Return to Transcripts main page
Lou Dobbs Tonight
New Charges Pentagon Failed to Protect Troops With Adequate Body Armor; Alito Hearings Continue
Aired January 11, 2006 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening, everybody. We'll continue to follow the Alito hearings as developments warrant. Also tonight, new charges The Pentagon is failing to protect our troops in Iraq nearly three years after this war began. We'll be live at The pentagon with the latest.
Deadly new threats to border patrol agents protecting our Southern border with Mexico. Protecting them from hired killers and even the Mexican military. That special report coming up tonight.
And President Bush has a remarkable new perspective on illegal immigration, we'll tell you exactly what time period in our history is most reminiscent to the President of our illegal alien crisis.
And Communist China's imperialism. How China is seizing important natural resources globally and challenging U.S. vital interests in Latin America. That special report, and tempers flare during Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings as frustrated Democrats aggressively challenge the judge's record.
We begin tonight with anger on Capitol Hill over reports that Americans are still losing their lives in Iraq because the Pentagon has failed to give our troops adequate body armor.
The Senate Armed Services Committee today considered a study that some Marines who have been killed in Iraq would have survived had they been provided improved armor.
The military has been struggling to provide our troops with sufficient protection ever since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began. Jamie McIntyre has the report from The Pentagon.
JAIME MCINTYRE, SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Today top Pentagon and Army officials were on Capitol Hill trying to reel in the perception that the U.S. military is not providing enough protection for its troops.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(voice over) Soldiers and marines sometimes call protective body armor happy gear, a sarcastic reference to the fact that they're not always so happy to wear it. It's heavy, hot and hampers mobility.
SGT. JARED MCNERNEY, U.S. MARINE CORPS: If I put those on, I can barely extend my arms over my head. I can't climb a six foot wall, hop a fence, jump through a three-foot window. There's a lot of stuff I have to do with my arms. That's the reason I choose not to wear my shoulder pad.
MCINTYRE: A top Army and Marine Corp official told members of the Senate Armed Serves Committee, it's a myth troops are not getting all of body armor they need.
MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM CATTO, MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMANDO: We're fielding the best body armor and protective equipment available, we think in the world today.
MCINTYRE: What set off some members of Congress, especially Democrats, was an Armed Forces of pathology report showing that in the case of 89 Marine deaths in Iraq, 68 might have been prevented with additional body armor on the side, shoulders and lower torso.
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Our Defense Department is failing to provide the kind of body armor that could have protected so many of our Marines and other fighting men and women across this country.
MCINTYRE: But the doctor who wrote the report insists the study was intended as one factor to consider as the military makes decisions on how much body armor is enough but not too much.
COL. PAUL CORDTS, ARMY SURGEON GENERAL'S OFFICE: It was designed as a medical report only. It was not designed to give all the answers.
MCINTYRE: The Army says all soldiers have access to a full suit of body armor, which includes shoulders, side, and additional torso protection. It is just now sending out new side armor patches, which will add even more weight.
MAJ. GEN. JEFFREY SORENSON, U.S. ARMY: When you are talking about body armor, at this point in time, we're getting up to somewhere in the 30-pound range in terms of adding additional weight.
MCINTYRE (on camera) That's before you add --
SORENSON: Before you add the rifle, the ammo, the water, anything else he's carrying.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: When it comes to armor, there is a point of diminishing returns. Some Army officials compare the current debate over the Middle Ages, when knights went from wearing chain mail to heavy armor suits to the point they couldn't get on their horse without help without a squire. And then somebody invented the armor-piercing crossbow, that was the end of that debate.
But again, they insist that they're taking every step they can to integrate improved body armor into the supply. And they dispute the idea that any of these troops didn't have access to that additional protection, if they needed it. DOBBS: They dispute it. Yet the pathologist himself apparently brought forward to, as you said, reel in the perception that our troops were not being adequately protected. His report stands on its own. That they could have, in his judgment, had their lives spared had they adequate body armor.
MCINTYRE: Well that report looked at one kind of body armor the marines were wearing, the effect of the wounds on their torso, and said that if they had been wearing more body armor, it might have been different.
What it didn't say is whether they had access to additional armor, why they weren't wearing the additional armor. It was just, as he said, a medical report that looked at the cause of death. The Marines insist they do have that additional armor available.
DOBBS: So CNN can unequivocally report that our Marines and soldiers have been provided adequate body armor, period?
MCINTYRE: CNN can unequivocally report tonight that the Marine Corps insists that that's the case.
DOBBS: Thank you very much. And the distinction of course substantive and significant. Jamie McIntyre, thank you.
President Bush today declared our troops in Iraq should have the best equipment possible. President Bush made his remarks during a speech in Kentucky, defending the conduct of this war.
