Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Aides Say State of Union to Focus on Social Security; Rumsfeld Refuses to Set Timetable for Iraq Withdrawal; Interview with J.D. Hayworth
Aired February 01, 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)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the prospect of a split agenda. George W. Bush has put forward his proposal for Social Security reform. It's now obvious the president's agenda is not necessarily the Republican Party's agenda.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: People can look the other way and stick their head in the sand and think that the problem will go away, but it doesn't.
DOBBS: In "Broken Borders" tonight, another astonishing statement by Mexico's interior minister, who makes it clear once again the Mexican government doesn't understand its prerogatives and powers end at the U.S. border.
Tonight, a leading congressman joins us to talk about the immigration crisis. This prominent Republican is outraged at President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens living in this country legal status.
And the "China Syndrome." One of this country's most powerful business groups has finally put trade with China at the center of its agenda, but is it too little too late?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unless we tell the Chinese that -- that continued stubbornness on their part will reduce their market access, our trade policies are going nowhere.
DOBBS: Tonight, why this country can't allow the Bush administration and Congress to ignore our exploding trade deficit with China.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday February 1. Here for an hour, news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
As we've been reporting here on CNN, Pope John Paul II has been taken to Gemelli Hospital. He was taken from the Vatican just over an hour ago, suffering from the flu.
He contracted the flu, apparently, Sunday. His schedules have been set back and, in fact ended over the course of the past two days, and at this point there is little information available on his condition other than he has been taken to the hospital.
And of course, throughout the evening here on CNN we will be following this story, bringing you any details as soon as we learn them here on this broadcast.
Turning to the day's other news, a top White House official today declared that President Bush's State of the Union speech tomorrow will be what he called a bold step forward in the debate about Social Security reform.
So-called reforms to our Social Security system are at the center of the president's agenda for his second term, but he faces rising discontent within his own party about the scale and the extent of those reforms.
Senior White House correspondent John King reports -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Lou, as the president prepares to deliver what senior aides call a blueprint of his agenda for his second term, in that State of the Union address, senior officials here at the White House today raising the expectations bar for the president when it comes to the signature issue on the domestic front, which as you noted, will be Social Security.
The president had two practice run-throughs today here at the White House, and the administration releasing some photographs of the president rehearsing his speech during those sessions.
Social Security will be the signature domestic initiative in this speech, and aides promising that the president will move the ball forward in this debate and that he will give some details that he has been, in recent months and weeks, reluctant to discuss.
They don't tell us exactly what those details will be, but they do say expect more from the president on how he wants these personal retirement accounts, taking money out of the Social Security, putting it into the stock market, for example, how the president wants those accounts to work. They say look for more on that front.
And look for the president at least to lean into the fact that as this debate goes forward there will be some very difficult political choices to be made about reducing benefits that are now guaranteed for future retirees.
As the president prepares to give this address, Democrats have been daring him to release details on Social Security, saying the public will not support the president's plan. Republicans have been complaining to the White House that if the president wants to get this done this year, he must provide more and more sustained leadership.
The White House says that will come, but as the president prepares to give the first State of the Union of his second term, he is at a historic low in terms of a president addressing the Congress at this moment. Democratic pollster Peter Hart telling us this president faces a very tough sell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER HART, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: The American public is as divided as any period that I can think of. Looking at them, half would say things are going badly; half would say things are going well. The difficulty is the president has those people who voted for him. He's failed to capture the rest of the nation and to unite behind him. Seven in ten say he does not have a fresh start or a clean slate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Social Security just one challenge in this speech. The president also will touch on and urge the Congress this year to pass his proposal to change immigration laws, including giving legal status to some who entered this country illegally and broke the law in getting into this country. The president says they should be given temporary worker status.
And the president also will at least indirectly rebut the Democratic criticism in recent days that he now, after the Iraqi elections, owes the American people an exit timetable.
Aides say there will be no timetable in the president's speech. He will make clear to the American people that those elections are a historic step, but that much more remains in the U.S. military mission and that the Congress should give him more money to support it, and more patience when asking just when the troops will come home -- Lou.
DOBBS: John, any word from the White House about what the president will say about a rising record budget deficit, a rising record trade deficit, a dollar that is plummeting and precisely how he's going to deal with what looks to be an outright rebellion within his own party on immigration?
KING: Nothing on how he will deal with the rebellion on immigration specifically in the speech, except for aides telling us the president does want his plan to be considered and approved by the Congress this year, and he was willing to invest the capital in getting it done. The president has more support from the Democrats there than the Republicans, at least in the House of RepresentativesouseH.
As for fiscal issues, interesting language used by a senior official today. He said the president will invite the Congress to join him in an historic opportunity to impose fiscal discipline back into the budget.
Of course, Democrats will roll their eyes at that. They blame the Bush tax cuts for the record deficits. Even some Republicans have complained that they support the tax cuts but they want to see other fiscal discipline to get those deficits down. So the president will issue this challenge.
And Lou, just after that challenge will come the federal budget. The president says there will be some tough choices in that.
DOBBS: John King, thank you. Our senior White House correspondence, John, of course, along with the rest of the CNN News team will be bringing us live coverage of the president's State of the Union speech tomorrow evening right here on CNN. Our special State of the Union programming begins at 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today declared today it is too soon to say when our troops can begin withdrawing from Iraq. The defense secretary made his comments in an interview with senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre. Jamie joins us now from the Pentagon -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in that interview, Lou, the first public comment from Secretary Rumsfeld since the Sunday elections, Rumsfeld praised the courage of the Iraqi people, but even when pressed, would give no indication of when U.S. troops will even begin to come home.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Jamie, you know, every time somebody has thought they -- it would be convenient to come up with something that they didn't know -- and they knew they didn't know -- that is to say, the cost, total cost or the date certain when something's going to happen, in two, four, six, eight months they look foolish, and it's something of convenience for the moment.
I don't do that. We don't do that. We know that it is condition-based. It will depend on how fast the Iraqi people are able to come together -- as they did on election day -- and develop those -- that capacity to provide their own security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: What Rumsfeld won't say, because it's basically a hope, not a firm plan, is that U.S. commanders are hoping to be able to reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq by between 15,000 and 30,000 troops by this summer, but again, it will depend on conditions on the ground.
Despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the difficulties and loss of American lives, Rumsfeld insisted in that interview that the U.S. had done the right thing. He said that would be proven by what he called "the great sweep of history" -- Lou.
DOBBS: That great sweep of history will include a rising number of American casualties and combat fatalities, Jamie, as you report here almost, unfortunately, every evening.
Did you address with defense secretary what he and the generals in the Pentagon are doing to provide greater security not only for the Iraqis but for the forces that will apparently be there for some time?
MCINTYRE: t wasn't a specific point in our discussion, but generally U.S. and military officials say that you're going to see a real shift in the U.S. role in Iraq now as they go more into the training mode, again trying to push those Iraqi forces out front, trying to be mentors to them and trying to lower the profile of the U.S. so it doesn't look so much like an occupying force.
But I can tell you that at least among the military here and most of the civilians, the security of U.S. forces is something they -- they worry about every day. You can debate on whether they're doing a good job, but they -- it is something that is front and center on their -- on their concerns.
DOBBS: We would all hope so. And Jamie, thank you very much. We look forward to seeing the remainder of the interview. Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Iraq's president also declared it is too early for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq. He said that would be complete nonsense, as he put it, but the Iraqi president suggested international troops could begin leaving Iraq by the end of this year.
President Bush is supporting a big increase in the benefits paid to families of troops killed in combat. The president's plan would raise the benefit nearly eightfold, to $100,000. Both Republicans and Democrats have been pushing for a larger increase.
Lindsey Arent reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LINDSEY ARENT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How much should the government compensate the family of a service member killed in combat?
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The paltry sum of the death benefit...
LINDSEY ARENT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's the question the Senate Armed Services Committee mulled over on Capitol Hill. Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration unveiled a plan to increase death benefits to service members killed in war zones. The plan would be part of the president's new budget proposal he submits to Congress next week.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: Any man or woman good enough to risk their lives in defense of our country ought to know that if they are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice that they can be confident that their families will be well taken care of.
ARENT: Among other benefits, survivors currently receive an immediate one-time tax-free payment of $12,420. Under the new proposal, that would grow to $100,000. Optional life insurance coverage would also rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for those killed in a designated combat zone. Under the plan, all troops would get a life insurance benefit with the Pentagon picking up the tab for premiums.
But military advocates are concerned the proposal would exclude troops not killed in combat, for example in training accidents.
