to show for it.
So Mr. Bush will have a series of one-on-one meetings tomorrow with leaders that are involved in these talks, one-on-one meetings with leaders of China and South Korea, Japan and Russia.
And what comes from those meetings will be interesting to watch, because some of the leaders, for example, the president of South Korea, has said leading up to this summit that he believes that President Bush's hard line stance has really been hurtful, that it hasn't gotten them far enough.
Of course, that stance being that if North Korea wants the food aid and security assurances that they say they want, then they first have to dismantle, verifiably, their nuclear ambitions. So it will be interesting to see what comes of these talks tomorrow.
And of course, Lou, although the president wants to talk about security, they understand at the White House that they're going to get an earful on some economic issues, particularly the weak U.S. dollar. That fact that that is hurting, some of these leaders believe, their exports and their economies.
But Bush officials say that there is no intention at this point to change the policy on the dollar -- Lou.
DOBBS: Dana, thank you very much. Dana Bash reporting live from Santiago, Chile.
And of course, preeminent amongst those leaders he'll be meeting with is the premier, Wen Jiabao, of China.
In Washington tonight, there is an escalating dispute about the reliability of intelligence on Iran. Earlier, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested Iran is trying to develop nuclear warheads for ballistic missiles.
But today, sources told CNN that there are doubts about the reliability of the intelligence that Secretary Powell was relying upon.
National security correspondent David Ensor reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DAVID ENSOR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Knowledgeable sources tell CNN there are questions about the reliability of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear program that Secretary of State Powell spoke of. But at the State Department, there is no backing down.
ADAM ERELI, STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN: The secretary did not misspeak. The secretary knows exactly what he was talking about.
POWELL: I've seen some information, and the dissidents have put out more information that suggests that the Iranians are also working on designs one would have to have for putting such a warhead into a missile.
ENSOR: The likely missile in question, a Shahab III, tested in October by Iran.
U.S. officials are angered by a "Washington Post" article saying Powell's information came from an unvetted single source, a walk-in, with more than 1,000 pages of Iranian drawings and technical documents, including a nuclear warhead design and modifications to enable Iranian ballistic missiles to deliver an atomic strike.
KENNETH POLLACK, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: It makes collecting against Iran, it makes protecting this source, and it makes recruiting other sources infinitely harder. And this is a hard enough topic as it is.
ENSOR: The questions about Powell's comments on intelligence evoked memories of his testimony on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the U.N. before the war, weapons that have not been found.
The questions came after an Iranian opposition group, whose supporters demonstrated in Washington Friday, offered evidence, it said, that Iran is working on nuclear weapons at a newly discovered site, something Tehran hotly denies. Critics of the European-Iranian agreement, an exchange of trade incentives for suspension of uranium enrichment, are putting their cards on the table in a run-up to next week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy board in Vienna.
DAVID ALBRIGHT, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY: I do think there's a lot of rock throwing at this agreement right now. And I think we have to look at that information very carefully and remember what happened in Iraq when we do that.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ENRON: But Iran, too, is not helping matters much. Western diplomats in Vienna Friday say that Iran is rushing to convert some yellow cake into uranium hexafluoride, which is used both in the making of nuclear power and nuclear bombs. They're doing that prior to Monday, the day Iran has promised to suspend enrichment activities -- Lou.
DOBBS: In terms of uranium hexafluoride, David, its primary purpose, obviously, would be for a weapons system, according to the experts with whom, certainly, I've talked.
This also, as you suggests, brings up, obviously, some resonance from the September -- the February 5 testimony and appearance by Secretary Powell before the United Nations in 2003. Yet also, disturbingly, raises the specter of the conflict between the intelligence community and the administration.
Is -- is that a source for these questions that are arising about this statement by Colin Powell?
ENSOR: You know, the statement -- if you believe "The Washington Post" report -- and I have no reason not to -- there was one single source for the information that Secretary Powell gave that -- suggesting that certain activities were going along.