That speech took place in Louisville, a key battleground in the midterm elections later this year, in front of a specially screened audience, once again.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Things are good. I'm confident we'll succeed. And it's tough, though. The enemy has got one weapon, I repeat to you, and that's to shake our will. I just want to tell you, whether you agree with me or not, they're not going to shake my will. We're doing the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: President Bush asserted that his goal in Iraq is nothing less than victory. A new opinion poll shows the president's campaign to defend his conduct of this war is having some success with voters, but Americans are pessimistic that Iraq will have a Democratic government that can defeat the insurgents without American help.
Bill Schneider has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BUSH: We'll also see more progress toward victory.
SCHNEIDER (voice over): Is the president making progress in his six-week old campaign to persuade Americans that it was worth going to war in Iraq? Yes.
In November, before President Bush started trying it rally public support, 38 percent of Americans thought the Iraq war was worth it. That number is now up to 46 percent. But a majority still say the war was not worth it.
The president has made progress, but he has not turned public opinion around. Why do most Americans continue to say the war was not worth it? Because of the continuing violence.
SEN. JACK REED, (D) RHODE ISLAND: So the America forces retain the military initiative but that is not to say this violence is due to end soon.
SCHNEIDER: The public has confidence in the Americans over there, but not in the Iraqis. Very few people believe Iraq will have a stable government that can maintain order without U.S. help within the next year. In fact, Americans are not sure that will ever happen.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(on camera): President Bush said, Iraqis have shown they can come together for the sake of national unity, but Americans don't see it, because they don't see an Iraqi leader who embodies the hopes and aspirations of the Iraqi people. Lou?
DOBBS: Bill Schneider, thank you very much.
In Iraq, the military says an American soldier has died from injuries he received in a noncombat incident in Taji, near Baghdad. Two thousand two hundred and ten of our soldiers and marines have been killed in Iraq since this war began nearly three years ago.
Meanwhile, the economic cost of this war to American taxpayers will likely be much higher than previous estimates. Nobel Prize winning economists, Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard economists Linda Villman, say the war could cost the United States between one and two trillion dollars.
The United States has already spent $250 billion on combat operations in conduct of this war. But the economists say that the $250 billion fails to take into account many other costs, such as veteran's disability payment, demobilization expenses after a tour of duty, and the cost of replacing worn out and damaged military equipment.
Turning to Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings today. Democrats aggressively challenge the judge on his legal philosophy and his record. Tempers flared when Democratic senators pressed Alito on his membership in a conservative Princeton University more than 30 years ago.
Ed Henry reports from Capitol Hill.
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Lou, that's right. Judge Alito really seems to be sailing along. Democrats are getting frustrated. They say that even though he seems to be getting through the questioning, they feel he's been evasive, in particular today.
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin trying to pin him down on the issue of abortion. Ask him whether he believes Roe v. Wade is settled law. Judge Alito would not directly answer that question.
Then you had Senator Edward Kennedy, trying to zero in on this issue about Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that Judge Alito said he was a member of back in 1985, when he was applying for an -- a promotion in the Reagan Justice Department.
He's now distancing himself from that saying, in fact, he doesn't recall his membership there. This was a group that was discriminating against women and minorities. All of that led it a very tense exchange between Kennedy and the Republican Chairman Arlen Specter when Kennedy pushed for a subpoena of records of this group. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, (R) CHMN. JUDICIARY CMTE.: Well, Senator Grassley --
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: Mr. Chairman, I'd appeal the ruling of the chair on this.
SPECTER: There's been no ruling of the chair, Senator Kennedy.
KENNEDY: My request is we go into the executive session for the sole purpose of voting on a subpoena for these records that are held over at the Library of Congress. That purpose and that purpose only. And if I'm going to be denied that, I want to give notice to the chair that you'll have it again and again and again and we're going to have votes of this committee again and again and again until we have a resolution.
SPECTER: Senator Kennedy, I'm not concerned about your threats to have votes again, again and again. And I am the chairman of this committee and I have heard your request and I will consider it. And I'm not going to have you run this committee and decide when we're going to do into executive session.
We're in the middle of a round of hearings. This is the first time you have personally called it to my attention. And this is the first time that I have focused on it. And I will consider it in due course. And that will move to Senator Grassley for 20 minutes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: Specter felt sandbagged there that he was just finding about this at the hearing. He thought Kennedy was clearly in his eyes, playing to the cameras. Said he tried to call the Democrats' bluff and during a lunch break, basically sent some Senate staffers over to the Library of Congress to get these records.
Specter said he didn't need a subpoena, they're going through the records now. Republicans feel there is no smoking gun in the records anyway. And what we're hearing from Republicans is they feel that since Alito is sailing along, the Democrats are going negative here on a couple of issues because they can't really get Alito on the substance, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, let's go to the issue of that Princeton organization, some 30 years ago he belonged to. "The New York Times" reported on this several months ago, didn't they?
