Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Bush Promises Spread of Democracy in Inaugural Address; Chinese Companies Host Trade Show In New York; Inerview with Senator Paul Sarbanes
Aired January 20, 2005 - 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)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America in this young century proclaims liberty throughout the world.
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): President Bush's second inaugural. He declares freedom as the calling of our time as he sets out ambitious goals for his second term.
President Bush appeals for unity, but faces rising resistance from within his own party. We'll tell you why, and our guest tonight is one of the country's most distinguished public servants, an adviser to four presidents.
The Bush administration seems to be doing all it can to ignore our exploding trade deficit. Senator Paul Sarbanes says that deficit is putting the country on a collision course with history.
Our special report tonight, "Assault on the Middle Class." Millions of middle-class Americans face financial disaster at retirement.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come the end of the month, you look in the checking account and there's only pennies, not much.
DOBBS: Tonight, why so many of our seniors are struggling to avoid poverty.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Thursday, January 20. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
President Bush today pledged the spread of freedom around the world at the center of his second term agenda. Delivering his second inaugural address, the president declared the best hope for peace is the expansion of liberty worldwide.
President Bush also appealed for unity at home as he tries to win support for a bold program of domestic reforms.
Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Left hand on the family Bible...
BUSH: So help me God.
KING: Second inaugural address shaped by the defining day of the first term, September 11, a day of fire, the president called it.
BUSH: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.
KING: The self-described war president said his second term mission will be using American power and influence to end tyranny and promote democracy.
BUSH: It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.
KING: No specific mention of Iraq, where critics suggest Mr. Bush's zeal for promoting democracy is failing its first big test. But without singling out any one government, Mr. Bush promised an aggressive second term approach that could, if he follows through, strain relations with governments with whom critics say Mr. Bush has been far too cozy, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia among them.
BUSH: The leaders of government with long habits of control need to know, to serve your people, you must learn to trust them.
KING: Here at home, Mr. Bush said a freedom agenda would give individuals more power and government less, and promised, as he pushed controversial ideas like revamping Social Security, to reach across party lines.
BUSH: We have known divisions which must be healed to move forward in great purposes. And I will strive in good faith to heal them.
KING: Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath, but his frail condition amid a battle with cancer was a reminder a Supreme Court nomination could soon test any hope of bipartisanship.
And even as they joined the ceremonies, Democrats fired a symbolic early warning shot, blocking confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state until next week.
Protests along the parade route were another reminder that Mr. Bush begins his second term as he did the first, a polarizing figure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: The security for this first inaugural since 9/11 was unprecedented. Only at the very end of the parade route did the first lady and the president get out of the limousine, walk the final block to the reviewing stand. From that VIP stand, they spent some time savoring the parade and this moment.
And Lou, as they went back into the White House, both President Bush and first lady Laura Bush say they're ready for some dancing. They will tour the balls tonight and then celebrate. The hard work begins tomorrow.
DOBBS: If one don't consider all of those parties tonight to be an extension of that hard work. John King, thank you. John, if I may ask you to stand by for just a moment. I know it's very cold there, but if you would, we'd appreciate it.
Joining us now for more on the president's inauguration is our Judy Woodruff, who's been following the ceremonies throughout the day.
Judy, how are you doing?
I just want to ask you, first. The president declared he'll continue to confront the threat of what he called ideologies of hatred, but the president never specifically mentioned the war in Iraq, nor did he specifically identify the enemies of freedom and liberty and those who are the enemies in this war on terror.
How vulnerable is the president's entire second-term agenda, in your opinion, to events in Iraq, the Middle East, and the war on terror?
JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS": Well, Lou, presuming that nothing bigger or more complicated presents itself on the horizon, I think it's fair to say that Iraq is the single thing that is out there that has the potential to either make or break the second term of this president.
Now, again, none of us can forecast the future. No one would have predicted four years ago that we would have anything like a 9/11, two wars -- one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq.
But as we sit here today, Lou, the president's -- the approval of that war has slipped to the point now where the majority of Americans say they don't believe the war -- the cost of lives is worth going to war in Iraq.
You have over 1,300 young American men and women who have died. Americans are asking the question. You've got elections coming up in less than two weeks, so very much on the platter for this president.
But again, we have to be careful, because none of us knows what the future holds.
DOBBS: Well, that is certainly the case, but the future is obviously shaped, at least in part, by the policies pursued in Washington, and specifically by the president of the world's only superpower who has just in November been given a second term.
His judgment today, and focusing first on the international issues and, if you will, the international constituencies, who are eager, perhaps, tonight somewhat shaking in some quarters, one would presume so. That's remarkable in an inaugural address, don't you think? Having covered more than a few yourself?
WOODRUFF: Well, it is. And you know, if there were -- there have been those, Lou, who have been saying in the last weeks and even months of the campaign that this is a president who, despite what he was saying publicly, was thinking hard about whether it would be a good idea to reach out to our western European allies -- the French, the Germans, and others -- and whether it would be a good idea to take a second look at the strategy that led to Iraq.
But if you listen to what the president said today very carefully, he left no doubt that his philosophy is exactly as you described it, America ascendant, America front and center, America the country that has the role in history, if you will, to begin to try to impose democracy on the rest of the world.
This is a -- this is a role we haven't seen in the past. I mean, America has pretty much tended to its own business, except when it was drawn out. The president is now saying we've been drawn out, and more than that, our role is to change the world. So I think much discussion is going to come from today's speech.
DOBBS: I'd like to, Judy, bring John King back in here. John, who has also covered more than a few, if we can put it that way, of presidential inaugurations.
The president's speech, focusing as Judy and I were just discussing, John, on the international constituencies, giving it primacy, in fact, over the American audience, at least in terms of sequence today. Were you struck by that at all? Is there an intended statement, message, in the organization of his speech today?
KING: Well, it is certainly another reminder how much this man's presidency has been shaped by the events of 9/11. This is not a speech we would have heard from a second-term George W. Bush, had it not been for 9/11.
And the singular lesson, his aides say, is that if you're going to get at the radical Muslim terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11 and who threaten this country to this day, in his view, you must spread democracy.
Now the test for this president will be this: he is a president who has limited credibility, if you will. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of the Europeans opposed him when it came to the war in Iraq.
Now he is saying he will lead a campaign, and he says, not necessarily through military might, and certainly not first through military might, to spread democracy. The credibility challenge for this president will be, is that simply a wake-up call to Tehran and Damascus? Or will he pressure Vladimir Putin, a man he calls friend? Will he pressure the Chinese? Will he pressure the Saudis? Will he pressure the Egyptians and others? That will be the credibility challenge now that the president has laid out this very ambitious goal, Lou. DOBBS: John, thank you very much. John King, Judy Woodruff, we thank you very much, as always, for your reporting, for your insights and your commentary.
The president's plans for sweeping domestic reforms face resistance now from a rising number of conservatives within his own party. Those conservatives are challenging the president on reforms, so-called, in key areas such as Social Security, immigration and making tax cuts permanent.
Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas predicted that the president's ambitious plan to overhaul Social Security will be rendered a dead horse.
Republicans are increasingly hesitant to get on board because of the cost, both financial and political. The president's proposal to create personal spending accounts for younger workers is running into stiff resistance from the AARP.
THOMAS MANN, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: He may talk about the political capital he's earned, but that only works if -- if you can intimidate opponents, people who disagree with you and persuade them that the country is with you and not them. But Democrats don't believe it and Republicans are beginning to get very uneasy about it.
SYLVESTER: Mr. Bush's plan to create a guest worker program for illegal aliens may also be dead on arrival. Conservative Republicans are denouncing the president's proposal as a form of amnesty.
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Representative Tom Tancredo who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus are all in opposition.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: The momentum has shifted to our side. They are on the defensive. It's the first time it's ever been that way.
SYLVESTER: During the first term, Republicans stood behind the president's plan to lower taxes. This time, with a growing budget deficit, fiscal conservatives are resisting making the tax cuts permanent.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked about the tough fight ahead on Social Security, acknowledged the political realities.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Legislation, anytime it goes through Congress, tends to change during the process. The president looks forward to working with members to move forward on legislation.
SYLVESTER: As the president begins his second term, he may find his so-called mandate is not enough. He may need some muscle. (END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Congressional analysts think that with a stronger majority in the Senate, the president may be able to achieve some quick victories on the stalled energy bill and on tort reform, but even those issues are not a given -- Lou.
DOBBS: Absolutely. But those who have bet against this president on his legislative initiatives no matter how high the odds have lost over the course of the previous four years.
Thank you very much.
Lisa Sylvester.