Now maybe that's a good source, and maybe it isn't. But, certainly, people in the intelligence community are not happy to see that kind of information based on a single source going out, given the history with Iraq -- Lou.
DOBBS: So, at this point, the political energies being expended by the intelligence community have not been brought to heel nor perhaps, one could argue, should they. But this is just a continuation of where we were in the months preceding the presidential election, isn't it?
ENSOR: You know, I actually -- I'm a little less suspicious. I basically think -- and you're asking my opinion here.
DOBBS: Yes, sir.
ENSOR: I basically think that the intelligence community just is uneasy about an official going out and talking about intelligence when they've only got one source. Given what happened, they want to be double sure that people understand this is what it is. It's a single source. Maybe a good one, maybe not. But, you know, to rely on it to make policy, they're uneasy about that.
DOBBS: And I guess I'm also uneasy, I share your concern about that, but also uneasy about the fact that -- how are we to know whether or not the secretary had only one source in all of this? We'll find out in the days and weeks ahead, I'm sure, in part thanks to your reporting.
David Ensor.
As always, thank you.
There are new details tonight about links between al Qaeda and the most wanted terrorist in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi. Intelligence officials now blame Zarqawi's group for the worst terrorist attacks in Iraq and the beheading of several Western hostages.
Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr has that report for us -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Hello to you, Lou.
Well, it was one of the major reasons for going to war, these types of links in Iraq with al Qaeda, and now it may all actually be true.
The number two man at the U.S. Central Command, General Lance Smith, speaking to Pentagon reporters today, said there is now a belief, not certainty, but a belief that senior al Qaeda leaders are attempting to communicate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian- born terrorist who has been claiming responsibility now for so much of the violence that has occurred in Iraq over recent months.
Let's have a very quick listen to what General Smith had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LT. GEN. LANCE SMITH, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I think there are attempted communications between Zarqawi and bin Laden. Whether or not they've been successful, because of the huge distances involved in those lines of communication, I would say that they probably have not been. But we know for a fact that there are attempted communications between them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STARR: What the -- General Smith went on to say, again, is not confirming, but they -- that the communications have not been successful, but that they do believe these attempts have occurred. And what they believe is that the al Qaeda may be offering Zarqawi philosophical guidance or congratulating him on his recent statements of loyalty to the al Qaeda organization -- Lou.
DOBBS: Barbara, thank you very much.
Barbara Starr reporting from the Pentagon.
In Iraq today, U.S. and Iraqi troops launched a series of raids rounding up suspected insurgents after military victory in Falluja. Iraqi troops in Mosul killed 15 insurgents. They captured 13 others.
In Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi troops raided a mosque after a cleric delivered a sermon criticizing the U.S.-led offensive in Falluja. Iraqi National Guardsmen killed two Iraqis who opened fire on them.
Elsewhere in Baghdad, a suicide car bomber killed five Iraqi policemen at a checkpoint. Ten other people were wounded in the attack.
Meanwhile, six NATO countries tonight have refused to send military instructors to Iraq to help train Iraqi forces. Those countries are Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg and Greece.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is facing a barrage of criticism tonight from an unexpected quarter: his own staff. U.N. workers are increasingly angry at the way Kofi Annan and other senior U.N. officials are managing the institution.
Richard Roth is here tonight with a report -- Richard.
RICHARD ROTH, CNN SENIOR UNITED NATIONS CORRESPONDENT: Lou, this week, Bush administration officials and members of the U.S. Congress sharply criticized U.N. Secretary General Annan on issues ranging from oil-for-food to Iraq.
Today, indirectly, it was the turn of the U.N.'s own staff. Annan, who was in Nairobi observing a diplomatic gain on the Sudan crisis, came very close back home to being cited for a no confidence vote in his leadership by the U.N. staff council.