HENRY: That's right, in late November they reported on it. And they went through the records that Senator Kennedy is referring to and "The New York Times" basically suggested that they did not think there was a smoking gun in those documents, but go ahead, Lou?
DOBBS: Ed, let's turn then to Judge Alito's wife. Obviously very upset by the tone of the questioning today. What can you tell us about that?
HENRY: That's right, in the last hour, it was very interesting. All of this is so scripted, as lot of political theater. But an unscripted moment when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham was asking some follow-up questions of Judge Alito after this very tense day and said, "You're not a racist, you're not anything like that right?" And it was friendly questioning, but we could see some video there where Mrs. Alito, sitting behind her husband, got very upset that that was even an issue on the table, that it even had to be raised.
She grew emotional, she left the room, went to a holding area. I just saw her a few moments ago coming out of the holding area. She said that she had just got emotional at all the questioning and she said she's fine now. She's back in the room behind me. And Judge Alito said basically his family is not used to this kind of scrutiny, but he's willing to take any question that they throw at him, Lou.
DOBBS: In point of fact in the cynical and partisan time, she may have been the only one if the room at that particular moment who was taking all of this seriously, this political theater as you described it.
HENRY: I think people obviously are taking it seriously since this is a seat on the high court. But certainly..
DOBBS: ... Oh, come on, Ed. The fact the matter is, it is as you described it, political theater. And most is this is contrivance. Most of this is not about hearing this nominee to the Supreme Court, it's about listening to the senators, the members of this Judiciary Committee hold forth in front of the cameras.
HENRY: Well as you say, a lot of the questioning has actually been a lot of speechifying. But it's supposed to be, if I can make the distinction, it's supposed to be serious work because this is a seat on the high court, there's only nine Supreme Court justices.
DOBBS: No, I wouldn't argue with you about the (INAUDIBLE) and we would all prefer. I was just reporting what, in my judgment, is. Ed, thank you very much -- Ed Henry. Joining me now with his perspective on the hearings today, our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Let me ask you, first of all, did this Princeton organization, what do you make of it? How significant is it in your judgment?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, the issue is -- it is a peculiar thing because Judge Alito in 1985, when he was applying for a promotion in the Reagan administration said, "Look at my conservative credentials. I was a member of this organization at Princeton."
Now, he doesn't remember anything about his membership in the organization. You know, it is peculiar. I don't think it's terribly significant. It is an organization like a lot of colleges in the '80s, there were people trying to reassert traditional values, single- sex education, against affirmative action.
It was -- there was some intemperate words said by some of the supporters of this organization, but there's been absolutely no evidence that Judge Alito himself participated in anything that could be called racist or sexist.
And in fact, maybe understandable that he doesn't remember it. But it is a little odd that he boasted about it in '85 and doesn't remember it now.
DOBBS: Absolutely. And as you listen to these proceedings and cover them for us throughout the day, Jeffrey, is there something of substance? Anything in your judgment significant that would either block or support his advancement and confirmation?
TOOBIN: Well, I think at least today, unlike this sort of general rambling yesterday, today there was kind of a sustained argument by several Democrats, Senator Durbin, Senator Feinstein. And the argument is, John Roberts said, "Roe v. Wade was a settled precedent of the Supreme Court." Judge Alito didn't go that far. He said it is a precedent entitled to respect. Frankly, I don't know of the difference between Alito and...
DOBBS: ... I was going to ask you, as our attorney in good standing, brilliant attorney, Jeffrey, what is the difference between stare decisis and a precedent that deserves respect?
TOOBIN: Well, I don't know. And I don't know if the difference between the two is just semantics or not. It did appear that Judge Alito did not embrace the precedent of Roe v. Wade quite as much as John Roberts did.
But it really was very hard to identify, real substantive differences between the two. But I think in the next few days, the Democrats who oppose Judge Alito and it may be all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, will be making that argument, that he's more conservative than Roberts.
DOBBS: Jeffrey Toobin, as always, thank you.
TOOBIN: OK, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, a heated debate in Minnesota. Governor Tim Pawlenty wants to ban so-called sanctuary laws that prevent local police from enforcing immigration laws. The chief of police of Minneapolis says enforcing those immigration laws would be a setback in relations with the immigrant community. They'll both be my guest.
And then, overworked, under-staffed and in the line of fire. New dangers tonight for our nation's border patrol agents. Our special report coming up.
And tonight, President Bush's Kentucky moon shine. Why he's now comparing the illegal alien crisis in this country with prohibition. And one of the world's leading thinkers on environmental issues joins me to discuss the rising threat globally from our use of the world's natural resources with particular focus on China.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Our nation's border patrol agents have an extremely dangerous job, one that is becoming more perilous by the day. Agents are now being warned that their very lives are in danger from Mexican criminal execution squads and even the Mexican military itself. Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Department of Homeland Security is warning border patrol agents that Mexican illegal alien smugglers plan to hire members of the violent Mara Salvatrucha or MS-13 Gang to assassinate them.