Still ahead here, we'll have an exclusive look inside one of the command centers for what has been a massive security operation for the day of the president's inauguration.
And new theories tonight about the terrorist threat to Boston and why the FBI is now looking for four Chinese citizens who may have crossed our border from Mexico.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, thousands of police officers and agents from dozens of law-enforcement agencies are on duty for the inauguration. The Secret Service is the lead agency in the security operation, but the FBI is also playing a prominent role.
Our Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If anything goes wrong, this high-tech mobile command center would get as close to the incident as possible and serve as the operational center for the FBI.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fox 3, this is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) relay to Whiskey 1.
ARENA: CNN was allowed an exclusive look, but the agents inside did not want their faces shown for security reasons.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Over here, these are the radio operators for the tactical operation center. They'll be talking to the units we have in the field.
ARENA: Armed with satellite feeds from key locations and an ability to communicate in real time with every law-enforcement agency in Washington, it sits at the ready outside the FBI's Washington field office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a large group been trying to make an unlawful pass through the checkpoint. ARENA: Inside that building at the main command center, agents are monitoring protesters, watching for trouble along the parade route and running down any and all leads.
MIKE ROLINCE, FBI COMMANDER CENTER DIRECTOR: We have the capability to take in information literally from around the world, whether it's FBI, legal attaches posted overseas, CIA officers, Department of Defense entities, so any information that we believe would be relevant to the inauguration and to our coverage of the inauguration and follow-on investigation.
ARENA: The FBI points out it is playing a support role to the lead agency, the Secret Service. For the first time, FBI agents are at pedestrian checkpoints. They're also on the streets surveilling. But the rest of its force remains in the wings.
JIM RICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL RESPONSE SQUAD: From joint HAZMAT teams to joint bomb squads to tactical teams on the parade route.
ARENA: Jim Rice commands all those units and says there are as many as 1,400 FBI agents and support staff ready to go at a moment's notice. He says, so far, it's just another day in the nation's capital.
RICE: We've had to deploy our HAZMAT and our EOD personnel and some of the intelligence personnel throughout the day, as we get suspicious package calls and reports of containers of unknown liquids and things like that on the parade route. All have been cleared without incident.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Jim Rice, the agent that you just heard from, points out the Washington field office checks out at least five alleged terror threats a day with HAZMAT teams and other squads. The command center will remain in operation 24/7 until the official celebrations are safely concluded -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kelli, thank you.
Kelli Arena.
The FBI has developed a few new theories tonight about four Chinese citizens linked to a possible terrorist threat to Boston. An anonymous tip said those Chinese nationals were smuggled into this country from Mexico.
Deborah Feyerick reports from Boston -- Deborah.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, right now, the FBI is trying to track down the anonymous caller and find out why he tipped off authorities to go to a meeting point on the U.S.-Mexican border. When they got there, they found a package containing documents as well as four photos of the Chinese nationals.
Now authorities today are admitting they don't even know whether those four people are in the United States. They have not been on any sort of government watch list, and the FBI has not gone so far to classify them as persons of interests.
Today, the governor and the U.S. attorney met with reporters to explain why this tip fireballed, fueled by rumors of dirty bombs and dangerous material.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL SULLIVAN, U.S. ATTORNEY: This is where it gets spun out of control, you know, where it starts with regards to somebody speculating concerning what could happen, and that becomes a source for a story, and then it becomes a story unto itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Now, earlier in the week, an internal FBI communication called an urgent report was handed out to all 56 field agents.
One source tells CNN that in the report there was a lot of raw intelligence, but there was also analysis and speculation, and the U.S. attorney today said that there's a possibility that the leak included some of that speculation as fact, and that's why things got out of control. That's why officials today really scrambling to alert the public and make sure that nobody went into panic mode.
One law-enforcement source does tell CNN that this may have little to do with any sort of terrorist activity and more to do with general smuggling -- Lou.
DOBBS: Deborah, I -- these are always difficult situations understandable for the security agencies, Homeland Security, law enforcement, the investigative agencies, including the FBI, but the fact is that the basis of whatever occurred here was factual in nature.
Is it not disturbing to those running these agencies that now, more than 24 hours later, they don't apparently know any more about this situation?
FEYERICK: Well, they probably know more than they're actually letting on. As a matter of fact, yesterday, one FBI agent said that she believes that this would be brought to a very quick resolution, not 48 hours quick, but quick nonetheless.
Right now, they really are trying to figure out who made this original call and whether there was some hidden motive to this call. Again, a lot of tips come into an FBI office on any given day. Most of them never pan out. This one got leaked before officials could really tamp down on it.
DOBBS: It was leaked, but by federal authorities, by law- enforcement agencies who were alerted by federal authorities after all? FEYERICK: That's the big question, and we know, in several instances, FBI agents and different officers were told that there should be no leaks coming out by them.
But, right now, they are trying to discover the source, where this originated, but they don't have any clear information on who may have let the cat out of the bag too soon.
DOBBS: Well, Deborah, that strikes me, if I may say, as being both on the part of Homeland Security, paternalistic at the very least, because -- and perhaps a little insulting to the American people who needs to know whatever we possibly can about a situation like this.
Quite capable, most of us, I think, nearly all of us, in discerning that a warning is precisely that. The fact that those agents would not want all of the public's help in looking up those four suspects and bringing this to conclusion is, I would say, at the very least not only paternalistic, but problematic.
Deborah, thank you very much, as always for that excellent report.
Deborah Feyerick from Boston.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll on security at our nation's borders. Do you believe the United States can win the war on terror without control of our borders? Please vote yes or no at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here tonight, "Grange on Point." American troops raiding insurgent strongholds in Iraq. General David Grange will be with me next.
And then, "Made in China." The Chinese are going to extreme lengths to peddle Chinese products in this country. We'll tell you how next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Iraq, American troops today launched new raids against insurgents in Mosul, just ahead of the country's first election a week from Sunday. These attacks come as Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has pledged to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces so that American troops can leave Iraq.
Joining me now, General David Grange.
General, good to have you with us.
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: An extraordinary exchange, I thought, between Condoleezza Rice and Senator Joe Biden on the number of troops -- police and troops -- Iraqi police and troops -- actually trained in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice suggesting 120,000. Senator Biden pointing out it's 4,000, having recently returned. What in the world is going on?
GRANGE: Well, quite a different in their responses on numbers. As of November 5, there were approximately 122,000 security forces trained in Iraq. That means about 50,000 army, which includes active and National Guard, and about 53,000 police, and the balance being others like Border Patrol, et cetera. But the point is, really, that a lot of those security forces are not present for duty.
DOBBS: Not present for duty. Now, having trained them, gotten them ready, I thought it was an interesting point. Perhaps we could define trained as being capability of replacing a U.S. Marine or U.S. soldier. Let's take that 120,000 number -- and then I want to get to that number in a different way -- and tell us how many of those people are ready to replace a U.S. Marine or soldier?
GRANGE: Well, it's probably zero that can replace a U.S. Marine or soldier, any American G.I. This is the best in the world. That's a tall order. But to meet a standard, a standard to perform security tasks, to fight -- stand ground and fight, not run, to be trained to a standard that's required for this mission, to have the properly selected leaders and junior officers and sergeants to run this army and this police force, that's the priority, really not the numbers, but the quality of the force.
DOBBS: And I think you know what I mean when I say "replace." That means let an American come home, and we'll use that as "replace" for this particular purpose, General. How many are there ready to replace an American soldier or Marine?
GRANGE: Well, it's going to be somewhere between a number of -- in a debate -- or the testimony the other day with Senator Biden and Secretary-to-be Rice.
But I would say that some have proven themselves very well. For instance, the Iraqi special forces, which numbers less than 700, have fought every major battle in 2004. They've captured over 400 insurgents...
DOBBS: General, I...
GRANGE: ... very well-trained, but a small number.
DOBBS: A very small number in the scheme of things, as you point out, General.
The last question, I guess, here is what Barbara Starr reported from the Pentagon last night, is this erupted, this exchange, and the fact is the Pentagon doesn't know how many people are being, have been trained and are ready. Is that not an astonishing -- astonishing -- fact?
GRANGE: Well, I think the troops on the ground, the commanders on the ground, those in charge of training do know how many have been trained. The...
DOBBS: But I'm talking about the men and women who are leading those troops from the Pentagon. The general staff doesn't have the answer immediately for a United States Senate hearing?
GRANGE: Well, I think they have the facts, Lou. I mean, I have the piece of paper right here reported on November 5 on the exact numbers, which came from the military in Iraq.
DOBBS: Well, maybe they lost that piece of paper because they couldn't answer the question yesterday.
General, we thank you, as always.
General David Grange.