After a closed-door debate, the staff union possibly realizing the impact, if, indeed, voted no confidence, or perhaps under pressure, backed away from one member's proposal and instead adopted a measure expressing great concern in senior management of the U.N., though Annan was not named specifically.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROSEMARIE WATERS, U.N. STAFF UNION PRESIDENT: What we have in the resolution, we have removed the names, the titles of individuals, and we have said that we're distressed by the pattern of senior officials being exonerated when there are very serious violations against them, and we think this needs to be looked at.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The staff council is unhappy the way top U.N. officials accused of misconduct are eventually exonerated. In at least two cases, Kofi Annan thought the evidence did not support the allegations against the U.N.'s own internal watchdog, and, in the case of the director of the U.N.'s refugees agency, maybe there wasn't just enough legal proof. The U.N. doesn't see any legal impact from the vote by the staff union and wants to talk about their complaints.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRED ECKHARD, U.N. SPOKESMAN: The idea is to keep dialogue going and see if we can't sort out our differences so that it isn't necessary to adopt resolutions saying they have no confidence in senior management. We'd certainly like them to have more confidence in us, and we hope that we can achieve that through dialogue.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: It is interesting that the U.N. staff council is turning on Annan's U.N. management team since the secretary general is a career nearly 40-year U.N. employee. At the end of the day, the staff union said it had full confidence in Kofi Annan.
However, the six-plus outside investigations of the oil-for-food program may determine much more how much confidence the staff and member countries will have in Annan, who has about two years left in his term -- Lou.
DOBBS: To call Kofi Annan a beleaguered U.N. secretary general is an understatement at this point.
ROTH: It's another bad day for the U.N., and Annan today had to say he was shocked. There are some 30 perhaps U.N. peacekeepers and civilian employees now accused of sexual misconduct and abuse of women and young girls in the U.N.'s Congo mission.
DOBBS: And some of those investigations now over six months in duration without conclusion.
Thank you very much.
Richard Roth, our U.N. correspondent.
Still ahead here tonight, new concerns about food safety in this country. Congressmen are working to repeal legislation that would require country-of-origin labels on meat and produce sold in this country. They're trying to do this, as it were, in the dark of night. We'll shed some light on that with our special report.
And will Congress reach a deal on intelligence reform? I'll be joined by the chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and the vice-chairman of the committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Concerns tonight about the origins of food in this country. House Republicans, at least some of them, are hoping to repeal legislation that requires country-of-origin labels on meat and produce sold in this country. That law is now 2 years old, but it has not yet been implemented.
Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Shoppers can read the nutritional labels on food to find out what's in it, but they can't easily find out where it's from. A 2002 law requiring country- of-origin labels be placed on meat, fruits and vegetables have never been implemented and may be erased off the books altogether.
REP. TIM JOHNSON (D), SOUTH DAKOTA: They know the origins of their auto parts, their T-shirts, but, for some reason, the United States almost standing alone among industrialized nations in the world does not allow consumers to know the origins of meat or other kinds of food products.
SYLVESTER: Some Republicans want to include a measure in the appropriations bill that would remove the mandatory labeling requirement. Supporters of the labeling rule argue it gives consumers a choice to decide whether they want to buy American meats, fruits and vegetables or foreign imports.
KATHERINE OZER, NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION: It seems particularly ironic that as -- on the eve of Thanksgiving, with another report of possible mad cow, that the Congress over a weekend session is probably going to go in and strike this one provision that is one of the tools to better know where our food comes from.
SYLVESTER: Small- and medium-sized farmers and ranchers support the mandatory labeling, but the larger livestock and feed processors have resisted the change. They cite a U.S. Department of Agriculture study that said the benefits would be small and the implementation costs would range from $582 million to $3.9 billion for the first year alone.
TOM SCHATZ, CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE: There will be a cost in terms of additional regulation, additional bureaucracy. There will be inspections of the labeling itself, and that will be a cost to consumers and taxpayers.
SYLVESTER: The bipartisan Government Accountability Office dismissed early USDA cost estimates as wildly inflated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: The American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association declined interview requests. The massive omnibus spending bill has to be passed before the holiday recess and can only be voted up or down with very little debate -- Lou.