According to an internal border patrol officer safety alert obtained by LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, "unidentified Mexican alien smugglers are angry about the increased security along the border and have agreed the best way to deal with U.S. border patrol agents is to hire a group of contract smugglers."
The alien smugglers intend to smuggle MS-13 gang members into the United States for the sole purpose of killing border patrol agents.
T.J. BONNER, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: The cartels have a much more prominent role in the smuggling of humans, as well as the drugs. This isn't a mom and pop operation with benign people. These are hardened criminals who are doing the smuggling. So they're much more likely to assault a border patrol agent.
WIAN: Incredibly, another growing threat comes from the Mexican military. Agents in the border patrol's Tucson sector carry a card instructing them how to respond to an incursion by Mexican soldiers across the U.S. border. The card tells agents to immediately communicate to supervisors detailed information about any Mexican military unit they encounter. It also warns that Mexican soldiers are trained to escape, evade and counter-ambush.
And it warns agents to hide, use shadows and camouflage, and avoid landmarks. All this to prevent from being attacked by Mexican soldiers on U.S. soil.
In August, California Minuteman project volunteers encountered a border crosser east of San Diego. The man left behind this backpack containing the I.D. and photos of a Mexican soldier. Two days later, armed men on the Mexican side confronted Minuteman leader James Chase, demanding the backpack.
JAMES CHASE, CALIFORNIA MINUTEMAN: So there's got to be something about this pack that they're very interested in. Either this person is somebody of importance or they didn't want us to know that there are soldiers coming into -- you know active duty soldiers coming into the United States.
WIAN: Border patrol agents say incursions happen every few months and often involve corrupt members of the Mexican military working for drug and alien smugglers.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: In a statement, Customs & Border Protection says it is aware of the risks in securing America's borders and takes all threats seriously. Border patrol agents and CBP officers are prepared to respond appropriately to threats either against the country or themselves. And that's the end of the statement, Lou.
DOBBS: Casey, thank you. And against this backdrop, these specific concerns about assassination of our border patrol agents, the hiring of MS-13 gang members, this comes at a time when violence against our border patrol agents has risen by double over the past several months. Casey, thank you -- Casey Wian.
In Kentucky today, President Bush once again aggressively pushed for his illegal alien guest worker program, a program that many call nothing more than amnesty for illegal aliens. At his town hall meeting today in Louisville before a screened audience, the president went well beyond his usual defense of guest workers. He went beyond willing workers and willing employers, he went so far as to liken the illegal alien crisis to the days of prohibition.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people a legal means on a temporary basis to come here, so they don't have to sneak across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of prohibition. I'm not. But remember, we illegalized whiskey, and guess what? People found all kind of ways to make it and to run it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DOBBS: Interesting reasoning. Instead of enforcing our nation's immigration laws, which this country is not doing or dealing seriously with the illegal alien crisis, the president apparently feels it's better to simply reward millions of illegal aliens and their illegal employers in this country instead. That brings us to our poll tonight. The question is: Do you agree with the president's logic that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than it is to enforce them? Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results later in the broadcast.
Still ahead here, the Abramoff scandal. It's heating again up on Capitol Hill. New information tonight that at least two members of Congress could face two criminal charges as a direct result of the Abramoff plea deal. Those details ahead.
And Communist China meddling in this country's backyard. China's aggressive grab for global resources turning South America into a real political battleground, a special report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Still ahead here, I'll be talking with the author of a brand new book, who says China's out of control commodity assumption could spark a global environmental tragedy and certainly emergency. But first, let's take a look at this hour's top stories.
Doctors tonight say Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is improving after his massive stroke. They plan it take Sharon completely off sedatives by the end of this week.
A new study shows more than two million Americans filed for bankruptcy last year before tough new bankruptcy rules went into effect. Bankruptcy filings rose more than 30 percent.
And firefighters tonight battling a large 2,700-acre wildfire in Colorado, where officials say the fire is -- has been brought under control, 130 homes were evacuated. This the third major wildfire in Colorado this week.
Tonight, Communist China is rapidly expanding its influence to South America and threatening vital U.S. political and economic interests. Some say this is nothing less than a Communist Chinese imperialism. Christine Romans has our report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): China's influence in America's backyard, Communist China has peacekeeping troops in Haiti and military advisers to radical President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Bolivia's new leftist president is in Beijing, promising vast natural gas reserves to Hu Jintao, declaring him an ideological ally. China's Hu is well-traveled in Latin America, part of a broad tragedy to befriend leftist leaders and obtain raw materials and influence.