GRANGE: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: President Bush takes the oath of office and lays out an ambitious agenda for the next four years. A distinguished public servant, adviser to four presidents and a familiar face will be joining us to talk about the challenges that await the president and all of us over the course of the next four years.
And "Assault on the Middle Class," our special report. Tonight, why millions of middle-class families may be forced to work well beyond retirement age and try desperately to avoid poverty.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me for more on the president's inauguration, his inaugural speech, and the Bush agenda for the next four years is David Gergen, who has served four presidents and been providing expert commentary throughout the day here on CNN. Good to have you with us, David.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Thank you, Lou. Good to see you again.
DOBBS: Let's begin. First these are auspicious traditional, historic, symbolic, ritualistic, vitally important occasions. This one to me and I want to ask you if it struck you the same way, had a peculiar, unique, unusual twist, in that it was less aspirational than confrontational, and it seemed to be a solid mix of politics with pomp and circumstance. Did you get that sense at all?
GERGEN: I thought the aspirational level was pretty high, if you want to spread democracy around the world. I thought it was less eloquent in a sense of being less lyrical than say, a Lincoln or a Kennedy, almost self-consciously so. He's a very plain-spoken man and chose to speak in another way, but I did think the element of confrontation and aggressiveness especially in the first portion of the speech, which was somewhat of a surprise, devoted to the international was very low-key in its ideals, but very hard to get there. I think it will jangle a lot of nerves in international capitals.
DOBBS: When I say aspirational I suppose I mean it this way. He gave a reference to several items, amongst them talking about the importance to our society. He included the homestead act. He talked about the G.I. Bill, which I personally consider one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed, because it allowed an entire generation -- two generations to bring real talent into our educational system and to do so much that we still benefit from it in this society and economy. But he didn't talk about an equivalent in his administration to the homestead act, to the G.I. Bill.
GERGEN: That's interesting, Lou. I thought the point he was making -- I may be mistaken -- I thought the point he was making is the equivalents are the reforms he wants to make in Social Security and tax code and possibly beyond that...
DOBBS: Does that really strike you as rising to the level of -- to the aspirational level of the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill for hard-working middle-class Americans?
GERGEN: No, I think you're right about that, Lou, but I do think if he were to pull those off and the odds increasingly are against him, that -- because his own Republican chairman of the ways and means committee, Bill Thomas is essentially pouring cold water on the Social Security reform proposals, I think he would become more of a conservative Roosevelt, and that of course is a major aspiration on the part of any conservative president.
DOBBS: I'm amused about Washington, if I may say this, David. I hold you in the highest respect, I think you are a terrific analyst of both history government, politics, but when I hear about a Republican Roosevelt, I think of Kennedy's statement this week suggesting, in talking to his fellow Democrats, what we don't need one the part of the Democrats is another Republican party. Things are confused and confounded enough, it seems to me.
GERGEN: But let me just put it this way. The reason I say the conservative Roosevelt is because almost -- I can't think of a Republican president before this who did not essentially support what Roosevelt did, and Eisenhower, for example, the first Republican after Roosevelt was a consolidator. He accepted what Roosevelt had done in the New Deal and consolidated and all the way through Reagan. Even Reagan was not trying to undo the new deal. Along comes George W. Bush, and he's basically trying to undo major elements of the New Deal. He would like to get -- and there are people around him who would like to get rid of the oppressive tax system. Those are major goals. You can call them whatever you want with a label, but those are dramatic changes. Trying to dismantle something as opposed to consolidating is a big, big change.
DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more that it's change. One can argue over the term reform, certainly one can argue about the term aspirational when it's more directed at the economy than the benefit to millions of Americans who find it more difficult to achieve a secondary education.
GERGEN: I agree, Lou.
DOBBS: At a time when a president is referring to the G.I. Bill of rights, I find that noteworthy if not troubling.
GERGEN: I agree with you. I must say there were a couple of things that were absent from the speech today. There was nothing about the financial implications of what he's trying to do and those of course, not only do we have the twin deficits of trade and budget, but this effort to launch a democratic revolution around the world will be expensive, and who's going to pay for it. In addition to Social Security being expensive, so that is there.
The other part is a lot of Americans, as you've stressed on your program so often are more concerned about the loss of jobs and healthcare insurance than they are about Social Security reform. It was interesting the president did not go to any of those sort of fundamental how do the working people in this country get along?
DOBBS: As I said, David, we will have time to take on those issues and there will be considerable debate throughout the nation. We know your voice will be an important part of that conversation. Thank you for being here tonight.
GERGEN: Yours more so. Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: We continue our special reports this week, "Assault on the Middle Class." Tonight middle-class status is fading for literally millions of retired Americans as the pensions and the benefits they relied upon are diminishing. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Peter and Rosemarie Bass of Lexington, Massachusetts never thought money would be this tight. At 72 years old, Peter even considered going back to work or selling their house of 46 years.
ROSEMARIE BASS, RETIREE: I think it would break his heart to give up this house. We raised our two children here. We've got lots of good memories here.
PILGRIM: They weren't irresponsible with money. Peter worked for 35 years as a technician and photographer for Polaroid. He has a pension and some company stock, but when the company filed for bankruptcy, he lost his health coverage and the stock became worthless. The monthly pension checks were frozen at 1993 levels.
PETER BASS, RETIREE: Come to the end of the month you look at the checking account and there's only pennies in there. It's not much.
PILGRIM: Peter and Rosemarie are not unique in their financial troubles. 25 million Americans have no retirement plans other than Social Security. Nearly a fifth of all households headed by someone of retirement age have incomes below the poverty level. Pension experts say retirees can no longer turn to traditional means of support.
DALLAS SALISBURY, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS RESEARCH INST.: With defined benefit pension plans less than they used to be, with Social Security benefits at that midpoint only replacing about 40 percent of pay, the fact is if you don't do it yourself, no one is going to do it for you.
PILGRIM: Health care costs are taking a larger chunk of the budget.
R. BASS: I was astounded that our medical, including the cost of the HMO, was almost $10,000, which is a lot of money on fixed income.
PILGRIM: For now, the Basses are managing to hold on to their home, but with difficulty.
R. BASS: The moral of the story is, folks, put aside some money now, because before you blink your eye, you'll be 65 years old.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Only about 30 percent of retired people over the age of 65 have any pension income. Only about 3 percent are reporting income from a 401(k) or an IRA. And in the financial assets for those over 65, at the median they only have about $16,000 in financial assets. It's very tight out there, Lou.
DOBBS: And it's never been more important to make certain that people have secure Social Security as well as individual retirement plans and the opportunity to create them, of course.
Still ahead here, pushing Chinese-made products on American soil. You won't believe how the Chinese government is doing it all. Our special report is next.
And then tough questions for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice on our nation's exploding deficits. Senator Paul Sarbanes among those asking those tough questions. He's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: More than 100 Chinese companies had their products on display in New York City today. Those Chinese companies had one clear goal in mind -- to turn their brand names into household names in every home in this country. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With all eyes on Washington, the Chinese slipped into New York with the largest trade show the Chinese government has staged in America. They were warmly welcomed.
RANDY DANIELS, NY SECRETARY OF STATE: I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we look forward to expanding our business relationship with you.
TUCKER: And briefly protested.
(on camera): The exhibition hall is filled with hundreds of products, products that any American would know or recognize, with brand names that few, if any, would know.
(voice-over): And that, the officials say, is the point. They want China's brands to be better known. Chinese officials proudly boast a global trading volume of $1.5 trillion, up 37 percent in the past year alone. With that kind of money, it's often easier to buy an already known brand and make it Chinese.
LIANG SHUNE, CHINESE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE (through translator): I just mentioned in the conference -- during the conference, one way of the Chinese company (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is to acquire, you know, famous companies, let (UNINTELLIGIBLE) acquired IBM in December.
TUCKER: In a morning news conference, Chinese officials stressed the Chinese commitment to improving quality, stepping up design. What was not mentioned, improving labor practices and intellectual property protection.
When asked, they pledged stronger intellectual property protection, but then right there on the floor...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Between you and me and the fencepost, can you not do that right now?
TUCKER: They didn't want us showing those pictures, because neither BMW or Harley-Davidson had licensed their brands to the company.
And as for the issue of labor practices, buyers don't seem concerned.
NICK DEEN, WOMEN'S APPAREL IMPORTER: The people over there work at a certain salary, but they enjoy what they do, and the salary that they make, and also the government subsidizes them enormously.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that is one of the chief complaints of American companies struggling to compete with the Chinese. They're competing with foreign countries and a foreign government, while their own government seems indifferent to their situation -- Lou.