NORBERT RYAN, JR., MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: This death gratuity ought to cover all of our men and women serving because there are lots of other dangerous places they're serving besides Iraq.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENT: Now, if the proposal is passed in its current form, surviving families of U.S. troops killed in a designated combat zone would receive at least $250,000 in government benefits. The changes would be retroactive to any service member killed in combat since October 2001 -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lindsey, why did it take so long for the government, the administration and Congress to begin to discuss the family benefits of troops killed in combat, and why is even a debate necessary?
ARENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. This whole process is historically very slow-moving, Lou.
I mean, this death gratuity was introduced back in 1908, and it took several years, up until at least 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, for that benefit to reach $3,000. And then it took more time still to change it over to $12,000, and, even then, half of the benefits were still taxed.
So you can see this is a very slow-moving process. There's momentum now. We'll see what happens in the future -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lindsey Arent.
Thank you.
Coming up next here, the Mexican government -- it's at it again. Tonight, one Mexican official actually says the United States hasn't done enough to stop drug abuse and the violence that surrounds it along the border. We'll have that story for you.
And a massive "Ethics Overhaul" inside the government's drug research laboratory. Is it enough to restore trust in the system? We'll have that special report for you and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Bringing you up to date now on the condition of Pope John Paul II.
The pope taken to the Gemelli Hospital in Rome just about one hour and 15 minutes ago suffering with the flu. The president has been ill since Sunday. His scheduled appointments canceled over the course of the past two days.
And now the pope is in the hospital. He's been there a little over an hour. The Vatican now is telling us that the pope is suffering from what it styles an acute respiratory infection.
And, at this point, that is all we know. We're, of course, endeavoring to find out as much as possible about the pope's condition, but, at this point, that is what is known. Again, Pope John Paul II taken to Gemelli Hospital in Rome, Catholic teaching university and hospital, where the pope was taken just about 11 years ago for further surgeries. He has had a number of operations there and was taken there in 1981 after the attempted assassination.
Again, Pope John Paul II suffering from acute respiratory infection. We will be bringing you details just as soon as we learn of them.
Turning to other news tonight, Mexican President Vicente Fox is trying to downplay tension what is escalating tension now between the United States government and Mexico over rising border violence.
One of President Fox's deputies, however, says Mexico will no longer be subordinate or servile to the United States. Separately, one U.S. official is about to join with one of Mexico's most powerful business leaders.
Casey Wian has the story from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mexican President Vicente Fox visited the border town of Los Algodones, welcomed U.S. tourists and declared that the dispute between the two countries over a violent drug war is over.
VICENTE FOX, PRESIDENT OF MEXICO (through translator): I have decided to take a tour and to listen directly to our visitors, how they are attended to, how they enjoy the security we have in these border cities.
WIAN: Last week, the U.S. State Department issued a scathing public announcement alerting U.S. visitors to rampant drug violence in northern Mexican cities. The Mexican government reacted with indignation, saying it received no advance notice. Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel then attacked U.S. efforts to stop illegal immigration.
SANTIAGO CREEL, MEXICAN INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): It is a phenomenon that cannot be held back with fences nor with Border Patrols because there is an opportunity for jobs and there is a demand for jobs on our side.
WIAN: Creel, a likely successor to Fox, also said his country has had enough subordination to the United States. He repeated Mexico's position that the U.S. shares responsibility for the drug war because it hasn't done enough to stop drug use.
Since Creel's comments, Fox has called President Bush and officials from both sides have met to ease tensions.
U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza, whose public letter requesting better protection for American visitors started the diplomatic feud, is apparently very serious about closer ties between the U.S. and Mexico.
The U.S. Embassy confirms Ambassador Garza is engaged to a Mexican billionaire. She is Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala, who controls Mexico's largest brewery, Grupo Modelo, better known in this country as the producer of Corona.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: The State Department did not return phone calls seeking comment on the potential for conflicts of interest created by the marriage of a U.S. ambassador and one of his host country's most powerful business leaders -- Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.
Casey Wian reporting from Los Angeles.
Coming up here later, I'll be talking with a leading congressman who's calling for a crackdown on illegal aliens in this country.
Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is one of the cosponsors of tough new legislation that will make it more difficult for illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses in this country.
Today is Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's last official day in office. Ridge says he's leaving public service after 24 years in order to spend more time with his family.
President Bush has nominated Federal Appellate Court judge and former Justice Department official Michael Chertoff to replace Ridge. Chertoff's Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin Wednesday. He is expected to win confirmation readily.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening? Yes or no. Cast your vote, please, at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later.
Fans and players at a college basketball game in Virginia were witness to what can be truly called a long shot. With less than one second on the clock in the final overtime of the Guilford College game against Randolph-Macon College, Guilford took the desperate floor- length shot, and, oh, yes, it actually went in. Guilford sophomore Jordan Snipes made the 90-footer -- 90-footer -- at the buzzer, enough for Guilford to win the game 91-89 over their top-ranked opponent, Randolph-Macon.
Still ahead here, our nation's border crisis. Millions of illegal aliens invading our country and abusing the rights of U.S. citizens. One Republican congressman leading the fight to protect our Broken Borders is our guest.
And then an "Ethics Overhaul" that could affect your health care. How the government is trying to stop scientists from becoming too cozy with drug companies.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: For months now, we've been reporting on the rampant conflicts of interest in the health-care sector of this country. The power of drug companies stretches from the halls of Congress to the sample closet in your doctor's office. But, tonight, there are sweeping reforms underway at the National Institutes of Health. It declared it will not be bought.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There's a massive ethics overhaul at the National Institutes of Health. From now on, no more conflicts of interest between the government's top medical experts and drug companies. All NIH staff scientists are now banned from accepting stock grants and consulting fees, and employees must sell their drug, biotech and medical device stock.
ELIAS ZERHOUNI, NIH DIRECTOR: The agency is, in fact, committed to making sure that the regulations achieve the goal of preserving fully the integrity and, what I believe is necessary, to have at least one source of public health information in the country that can be completely trusted.
ROMANS: Trusted and free of drug company influence. Troubling NIH conflicts were highlighted in several congressional hearings last year. NIH scientists were being paid by companies trying to get NIH grants, and drug companies were paying some top NIH scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting contracts.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: The goal is to make sure that the work that's being done by our researchers is for the public benefit and not for the interest of a pharmaceutical company that that researcher may also work for.
ROMANS: At NIH, the overhaul was met with mixed feelings by researchers ,many of whom think a few high-profile conflicts have tainted an otherwise well-respected government institute.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS; Congressional leaders really pushed for this. They're thrilled at the overhaul. They say there's essentially no unbiased expert on health information in this country, that drug industry ties are everywhere, but, Lou, there are always critics and the critics worry that NIH researchers might decide to just go full-time into the private sector.
DOBBS: Well, that is a risk, I think, and I think there's probably also some bemusement that Congress is setting the standards for ethics and influence, given the estimated $2 billion a year spent lobbying them. But the fact is maybe we should be thinking about paying the people who research and provide the bulwark of -- the bulk of the knowledge that we employ in the war against disease in this country. Maybe they should make a little better living.
ROMANS: And Congressman Waxman made that very point, Lou.
DOBBS: Excellent. Well, Congressman Waxman and I are just right -- just synced up perfectly.
Thanks very much.
Christine Romans.
Up next, three of the country's top journalists will join me to discuss tomorrow's State of the Union address to tell us how the president's agenda may no longer be that of the Republican Party.
And the escalating crisis along our borders. I'll be joined by a leading congressman who calls the president's guest-worker program amnesty light, and, by that, I don't think he means he wants to see amnesty heavy.
And why India may no longer be the low-cost draw it once was for U.S. companies who like to outsource to cheap labor markets. Our special report is coming up with next, a great deal more.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Joining us now, a congressman, one of several Republicans, outraged with President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens in this country legal status. Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is also working to stop a U.S. agreement with Mexico that some say could result in millions of illegal aliens receiving billions of dollars in Social Security benefits. He is a member of the Ways and Means Committee and joins us tonight from Capitol Hill.
Congressman, good to have you with us.
REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: Lou, good to be with you.
DOBBS: Let's start just -- since it's a border with a state you represent, at least in part, what in the world is the Mexican government thinking? Have you figured that out?
HAYWORTH: Well, Mexico apparently has decided rather than being an ally of the United States, it will be a willing accomplice in illegal immigration and now in the wake of the Proposition 200 vote in Arizona to make sure that government benefits are only going to folks with legal status. Mexico even says it wants to go to the World Court at The Hague and somehow try to reverse the decision of the people of Arizona. Let me just take this opportunity, Lou, to tell the government of Mexico that the people of Arizona make the laws of Arizona and not the government of Mexico.
DOBBS: And as you know, Congressman, it is not only the Mexican government upset about the fact that representative democracy is working in the state of Arizona, but there are interest groups, open- border lobbying groups and interest groups all across this country very upset that the people in Arizona actually have a democracy in which their will can be formed to become law of the state. What are your thoughts on that?