DANIEL ERIKSON, ANALYST, INTER-AMERICAN DIALOGUE: You do have governments like Cuba and certainly Venezuela that are really reaching out to China and hoping that China can counterbalance U.S. influence in the hemisphere. ROMANS: What does Latin American have that China wants? Oil, natural gas, precious metals, steel and soybeans. National security experts say it's a dangerous combination of raw materials and communist ideology.
WILLIAM HAWKINS, U.S. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY COUNCIL: The raw materials they want command of. But larger than that, they want a political alignment of Latin America with them, essentially aimed against us.
ROMANS: In fact, China may be strategically isolating the U.S.
PETER LEITNER, CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES: In the pattern of behavior that's going on right now appears to be setting up like almost like an archipelago of Chinese influence throughout our hemisphere, particularly in the southern cone the hemisphere.
ROMANS: A hemisphere where at least a dozen countries maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
ERIKSON: China is determined to peel away Taiwan's remaining allies in the region.
ROMANS: Isolating the United States in its support of the breakaway province.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROMANS: William Hawkins calls China's efforts a "neocolonialism, seeking raw materials and a market for their manufactured goods and an outsized presence and influence in this region" -- Lou.
DOBBS: And it's extraordinary that this administration, either through of course the White House, nor the State Department is addressing the extraordinary growing influence of China in this hemisphere.
ROMANS: Over and over today I heard from these experts that it is being virtually ignored.
DOBBS: Thank you very much, Christine Romans.
My next guest says China's growing appetite for natural resources is certain to trigger what he calls a global environmental calamity if emergency steps are not taken and taken immediately. Joining me now is Lester Brown, he is the president of the Earth Policy Institute, the author of a provocative new book on the global resource crunch called "Plan B 2.0." Good to have you with us.
LESTER BROWN, AUTHOR: Good to be here.
DOBBS: You're recognized as one of the most important thinkers, particularly on the environment in the world. It is easy to look at the competition that is already built between China and the rest of the world, but when you project as you do, that by 2031, that we'll be using twice as much paper -- China will be using twice as much paper as is now produced globally, more oil than is produced globally. What are we to do?
BROWN: Well, China's overtaken the U.S. already in the consumption of most basic resources. So then the question is what happens if they catch up with us in per capita terms. And if their economy grows at eight percent a year, then by 2031, that's where they will be. Their income will be the same as ours today.
At that point, not only will be consuming an enormous amount of the world's grain, but their paper use, as you just indicated, will be twice current world production. Beyond that, if they have ever three cars for every four people, they'll have 1.1 billion cars in 2031.
The world now has 800 million cars. They'll be using 99 million barrels of oil a day. The world is currently producing 84 million barrels a day and probably will never produce much more than that.
So what China is teaching us is that the Western economic model, fossil-fuel based, automobile-centered, throw-away economy is not going to work for China. Doesn't work for China, won't work for India, which by 2031, will have an even larger population. And there are three billion other people in the developing countries who are also dreaming the American dream.
DOBBS: Another way to look at this in terms of those resources is that we are entering a period that is not unlike 500, 600 years ago in Europe, in which there is an absolute contest for natural resources. And it is one that the so-called one worlders, the liberal new world order crowd does not want to acknowledge, that there is a direct competition for natural resources and that there are vital natural interests at stake, as well as a global interest environmentally.
It doesn't work for China in your view. It won't work for India, but the fact is this model won't work for the United States or any part of the developed world.
BROWN: Everything is going to have to change. We just don't have enough resources. I mean, I was just running through the projections for China. That's only China, that's only part of the world. Everyone wants more.
And the important thing to recognize now is that if we want to sustain economic progress, we're going to have to restructure the economy. The exciting thing is we can see how to do this now. We can shift from essentially fossil fuels and move away from oil and toward normal energy resources.
DOBBS: My god, Lester, this country has known that we had to deal with the issue of depreciating global energy assets. We've known it for -- nearly 40 years. And the fact is, we have not created an energy policy of any strength or substance. We have not come to terms with a growth economic model that demands extraordinary consumption rates.
I love the fact that you have a bright, optimistic gleam in your eye when you talk about this, but I also look at the political reality here. This country has not been able to come to consensus on it.
BROWN: We haven't. I mean, it's a little bit like the years before Pearl Harbor. You know, we were just sort of watching and not doing anything and hoping it might go away. We didn't want to be pulled into the war, but we were. Something like that is likely to happen, whether it will take the form of acute oil shortages and soaring oil prices or what have you, is hard it say. But there will be a wake-up call.
DOBBS: Lester, good to have you here. Let's hope that the wake- up call is gentle and not sudden. The book is "Plan B 2.0." And a very important work, as we would expect of you. Lester Brown, thanks for being here.