DOBBS: Either indifferent, oblivious, or it's hard to say what the U.S. government is thinking over the course of the past decade when it comes to trade, and specifically U.S./China policy.
Bill Tucker, thank you. Amazing.
Senator Paul Sarbanes is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who pressed Condoleezza Rice on what he calls a serious problem, specifically our $600 billion trade deficit and what soon will be 29 consecutive years of trade deficits. Senator Sarbanes says this is nothing less than a crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D), MARYLAND: It used to be that when the U.S. ran -- even went into a negative trade balance, we got worried about our situation in terms of dealing with the rest of the world. Now we're building up these tremendous deficits and debt year after year. Some -- at some point that, you know, they're going to call the cards, and we're going to be in serious trouble. Greenspan has said to. Geithner, the head of the New York Federal Reserve, made a speech only a few weeks ago making the very same point. I mean, we're now running these trade deficits at 5 to 6 percent of GDP, which is unprecedented in terms of its amount.
DOBBS: Yeah. It's unprecedented. In point of fact, the Federal Reserve itself four years ago released a study that said that there are difficult choices when any country's trade deficit rises above 5 percent. Ours is well above 5 percent, and only two things are going to occur. Either there has to be a change in policy, or there will be a difficult adjustment on the part of markets, which lead to consequences none of us want to experience.
SARBANES: That's absolutely correct, and regrettably, Condi Rice kept -- you know, she was on the same path in terms of policy, and echoing the same tired refrain.
DOBBS: What can you do, Senator, what can anyone do to encourage this administration to understand that these deficits are unsustainable, the trade policies we're following are unsustainable, and thirdly that there must be linkage between our international geopolitical policies, and our international economic policies?
SARBANES: Well, that's a good question, Lou. I think the first thing we have to do is push hard to make them recognize that there is indeed a very severe problem, and one pressing on us. I mean, the president talks about a crisis in Social Security. The Social Security trust fund, you know, will last until about 2050, and even then, the income will pay 80 percent of the benefits. He calls that a major crisis and puts it on the front of the agenda now.
Meanwhile, we're running these trade deficits -- we're now in excess of $3 trillion external debt. These are claims held largely by China, Japan, against the United States.
DOBBS: And we are their principal debtors, the largest debtor in the world, in point of fact. You know, talking about Social Security reform, it reminds me of Gregory Mankiw, the president's chief economic adviser, talking about the ostrich caucus, in terms of Social Security, Social Security reform, what in the world are they in this administration and previous administrations, in fairness, but what are they but ostriches not to recognize the severe problems we've created for ourselves?
SARBANES: Absolutely. "The Financial Times" wrote a piece, a comment piece a few weeks ago, talking about these growths in the external holdings against the U.S., and they said we had increasingly become like a Blanche DuBois in Tennessee Williams' play, dependent on the kindness of strangers. We're essentially turning our economic future over into their hands, and we are not to do that. Furthermore, this is the first time that the reserve currency has been that of the world's largest debtor, largest debtor. In the past, the creditor nation's currency has been the reserve currency. And we're now being challenged on that front by the euro. There's just no question about it. And I think if we lose that status, that's another blow to our economic strength.
DOBBS: To be absolutely clear, the senator referring to the world's principal reserve currency, which is of course the dollar, and now the largest debtor in that system is the United States.
Senator Paul Sarbanes, thanks very much for being with us.
SARBANES: Thank you, Lou, my pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Next, the road ahead, President Bush's ideal of freedom for America and the world. We'll be talking about that and much more with three of the country's very best political journalists. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joins us now from Washington, 3 of the country's very best political journalist, Ron Brownstein "Los Angeles Times," Karen Tumulty "Time" magazine, Roger Simon "U.S. News & World Report."
Roger, let me begin with you. Your immediate reaction to the president's inaugural speech?
ROGER SIMON, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT: Well, I thought it was well-written. Mike Gerson (ph) is a terrific speechwriter. And I thought it was delivered well.
And it was an admirable statement of U.S. goals, but hardly realistic statement of U.S. policy. When the president stated that it's our policy to support democracy in every nation on Earth in every way, that's not what we do. We do and have supported dictators whenever it serves U.S. policy, even when we get a chance to support democracies, we often don't take it.
After the first Gulf War we could have installed a democracy in Kuwait. We didn't even ask the people of Kuwait what kind of government they wanted, we installed the monarchy who had fled after Saddam had invaded. So it's not really what we do, which is why a lot of the world is cynical about such speeches.
DOBBS: Karen, let me ask you, assuming that you concur with Roger on this, what was the president then attempting to accomplish?
KAREN TUMULTY, TIME: Well, I thought it was a deeply idealistic speech, but extremely grim, especially since we're so accustomed to sort of these inaugural addresses being almost celebratory. I think that all this talk of tyranny and murder and hatred was essentially trying to set up expectations. We've got a big election coming up in Iraq. I think the president was trying to send a message that it's not going to be easy from here on out, it actually will start getting a lot harder.
DOBBS: Your thoughts, Ron?
RON BROWNSTEIN, LA TIMES: Well, it continues a transformation we've seen on the Iraq policy, especially since the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the president increasingly has justified the decision to invade Iraq as the first step in a global revolution of promoting democracy. And that's what we saw today.
In many way, both the foreign and domestic elements of the speech, the global spread of liberty, and the ownership society at home echoed the themes from the acceptance speech at the convention last summer.
It was heavy, I agree with Roger, it was heavy on ends, light on means. Like most inaugurals, it said what we want to do. It raised to that level almost to distraction, almost all Americans would agree with those goals. The question and the debate is whether his policies are moving us toward achieving those ends at a cost Americans will consider reasonable.
TUMULTY: Ron, it was very light on though domestic goals as well. My speech printed out at about 6 pages, and the president didn't get to the domestic agenda until page five.
BROWNSTEIN: The one overarching theme, and the one that will unify many of his proposals, particularly on Social Security, is this idea of creating an ownership society. The question, the debate will be whether by moving in that direction you are in fact expanding opportunity for Americans or simply shifting more risks that are now borne on their behalf by government and private insurers, and that kind of thing.
So, there's an effort, as he often does, to provide a broad unifying theme. He was the anti George H.W. Bush, heavy on the vision thing. The debate, again, will be about the means to achieve those goals.
DOBBS: I was struck also, as I mentioned, with David Gergen talking here earlier on the fact that he referred to some of the most important programs in our country's history, in terms of providing education and ownership in the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill in which we created a true meritocracy permitting the middle class and those who were aspiring to the middle class in the 1950's to use the G.I Bill and to get the education and contribute to society, the economy, and really to make this country even stronger.
But he didn't outline a program or propose an initiative that would rise to that level. Were you struck by that?
SIMON: Yes, and don't forget, Lou, such huge government programs that benefited a great many Americans are also exactly what neoconservatives dislike. They're not for big government. It's Democrats who are for big government and big government solutions.
George Bush is supposed to be representing the party that believes in smaller government. The ownership society isn't a way of extending the government reach into our lives and pocketbooks. As Ron said, it's a way of shifting risk onto individual Americans and the benefit is that supposedly we will all do better economically from assuming that risk.
TUMULTY: Although it also rewrites the entire new deal contract between the government and its citizens. And if you take it and look at what President Bush wants to do to a lot of these programs, it's essentially trying to turn them from a government-provided safety net to something that actually rewards individual risk and initiative.
BROWNSTEIN: Yet in each case, Lou, there's an element that is part of the current of the times and will serve him. I mean, there is, I think a sense in the country that promoting liberty is the right place for America to be both idealistically and practically. And also as we see in our own lives, there is a desire for more choice in controlling our own financial affairs. The question on both fronts, I think, the real question is what are the costs that are attendant with that vision? And do Americans think it is worth the benefits?
DOBBS: Well, we're going to continue this in the days and weeks ahead. And certainly through the course of the second Bush term. We thank you all for being here. Good to see you all.
Still ahead, the results of our poll tonight. And we'll have a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll. 96 percent of you do not believe the United States can win the war on terror without taking control of this nation's borders, 4 percent of you dissent.
We thank you all, everyone, even the dissenters, for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow here. A leading Senator who calls the need for immigration reform the most urgent problem facing this country, will be our guest. We hope you will be with us as well.
For all of us here, good night from New York. CNN special report "GEORGE W. BUSH: THE ROAD AHEAD" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired January 20, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: America in this young century proclaims liberty throughout the world.
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): President Bush's second inaugural. He declares freedom as the calling of our time as he sets out ambitious goals for his second term.
President Bush appeals for unity, but faces rising resistance from within his own party. We'll tell you why, and our guest tonight is one of the country's most distinguished public servants, an adviser to four presidents.