HAYWORTH: Well, Lou, we have a fundamental choice it seems to me in this constitutional republic through representative democracy. Either we protect our borders in a time of war or we sacrifice the future of our republic on the funeral pyre of the politically correct. And I would say that all these advocates who have jumped on an open borders policy are really flirting with a significant danger, a danger that transcends economic problems and goes to the heart of our national security.
DOBBS: And the president, a member of your party, President Bush, is absolutely -- there are a number of expressions for it, but apparently without reserve going to go ahead with his amnesty program, guest worker program, and is perpetuating what is effectively an open borders program in contravention of everything you just said is the appropriate policy.
HAYWORTH: Well, this is the point that several of us have made to the president individually, and we continue to make, because, Lou, it begs this question -- if folks won't obey existing laws, what makes us think they will obey any new laws. Certainly if history is any guide in the wake of Simpson-Misouli (ph) and that form of amnesty back in the mid to late 1980s we have not seen a curtailment. Indeed we're witnessing an illegal invasion. And amongst the Mexicans coming north are folks who intend to do us ill, I believe.
Just -- case in point, Lou, a visit to the border station Nogales where the people there said, gee, Congressman, we picked up an Iraqi. He claimed he got a green card in 1978 but that begs the question, why is he sneaking into the United States? And why was his Spanish so much better than his English?
So the bottom line that I take to the president in the midst of this profound disagreement is that border security is national security, that there are serious questions and not only about our future in terms of national security, but a flashpoint on Social Security, with the so-called totalization agreement with Mexico. That would be wrong.
DOBBS: Do you think you'll be able to defeat it should the administration ultimately decide to bring that forward for congressional approval?
HAYWORTH: Well, we are going to work very hard. I have sponsored a resolution of disapproval. It's important to clue your audience in. I know they're up to date on this issue but a totalization agreement is a type of retirement program reciprocity. We have it with other countries where Americans work abroad, but when you take a look at Mexico and the sheer numbers of people, the Social Security Administration only estimates that about 50,000 Mexican workers would avail themselves of this program. You and I and your viewers know that the numbers would be in the millions and they would jeopardize Social Security monies.
DOBBS: And the basis of totalization and reciprocity with 20 other countries as you point out in each instance, we're talking about legal immigration, not illegal.
HAYWORTH: And under this provision, if a Mexican citizen had only been legal one day, all that time when they worked illegally conceivably could be counted into a pension fund and could go in terms of Social Security dollars. It is a wrong-headed decision, and I've spoken to the president personally and asked him, at least on this issue of totalization, to forgo that. It's just the wrong policy.
DOBBS: We're out of time, Congressman, I've got to ask you -- are you encouraged by his response?
HAYWORTH: Well, he said he would take it into consideration. But one of the great things about our system is, Lou, even within the majority party, we can have disagreements and this should transcend traditional party labels.
DOBBS: Congressman J.D. Hayworth. We thank you for being here.
HAYWORTH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight. Do you believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening? Yes or no. Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming right up.
Turning to exporting America, the shipment of millions of America jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Tonight one of those labor markets, India, is becoming more expensive, and that's driving up costs for companies racing to the bottom to save money on cheap labor. Bill Tucker has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Could India's reputation as a low-cost provider of outsourced work be in jeopardy? Costs are rising.
FRANCES KARAMOUSZIS, GARTNER: We predict that in the next three years that prices will go up 40 to 60 percentage points over 2004 levels.
TUCKER: Yet separate surveys by the research group Gartner, Diamond Cluster International and Forrester all show more business than ever flowing offshore and into the pockets of India's major outsourcing companies like Wipro and Tata. The reasons are twofold. Well educated workforce and steady prices for services sold to American companies.
So far Indian outsourcers have been able to resist price increases because productivity gains are beating wage pressures.
JOHN MCCARTHY, FORRESTER: One supplier put it bluntly. He said if you look at what's happened in our productivity over the last 12 years, it's gone up by a factor of three. Our rates have only gone up by a factor of two. So they're still ahead of the game.
TUCKER: Forrester estimates that wages would have to rise at their current rate for at least five years and perhaps as long as ten before reaching parity with the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): But it's not all smooth sailing for India's outsourcers. Software companies there are experiencing employee turnover rates as high as 30 percent, call centers as high as 70 percent as workers move from job to job looking for better pay. That's forcing the companies to begin to look around to other low-cost areas where they can move to to keep their costs down such as The Philippines.
DOBBS: This practice, this mindless business practice, as we've reported on it now for more than two years, continues and other countries, including Mexico, have already felt the effect of the race to the bottom, and now it looks like it will soon be India's turn. Bill Tucker, thank you.
President Bush tonight is preparing for the first State of the Union address of his second term. Three of the country's very best political journalists join me next.
And tonight how one manufacturing group is urging the government to take action against China's unfair trade practices.
Whatever happened to free trade? And then the lessons of Iraq. One high-level adviser to the defense secretary is now criticizing some elements and aspects of the war. He's our guest, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Well, now the latest on Pope John Paul II. We have just received word that he has had what is called a breathing crisis. The Vatican says that the pope was urgently taken to a Rome hospital more than an hour ago, almost two hours ago. The 80-year-old Pontiff is suffering from what's being called an acute respiratory infection. CNN's Alessio Vinci joins me live from Rome with the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Lou. What we know so far from Vatican officials is the pope is suffering from acute respiratory infection. This comes on the day after the pope -- after the Vatican yesterday announced that Pope John Paul II had developed symptoms of a mild flu, but obviously his condition has worsened over the last 24 hours. About 11:00 p.m. local time here just over -- less than two hours ago, he was indeed admitted at a Gemelli (ph) hospital here in Rome on the tenth floor of that hospital.
The last time the pope was seen in public was last Sunday. He did speak with a hoarse voice. He did appear frail, as he usually does, at least in recent years, but Pope John Paul II appeared also in very good spirit and Vatican officials continue to tell reporters that there's no cause for great alarm that this is a hospitalization because his condition worsened but they say this is just a question of respiratory infection and nothing more serious than that.
Of course as you pointed out, he suffers from a series of ailments, therefore even a simple flu or infection of the lungs or any other respiratory apparatus could develop into something more serious and there is a lot of concern at the Vatican as well as among the billion Catholics around the world.
DOBBS: Alessio, to be clear, the Vatican is saying that there's no reason for grave concern about the pontiff's condition tonight?
VINCI: That's correct. They've been saying this all along, even earlier today when they were saying he had symptoms of a mild flu. Obviously the condition worsened to the extent that Vatican officials and indeed the physicians of the pope basically told the Vatican that the pope had to be hospitalized to go through a series of medical checks, including X-rays to see how serious his respiratory condition is. As you know, being 84 years old with all those ailments, these kind of symptoms could degenerate into something more serious if they're not taken under consideration and under great care.
DOBBS: Alessio Vinci, thank you very much. We appreciate it, coming to us from our Rome bureau tonight. Of course, we'll be following throughout the evening the pope's condition and we'll bring you whatever developments as they materialize.
Joining me now to take a look at what is going to transpire tomorrow, principally the State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. In Washington Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times," Karen Tumulty of "TIME," magazine here in New York, Mark Morrison of "Businessweek." Good to have you all here.
Let me begin, if I may, Karen, with you. Are we going to hear a groundbreaking speech? Are we going to hear fire emanating from the president on the issues he's most passionate about? Let's start with Social Security.
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, I think that what we're likely to hear are his basic broad outlines of his Social Security program, but the fact is the president is running into a lot of resistance on the Hill, particularly from Republicans, on even the basic outlines of the program. So those of us who were hoping to hear exactly how much this thing will cost, exactly how much these private accounts would be structured are not likely to hear that tomorrow.
However, there's a number of -- the State of the Union addresses tend to be laundry lists where the president can really spell out his priorities, and since his inaugural address was rather short on domestic priorities, I think a lot of constituencies will be listening to hear whether their issues will be addressed. For instance, religious conservatives will be looking to hear what he says about an antigay marriage amendment.
DOBBS: Ron, your thoughts?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I want to put my caveat first, Lou.
DOBBS: Oh, no, I hate it when you do that.
BROWNSTEIN: After watching President Bush in his first term get a lot more of his agenda into law than seemed possible given the narrowness of his victory, I never kind of rule out preemptively his ability to get things done especially because he still has a lot of leverage over the Republicans in Congress with that 90 percent approval rating among Republican voters.
Having said that I agree with Karen, Social Security is a very tough fight for him in part because Republicans are reluctant to do this on their own. Harry Reid had a briefing today, the Senate minority leader for Democrats and he said -- he told reporters that he believed he had commitments from every Senate Democrat to oppose private accounts carved out of the payroll tax.