DOBBS: This is, as we suggested here, Lisa, Congress trying to do its work in the dark of night. Is there any likelihood that they will be successful and be able to repeal these country-of-origin requirements?
SYLVESTER: Right now, it does appear to have the support of the House Republican leadership, and that's a big key thing. There have -- it was a letter sent to a number of the key appropriators in this case to see if they might be able to stop this from happening -- Lou.
Lisa Sylvester -- thank you very much -- reporting from Washington.
Coming up next here tonight, Congress nearing the end of its lame-duck session. That massive intelligence reform legislation is still stalled in conference committee. The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller join me next.
And then the invasion of millions of illegal aliens. One American community wants to give its police more authority to arrest them. The police, however, are fighting that proposal. Our special report is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: In just a moment, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Pat Roberts, and Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller will join us.
But, first, let's take a look at some of the top stories tonight.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is recovering tonight after surgery in a Washington hospital. The secretary of state nominee had uterine fibroid surgery. Her doctors call it a success. She is resting comfortably and is expected to leave the hospital tomorrow.
A popular Dutch politician today called for a five-year ban on non-Western immigrants in the EU. The parliament members said the Netherlands' democracy is under threat, partly because of radical Islamist immigrants who do not follow Dutch values. The parliament figure is one of several Dutch representatives living under state protection following the brutal murder of a Dutch filmmaker who was critical of Muslim culture.
Thousands of red locusts today swarmed into southern Israel. Agricultural officials went on high alert and sprayed crops across the region. Those locusts swarmed through Cairo earlier this week.
On Capitol Hill tonight, House and Senate negotiators are working to reach a last-minute compromise for a sweeping intelligence reform bill proposed by the 9/11 commission. The final agreement hinges at this point, as best we can determine, whether states will be allowed to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
I'm joined now by Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Vice Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller.
Gentlemen, good to have you with us.
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (R), VICE CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Thank you.
SEN. PAT ROBERTS (R), CHAIRMAN, SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: Nice to be with you, Lou. Thank you.
DOBBS: What is -- Mr. Chairman, what is your best information at this point on how successful the conferees will be in coming through with this legislation?
ROBERTS: Well, I think I can speak on behalf of both my distinguished friend and myself in saying that hope springs eternal. This has taken too long. What we're really doing is talking about an immigration issue. It's a very important issue.
But we ought to go ahead with the basic bill of setting up a national intelligence director and a national terrorist threat center. Those are the two basics that we ought to get done.
I've suggested and I think also Jay has suggested a lot of us have a lot of different things we'd like to put in a bill, but now we're down to the cause of whether we have a bill or not, and we must pass a bill. So I would like to get rid of some of the obstructionism -- maybe that's too strong a word -- and certainly let's get a bill.
These other issues are important. But I hope we can still get a bill, even at this late date.
DOBBS: Senator Rockefeller, do you concur in all respects?
ROCKEFELLER: I do in most respects concur with Pat Roberts. I think it's important that we have the overall structure of a national intelligence director who takes 15 agencies, intelligence agencies, all of whom are sort of on their own, some of them share information, some of them don't, most of them don't, and that we have a counterterrorism center on a national basis, and that is in a sense the bulwark of the bill.
There is -- however, the 9/11 commission said it was extremely important for Congress to be able to do proper oversight, and I want to see some provisions in the bill which reflect on our ability to do oversight of the intelligence community.
That bill is being hammered out right now, either successfully or unsuccessfully, in the speaker's office, and neither pat Roberts nor I know exactly what the result will be. But the midnight bell will give us the result.
DOBBS: Senator Roberts, as we listen to senator Rockefeller say that neither of you knows the status on that very important role, other efforts to provide greater insight by -- oversight rather by Congress over intelligence have been pushed back. The fact you two gentlemen, preeminent in your positions in that role, don't know doesn't seem to at least me to auger well for expanded oversight.
Senator, your thoughts?