The Bush administration seems to be doing all it can to ignore our exploding trade deficit. Senator Paul Sarbanes says that deficit is putting the country on a collision course with history.
Our special report tonight, "Assault on the Middle Class." Millions of middle-class Americans face financial disaster at retirement.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Come the end of the month, you look in the checking account and there's only pennies, not much.
DOBBS: Tonight, why so many of our seniors are struggling to avoid poverty.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Thursday, January 20. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion, is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
President Bush today pledged the spread of freedom around the world at the center of his second term agenda. Delivering his second inaugural address, the president declared the best hope for peace is the expansion of liberty worldwide.
President Bush also appealed for unity at home as he tries to win support for a bold program of domestic reforms.
Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Left hand on the family Bible...
BUSH: So help me God.
KING: Second inaugural address shaped by the defining day of the first term, September 11, a day of fire, the president called it.
BUSH: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.
KING: The self-described war president said his second term mission will be using American power and influence to end tyranny and promote democracy.
BUSH: It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.
KING: No specific mention of Iraq, where critics suggest Mr. Bush's zeal for promoting democracy is failing its first big test. But without singling out any one government, Mr. Bush promised an aggressive second term approach that could, if he follows through, strain relations with governments with whom critics say Mr. Bush has been far too cozy, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia among them.
BUSH: The leaders of government with long habits of control need to know, to serve your people, you must learn to trust them.
KING: Here at home, Mr. Bush said a freedom agenda would give individuals more power and government less, and promised, as he pushed controversial ideas like revamping Social Security, to reach across party lines.
BUSH: We have known divisions which must be healed to move forward in great purposes. And I will strive in good faith to heal them.
KING: Chief Justice William Rehnquist administered the oath, but his frail condition amid a battle with cancer was a reminder a Supreme Court nomination could soon test any hope of bipartisanship.
And even as they joined the ceremonies, Democrats fired a symbolic early warning shot, blocking confirmation of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state until next week.
Protests along the parade route were another reminder that Mr. Bush begins his second term as he did the first, a polarizing figure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KING: The security for this first inaugural since 9/11 was unprecedented. Only at the very end of the parade route did the first lady and the president get out of the limousine, walk the final block to the reviewing stand. From that VIP stand, they spent some time savoring the parade and this moment.
And Lou, as they went back into the White House, both President Bush and first lady Laura Bush say they're ready for some dancing. They will tour the balls tonight and then celebrate. The hard work begins tomorrow.
DOBBS: If one don't consider all of those parties tonight to be an extension of that hard work. John King, thank you. John, if I may ask you to stand by for just a moment. I know it's very cold there, but if you would, we'd appreciate it.
Joining us now for more on the president's inauguration is our Judy Woodruff, who's been following the ceremonies throughout the day.
Judy, how are you doing?
I just want to ask you, first. The president declared he'll continue to confront the threat of what he called ideologies of hatred, but the president never specifically mentioned the war in Iraq, nor did he specifically identify the enemies of freedom and liberty and those who are the enemies in this war on terror.
How vulnerable is the president's entire second-term agenda, in your opinion, to events in Iraq, the Middle East, and the war on terror?
JUDY WOODRUFF, HOST, "INSIDE POLITICS": Well, Lou, presuming that nothing bigger or more complicated presents itself on the horizon, I think it's fair to say that Iraq is the single thing that is out there that has the potential to either make or break the second term of this president.
Now, again, none of us can forecast the future. No one would have predicted four years ago that we would have anything like a 9/11, two wars -- one in Afghanistan, one in Iraq.
But as we sit here today, Lou, the president's -- the approval of that war has slipped to the point now where the majority of Americans say they don't believe the war -- the cost of lives is worth going to war in Iraq.
You have over 1,300 young American men and women who have died. Americans are asking the question. You've got elections coming up in less than two weeks, so very much on the platter for this president.
But again, we have to be careful, because none of us knows what the future holds.
DOBBS: Well, that is certainly the case, but the future is obviously shaped, at least in part, by the policies pursued in Washington, and specifically by the president of the world's only superpower who has just in November been given a second term.
His judgment today, and focusing first on the international issues and, if you will, the international constituencies, who are eager, perhaps, tonight somewhat shaking in some quarters, one would presume so. That's remarkable in an inaugural address, don't you think? Having covered more than a few yourself?
WOODRUFF: Well, it is. And you know, if there were -- there have been those, Lou, who have been saying in the last weeks and even months of the campaign that this is a president who, despite what he was saying publicly, was thinking hard about whether it would be a good idea to reach out to our western European allies -- the French, the Germans, and others -- and whether it would be a good idea to take a second look at the strategy that led to Iraq.
But if you listen to what the president said today very carefully, he left no doubt that his philosophy is exactly as you described it, America ascendant, America front and center, America the country that has the role in history, if you will, to begin to try to impose democracy on the rest of the world.
This is a -- this is a role we haven't seen in the past. I mean, America has pretty much tended to its own business, except when it was drawn out. The president is now saying we've been drawn out, and more than that, our role is to change the world. So I think much discussion is going to come from today's speech.
DOBBS: I'd like to, Judy, bring John King back in here. John, who has also covered more than a few, if we can put it that way, of presidential inaugurations.
The president's speech, focusing as Judy and I were just discussing, John, on the international constituencies, giving it primacy, in fact, over the American audience, at least in terms of sequence today. Were you struck by that at all? Is there an intended statement, message, in the organization of his speech today?
KING: Well, it is certainly another reminder how much this man's presidency has been shaped by the events of 9/11. This is not a speech we would have heard from a second-term George W. Bush, had it not been for 9/11.
And the singular lesson, his aides say, is that if you're going to get at the radical Muslim terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11 and who threaten this country to this day, in his view, you must spread democracy.
Now the test for this president will be this: he is a president who has limited credibility, if you will. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Many of the Europeans opposed him when it came to the war in Iraq.
Now he is saying he will lead a campaign, and he says, not necessarily through military might, and certainly not first through military might, to spread democracy. The credibility challenge for this president will be, is that simply a wake-up call to Tehran and Damascus? Or will he pressure Vladimir Putin, a man he calls friend? Will he pressure the Chinese? Will he pressure the Saudis? Will he pressure the Egyptians and others? That will be the credibility challenge now that the president has laid out this very ambitious goal, Lou. DOBBS: John, thank you very much. John King, Judy Woodruff, we thank you very much, as always, for your reporting, for your insights and your commentary.
The president's plans for sweeping domestic reforms face resistance now from a rising number of conservatives within his own party. Those conservatives are challenging the president on reforms, so-called, in key areas such as Social Security, immigration and making tax cuts permanent.
Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas predicted that the president's ambitious plan to overhaul Social Security will be rendered a dead horse.
Republicans are increasingly hesitant to get on board because of the cost, both financial and political. The president's proposal to create personal spending accounts for younger workers is running into stiff resistance from the AARP.
THOMAS MANN, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: He may talk about the political capital he's earned, but that only works if -- if you can intimidate opponents, people who disagree with you and persuade them that the country is with you and not them. But Democrats don't believe it and Republicans are beginning to get very uneasy about it.
SYLVESTER: Mr. Bush's plan to create a guest worker program for illegal aliens may also be dead on arrival. Conservative Republicans are denouncing the president's proposal as a form of amnesty.
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Representative Tom Tancredo who heads the House Immigration Reform Caucus are all in opposition.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: The momentum has shifted to our side. They are on the defensive. It's the first time it's ever been that way.
SYLVESTER: During the first term, Republicans stood behind the president's plan to lower taxes. This time, with a growing budget deficit, fiscal conservatives are resisting making the tax cuts permanent.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when asked about the tough fight ahead on Social Security, acknowledged the political realities.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Legislation, anytime it goes through Congress, tends to change during the process. The president looks forward to working with members to move forward on legislation.
SYLVESTER: As the president begins his second term, he may find his so-called mandate is not enough. He may need some muscle. (END VIDEOTAPE)
SYLVESTER: Congressional analysts think that with a stronger majority in the Senate, the president may be able to achieve some quick victories on the stalled energy bill and on tort reform, but even those issues are not a given -- Lou.
DOBBS: Absolutely. But those who have bet against this president on his legislative initiatives no matter how high the odds have lost over the course of the previous four years.
Thank you very much.
Lisa Sylvester.
Still ahead here, we'll have an exclusive look inside one of the command centers for what has been a massive security operation for the day of the president's inauguration.
And new theories tonight about the terrorist threat to Boston and why the FBI is now looking for four Chinese citizens who may have crossed our border from Mexico.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, thousands of police officers and agents from dozens of law-enforcement agencies are on duty for the inauguration. The Secret Service is the lead agency in the security operation, but the FBI is also playing a prominent role.