One of the things we're seeing is that the House Republicans over in the past have been the vanguard of the president's domestic agenda, are reluctant to do this unless they think it can pass the Senate. And it can't pass the Senate unless you get some Democrats and that's sort of the conundrum that they are in.
DOBBS: That may be a Guinness Book of World Records entry under caveat. Do you think he's going to get it through despite the opposition within his own party and the opposition obviously of many of the Democrats in Congress?
BROWNSTEIN: On paper I'd say no, today I would say absolutely not, but again, he has had a lot of ability to mobilize Republicans, but today no because it's hard to see how he gets the 60 votes in the Senate.
MARK MORRISON, "BUSINESSWEEK": I disagree. I think the president's going to come out of the gate very strong on this. We've underestimated him so many times and he's got good news from Iraq, there's a bit of a glow for the first time in a long time about the war. The economy's doing well. He has chosen the Social Security issue, I don't know why. There are a lot of crises he could go after, as his number one and I think he is determined to do it, to change something that's been a basic entitlement into something that fits his vision of an ownership society, and he's going to go for it and he's going to get it, a lot of it.
DOBBS: That's a fascinating my idea. My only question is, what is it? And how in the world do you rationalize private accounts, a $2 trillion addition in the ten-year projection across the federal government? None of it makes a lick of sense right now, let's just be honest. There's no crisis, there is no way in the world that this government responsibly could undertake $2 trillion in further debt, and seniors don't want anyone messing with their Social Security.
TUMULTY: Lou, you have just used a lot of words that people are not likely to hear tonight. The president has notably quit using the word "crisis." He is also no longer referring to the system as going flat-bust and bankrupt by 2018.
DOBBS: He has plenty of surrogates doing it, Karen.
TUMULTY: But so many experts have pointed out that both of those things are just flat-out wrong. And another word you used that he won't be using is the word private. You'll hear these accounts referred to as personal savings accounts.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, the head of the Congressional Budget Office today testified if the accounts are created and the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through in his first term are made permanent we're looking at deficits of $650 billion a year or more by roughly a decade from now. Herb Stein had his famous law, the great Republican economist -- an unsustainable trend will not be sustained. And when you look at it on its face, it's hard to see even with the Democratic moderates or even the Republican fiscal hawks can accept a program at that level of borrowing. And while I agree with Mark that the president has shown an ability to change the dynamic and is there is a tremendous desire among Republicans to hang together, Lou, we shouldn't underestimate that this is a very big rock that he's pushing...
MORRISON: There's a lot of room for him to change the parameters of this program, to do horse trading. He won't get all he wants, but if he gets part of it, I think he will consider it a big victory. He's changed something very fundamental.
DOBBS: You put me down as a doubter on that one. Let's move to something he can horse-trade about, and that is immigration policy. All he wants to do is give legal status to millions of illegal aliens, continue not to enforce or immigration laws and leave the borders open. What's going to happen?
MORRISON: Well, it makes Social Security seem simple by comparison. Because the political issues with immigration are so difficult and the Hispanic vote is out there...
DOBBS: But you know, the Hispanic vote, people keep talking about the Hispanic vote and I think they're doing a great disservice to Hispanic citizens, because Hispanics in this country voted in large measure for President Bush, in Arizona supported by almost 50 percent the Proposition 200. Hispanics, like ever other ethnic group, white, brown, black, it doesn't matter -- want this nation to be protected. They want secure borders and this idea because it's Hispanic it's absurd.
MORRISON: You would think security would trump something like the economic issue, which at least in current terms immigration is a probably a big positive on the economy.
BROWNSTEIN: In terms of immigration, the president is somewhat betwixt and between. For some who are skeptical about any move toward legalization his plan goes much too far by allowing people who came here illegally to stay indefinitely with work permits. But for Democrats he doesn't go nearly far enough in allowing those who would have those work permits to move toward permanent legal status and citizenship. So he sort of has a program that doesn't really have a constituency in either party. Because most conservatives see it as much too friendly toward illegal immigrants and most Democrats still see it as too tough. The only real constituency is the low-wage business community and I don't think they have enough oomph to push this through on their own right now.
DOBBS: I don't think so either nor the pro-membership labor unions nor the entire left wing apparatus of organizations who are trying to drive open borders.
The fact is it's there. I think there's also -- and Karen, I'd love your comments, but what I'm seeing now, we're watching a lot of late-stage conversions in Congress as we follow this issue on this broadcast it appears that a lot of members of Congress are getting the message from their constituents who overwhelmingly are upset about a lack of border security and immigration reform.
TUMULTY: I think that's absolutely right. You hear people like Senator John McCain saying if you want to address a crisis, this is the crisis to address. I'd be very interested in seeing tomorrow whether he gives anything that resembles a nod towards a national identification system, which is one thing a lot of Republicans in Congress would really like to see.
DOBBS: All right. Karen, Ron, Mark, thank you very much to all three of you for being here and for enlightening us, even if I don't always agree with Mark, it's all right. We'll have talks later.
Up next, one of the country's most distinguished professors says the war in Iraq is putting a strain on the U.S. military and he thinks it's time for humility on the part of the U.S. government. He will join us next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest says the handling of the war in Iraq has created a risky strategy, far more precarious and costly than necessary. Eliot Cohen is author of "Supreme Command, Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in War Time." He's also a professor of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and member of the Pentagon's defense policy advisory board. Good to have you with us.
Let me ask you straightforwardly, in a recent column, op/ed piece, you call for humility. Why humility now?
ELIOT COHEN, AUTHOR, "SUPREME COMMAND": Well, I think perhaps humility isn't so much the issue as being willing to look at the facts for what they are. I think we've accomplished an enormous amount in Iraq. We had those elections which were a great moment, but I think it's particularly important at moments like this that we be very candid with ourselves and that we get in the habit of being candid with ourselves. I think that's particularly true with regard to Iraq, where a problem that was always going to be tremendously difficult was unfortunately made more difficult than it had to be.
DOBBS: How so? More difficult because we didn't put in enough troops when we should have? More difficult because we weren't honest with ourselves at the Pentagon about the quality of intelligence, or the size, the scale or the scope of the insurgency itself?
COHEN: Well, there are many things that go wrong, of course some of this is just the nature of war. Things go wrong in war.
I think the biggest mistakes were not -- people get hung up on the numbers. I'm not so sure about that, but I think the most fundamental problem in a way was the lack of really serious and effective attention paid to the problem of dealing with post-war Iraq, with the occupation.
And we've paid very heavily for that. The problem I think, Lou, was that we had a window of six months to a year when there was a lot we could do. And unfortunately we lost a lot of that. Now, I think the administration to its credit has turned a lot of that around, but you will never get that first year back.
DOBBS: You'll never get the first year back nor the $9 billion apparently that the defense department and the coalition provisional authority simply can't account for. It's remarkable sort of the dismissal of the oversights, and some of it, as you say, because it is war, is understandable, if not explicable. At this point, there's no reason for -- to me, it seems -- rationalization or the making of excuses. There should be a straightforward policy, there should be very clear-cut lines of authority and accountability. Do you perceive that that is the situation now in Iraq?
COHEN: Well, I think, you know, the difficulty is really -- it's obviously primarily in Iraq, but the difficulty is also in Washington. I think the nature of politics is such that if you concede an inch, then before you know it, the opposition is all over you, and using any admission you make to say that you're completely screwed up and shouldn't be reelected. I think the result is you get a habit among politicians of just not conceding any mistake at all.
DOBBS: Actually I wasn't thinking of elected officials when I asked the question but I take your point.
COHEN: But the attitude of elected officials ends up affecting bureaucracy, too. I don't think you can really separate the two.
DOBBS: Eliot, I hope you'll come back soon. As always, we appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us.
COHEN: Good to be with you.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll and we'll have a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight. 95 percent of you do not believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening in the State of the Union address. 5 percent of you believe he will.
We hope you'll be watching CNN as we begin our coverage of the State of the Union address at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 p.m. right here on CNN. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. President Bush will deliver that State of the Union address. My guests will include the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and we'll be joined by one of only two members of Congress in Iraq for the election.
And exporting America, one of the ways in which the president can push so-called free trade agreements through Congress with very little debate. That little secret in our special report tomorrow. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired February 1, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LOU DOBBS, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the prospect of a split agenda. George W. Bush has put forward his proposal for Social Security reform. It's now obvious the president's agenda is not necessarily the Republican Party's agenda.
SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: People can look the other way and stick their head in the sand and think that the problem will go away, but it doesn't.
DOBBS: In "Broken Borders" tonight, another astonishing statement by Mexico's interior minister, who makes it clear once again the Mexican government doesn't understand its prerogatives and powers end at the U.S. border.
Tonight, a leading congressman joins us to talk about the immigration crisis. This prominent Republican is outraged at President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens living in this country legal status.