ROBERTS: Well, we'd like to be there and not on the sidelines, but we have been offering advice to the big four doing the primary consultation. Let me make a promise to you. Under Jay Rockefeller and Pat Roberts, the intelligence committee is going to do oversight.
This past year we have had over 140 hearings, that's 60 percent more than the previous Congress. We conducted the WMD review. We will do the oversight. What we can do is pass this bill in its basic form. It's not the bill that I would want in completion and certainly not the one that, say, Jay would want. But let's at least get a bill. And then incrementally let the two intelligence committees the next session of Congress add on to the bill as we should.
DOBBS: I want to move to the issue of a national intelligence director. But before doing that, because, Senator Roberts, you mentioned the immigration issue, as you styled it. I would like to put up on the screen for our viewers to see from page 390 of the 9/11 Commission report, their views about the importance of identification. If we could see that screen right now.
And there it is. That screen from page, again, 390 reads, "the recommendation is that the secure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver's licenses. Fraud in identification is no longer just a problem of theft." In point of fact, it goes on to say that they are necessary to check whether those stopped are terrorists.
To describe this as an immigration issue suggests to me that that very important part of this 9/11 commission, you're perfectly willing to throw away...
ROBERTS: I'm not throwing it away.
DOBBS: If I misspoke, you can correct me. Let me add, the 9/11 committee, the families committee, says that without it, they don't feel that the Senate and the House are honoring the full recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Now, Senator Roberts?
ROBERTS: I suppose there are probably members of the family and members and probably members of the 9/11 commission that object if we included all 41 recommendations. I'm talking about the article to either get a bill or not to get a bill. Not the best possible bill, but the best bill possible.
Now on immigration, Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman and the Senate have already given in regards to immigration more money for ID's, for identification, more people on the border. We all know we need that. And we know we need to improve that.
What I'm talking about now is whether we get a bill or not.
And if we don't get a bill, I'm talking about -- if there's another tragedy in this country and we have not really performed our duty in terms of an intelligence reform bill that both of us have started, I can tell you where the fingers of responsibility will be pointed. DOBBS: Well, let me ask you this if we have another situation, and God help us should we, the fact of the matter is, if we have another 19 hijackers secure aircraft in this country bearing false driver's licenses, how will you gentlemen feel?
ROBERTS: I'm not trying to minute muse that at all. All I'm saying is that we have 26 states that now allow illegal aliens to have driver's licenses. What I'm saying is that the Senate conferees have given on that issue to the degree that I think we have a final product that we ought to be able to agree to and speak to the issue you're talking about and we can get a bill.
ROCKEFELLER: Lou, let me make the point, you're focused on the licenses. And you have every reason to be. But I think what pat and I are saying is that that is something that can be done and is in the full jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. That's not just Washington talk, that's fact. It can be done next year.
On the basic business of intelligence reform, national intelligence reform and coordination, the full authority over the budget by the national intelligence director, that is something that we really do have to do. And frankly, we've sort of had to do it in a week. That's not enough time. Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman have spent all day, every day in the speaker's office trying to work something out.
We've had frankly two obstructionists in the House. This this past -- passed unanimously almost in the Senate. It's not a partisan matter at all, it's a matter of two individuals. Two individuals who are trying to stop it for their own reasons. And it doesn't make sense.
DOBBS: Gentlemen, that has to be the final word here. We thank you, as always, for sharing your insight and perspective. Senator Pat Roberts, Senator Jay Rockefeller, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Coming up next here, an immigration battle over a proposal that would allow local police to arrest illegal aliens. We'll have a special report on the growing immigration crisis in this country.
Also tonight: freedom under fire. One U.S. senator is fighting to protect the first amendment. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut will join me next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight in "Broken Borders," some local officials are trying to crack down on illegal aliens. In one New York community, the county executive wants to give police officers there the power to make arrests for immigration violations. But that proposal has divided the community in what is now a bitter battle. Bill Tucker reports from Suffolk County, New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The failure to enforce security at the borders is having a direct impact on Suffolk County, New York.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They want you the taxpayer to pay for illegal activity.