Our Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): If anything goes wrong, this high-tech mobile command center would get as close to the incident as possible and serve as the operational center for the FBI.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fox 3, this is (UNINTELLIGIBLE) relay to Whiskey 1.
ARENA: CNN was allowed an exclusive look, but the agents inside did not want their faces shown for security reasons.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Over here, these are the radio operators for the tactical operation center. They'll be talking to the units we have in the field.
ARENA: Armed with satellite feeds from key locations and an ability to communicate in real time with every law-enforcement agency in Washington, it sits at the ready outside the FBI's Washington field office.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's a large group been trying to make an unlawful pass through the checkpoint. ARENA: Inside that building at the main command center, agents are monitoring protesters, watching for trouble along the parade route and running down any and all leads.
MIKE ROLINCE, FBI COMMANDER CENTER DIRECTOR: We have the capability to take in information literally from around the world, whether it's FBI, legal attaches posted overseas, CIA officers, Department of Defense entities, so any information that we believe would be relevant to the inauguration and to our coverage of the inauguration and follow-on investigation.
ARENA: The FBI points out it is playing a support role to the lead agency, the Secret Service. For the first time, FBI agents are at pedestrian checkpoints. They're also on the streets surveilling. But the rest of its force remains in the wings.
JIM RICE, NATIONAL CAPITAL RESPONSE SQUAD: From joint HAZMAT teams to joint bomb squads to tactical teams on the parade route.
ARENA: Jim Rice commands all those units and says there are as many as 1,400 FBI agents and support staff ready to go at a moment's notice. He says, so far, it's just another day in the nation's capital.
RICE: We've had to deploy our HAZMAT and our EOD personnel and some of the intelligence personnel throughout the day, as we get suspicious package calls and reports of containers of unknown liquids and things like that on the parade route. All have been cleared without incident.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: Jim Rice, the agent that you just heard from, points out the Washington field office checks out at least five alleged terror threats a day with HAZMAT teams and other squads. The command center will remain in operation 24/7 until the official celebrations are safely concluded -- Lou.
DOBBS: Kelli, thank you.
Kelli Arena.
The FBI has developed a few new theories tonight about four Chinese citizens linked to a possible terrorist threat to Boston. An anonymous tip said those Chinese nationals were smuggled into this country from Mexico.
Deborah Feyerick reports from Boston -- Deborah.
DEBORAH FEYERICK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Lou, right now, the FBI is trying to track down the anonymous caller and find out why he tipped off authorities to go to a meeting point on the U.S.-Mexican border. When they got there, they found a package containing documents as well as four photos of the Chinese nationals.
Now authorities today are admitting they don't even know whether those four people are in the United States. They have not been on any sort of government watch list, and the FBI has not gone so far to classify them as persons of interests.
Today, the governor and the U.S. attorney met with reporters to explain why this tip fireballed, fueled by rumors of dirty bombs and dangerous material.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL SULLIVAN, U.S. ATTORNEY: This is where it gets spun out of control, you know, where it starts with regards to somebody speculating concerning what could happen, and that becomes a source for a story, and then it becomes a story unto itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FEYERICK: Now, earlier in the week, an internal FBI communication called an urgent report was handed out to all 56 field agents.
One source tells CNN that in the report there was a lot of raw intelligence, but there was also analysis and speculation, and the U.S. attorney today said that there's a possibility that the leak included some of that speculation as fact, and that's why things got out of control. That's why officials today really scrambling to alert the public and make sure that nobody went into panic mode.
One law-enforcement source does tell CNN that this may have little to do with any sort of terrorist activity and more to do with general smuggling -- Lou.
DOBBS: Deborah, I -- these are always difficult situations understandable for the security agencies, Homeland Security, law enforcement, the investigative agencies, including the FBI, but the fact is that the basis of whatever occurred here was factual in nature.
Is it not disturbing to those running these agencies that now, more than 24 hours later, they don't apparently know any more about this situation?
FEYERICK: Well, they probably know more than they're actually letting on. As a matter of fact, yesterday, one FBI agent said that she believes that this would be brought to a very quick resolution, not 48 hours quick, but quick nonetheless.
Right now, they really are trying to figure out who made this original call and whether there was some hidden motive to this call. Again, a lot of tips come into an FBI office on any given day. Most of them never pan out. This one got leaked before officials could really tamp down on it.
DOBBS: It was leaked, but by federal authorities, by law- enforcement agencies who were alerted by federal authorities after all? FEYERICK: That's the big question, and we know, in several instances, FBI agents and different officers were told that there should be no leaks coming out by them.
But, right now, they are trying to discover the source, where this originated, but they don't have any clear information on who may have let the cat out of the bag too soon.
DOBBS: Well, Deborah, that strikes me, if I may say, as being both on the part of Homeland Security, paternalistic at the very least, because -- and perhaps a little insulting to the American people who needs to know whatever we possibly can about a situation like this.
Quite capable, most of us, I think, nearly all of us, in discerning that a warning is precisely that. The fact that those agents would not want all of the public's help in looking up those four suspects and bringing this to conclusion is, I would say, at the very least not only paternalistic, but problematic.
Deborah, thank you very much, as always for that excellent report.
Deborah Feyerick from Boston.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll on security at our nation's borders. Do you believe the United States can win the war on terror without control of our borders? Please vote yes or no at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here tonight, "Grange on Point." American troops raiding insurgent strongholds in Iraq. General David Grange will be with me next.
And then, "Made in China." The Chinese are going to extreme lengths to peddle Chinese products in this country. We'll tell you how next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: In Iraq, American troops today launched new raids against insurgents in Mosul, just ahead of the country's first election a week from Sunday. These attacks come as Iraq's interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has pledged to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces so that American troops can leave Iraq.
Joining me now, General David Grange.
General, good to have you with us.
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: An extraordinary exchange, I thought, between Condoleezza Rice and Senator Joe Biden on the number of troops -- police and troops -- Iraqi police and troops -- actually trained in Iraq. Condoleezza Rice suggesting 120,000. Senator Biden pointing out it's 4,000, having recently returned. What in the world is going on?
GRANGE: Well, quite a different in their responses on numbers. As of November 5, there were approximately 122,000 security forces trained in Iraq. That means about 50,000 army, which includes active and National Guard, and about 53,000 police, and the balance being others like Border Patrol, et cetera. But the point is, really, that a lot of those security forces are not present for duty.
DOBBS: Not present for duty. Now, having trained them, gotten them ready, I thought it was an interesting point. Perhaps we could define trained as being capability of replacing a U.S. Marine or U.S. soldier. Let's take that 120,000 number -- and then I want to get to that number in a different way -- and tell us how many of those people are ready to replace a U.S. Marine or soldier?
GRANGE: Well, it's probably zero that can replace a U.S. Marine or soldier, any American G.I. This is the best in the world. That's a tall order. But to meet a standard, a standard to perform security tasks, to fight -- stand ground and fight, not run, to be trained to a standard that's required for this mission, to have the properly selected leaders and junior officers and sergeants to run this army and this police force, that's the priority, really not the numbers, but the quality of the force.
DOBBS: And I think you know what I mean when I say "replace." That means let an American come home, and we'll use that as "replace" for this particular purpose, General. How many are there ready to replace an American soldier or Marine?
GRANGE: Well, it's going to be somewhere between a number of -- in a debate -- or the testimony the other day with Senator Biden and Secretary-to-be Rice.
But I would say that some have proven themselves very well. For instance, the Iraqi special forces, which numbers less than 700, have fought every major battle in 2004. They've captured over 400 insurgents...
DOBBS: General, I...
GRANGE: ... very well-trained, but a small number.
DOBBS: A very small number in the scheme of things, as you point out, General.
The last question, I guess, here is what Barbara Starr reported from the Pentagon last night, is this erupted, this exchange, and the fact is the Pentagon doesn't know how many people are being, have been trained and are ready. Is that not an astonishing -- astonishing -- fact?
GRANGE: Well, I think the troops on the ground, the commanders on the ground, those in charge of training do know how many have been trained. The...
DOBBS: But I'm talking about the men and women who are leading those troops from the Pentagon. The general staff doesn't have the answer immediately for a United States Senate hearing?
GRANGE: Well, I think they have the facts, Lou. I mean, I have the piece of paper right here reported on November 5 on the exact numbers, which came from the military in Iraq.
DOBBS: Well, maybe they lost that piece of paper because they couldn't answer the question yesterday.
General, we thank you, as always.
General David Grange.