And the "China Syndrome." One of this country's most powerful business groups has finally put trade with China at the center of its agenda, but is it too little too late?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unless we tell the Chinese that -- that continued stubbornness on their part will reduce their market access, our trade policies are going nowhere.
DOBBS: Tonight, why this country can't allow the Bush administration and Congress to ignore our exploding trade deficit with China.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Tuesday February 1. Here for an hour, news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Good evening.
As we've been reporting here on CNN, Pope John Paul II has been taken to Gemelli Hospital. He was taken from the Vatican just over an hour ago, suffering from the flu.
He contracted the flu, apparently, Sunday. His schedules have been set back and, in fact ended over the course of the past two days, and at this point there is little information available on his condition other than he has been taken to the hospital.
And of course, throughout the evening here on CNN we will be following this story, bringing you any details as soon as we learn them here on this broadcast.
Turning to the day's other news, a top White House official today declared that President Bush's State of the Union speech tomorrow will be what he called a bold step forward in the debate about Social Security reform.
So-called reforms to our Social Security system are at the center of the president's agenda for his second term, but he faces rising discontent within his own party about the scale and the extent of those reforms.
Senior White House correspondent John King reports -- John.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: And Lou, as the president prepares to deliver what senior aides call a blueprint of his agenda for his second term, in that State of the Union address, senior officials here at the White House today raising the expectations bar for the president when it comes to the signature issue on the domestic front, which as you noted, will be Social Security.
The president had two practice run-throughs today here at the White House, and the administration releasing some photographs of the president rehearsing his speech during those sessions.
Social Security will be the signature domestic initiative in this speech, and aides promising that the president will move the ball forward in this debate and that he will give some details that he has been, in recent months and weeks, reluctant to discuss.
They don't tell us exactly what those details will be, but they do say expect more from the president on how he wants these personal retirement accounts, taking money out of the Social Security, putting it into the stock market, for example, how the president wants those accounts to work. They say look for more on that front.
And look for the president at least to lean into the fact that as this debate goes forward there will be some very difficult political choices to be made about reducing benefits that are now guaranteed for future retirees.
As the president prepares to give this address, Democrats have been daring him to release details on Social Security, saying the public will not support the president's plan. Republicans have been complaining to the White House that if the president wants to get this done this year, he must provide more and more sustained leadership.
The White House says that will come, but as the president prepares to give the first State of the Union of his second term, he is at a historic low in terms of a president addressing the Congress at this moment. Democratic pollster Peter Hart telling us this president faces a very tough sell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER HART, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER: The American public is as divided as any period that I can think of. Looking at them, half would say things are going badly; half would say things are going well. The difficulty is the president has those people who voted for him. He's failed to capture the rest of the nation and to unite behind him. Seven in ten say he does not have a fresh start or a clean slate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Social Security just one challenge in this speech. The president also will touch on and urge the Congress this year to pass his proposal to change immigration laws, including giving legal status to some who entered this country illegally and broke the law in getting into this country. The president says they should be given temporary worker status.
And the president also will at least indirectly rebut the Democratic criticism in recent days that he now, after the Iraqi elections, owes the American people an exit timetable.
Aides say there will be no timetable in the president's speech. He will make clear to the American people that those elections are a historic step, but that much more remains in the U.S. military mission and that the Congress should give him more money to support it, and more patience when asking just when the troops will come home -- Lou.
DOBBS: John, any word from the White House about what the president will say about a rising record budget deficit, a rising record trade deficit, a dollar that is plummeting and precisely how he's going to deal with what looks to be an outright rebellion within his own party on immigration?
KING: Nothing on how he will deal with the rebellion on immigration specifically in the speech, except for aides telling us the president does want his plan to be considered and approved by the Congress this year, and he was willing to invest the capital in getting it done. The president has more support from the Democrats there than the Republicans, at least in the House of RepresentativesouseH.
As for fiscal issues, interesting language used by a senior official today. He said the president will invite the Congress to join him in an historic opportunity to impose fiscal discipline back into the budget.
Of course, Democrats will roll their eyes at that. They blame the Bush tax cuts for the record deficits. Even some Republicans have complained that they support the tax cuts but they want to see other fiscal discipline to get those deficits down. So the president will issue this challenge.
And Lou, just after that challenge will come the federal budget. The president says there will be some tough choices in that.
DOBBS: John King, thank you. Our senior White House correspondence, John, of course, along with the rest of the CNN News team will be bringing us live coverage of the president's State of the Union speech tomorrow evening right here on CNN. Our special State of the Union programming begins at 8 p.m. Eastern, 5 p.m. Pacific.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld today declared today it is too soon to say when our troops can begin withdrawing from Iraq. The defense secretary made his comments in an interview with senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre. Jamie joins us now from the Pentagon -- Jamie.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, in that interview, Lou, the first public comment from Secretary Rumsfeld since the Sunday elections, Rumsfeld praised the courage of the Iraqi people, but even when pressed, would give no indication of when U.S. troops will even begin to come home.
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Jamie, you know, every time somebody has thought they -- it would be convenient to come up with something that they didn't know -- and they knew they didn't know -- that is to say, the cost, total cost or the date certain when something's going to happen, in two, four, six, eight months they look foolish, and it's something of convenience for the moment.
I don't do that. We don't do that. We know that it is condition-based. It will depend on how fast the Iraqi people are able to come together -- as they did on election day -- and develop those -- that capacity to provide their own security.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCINTYRE: What Rumsfeld won't say, because it's basically a hope, not a firm plan, is that U.S. commanders are hoping to be able to reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq by between 15,000 and 30,000 troops by this summer, but again, it will depend on conditions on the ground.
Despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the difficulties and loss of American lives, Rumsfeld insisted in that interview that the U.S. had done the right thing. He said that would be proven by what he called "the great sweep of history" -- Lou.
DOBBS: That great sweep of history will include a rising number of American casualties and combat fatalities, Jamie, as you report here almost, unfortunately, every evening.
Did you address with defense secretary what he and the generals in the Pentagon are doing to provide greater security not only for the Iraqis but for the forces that will apparently be there for some time?
MCINTYRE: t wasn't a specific point in our discussion, but generally U.S. and military officials say that you're going to see a real shift in the U.S. role in Iraq now as they go more into the training mode, again trying to push those Iraqi forces out front, trying to be mentors to them and trying to lower the profile of the U.S. so it doesn't look so much like an occupying force.
But I can tell you that at least among the military here and most of the civilians, the security of U.S. forces is something they -- they worry about every day. You can debate on whether they're doing a good job, but they -- it is something that is front and center on their -- on their concerns.
DOBBS: We would all hope so. And Jamie, thank you very much. We look forward to seeing the remainder of the interview. Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Iraq's president also declared it is too early for U.S. troops to pull out of Iraq. He said that would be complete nonsense, as he put it, but the Iraqi president suggested international troops could begin leaving Iraq by the end of this year.
President Bush is supporting a big increase in the benefits paid to families of troops killed in combat. The president's plan would raise the benefit nearly eightfold, to $100,000. Both Republicans and Democrats have been pushing for a larger increase.
Lindsey Arent reports from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LINDSEY ARENT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): How much should the government compensate the family of a service member killed in combat?
SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The paltry sum of the death benefit...
LINDSEY ARENT, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's the question the Senate Armed Services Committee mulled over on Capitol Hill. Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration unveiled a plan to increase death benefits to service members killed in war zones. The plan would be part of the president's new budget proposal he submits to Congress next week.
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: Any man or woman good enough to risk their lives in defense of our country ought to know that if they are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice that they can be confident that their families will be well taken care of.
ARENT: Among other benefits, survivors currently receive an immediate one-time tax-free payment of $12,420. Under the new proposal, that would grow to $100,000. Optional life insurance coverage would also rise from $250,000 to $400,000 for those killed in a designated combat zone. Under the plan, all troops would get a life insurance benefit with the Pentagon picking up the tab for premiums.
But military advocates are concerned the proposal would exclude troops not killed in combat, for example in training accidents.
NORBERT RYAN, JR., MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA: This death gratuity ought to cover all of our men and women serving because there are lots of other dangerous places they're serving besides Iraq.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENT: Now, if the proposal is passed in its current form, surviving families of U.S. troops killed in a designated combat zone would receive at least $250,000 in government benefits. The changes would be retroactive to any service member killed in combat since October 2001 -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lindsey, why did it take so long for the government, the administration and Congress to begin to discuss the family benefits of troops killed in combat, and why is even a debate necessary?
ARENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. This whole process is historically very slow-moving, Lou.
I mean, this death gratuity was introduced back in 1908, and it took several years, up until at least 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, for that benefit to reach $3,000. And then it took more time still to change it over to $12,000, and, even then, half of the benefits were still taxed.