BROWN: My pleasure, Lou.
DOBBS: Just ahead, the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. New charges could be filed in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal that is running through our nation's capitol now. We'll tell you which of your representatives could be charged with wrongdoing.
And then public officials in one state are sharply divided over whether their law enforcement agencies should actually enforce the law. I'll be talking with Minnesota's governor and the police chief of Minneapolis. Stay with us. They're on the complete opposite sides of this issue.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Tonight, new information on the investigation into corruption on Capitol Hill. CNN has learned at least two members of Congress could face charges following the plea deal reached with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
One of them is Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, who stands accused of performing political favors for Abramoff in exchange of gifts, including a golf trip to Scotland. Ney has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. There is no word on the identity of the other member of Congress, now apparently under close scrutiny.
The sources say four other people could face charges as well, including current and former staff members of Congress, and including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, not put off by the Abramoff scandal. He is the latest official to decide to cash in on his years in government service by becoming a lobbyist.
Ashcroft's lobbying firm has taken in almost $270,000. It opened just three months ago. One of its client, Oracle, paying almost a quarter of a million dollars. Less than a month later, Oracle winning approval for a multibillion dollar acquisition from Ashcroft's former employer, the U.S. Justice Department.
A spokeswoman from Ashcroft's firm tells us Mr. Ashcroft did not do any of the lobbying himself. He's prohibited from doing so until next month, exactly one year after he left government office.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is set it announce the most sweeping overhaul of how executive pay is reported over 10 years. The new SEC rules will do nothing to reduce skyrocketing executive compensation, but these new rules will improve considerably, transparency, making corporate pay packages far more transparent for investors. The new rules will require greater disclosure of deferred compensation and compensation executives received when a firm's ownership changes hands.
Taking a look now at some of your thoughts. Pat in North Carolina wrote in about lobbying saying: Dear Lou, in other countries it's called graft and corruption. I think we're all missing the big picture. Lobbying should be illegal.
Dee in Tennessee said: Lou, maybe the hardworking, taxpaying, legal citizens that make America's middle class should pool our money and get our own powerful lobbyist. And then we could bribe, sorry, make political contributions to those we have elected in order to persuade them to do something in the best interest of their constituents, in lieu of big business, foreign interest and special interest groups.
Not a bad idea. And Bernie in Arizona: After watching the Judge Alito hearings, I find it amusing that Congress is drilling this law- abiding citizen. Congress needs to clean their own doorstep first.
Tom Pardee wrote to say: Lou, hurray for the NSA wiretapping, we finally have a government that listens to the people.
We'll have many more of your thoughts and e-mails later here in the show.
Just ahead, enforcing immigration laws in state of Minnesota. The governor of Minnesota wants to do that. The police chief in Minneapolis doesn't. They're coming right up.
And we'll tell you why the United States military, spending nearly half a trillion dollars on its budget, can't seem to provide our soldiers and Marines without adequate body armor. I'll be talking with General David Grange about that. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Minnesota's governor, Tim Pawlenty, has proposed a bold new immigration plan that's drawing criticism from other elected officials in his state and public officials. Pawlenty's plan roll back so-called sanctuary laws that prevent police officers from enforcing immigration laws.
Several officials, including the mayor's and the police chiefs of Minneapolis and St. Paul, have come out against his plan. In a moment, I'll be talking with the police chief from Minneapolis. But first, let's turn to Governor Pawlenty, joining us from St. Paul. Good to have you with us, Governor.
GOV. TIM PAWLENTY (R) MINNESOTA: Good to be here, thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Well, you've got -- you're getting a lot of heat for this. Let's first of all figure out, you've said these sanctuary laws in the first place are illegal themselves. How so?
PAWLENTY: Well, first of all, we have a system where we want to promote legal immigration, but we want to enforce the laws as relates to illegal immigration. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Believe it or not, there are certain cities and localities across the country, including a couple in Minnesota, who have passed local ordinances that in most instances, prohibit law enforcement from inquiring or asking about immigration status. That ties law enforcement hands too tightly. It defies common sense and I think most Americans and most Minnesotans would agree.
DOBBS: You've got a rising problem with illegal immigration in your state. What are you going to do to roll it back?
PAWLENTY: Well, we have a whole set of initiatives, Lou, that you referenced. I won't go through them all. But we're trying to, under existing federal authority, to get authorization for a select group of law enforcement, state law enforcement, officials to help enforce federal immigration law that's authorized under current federal law. If you go through the proper training.
We're going to crack down on identity fraud and theft, which is a big problem in the illegal immigrant community. We're going to increase penalties for human trafficking. We're going to did a better job of tracking immigration status on driver's licenses.
DOBBS: What are employers in the state of Minnesota saying to you.