GRANGE: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: President Bush takes the oath of office and lays out an ambitious agenda for the next four years. A distinguished public servant, adviser to four presidents and a familiar face will be joining us to talk about the challenges that await the president and all of us over the course of the next four years.
And "Assault on the Middle Class," our special report. Tonight, why millions of middle-class families may be forced to work well beyond retirement age and try desperately to avoid poverty.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joining me for more on the president's inauguration, his inaugural speech, and the Bush agenda for the next four years is David Gergen, who has served four presidents and been providing expert commentary throughout the day here on CNN. Good to have you with us, David.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Thank you, Lou. Good to see you again.
DOBBS: Let's begin. First these are auspicious traditional, historic, symbolic, ritualistic, vitally important occasions. This one to me and I want to ask you if it struck you the same way, had a peculiar, unique, unusual twist, in that it was less aspirational than confrontational, and it seemed to be a solid mix of politics with pomp and circumstance. Did you get that sense at all?
GERGEN: I thought the aspirational level was pretty high, if you want to spread democracy around the world. I thought it was less eloquent in a sense of being less lyrical than say, a Lincoln or a Kennedy, almost self-consciously so. He's a very plain-spoken man and chose to speak in another way, but I did think the element of confrontation and aggressiveness especially in the first portion of the speech, which was somewhat of a surprise, devoted to the international was very low-key in its ideals, but very hard to get there. I think it will jangle a lot of nerves in international capitals.
DOBBS: When I say aspirational I suppose I mean it this way. He gave a reference to several items, amongst them talking about the importance to our society. He included the homestead act. He talked about the G.I. Bill, which I personally consider one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed, because it allowed an entire generation -- two generations to bring real talent into our educational system and to do so much that we still benefit from it in this society and economy. But he didn't talk about an equivalent in his administration to the homestead act, to the G.I. Bill.
GERGEN: That's interesting, Lou. I thought the point he was making -- I may be mistaken -- I thought the point he was making is the equivalents are the reforms he wants to make in Social Security and tax code and possibly beyond that...
DOBBS: Does that really strike you as rising to the level of -- to the aspirational level of the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill for hard-working middle-class Americans?
GERGEN: No, I think you're right about that, Lou, but I do think if he were to pull those off and the odds increasingly are against him, that -- because his own Republican chairman of the ways and means committee, Bill Thomas is essentially pouring cold water on the Social Security reform proposals, I think he would become more of a conservative Roosevelt, and that of course is a major aspiration on the part of any conservative president.
DOBBS: I'm amused about Washington, if I may say this, David. I hold you in the highest respect, I think you are a terrific analyst of both history government, politics, but when I hear about a Republican Roosevelt, I think of Kennedy's statement this week suggesting, in talking to his fellow Democrats, what we don't need one the part of the Democrats is another Republican party. Things are confused and confounded enough, it seems to me.
GERGEN: But let me just put it this way. The reason I say the conservative Roosevelt is because almost -- I can't think of a Republican president before this who did not essentially support what Roosevelt did, and Eisenhower, for example, the first Republican after Roosevelt was a consolidator. He accepted what Roosevelt had done in the New Deal and consolidated and all the way through Reagan. Even Reagan was not trying to undo the new deal. Along comes George W. Bush, and he's basically trying to undo major elements of the New Deal. He would like to get -- and there are people around him who would like to get rid of the oppressive tax system. Those are major goals. You can call them whatever you want with a label, but those are dramatic changes. Trying to dismantle something as opposed to consolidating is a big, big change.
DOBBS: I couldn't agree with you more that it's change. One can argue over the term reform, certainly one can argue about the term aspirational when it's more directed at the economy than the benefit to millions of Americans who find it more difficult to achieve a secondary education.
GERGEN: I agree, Lou.
DOBBS: At a time when a president is referring to the G.I. Bill of rights, I find that noteworthy if not troubling.
GERGEN: I agree with you. I must say there were a couple of things that were absent from the speech today. There was nothing about the financial implications of what he's trying to do and those of course, not only do we have the twin deficits of trade and budget, but this effort to launch a democratic revolution around the world will be expensive, and who's going to pay for it. In addition to Social Security being expensive, so that is there.
The other part is a lot of Americans, as you've stressed on your program so often are more concerned about the loss of jobs and healthcare insurance than they are about Social Security reform. It was interesting the president did not go to any of those sort of fundamental how do the working people in this country get along?
DOBBS: As I said, David, we will have time to take on those issues and there will be considerable debate throughout the nation. We know your voice will be an important part of that conversation. Thank you for being here tonight.
GERGEN: Yours more so. Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: We continue our special reports this week, "Assault on the Middle Class." Tonight middle-class status is fading for literally millions of retired Americans as the pensions and the benefits they relied upon are diminishing. Kitty Pilgrim reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Peter and Rosemarie Bass of Lexington, Massachusetts never thought money would be this tight. At 72 years old, Peter even considered going back to work or selling their house of 46 years.
ROSEMARIE BASS, RETIREE: I think it would break his heart to give up this house. We raised our two children here. We've got lots of good memories here.
PILGRIM: They weren't irresponsible with money. Peter worked for 35 years as a technician and photographer for Polaroid. He has a pension and some company stock, but when the company filed for bankruptcy, he lost his health coverage and the stock became worthless. The monthly pension checks were frozen at 1993 levels.
PETER BASS, RETIREE: Come to the end of the month you look at the checking account and there's only pennies in there. It's not much.
PILGRIM: Peter and Rosemarie are not unique in their financial troubles. 25 million Americans have no retirement plans other than Social Security. Nearly a fifth of all households headed by someone of retirement age have incomes below the poverty level. Pension experts say retirees can no longer turn to traditional means of support.
DALLAS SALISBURY, EMPLOYEE BENEFITS RESEARCH INST.: With defined benefit pension plans less than they used to be, with Social Security benefits at that midpoint only replacing about 40 percent of pay, the fact is if you don't do it yourself, no one is going to do it for you.
PILGRIM: Health care costs are taking a larger chunk of the budget.
R. BASS: I was astounded that our medical, including the cost of the HMO, was almost $10,000, which is a lot of money on fixed income.
PILGRIM: For now, the Basses are managing to hold on to their home, but with difficulty.
R. BASS: The moral of the story is, folks, put aside some money now, because before you blink your eye, you'll be 65 years old.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PILGRIM: Only about 30 percent of retired people over the age of 65 have any pension income. Only about 3 percent are reporting income from a 401(k) or an IRA. And in the financial assets for those over 65, at the median they only have about $16,000 in financial assets. It's very tight out there, Lou.
DOBBS: And it's never been more important to make certain that people have secure Social Security as well as individual retirement plans and the opportunity to create them, of course.
Still ahead here, pushing Chinese-made products on American soil. You won't believe how the Chinese government is doing it all. Our special report is next.
And then tough questions for secretary of state nominee Condoleezza Rice on our nation's exploding deficits. Senator Paul Sarbanes among those asking those tough questions. He's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: More than 100 Chinese companies had their products on display in New York City today. Those Chinese companies had one clear goal in mind -- to turn their brand names into household names in every home in this country. Bill Tucker reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With all eyes on Washington, the Chinese slipped into New York with the largest trade show the Chinese government has staged in America. They were warmly welcomed.
RANDY DANIELS, NY SECRETARY OF STATE: I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we look forward to expanding our business relationship with you.
TUCKER: And briefly protested.
(on camera): The exhibition hall is filled with hundreds of products, products that any American would know or recognize, with brand names that few, if any, would know.
(voice-over): And that, the officials say, is the point. They want China's brands to be better known. Chinese officials proudly boast a global trading volume of $1.5 trillion, up 37 percent in the past year alone. With that kind of money, it's often easier to buy an already known brand and make it Chinese.
LIANG SHUNE, CHINESE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE (through translator): I just mentioned in the conference -- during the conference, one way of the Chinese company (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is to acquire, you know, famous companies, let (UNINTELLIGIBLE) acquired IBM in December.
TUCKER: In a morning news conference, Chinese officials stressed the Chinese commitment to improving quality, stepping up design. What was not mentioned, improving labor practices and intellectual property protection.
When asked, they pledged stronger intellectual property protection, but then right there on the floor...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Between you and me and the fencepost, can you not do that right now?
TUCKER: They didn't want us showing those pictures, because neither BMW or Harley-Davidson had licensed their brands to the company.
And as for the issue of labor practices, buyers don't seem concerned.
NICK DEEN, WOMEN'S APPAREL IMPORTER: The people over there work at a certain salary, but they enjoy what they do, and the salary that they make, and also the government subsidizes them enormously.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TUCKER: And that is one of the chief complaints of American companies struggling to compete with the Chinese. They're competing with foreign countries and a foreign government, while their own government seems indifferent to their situation -- Lou.