So you can see this is a very slow-moving process. There's momentum now. We'll see what happens in the future -- Lou.
DOBBS: Lindsey Arent.
Thank you.
Coming up next here, the Mexican government -- it's at it again. Tonight, one Mexican official actually says the United States hasn't done enough to stop drug abuse and the violence that surrounds it along the border. We'll have that story for you.
And a massive "Ethics Overhaul" inside the government's drug research laboratory. Is it enough to restore trust in the system? We'll have that special report for you and a great deal more still ahead here tonight.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Bringing you up to date now on the condition of Pope John Paul II.
The pope taken to the Gemelli Hospital in Rome just about one hour and 15 minutes ago suffering with the flu. The president has been ill since Sunday. His scheduled appointments canceled over the course of the past two days.
And now the pope is in the hospital. He's been there a little over an hour. The Vatican now is telling us that the pope is suffering from what it styles an acute respiratory infection.
And, at this point, that is all we know. We're, of course, endeavoring to find out as much as possible about the pope's condition, but, at this point, that is what is known. Again, Pope John Paul II taken to Gemelli Hospital in Rome, Catholic teaching university and hospital, where the pope was taken just about 11 years ago for further surgeries. He has had a number of operations there and was taken there in 1981 after the attempted assassination.
Again, Pope John Paul II suffering from acute respiratory infection. We will be bringing you details just as soon as we learn of them.
Turning to other news tonight, Mexican President Vicente Fox is trying to downplay tension what is escalating tension now between the United States government and Mexico over rising border violence.
One of President Fox's deputies, however, says Mexico will no longer be subordinate or servile to the United States. Separately, one U.S. official is about to join with one of Mexico's most powerful business leaders.
Casey Wian has the story from Los Angeles.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mexican President Vicente Fox visited the border town of Los Algodones, welcomed U.S. tourists and declared that the dispute between the two countries over a violent drug war is over.
VICENTE FOX, PRESIDENT OF MEXICO (through translator): I have decided to take a tour and to listen directly to our visitors, how they are attended to, how they enjoy the security we have in these border cities.
WIAN: Last week, the U.S. State Department issued a scathing public announcement alerting U.S. visitors to rampant drug violence in northern Mexican cities. The Mexican government reacted with indignation, saying it received no advance notice. Mexican Interior Secretary Santiago Creel then attacked U.S. efforts to stop illegal immigration.
SANTIAGO CREEL, MEXICAN INTERIOR MINISTER (through translator): It is a phenomenon that cannot be held back with fences nor with Border Patrols because there is an opportunity for jobs and there is a demand for jobs on our side.
WIAN: Creel, a likely successor to Fox, also said his country has had enough subordination to the United States. He repeated Mexico's position that the U.S. shares responsibility for the drug war because it hasn't done enough to stop drug use.
Since Creel's comments, Fox has called President Bush and officials from both sides have met to ease tensions.
U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza, whose public letter requesting better protection for American visitors started the diplomatic feud, is apparently very serious about closer ties between the U.S. and Mexico.
The U.S. Embassy confirms Ambassador Garza is engaged to a Mexican billionaire. She is Maria Asuncion Aramburuzabala, who controls Mexico's largest brewery, Grupo Modelo, better known in this country as the producer of Corona.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: The State Department did not return phone calls seeking comment on the potential for conflicts of interest created by the marriage of a U.S. ambassador and one of his host country's most powerful business leaders -- Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, thank you very much.
Casey Wian reporting from Los Angeles.
Coming up here later, I'll be talking with a leading congressman who's calling for a crackdown on illegal aliens in this country.
Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is one of the cosponsors of tough new legislation that will make it more difficult for illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses in this country.
Today is Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's last official day in office. Ridge says he's leaving public service after 24 years in order to spend more time with his family.
President Bush has nominated Federal Appellate Court judge and former Justice Department official Michael Chertoff to replace Ridge. Chertoff's Senate confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin Wednesday. He is expected to win confirmation readily.
That brings us to the subject of tonight's poll. Do you believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening? Yes or no. Cast your vote, please, at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later.
Fans and players at a college basketball game in Virginia were witness to what can be truly called a long shot. With less than one second on the clock in the final overtime of the Guilford College game against Randolph-Macon College, Guilford took the desperate floor- length shot, and, oh, yes, it actually went in. Guilford sophomore Jordan Snipes made the 90-footer -- 90-footer -- at the buzzer, enough for Guilford to win the game 91-89 over their top-ranked opponent, Randolph-Macon.
Still ahead here, our nation's border crisis. Millions of illegal aliens invading our country and abusing the rights of U.S. citizens. One Republican congressman leading the fight to protect our Broken Borders is our guest.
And then an "Ethics Overhaul" that could affect your health care. How the government is trying to stop scientists from becoming too cozy with drug companies.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: For months now, we've been reporting on the rampant conflicts of interest in the health-care sector of this country. The power of drug companies stretches from the halls of Congress to the sample closet in your doctor's office. But, tonight, there are sweeping reforms underway at the National Institutes of Health. It declared it will not be bought.
Christine Romans reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There's a massive ethics overhaul at the National Institutes of Health. From now on, no more conflicts of interest between the government's top medical experts and drug companies. All NIH staff scientists are now banned from accepting stock grants and consulting fees, and employees must sell their drug, biotech and medical device stock.
ELIAS ZERHOUNI, NIH DIRECTOR: The agency is, in fact, committed to making sure that the regulations achieve the goal of preserving fully the integrity and, what I believe is necessary, to have at least one source of public health information in the country that can be completely trusted.
ROMANS: Trusted and free of drug company influence. Troubling NIH conflicts were highlighted in several congressional hearings last year. NIH scientists were being paid by companies trying to get NIH grants, and drug companies were paying some top NIH scientists hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting contracts.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: The goal is to make sure that the work that's being done by our researchers is for the public benefit and not for the interest of a pharmaceutical company that that researcher may also work for.
ROMANS: At NIH, the overhaul was met with mixed feelings by researchers ,many of whom think a few high-profile conflicts have tainted an otherwise well-respected government institute.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS; Congressional leaders really pushed for this. They're thrilled at the overhaul. They say there's essentially no unbiased expert on health information in this country, that drug industry ties are everywhere, but, Lou, there are always critics and the critics worry that NIH researchers might decide to just go full-time into the private sector.
DOBBS: Well, that is a risk, I think, and I think there's probably also some bemusement that Congress is setting the standards for ethics and influence, given the estimated $2 billion a year spent lobbying them. But the fact is maybe we should be thinking about paying the people who research and provide the bulwark of -- the bulk of the knowledge that we employ in the war against disease in this country. Maybe they should make a little better living.
ROMANS: And Congressman Waxman made that very point, Lou.
DOBBS: Excellent. Well, Congressman Waxman and I are just right -- just synced up perfectly.
Thanks very much.
Christine Romans.
Up next, three of the country's top journalists will join me to discuss tomorrow's State of the Union address to tell us how the president's agenda may no longer be that of the Republican Party.
And the escalating crisis along our borders. I'll be joined by a leading congressman who calls the president's guest-worker program amnesty light, and, by that, I don't think he means he wants to see amnesty heavy.
And why India may no longer be the low-cost draw it once was for U.S. companies who like to outsource to cheap labor markets. Our special report is coming up with next, a great deal more.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT continues. Here now for more news, debate and opinion, Lou Dobbs.
DOBBS: Joining us now, a congressman, one of several Republicans, outraged with President Bush's plan to give millions of illegal aliens in this country legal status. Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is also working to stop a U.S. agreement with Mexico that some say could result in millions of illegal aliens receiving billions of dollars in Social Security benefits. He is a member of the Ways and Means Committee and joins us tonight from Capitol Hill.
Congressman, good to have you with us.
REP. J.D. HAYWORTH (R), ARIZONA: Lou, good to be with you.
DOBBS: Let's start just -- since it's a border with a state you represent, at least in part, what in the world is the Mexican government thinking? Have you figured that out?
HAYWORTH: Well, Mexico apparently has decided rather than being an ally of the United States, it will be a willing accomplice in illegal immigration and now in the wake of the Proposition 200 vote in Arizona to make sure that government benefits are only going to folks with legal status. Mexico even says it wants to go to the World Court at The Hague and somehow try to reverse the decision of the people of Arizona. Let me just take this opportunity, Lou, to tell the government of Mexico that the people of Arizona make the laws of Arizona and not the government of Mexico.
DOBBS: And as you know, Congressman, it is not only the Mexican government upset about the fact that representative democracy is working in the state of Arizona, but there are interest groups, open- border lobbying groups and interest groups all across this country very upset that the people in Arizona actually have a democracy in which their will can be formed to become law of the state. What are your thoughts on that?