TUCKER: County officials, overwhelmed with illegal immigration, have cracked down on contractors hiring illegal aliens. And now they're looking at ways to enforce immigration law.
STEVE LEVY, SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE: We're trying to get, number one, authority from the feds to ask these questions and to obtain proof whether the person is here properly.
TUCKER: It's what's known officially as the 287-G authority under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. And only two states currently use it, Florida and Alabama. It allows, not requires, officers to determine an arrested individual's immigration status. In Suffolk County, it's prompted charges of racism and hate.
(on camera): It's very unusual for a local government to take on an issue of immigration enforcement. And it's an issue which has upset the local police.
(voice-over): They don't want to enforce immigration. It distracts they say from local policing.
JEFF FRAYLER, SUFFOLK CO. POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSN: If his goal is to detain serious criminals, it doesn't matter whether they're undocumented aliens or they are residents of the United States. Whatever status they have, they can be arrested and detained by police.
TUCKER: The issue is complicated by a history of racial violence in the county. Last year, the community of Farmingville, the home of Mexican immigrants was fire bombed. Three years earlier, in the same community, two immigrants were badly beaten and stabbed.
NADIA MARIN-MOLINA, THE WORKPLACE PROJECT: It's not just sort of words. It's not just proposals that are being studied. It's something that has a real effect. Because people start to take things into their own hands.
TUCKER: For supporters of immigration enforcement, the bottom line is the law.
ALLAN BINDER, SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE: When you're a nation of laws, the integrity of the law and its enforcement is paramount. And otherwise you're not a nation of laws.
TUCKER: Suffolk County officials would like to see that lesson practiced at the federal level.
Bill Tucker, CNN, Suffolk County, New York.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: That brings us to the subject of our poll. "Do you believe police officers should have the power to make arrests for immigration violations?" Yes or no. Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Coming right up, I'll be joined by three of the country's top journalists. We'll be talking about a number of issues and stories that broke this week, including a rising threat to the freedom of the press.
Several journalists under fire, one of them facing jail time for refusing to reveal confidential sources. Senator Christopher Dodd is taking action to protect journalists. He's also my guest, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: We reported here last night on what is nothing short of a mounting assault on the freedom of the press. A dozen reporters nationwide have been prosecuted to varying degrees for failing to reveal confidential sources. One of those reporters, Jim Taricani, now faces six months in prison.
Joining me now to talk about these troubling cases is Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who is introducing a bill that would create a federal shield law to protect journalists from having to reveal those confidential sources.
Senator Dodd joins us tonight from Capitol Hill. Good to have you with us.
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D), CONNECTICUT: Thank you. Nice to be with you.
DOBBS: Senator, the idea of a shield law, is it your sense that this can be implemented anytime soon?
DODD: Well, certainly not in the remaining hours of this Congress. But I'm going to introduce it tonight. And we'll reintroduce it on the 4th of January, and my hope is in the next Congress, during this period of break between now and January, we can round up some co-sponsors and make the case.
Now, I think if we make the case, Lou, with all due respect to you and your colleagues about reporters, this is far more important than protecting reporters.
DOBBS: Right.
DODD: It's about making sure that the public would have access to information they would probably not otherwise get if they had to depend solely on governmental sources to give them the information. So it goes far beyond protecting reporters, as important as that is.
DOBBS: And that's a terrific point, Senator, because what the best of us do is bring information to the public that is critical to the governance of our society. The idea that 31 states have such shield laws, is that helpful to an effort at a federal level? DODD: Very, very, very helpful. The fact that 31 states, both red and blue states, if you will, have adopted strong shield laws, we've worked over the last number of weeks with lawyers and others who are far more knowledgeable about this area of the law than I'll ever be, taking the best of these various laws and putting together what we think is a sound federal law.
As it is today, you could end up with a patchwork of decisions, all over the country, depending upon which jurisdiction the case was brought. There needs to be some clarity on this, and we think a federal shield law is critically important. Madison said, by the way, Lou, some 220 years ago, that popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring is but a prologue to a farce, a tragedy, or both. And that's what we're talking about here.