PAWLENTY: It's mixed as you know. There's a lot of employers who benefit from immigration, some of it illegal. But we have to face the facts. Most immigrants, legal and illegal, come here for jobs. One of the things we have to add to the mix here is increased penalties, and we're proposing that too, for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.
DOBBS: You're a Republican governor, you're running for election. Re-election. You're got a Republican president who is basically saying to the country, the borders are fine, wide open, today comparing our illegal alien crisis to prohibition for crying out loud.
How do you react to that kind of leadership in your party?
PAWLENTY: Well, I understand the president's position, and most members of Congress, to be favor of better border security. Obviously the federal government has fallen down on this issue for years, if not decades, and we've become a country, sadly, that is saying we are going to ignore or pretend the law isn't being violated, or we are not going to enforce it. That's a very slippery slope. My opponents mostly say, yes but you can look at the benefits of immigration. I don't think that you can justify illegal behavior by saying it's cheap.
DOBBS: Well, one would think not. But what I really ask you, Governor, is what do you think of your president, your standard bearer, the head of your party, as well as our president, saying this is just like prohibition.
PAWLENTY: I didn't hear him say that, Lou.
DOBBS: Take my word for it, he said it.
PAWLENTY: I think we've got to have a federal government, including a president, that's in favor of stronger border security. I understand that he is for that. So maybe I'm misunderstanding his proposal if you understand it differently.
DOBBS: Well, maybe we just need to work harder to understand what exactly it is he's proposing. Thank you very much, Governor Tim Pawlenty.
PAWLENTY: You're welcome, Lou. Thank you.
DOBBS: Joining me now for the other side of this issue is the police chief of the city of Minneapolis, William McManus. Chief, good to have you with us.
CHIEF WILLIAM MCMANUS, MINNEAPOLIS POLICE: Thank you, Lou, I appreciate it.
DOBBS: Now you just heard the governor of your state say, first of all, these sanctuary laws are illegal themselves. How do you react to that.
MCMANUS: That's something he needs it take up with my city council and the other elected officials in Minneapolis and St Paul. As long as those laws exist on the books in the city, those are the laws that we will follow.
DOBBS: You say that laws exist in the city, you'll follow them. How about the laws that exist in federal government, which, let me just -- are you familiar with Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996?
MCMANUS: I'm -- no, I'm not familiar with it.
DOBBS: Because it's important because you want to enforce the laws that are on the books. That law says, notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state or local law. A federal, state or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from Immigration and Naturalization Service, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
You're not aware of that, but that's federal law. And that trumps your folks there that run your city council, and it trumps your state in point in fact.
MCMANUS: Lou, for any local municipality to arbitrarily check the immigration status of any individual in the street there is nothing short of profiling. And it would also setback ...
DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, chief. Let me be clear because you constructed what I said. And what I'm saying is the law says that if you have a responsibility to determine the citizenship of any citizen you bring into charges under criminal law.
MCMANUS: Lou, we've not been -- local law enforcement's not been trained in those laws and I disagree with it.
Now, let me say that for local law enforcement to try to enforce INS laws or ICE laws now would be a major setback if our relationships and trusts that we've built over the years with immigrant communities.
DOBBS: All right, chief, I understand your view there but let me quote to you from the Vienna Convention, in point of fact, which is another treaty, which requires simply straightforwardly that you have a responsibility. That law enforcement officers and all government officials have a responsibility that when any person is charged with a crime in this country who is a foreign citizen, you have to inform or respond that council or embassy in the nation of which that person is a citizen. So we are violating law on two levels here.
MCMANUS: And we normally do that, especially if the individual requests that we notify the consular but that's different than asking someone for their immigration status.
DOBBS: Chief, I'm sorry. We're out of time. I appreciate you being here. It will be interesting to watch this debate unfold in your state and in your community.
MCMANUS: It will.
DOBBS: Coming up the top of the hour here on CNN THE SITUATION ROOM with Wolf Blitzer, Wolf?
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Lou, thanks very much. Driven to tears, questions of racism driving Judge Alito's wife out of the hearing room in tears. Were senators out of bounds?
Joe Biden in THE SITUATION ROOM.
Plus, inside of the Sago Mine disaster. What really happened thousands of feet below earth? We have an inside story.
Also CSI DNA. Was an innocent man put to death? Virginia's governor goes high-tech to find out. We're on the case. All of that, lots more coming up, Lou, right here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
DOBBS: Looking forward to it Wolf. We'll be watching.
A reminder to vote now on our poll. President Bush today comparing our illegal alien crisis to prohibition in pushing his guest worker program to an audience in Kentucky. We would like to know, do you agree with the president's logic that it's better of the nation to simply relax laws than to enforce them? Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results coming up here at the end of the broadcast.