HAYWORTH: Well, Lou, we have a fundamental choice it seems to me in this constitutional republic through representative democracy. Either we protect our borders in a time of war or we sacrifice the future of our republic on the funeral pyre of the politically correct. And I would say that all these advocates who have jumped on an open borders policy are really flirting with a significant danger, a danger that transcends economic problems and goes to the heart of our national security.
DOBBS: And the president, a member of your party, President Bush, is absolutely -- there are a number of expressions for it, but apparently without reserve going to go ahead with his amnesty program, guest worker program, and is perpetuating what is effectively an open borders program in contravention of everything you just said is the appropriate policy.
HAYWORTH: Well, this is the point that several of us have made to the president individually, and we continue to make, because, Lou, it begs this question -- if folks won't obey existing laws, what makes us think they will obey any new laws. Certainly if history is any guide in the wake of Simpson-Misouli (ph) and that form of amnesty back in the mid to late 1980s we have not seen a curtailment. Indeed we're witnessing an illegal invasion. And amongst the Mexicans coming north are folks who intend to do us ill, I believe.
Just -- case in point, Lou, a visit to the border station Nogales where the people there said, gee, Congressman, we picked up an Iraqi. He claimed he got a green card in 1978 but that begs the question, why is he sneaking into the United States? And why was his Spanish so much better than his English?
So the bottom line that I take to the president in the midst of this profound disagreement is that border security is national security, that there are serious questions and not only about our future in terms of national security, but a flashpoint on Social Security, with the so-called totalization agreement with Mexico. That would be wrong.
DOBBS: Do you think you'll be able to defeat it should the administration ultimately decide to bring that forward for congressional approval?
HAYWORTH: Well, we are going to work very hard. I have sponsored a resolution of disapproval. It's important to clue your audience in. I know they're up to date on this issue but a totalization agreement is a type of retirement program reciprocity. We have it with other countries where Americans work abroad, but when you take a look at Mexico and the sheer numbers of people, the Social Security Administration only estimates that about 50,000 Mexican workers would avail themselves of this program. You and I and your viewers know that the numbers would be in the millions and they would jeopardize Social Security monies.
DOBBS: And the basis of totalization and reciprocity with 20 other countries as you point out in each instance, we're talking about legal immigration, not illegal.
HAYWORTH: And under this provision, if a Mexican citizen had only been legal one day, all that time when they worked illegally conceivably could be counted into a pension fund and could go in terms of Social Security dollars. It is a wrong-headed decision, and I've spoken to the president personally and asked him, at least on this issue of totalization, to forgo that. It's just the wrong policy.
DOBBS: We're out of time, Congressman, I've got to ask you -- are you encouraged by his response?
HAYWORTH: Well, he said he would take it into consideration. But one of the great things about our system is, Lou, even within the majority party, we can have disagreements and this should transcend traditional party labels.
DOBBS: Congressman J.D. Hayworth. We thank you for being here.
HAYWORTH: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight. Do you believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening? Yes or no. Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming right up.
Turning to exporting America, the shipment of millions of America jobs to cheap foreign labor markets. Tonight one of those labor markets, India, is becoming more expensive, and that's driving up costs for companies racing to the bottom to save money on cheap labor. Bill Tucker has the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Could India's reputation as a low-cost provider of outsourced work be in jeopardy? Costs are rising.
FRANCES KARAMOUSZIS, GARTNER: We predict that in the next three years that prices will go up 40 to 60 percentage points over 2004 levels.
TUCKER: Yet separate surveys by the research group Gartner, Diamond Cluster International and Forrester all show more business than ever flowing offshore and into the pockets of India's major outsourcing companies like Wipro and Tata. The reasons are twofold. Well educated workforce and steady prices for services sold to American companies.
So far Indian outsourcers have been able to resist price increases because productivity gains are beating wage pressures.
JOHN MCCARTHY, FORRESTER: One supplier put it bluntly. He said if you look at what's happened in our productivity over the last 12 years, it's gone up by a factor of three. Our rates have only gone up by a factor of two. So they're still ahead of the game.
TUCKER: Forrester estimates that wages would have to rise at their current rate for at least five years and perhaps as long as ten before reaching parity with the United States.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): But it's not all smooth sailing for India's outsourcers. Software companies there are experiencing employee turnover rates as high as 30 percent, call centers as high as 70 percent as workers move from job to job looking for better pay. That's forcing the companies to begin to look around to other low-cost areas where they can move to to keep their costs down such as The Philippines.
DOBBS: This practice, this mindless business practice, as we've reported on it now for more than two years, continues and other countries, including Mexico, have already felt the effect of the race to the bottom, and now it looks like it will soon be India's turn. Bill Tucker, thank you.
President Bush tonight is preparing for the first State of the Union address of his second term. Three of the country's very best political journalists join me next.
And tonight how one manufacturing group is urging the government to take action against China's unfair trade practices.
Whatever happened to free trade? And then the lessons of Iraq. One high-level adviser to the defense secretary is now criticizing some elements and aspects of the war. He's our guest, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Well, now the latest on Pope John Paul II. We have just received word that he has had what is called a breathing crisis. The Vatican says that the pope was urgently taken to a Rome hospital more than an hour ago, almost two hours ago. The 80-year-old Pontiff is suffering from what's being called an acute respiratory infection. CNN's Alessio Vinci joins me live from Rome with the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ALESSIO VINCI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Lou. What we know so far from Vatican officials is the pope is suffering from acute respiratory infection. This comes on the day after the pope -- after the Vatican yesterday announced that Pope John Paul II had developed symptoms of a mild flu, but obviously his condition has worsened over the last 24 hours. About 11:00 p.m. local time here just over -- less than two hours ago, he was indeed admitted at a Gemelli (ph) hospital here in Rome on the tenth floor of that hospital.
The last time the pope was seen in public was last Sunday. He did speak with a hoarse voice. He did appear frail, as he usually does, at least in recent years, but Pope John Paul II appeared also in very good spirit and Vatican officials continue to tell reporters that there's no cause for great alarm that this is a hospitalization because his condition worsened but they say this is just a question of respiratory infection and nothing more serious than that.
Of course as you pointed out, he suffers from a series of ailments, therefore even a simple flu or infection of the lungs or any other respiratory apparatus could develop into something more serious and there is a lot of concern at the Vatican as well as among the billion Catholics around the world.
DOBBS: Alessio, to be clear, the Vatican is saying that there's no reason for grave concern about the pontiff's condition tonight?
VINCI: That's correct. They've been saying this all along, even earlier today when they were saying he had symptoms of a mild flu. Obviously the condition worsened to the extent that Vatican officials and indeed the physicians of the pope basically told the Vatican that the pope had to be hospitalized to go through a series of medical checks, including X-rays to see how serious his respiratory condition is. As you know, being 84 years old with all those ailments, these kind of symptoms could degenerate into something more serious if they're not taken under consideration and under great care.
DOBBS: Alessio Vinci, thank you very much. We appreciate it, coming to us from our Rome bureau tonight. Of course, we'll be following throughout the evening the pope's condition and we'll bring you whatever developments as they materialize.
Joining me now to take a look at what is going to transpire tomorrow, principally the State of the Union address in Washington, D.C. In Washington Ron Brownstein of the "Los Angeles Times," Karen Tumulty of "TIME," magazine here in New York, Mark Morrison of "Businessweek." Good to have you all here.
Let me begin, if I may, Karen, with you. Are we going to hear a groundbreaking speech? Are we going to hear fire emanating from the president on the issues he's most passionate about? Let's start with Social Security.
KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Well, I think that what we're likely to hear are his basic broad outlines of his Social Security program, but the fact is the president is running into a lot of resistance on the Hill, particularly from Republicans, on even the basic outlines of the program. So those of us who were hoping to hear exactly how much this thing will cost, exactly how much these private accounts would be structured are not likely to hear that tomorrow.
However, there's a number of -- the State of the Union addresses tend to be laundry lists where the president can really spell out his priorities, and since his inaugural address was rather short on domestic priorities, I think a lot of constituencies will be listening to hear whether their issues will be addressed. For instance, religious conservatives will be looking to hear what he says about an antigay marriage amendment.
DOBBS: Ron, your thoughts?
RON BROWNSTEIN, "LOS ANGELES TIMES": I want to put my caveat first, Lou.
DOBBS: Oh, no, I hate it when you do that.
BROWNSTEIN: After watching President Bush in his first term get a lot more of his agenda into law than seemed possible given the narrowness of his victory, I never kind of rule out preemptively his ability to get things done especially because he still has a lot of leverage over the Republicans in Congress with that 90 percent approval rating among Republican voters.