DOBBS: Either indifferent, oblivious, or it's hard to say what the U.S. government is thinking over the course of the past decade when it comes to trade, and specifically U.S./China policy.
Bill Tucker, thank you. Amazing.
Senator Paul Sarbanes is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, who pressed Condoleezza Rice on what he calls a serious problem, specifically our $600 billion trade deficit and what soon will be 29 consecutive years of trade deficits. Senator Sarbanes says this is nothing less than a crisis.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) SEN. PAUL SARBANES (D), MARYLAND: It used to be that when the U.S. ran -- even went into a negative trade balance, we got worried about our situation in terms of dealing with the rest of the world. Now we're building up these tremendous deficits and debt year after year. Some -- at some point that, you know, they're going to call the cards, and we're going to be in serious trouble. Greenspan has said to. Geithner, the head of the New York Federal Reserve, made a speech only a few weeks ago making the very same point. I mean, we're now running these trade deficits at 5 to 6 percent of GDP, which is unprecedented in terms of its amount.
DOBBS: Yeah. It's unprecedented. In point of fact, the Federal Reserve itself four years ago released a study that said that there are difficult choices when any country's trade deficit rises above 5 percent. Ours is well above 5 percent, and only two things are going to occur. Either there has to be a change in policy, or there will be a difficult adjustment on the part of markets, which lead to consequences none of us want to experience.
SARBANES: That's absolutely correct, and regrettably, Condi Rice kept -- you know, she was on the same path in terms of policy, and echoing the same tired refrain.
DOBBS: What can you do, Senator, what can anyone do to encourage this administration to understand that these deficits are unsustainable, the trade policies we're following are unsustainable, and thirdly that there must be linkage between our international geopolitical policies, and our international economic policies?
SARBANES: Well, that's a good question, Lou. I think the first thing we have to do is push hard to make them recognize that there is indeed a very severe problem, and one pressing on us. I mean, the president talks about a crisis in Social Security. The Social Security trust fund, you know, will last until about 2050, and even then, the income will pay 80 percent of the benefits. He calls that a major crisis and puts it on the front of the agenda now.
Meanwhile, we're running these trade deficits -- we're now in excess of $3 trillion external debt. These are claims held largely by China, Japan, against the United States.
DOBBS: And we are their principal debtors, the largest debtor in the world, in point of fact. You know, talking about Social Security reform, it reminds me of Gregory Mankiw, the president's chief economic adviser, talking about the ostrich caucus, in terms of Social Security, Social Security reform, what in the world are they in this administration and previous administrations, in fairness, but what are they but ostriches not to recognize the severe problems we've created for ourselves?
SARBANES: Absolutely. "The Financial Times" wrote a piece, a comment piece a few weeks ago, talking about these growths in the external holdings against the U.S., and they said we had increasingly become like a Blanche DuBois in Tennessee Williams' play, dependent on the kindness of strangers. We're essentially turning our economic future over into their hands, and we are not to do that. Furthermore, this is the first time that the reserve currency has been that of the world's largest debtor, largest debtor. In the past, the creditor nation's currency has been the reserve currency. And we're now being challenged on that front by the euro. There's just no question about it. And I think if we lose that status, that's another blow to our economic strength.
DOBBS: To be absolutely clear, the senator referring to the world's principal reserve currency, which is of course the dollar, and now the largest debtor in that system is the United States.
Senator Paul Sarbanes, thanks very much for being with us.
SARBANES: Thank you, Lou, my pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DOBBS: Next, the road ahead, President Bush's ideal of freedom for America and the world. We'll be talking about that and much more with three of the country's very best political journalists. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Joins us now from Washington, 3 of the country's very best political journalist, Ron Brownstein "Los Angeles Times," Karen Tumulty "Time" magazine, Roger Simon "U.S. News & World Report."
Roger, let me begin with you. Your immediate reaction to the president's inaugural speech?
ROGER SIMON, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT: Well, I thought it was well-written. Mike Gerson (ph) is a terrific speechwriter. And I thought it was delivered well.
And it was an admirable statement of U.S. goals, but hardly realistic statement of U.S. policy. When the president stated that it's our policy to support democracy in every nation on Earth in every way, that's not what we do. We do and have supported dictators whenever it serves U.S. policy, even when we get a chance to support democracies, we often don't take it.
After the first Gulf War we could have installed a democracy in Kuwait. We didn't even ask the people of Kuwait what kind of government they wanted, we installed the monarchy who had fled after Saddam had invaded. So it's not really what we do, which is why a lot of the world is cynical about such speeches.
DOBBS: Karen, let me ask you, assuming that you concur with Roger on this, what was the president then attempting to accomplish?
KAREN TUMULTY, TIME: Well, I thought it was a deeply idealistic speech, but extremely grim, especially since we're so accustomed to sort of these inaugural addresses being almost celebratory. I think that all this talk of tyranny and murder and hatred was essentially trying to set up expectations. We've got a big election coming up in Iraq. I think the president was trying to send a message that it's not going to be easy from here on out, it actually will start getting a lot harder.
DOBBS: Your thoughts, Ron?
RON BROWNSTEIN, LA TIMES: Well, it continues a transformation we've seen on the Iraq policy, especially since the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the president increasingly has justified the decision to invade Iraq as the first step in a global revolution of promoting democracy. And that's what we saw today.
In many way, both the foreign and domestic elements of the speech, the global spread of liberty, and the ownership society at home echoed the themes from the acceptance speech at the convention last summer.
It was heavy, I agree with Roger, it was heavy on ends, light on means. Like most inaugurals, it said what we want to do. It raised to that level almost to distraction, almost all Americans would agree with those goals. The question and the debate is whether his policies are moving us toward achieving those ends at a cost Americans will consider reasonable.
TUMULTY: Ron, it was very light on though domestic goals as well. My speech printed out at about 6 pages, and the president didn't get to the domestic agenda until page five.
BROWNSTEIN: The one overarching theme, and the one that will unify many of his proposals, particularly on Social Security, is this idea of creating an ownership society. The question, the debate will be whether by moving in that direction you are in fact expanding opportunity for Americans or simply shifting more risks that are now borne on their behalf by government and private insurers, and that kind of thing.
So, there's an effort, as he often does, to provide a broad unifying theme. He was the anti George H.W. Bush, heavy on the vision thing. The debate, again, will be about the means to achieve those goals.
DOBBS: I was struck also, as I mentioned, with David Gergen talking here earlier on the fact that he referred to some of the most important programs in our country's history, in terms of providing education and ownership in the Homestead Act and the G.I. Bill in which we created a true meritocracy permitting the middle class and those who were aspiring to the middle class in the 1950's to use the G.I Bill and to get the education and contribute to society, the economy, and really to make this country even stronger.
But he didn't outline a program or propose an initiative that would rise to that level. Were you struck by that?
SIMON: Yes, and don't forget, Lou, such huge government programs that benefited a great many Americans are also exactly what neoconservatives dislike. They're not for big government. It's Democrats who are for big government and big government solutions.
George Bush is supposed to be representing the party that believes in smaller government. The ownership society isn't a way of extending the government reach into our lives and pocketbooks. As Ron said, it's a way of shifting risk onto individual Americans and the benefit is that supposedly we will all do better economically from assuming that risk.
TUMULTY: Although it also rewrites the entire new deal contract between the government and its citizens. And if you take it and look at what President Bush wants to do to a lot of these programs, it's essentially trying to turn them from a government-provided safety net to something that actually rewards individual risk and initiative.
BROWNSTEIN: Yet in each case, Lou, there's an element that is part of the current of the times and will serve him. I mean, there is, I think a sense in the country that promoting liberty is the right place for America to be both idealistically and practically. And also as we see in our own lives, there is a desire for more choice in controlling our own financial affairs. The question on both fronts, I think, the real question is what are the costs that are attendant with that vision? And do Americans think it is worth the benefits?
DOBBS: Well, we're going to continue this in the days and weeks ahead. And certainly through the course of the second Bush term. We thank you all for being here. Good to see you all.
Still ahead, the results of our poll tonight. And we'll have a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Now the results of tonight's poll. 96 percent of you do not believe the United States can win the war on terror without taking control of this nation's borders, 4 percent of you dissent.
We thank you all, everyone, even the dissenters, for being with us tonight. Please join us tomorrow here. A leading Senator who calls the need for immigration reform the most urgent problem facing this country, will be our guest. We hope you will be with us as well.
For all of us here, good night from New York. CNN special report "GEORGE W. BUSH: THE ROAD AHEAD" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