Next, the Pentagon's failure to adequately protect our troops. We'll take a closer look next with General David Grange. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: The Senate Armed Services Committee today held a hearing on the shortage of adequate body armor for our troops in Iraq. Astonishingly, our troops apparently still don't have sufficient protection nearly three years after this war began, and after the deaths of more than 2,200 of our soldiers and Marines.
The Pentagon's top brass tonight insisting they are providing the troops with the armor they need. General David Grange joins me now.
General, that was a remarkable spectacle today, in which, as Jamie McIntyre, our Pentagon correspondent reported, the Pentagon was at full tilt trying to reel back the perception that our troops were not being adequately provided for. What, in your judgment, is the reality?
BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Here's the situation, Lou. I look back at the 30 years I served. There's never been sufficient protection in body armor that whole time. In fact, the troops that went into Iraq at the very beginning just barely had stuff better than I remember when I left the military. It's a problem that's been with us for a long, long time. And it's not been a priority.
Now, there's very good stuff over there now, but from this latest study, looking at entry points of projectiles that wound, kill soldiers or Marines, they've determined that most of these things come from the sides, the top or the bottom, where the plates -- the heavy protection parts of the vest, back and front, do not provide the protection.
DOBBS: Yeah. And the issue of IEDs, where the preponderance of fatalities are occurring, this body armor would make a significant difference, apparently according to the Army pathology report.
Let's turn to the other issue here then, General, and that is Paul Bremer, the former head of the provisional government there, saying that in his judgment, we needed 500,000 troops, not 150 or 135. What did you make of those remarks and the fact that that was declined?
GRANGE: Well, I think his 2004 comment was probably a little late itself.
DOBBS: Right. GRANGE: Really, the comment should have been made in the planning stage. In other words, what was the plan to handle thousands of Iraqi soldiers that now had nothing to do? And so, this issue of how to incorporate the talent, even though it may be small, of the Iraqi military after the takedown on that April 9th, there should have been a plan in place, which would have required more troops in order to train, to integrate, et cetera, that capability.
DOBBS: And I want to turn very quickly to the issue of recruitment. The military has been struggling for the past certainly just about a year and a half in terms of its recruitment. Where do you think we stand and where are we headed?
GRANGE: Well, this last month, some of the statistics that people have been looking at this last month -- you know, December's not really a big month anyway for recruiting. But actually, the recruiting is not too bad off the mark. Retention's what's really the success story. A lot of people that have been in combat continue to reup, you know, rejoin for more years. The challenge is still getting people off the street.
DOBBS: And remarkable the commitment of our young men and women in this U.S. military. General David Grange, thank you as always.
GRANGE: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: Still ahead, part of the Stardust spaceship returning to Earth after what has been a seven-year journey, and it has a special delivery. We'll have that story, the results of our poll tonight and some your thoughts about our broken borders. Not prohibition, but broken borders. Just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: After a seven-year mission, the Stardust space capsule is returning to Earth. Stardust will reenter the Earth's atmosphere early Sunday morning traveling at a speed of 28,000 miles an hour, the fastest re-entry ever for a spacecraft, by the way. And weather permitting, the capsule's descent should be visible from the ground in northwestern parts of the country. The spaceship traveled almost 3 billion miles to collect comet dust particles. The Stardust ship will remain in space and may be used, in fact, for future missions.
Now, the results of our poll tonight: 98 percent of you responding to say you do not agree with the president's logic that it is better for the nation to simply relax laws than to enforce them. In other words, you don't quite see the illegal alien crisis as something akin to prohibition.
And finally tonight, taking a look at more of your thoughts on our broken borders and the immigration crisis facing this country.
Joan in Victoria, Texas, said: "The Mexicans should not feel so bad that Texas is now part of the United States. Just think how far they'd have to walk if they had to reach the Red River instead of the Rio Grande to cross into this country illegally." And George in California: "To deal with insect infestation, we don't chase the mosquito, we clean up the swamp. In this case, the swamp is represented by the employers who hire illegal aliens."
And Jeanne in Montana: "Attorney General Gonzales today wrote to the immigration courts to say he did not like the way they were treating illegal aliens and wanted them to stop. I would like for him to tell them to deport the illegal aliens to support our laws. Hang in there, Lou. Just the truth is what the American people need to know."
We love hearing your thoughts. Send those thoughts to us at loudobbs.com. Each of you whose email is read here on this broadcast receives a copy of my book, "Exporting America." And you can receive our e-mail newsletter signing up at the same Web site, loudobbs.com.
Thanks for being with us tonight. Please joins us here tomorrow. A new battle over intelligent design in the public schools is now under way in Ohio. Tomorrow, I'll be talking with two members of the state's school board, who have opposing views on this issue. We hope you'll be with us for that and a great deal more. For all of us here, thanks for joining us. Good night from New York. "THE SITUATION ROOM" begins right now with Wolf Blitzer -- Wolf.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