If we're going to have popular government, you need popular information. You cannot just rely -- you think of Enron, you think of Abu Ghraib prison scandal, you think of Iran-Contra, Watergate. All of these matters might have remained totally away from the public had it not been for leaks, confidential sources, and reporters aggressively pursuing information without having to reveal who those sources were. The public would be greatly disserved if we were to shut this down by scaring off sources from sharing information with the fourth estate.
DOBBS: Senator, you see the First Amendment and the shield law as inextricably intertwined then?
DODD: I do, absolutely. This is very much what the founders had in mind. And in fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth century England, you had to be licensed to be a journalist. Very restrictive laws. Look at the totalitarian governments -- the Nazis, the communists in the Soviet Union, all controlled the press, all denied freedom of speech.
We've been marked by many great contributions, not the least of which has been freedom of speech, freedom of press. Jefferson said if you had to make a choice between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he'd choose the latter, in many ways. That's been a hallmark of our society.
DOBBS: Senator Christopher Dodd, we thank you very much. Thanks for being with us.
DODD: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Coming up next, I'll be joined by three of the country's very best journalists to talk about this week in the news, the president's first international trip since reelection, and words of warning tonight on the economy and nuclear threats. All of that and a great deal more still ahead here. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: President Bush has just arrived in Santiago, Chile for the APEC summit with Asian and Pacific leaders. Air Force One now coming down the apron, taxing toward the facilities there. And top of the agenda of course for the president, North Korea's nuclear ambitions and trade deficits.
Joining me now, three of the country's best political journalists. In Washington, Roger Simon, "U.S. News and World Report." In Miami, Ron Brownstein, "Los Angeles Times." And joining me from New York here, Steve Shepard, who runs "Businessweek" magazine.
Let me start with you, Roger. This meeting in Santiago, in which he will be -- the president will be meeting with a number of leaders, how important is this? Or is this more, as they say, symbolic?
ROGER SIMON, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Well, there's always some guaranteed minimum result before a president will go to a summit conference. The real work is done by people called sherpas, who know a lot and do heavy lifting, which is why they're called sherpas. So there will be some trade agreement, there will be some agreement on terrorism.
But what George Bush really wants and needs is to restart the six-party talks with North Korea, which is why he's going to spend a lot of time with at least four members of those talks -- South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. And he wants to come out of there with some kind of agreement by China to put pressure on North Korea to come back to the table.
DOBBS: It strikes me that one of those leaders, Hu Jintao the head of China, is at a fulcrum point. Important, as Roger suggested for those six-party talks if they can be, be after North Korea said it would not attend the September meetings. Secondly, the peg of the yuan to the dollar, which is creating all sorts of problems. And a huge trade deficit with the United States which is creating further problems. What do you think will be the tone of those discussions?
RON BROWNSTEIN, LOS ANGELES TIMES: I'm sorry, I didn't know it was for me. The funny thing is that in the presidential campaign early on in the Democratic race in peculiar, the economic relationship with China really was front and center. There was a lot of talk about the question of the currency manipulation, the overall trade deficit. It didn't survive, really, as an issue into the general election. And as a result, there probably isn't as much pressure on the president on that front as there might have been if there had been a more aggressive discussion of this.
I'm kind of struck how these APEC meetings in general have moved toward the back burner. A decade ago, when this initiative first got under way, the economic relationship with both China and Japan was front and center in American politics. So was the question about whether China was becoming a more democratized or a freer society. All those issues really have been sublimated by our focus on Middle Eastern affairs. And I'm not sure this meeting is going to change that basic dynamic.
DOBBS: Do you agree, Steve? STEVE SHEPARD, BUSINESSWEEK: Not entirely. I think what Alan Greenspan said in Europe yesterday about the dollar was quite significant. And while Ron was right, it wasn't that much of an issue in the campaign, it's going to be an issue now, because we have a large and unsustainable trade deficit which is putting pressure on the dollar.