Having said that I agree with Karen, Social Security is a very tough fight for him in part because Republicans are reluctant to do this on their own. Harry Reid had a briefing today, the Senate minority leader for Democrats and he said -- he told reporters that he believed he had commitments from every Senate Democrat to oppose private accounts carved out of the payroll tax.
One of the things we're seeing is that the House Republicans over in the past have been the vanguard of the president's domestic agenda, are reluctant to do this unless they think it can pass the Senate. And it can't pass the Senate unless you get some Democrats and that's sort of the conundrum that they are in.
DOBBS: That may be a Guinness Book of World Records entry under caveat. Do you think he's going to get it through despite the opposition within his own party and the opposition obviously of many of the Democrats in Congress?
BROWNSTEIN: On paper I'd say no, today I would say absolutely not, but again, he has had a lot of ability to mobilize Republicans, but today no because it's hard to see how he gets the 60 votes in the Senate.
MARK MORRISON, "BUSINESSWEEK": I disagree. I think the president's going to come out of the gate very strong on this. We've underestimated him so many times and he's got good news from Iraq, there's a bit of a glow for the first time in a long time about the war. The economy's doing well. He has chosen the Social Security issue, I don't know why. There are a lot of crises he could go after, as his number one and I think he is determined to do it, to change something that's been a basic entitlement into something that fits his vision of an ownership society, and he's going to go for it and he's going to get it, a lot of it.
DOBBS: That's a fascinating my idea. My only question is, what is it? And how in the world do you rationalize private accounts, a $2 trillion addition in the ten-year projection across the federal government? None of it makes a lick of sense right now, let's just be honest. There's no crisis, there is no way in the world that this government responsibly could undertake $2 trillion in further debt, and seniors don't want anyone messing with their Social Security.
TUMULTY: Lou, you have just used a lot of words that people are not likely to hear tonight. The president has notably quit using the word "crisis." He is also no longer referring to the system as going flat-bust and bankrupt by 2018.
DOBBS: He has plenty of surrogates doing it, Karen.
TUMULTY: But so many experts have pointed out that both of those things are just flat-out wrong. And another word you used that he won't be using is the word private. You'll hear these accounts referred to as personal savings accounts.
BROWNSTEIN: You know, the head of the Congressional Budget Office today testified if the accounts are created and the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through in his first term are made permanent we're looking at deficits of $650 billion a year or more by roughly a decade from now. Herb Stein had his famous law, the great Republican economist -- an unsustainable trend will not be sustained. And when you look at it on its face, it's hard to see even with the Democratic moderates or even the Republican fiscal hawks can accept a program at that level of borrowing. And while I agree with Mark that the president has shown an ability to change the dynamic and is there is a tremendous desire among Republicans to hang together, Lou, we shouldn't underestimate that this is a very big rock that he's pushing...
MORRISON: There's a lot of room for him to change the parameters of this program, to do horse trading. He won't get all he wants, but if he gets part of it, I think he will consider it a big victory. He's changed something very fundamental.
DOBBS: You put me down as a doubter on that one. Let's move to something he can horse-trade about, and that is immigration policy. All he wants to do is give legal status to millions of illegal aliens, continue not to enforce or immigration laws and leave the borders open. What's going to happen?
MORRISON: Well, it makes Social Security seem simple by comparison. Because the political issues with immigration are so difficult and the Hispanic vote is out there...
DOBBS: But you know, the Hispanic vote, people keep talking about the Hispanic vote and I think they're doing a great disservice to Hispanic citizens, because Hispanics in this country voted in large measure for President Bush, in Arizona supported by almost 50 percent the Proposition 200. Hispanics, like ever other ethnic group, white, brown, black, it doesn't matter -- want this nation to be protected. They want secure borders and this idea because it's Hispanic it's absurd.
MORRISON: You would think security would trump something like the economic issue, which at least in current terms immigration is a probably a big positive on the economy.
BROWNSTEIN: In terms of immigration, the president is somewhat betwixt and between. For some who are skeptical about any move toward legalization his plan goes much too far by allowing people who came here illegally to stay indefinitely with work permits. But for Democrats he doesn't go nearly far enough in allowing those who would have those work permits to move toward permanent legal status and citizenship. So he sort of has a program that doesn't really have a constituency in either party. Because most conservatives see it as much too friendly toward illegal immigrants and most Democrats still see it as too tough. The only real constituency is the low-wage business community and I don't think they have enough oomph to push this through on their own right now.
DOBBS: I don't think so either nor the pro-membership labor unions nor the entire left wing apparatus of organizations who are trying to drive open borders.
The fact is it's there. I think there's also -- and Karen, I'd love your comments, but what I'm seeing now, we're watching a lot of late-stage conversions in Congress as we follow this issue on this broadcast it appears that a lot of members of Congress are getting the message from their constituents who overwhelmingly are upset about a lack of border security and immigration reform.
TUMULTY: I think that's absolutely right. You hear people like Senator John McCain saying if you want to address a crisis, this is the crisis to address. I'd be very interested in seeing tomorrow whether he gives anything that resembles a nod towards a national identification system, which is one thing a lot of Republicans in Congress would really like to see.
DOBBS: All right. Karen, Ron, Mark, thank you very much to all three of you for being here and for enlightening us, even if I don't always agree with Mark, it's all right. We'll have talks later.
Up next, one of the country's most distinguished professors says the war in Iraq is putting a strain on the U.S. military and he thinks it's time for humility on the part of the U.S. government. He will join us next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: My next guest says the handling of the war in Iraq has created a risky strategy, far more precarious and costly than necessary. Eliot Cohen is author of "Supreme Command, Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in War Time." He's also a professor of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and member of the Pentagon's defense policy advisory board. Good to have you with us.
Let me ask you straightforwardly, in a recent column, op/ed piece, you call for humility. Why humility now?
ELIOT COHEN, AUTHOR, "SUPREME COMMAND": Well, I think perhaps humility isn't so much the issue as being willing to look at the facts for what they are. I think we've accomplished an enormous amount in Iraq. We had those elections which were a great moment, but I think it's particularly important at moments like this that we be very candid with ourselves and that we get in the habit of being candid with ourselves. I think that's particularly true with regard to Iraq, where a problem that was always going to be tremendously difficult was unfortunately made more difficult than it had to be.
DOBBS: How so? More difficult because we didn't put in enough troops when we should have? More difficult because we weren't honest with ourselves at the Pentagon about the quality of intelligence, or the size, the scale or the scope of the insurgency itself?
COHEN: Well, there are many things that go wrong, of course some of this is just the nature of war. Things go wrong in war.
I think the biggest mistakes were not -- people get hung up on the numbers. I'm not so sure about that, but I think the most fundamental problem in a way was the lack of really serious and effective attention paid to the problem of dealing with post-war Iraq, with the occupation.
And we've paid very heavily for that. The problem I think, Lou, was that we had a window of six months to a year when there was a lot we could do. And unfortunately we lost a lot of that. Now, I think the administration to its credit has turned a lot of that around, but you will never get that first year back.
DOBBS: You'll never get the first year back nor the $9 billion apparently that the defense department and the coalition provisional authority simply can't account for. It's remarkable sort of the dismissal of the oversights, and some of it, as you say, because it is war, is understandable, if not explicable. At this point, there's no reason for -- to me, it seems -- rationalization or the making of excuses. There should be a straightforward policy, there should be very clear-cut lines of authority and accountability. Do you perceive that that is the situation now in Iraq?
COHEN: Well, I think, you know, the difficulty is really -- it's obviously primarily in Iraq, but the difficulty is also in Washington. I think the nature of politics is such that if you concede an inch, then before you know it, the opposition is all over you, and using any admission you make to say that you're completely screwed up and shouldn't be reelected. I think the result is you get a habit among politicians of just not conceding any mistake at all.
DOBBS: Actually I wasn't thinking of elected officials when I asked the question but I take your point.
COHEN: But the attitude of elected officials ends up affecting bureaucracy, too. I don't think you can really separate the two.
DOBBS: Eliot, I hope you'll come back soon. As always, we appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us.
COHEN: Good to be with you.
DOBBS: Still ahead, the results of tonight's poll and we'll have a preview of what's ahead tomorrow. Please stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The results of our poll tonight. 95 percent of you do not believe President Bush will include a comprehensive border security and immigration reform proposal tomorrow evening in the State of the Union address. 5 percent of you believe he will.
We hope you'll be watching CNN as we begin our coverage of the State of the Union address at 8:00 p.m. Eastern, 5:00 p.m. right here on CNN. Thanks for being with us tonight. Please join us here tomorrow. President Bush will deliver that State of the Union address. My guests will include the chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, the vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and we'll be joined by one of only two members of Congress in Iraq for the election.
And exporting America, one of the ways in which the president can push so-called free trade agreements through Congress with very little debate. That little secret in our special report tomorrow. Please be with us. For all of us here, good night from New York. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