And the opportunity the president has in Chile is to talk to the Chinese about a reevaluation of the yuan gradually and a substantial reevaluation, because we have real problems.
DOBBS: It strikes me that the number of news organizations now post-election that are beginning to find words to match ideas about the importance of a trade deficit, its impact on the dollar and the risk it poses did our economic security. After the election they're suddenly taking note. And the president is taking note. Frankly, what Alan Greenspan said is counter to what he had been saying leading up to the election.
SHEPARD: It's best to have this discussion now.
DOBBS: Free of those nasty partisan politics.
SHEPARD: It's hard to get it done in the context of a campaign, because it's complicated. And what has to happen, the United States has to get Europe and Japan to grow faster so they take more exports from the U.S. We have to get the Chinese to reevaluate their currency. And we have to get the U.S. to get its own house in order, by which I mean the budget deficit. Otherwise, interest rates are going to go up. The dollar is going to weaken. And inflation will resume.
BROWNSTEIN: In particular, the Greenspan arguments on the deficit are kind of striking. After he -- if you remember all the way back to 2001, he was initially skeptical of the size of the tax cut, aligned himself with some of those who talked about a trigger mechanism, keying it to the surplus, sustaining itself, which obviously it did not as other events interceded.
To come back now and to raise these concerned sort of reminds me of a teenager who invites friends over when their parents are away for the night, then at 11:30 are upset because things start breaking. Greenspan is a little bit in that situation where some of his credibility on this issue I think has been diminished by his willingness to support repeated tax cuts even with the deficits mounting.
DOBBS: Well, I don't know that his credibility is diminished, Ron. I would agree, however, his timing is highly questionable. And perhaps some partisan consideration. His credibility on this issue I don't think, though is at all at risk.
Roger Simon, we have seen Ariel Sharon say that he will drop the issue of the PLO taking control of the terrorists and to forestall their activities as a condition of moving ahead with the road map. The Middle East, do you see the death of Arafat and the combination of the tone taken by Sharon as being hopeful for Middle East peace? SIMON: It is hopeful. We have no choice except to look for small things that are hopeful in the Mideast. It has not been a front burner subject in the first term of George Bush. The death of Arafat makes possible real progress in the Mideast.
We don't know yet which way the Bush administration is going to turn on this. We hear that Colin Powell wanted to stay on, because of the death of Arafat to try to be a moderating influence on U.S. policy, and make real progress in the Mideast, and that the president didn't indicate that he wanted Powell to stay on. So Powell is going.
There is a possibility there. All you can do in the Mideast is hope for the best based on slim possibilities.
DOBBS: General Sadler said of Falluja, after the United States and a small number of Iraqi troops secured the city, that we have broken the back of the insurgency. do you agree with that assessment, Ron?
BROWNSTEIN: They feel that militarily, obviously, they've dealt a significant blow to the insurgency. But always in these kind of guerrilla confidentials, a central question is, is your military progress paralleling a political process? Are you creating more opponents even as you destroy them?
And I think that's something we can't answer today, Lou. We don't know whether the actions that have to be taken to reduce the immediate threat of the insurgency raise a long-term resistance to our presence, or expand a long-term resistance to our presence, and in fact undermines what you've done. That's the risk of the treadmill you're always on in these kind of situations.
DOBBS: As Roger said of the Middle East, we'll take reasons for small hopes in the case of Iraq. Roger Simon, Ron Brownstein, Steve Shepherd, thank you gentleman for being here.
Still ahead, the results of our poll and a preview of what's ahead next week. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight. 89 percent of you say police officers should have the power to make arrests for immigration violations. 11 percent say not.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here next week. We begin a new series of special reports on the declining dollar and our widening trade deficit.
Monday, we focus on the most important item on the president's free trade agenda and why the Bush administration is hoping it passes while perhaps no one is looking. Please be with us.
For all of us here, have a very pleasant weekend. Good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" coming up next here on CNN.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
